[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H963-H966]
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 yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring
about the schedule for the House next week.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I will say that 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 Monday next.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-
hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for
legislative business, with last votes of the week expected no later
than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the
rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close
of business today.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2546, Protecting America's
Wilderness Act. This bill is a package of lands bill out of the
Committee on Natural Resources and would designate 1.3 million acres as
wilderness or potential wilderness areas, preserving these public lands
for the benefit of current and future generations.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 79,
Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights
Amendment. This bill would remove the deadline to ratify the ERA,
paving the way for it to be added to the Constitution and taking a
historic step forward for women's equality.
Mr. Speaker, I would add this is not an adoption of an assumption,
that, in fact, the 38 States who have ratified to date have not
ratified within the framework of the Constitution, and, therefore, that
amendment should in fact be judged to have been adopted.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding back and
for going through those items that are going to be up on the House
floor next week.
I would like to ask the majority leader with respect to some of the
things that were discussed at the State of the Union--and I am sure we
are going to be talking about a few things that happened during the
State of the Union.
The President identified a number of items where he challenged us in
Congress to work with him on addressing some of the challenges that are
facing our country. And he identified some items by executive order
that he is working on, but he also identified some items from
infrastructure--where I noticed there was applause on both sides of the
aisle--to some areas on educational opportunities, school choice--where
unfortunately, the remarks weren't received as equally as maybe they
should have been--but it also provides us some opportunities to find
some areas where we can work and achieve some things that would benefit
people all across this country.
I would ask the gentleman, first, starting with infrastructure, there
is tremendous interest that I have heard from Members on both sides to
try to work on a package that we can get agreement on.
I haven't seen the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
tasked directly with doing that, but I have heard there is interest
from Chairman DeFazio and from Ranking Member Sam Graves in trying to
reach that common ground.
Is there an emphasis that is placed from the leadership of the
majority on tasking the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
with actually going and working and going and finding that common
ground, which we know is there, to try to put together an
infrastructure package in these next few months?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is
yes. And indeed--as I think the gentleman probably knows--the leaders
of the relevant committees, Mr. Neal and Mr. DeFazio--Mr. Neal on the
funding side, Mr. DeFazio on the substantive side of the policy with
respect to infrastructure and transportation and other items that we
think need to be included in infrastructure.
We met with the President of the United States in April. Mr. Speaker,
I will tell the gentleman, it is probably the most positive meeting
that I have had with the President and that other members in the group
had. This was Democrats and then the Secretary of Transportation was
also there, Ms. Chao.
And we talked about our joint commitment to infrastructure
investment. We had suggested, as the President suggested during his
campaign, that our target be $1 trillion over 10 years. In other words,
a $100 billion a year, or on average, investment in infrastructure so
that we will not only create a lot of American jobs, but also assure
ourselves of being competitive with our competitors around the world in
the 21st century.
The President responded that he thought $1 trillion was too little
and suggested a $2 trillion investment, i.e., doubling the $100 billion
to $200 billion on average per year over 10 years. And we had
discussion about that. We indicated that we agreed with the President
that such an investment would be warranted, and productive and,
frankly, grow the economy and therefore be an investment and not simply
an expenditure.
Mr. Neal made the point, Mr. Speaker, that the President--if we would
give him some direction on what he could support in terms of funding
that investment. And I made the observation, I said to him, ``Mr.
President, neither in the Senate nor the House will Republicans or
Democrats support that big of an investment if you are not leading. To
which he responded to me, Mr. Whip, ``Steny, I agree with you.''
We then scheduled a meeting to be held--we thought--3 weeks, but it
was some 5 or 6 weeks later. And unfortunately, for whatever reason--
both sides have their thoughts as to why--the President came to the
meeting and said he was not prepared to meet. And we have not had that
meeting since.
But I will emphatically say to the gentleman, we want to work on
infrastructure. We think it is critically important. The President said
during the campaign he thought it was critically important. I think
your side, both here and on the Senate side, believes infrastructure is
important.
So certainly, as I said, yes, we want to see if we could work
together to adopt a significant infrastructure package, which we think
would be good for the country.
Secondly, let me say that the President also mentioned two other
things--one of which was prescription drugs. We had passed a
prescription drug bill, H.R. 3. The President sent down a message that
he would veto it if it were passed as it was.
What I would suggest, following the regular order, the Senate ought
to take it up, change it, amend it--do whatever they feel is
appropriate to do--pass it, if they can, and then let us have a
conference. Because we have all said that we want to bring down the
prescription drug prices.
In fact, the President says he wants to negotiate. We included in
H.R. 3 negotiation. The President said he wanted to key prices to our
global competitors. In particular, we put six large nations, which are
similar to ours, including Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Canada,
France--and one other
[[Page H964]]
nation--in that calculation. And that we would, in our bill, cap the
prices at 120 percent of the average price across those six nations.
That was something the President wanted to do.
And he responded to a question about negotiation, saying ``I want to
negotiate like crazy.'' He is a businessman. He is a realtor. He knows
a lot about negotiation and price. And so I think we have component
parts in common.
And my suggestion would be, again, that they take up H.R. 3, which is
the prescription drug bill, do what the Senate's will is to do, that we
go to conference, and that we discuss differences, harmonize the bills,
and pass a bill and send it to the President.
So there is certainly, in my experience of a long time here, that is
the way we should get that done. I think that would be positive for the
country and I think we could reach consensus, hopefully from the
administration, from your party, my party, and pass those two bills to
the benefit of the American people.
The last thing I would discuss is the President said he was against
preexisting conditions being precluded from getting insurance. We share
that view. We have passed a bill over to the Senate that affects that
end. The Senate could take that bill up. Again, work on it, do whatever
the will of the Senate is to do, go to conference. And assuming that we
follow the President's stricture of wanting to ensure that preexisting
conditions do not prohibit anybody from getting insurance, we could
pass that bill.
So my response is that we pass three bills--or two bills and then
infrastructure, which were four--and those are positive items we can
work on, and we are prepared to do so.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. On those fronts,
clearly there is an ability to find common ground as we talk about
infrastructure. There has been a lot of discussion over what that
number would be, what the amount would be, because ultimately, it would
have to be a number that we could both get an agreement amongst
Republicans and Democrats that would be paid for.
And I think both sides acknowledge, it has got to be paid for. That
has usually been the sticking point with infrastructure. But within
that, whether it is $200 billion or $2 trillion, there is an
understanding that we need to do more work to try to find out how we
can get agreement on how to pay for it. And I do think the ability is
there to find that agreement. The amount would be variable.
But also, it is something the President has talked about, as well as
a number of Members of Congress have, making reforms to the way we
build major projects: roads, bridges. The infrastructure delays so
often are caused by red tape that is unnecessary.
I have heard from Governors, both Republican and Democrat, that would
like to see Congress not only send money--obviously, the States would
like to see more Federal money come--but also, to see less strings
attached so that a project that right now might take maybe 10 years to
do, because of so many overlapping delays in red tape, that should
maybe take 2 years at most. In many cases, that delay alone is what
prohibits the project from being done because it drives the cost up so
much. Because a project that might take 10 years, in many cases is
going to be deemed unaffordable and it just gets scrapped as opposed to
if we address not just the financing, but also the bureaucracy and
eliminating red tape so that we can get more projects done quickly. I
think that would be another area where there is a lot of mutual
interest in seeing if we can come together.
And the President is very interested in doing that, when I have had
talks with him. It is not just the amount that we are able to get
agreement upon, but it is also the reforms to the red tape so that we
can move projects quicker. And in many cases, do projects that are
unaffordable because of those delays that are unnecessary. And I know
that is something we can work on. Hopefully, we can get everybody
together a few more times to get closer to finding that agreement on
infrastructure.
As it relates to healthcare, there has definitely been a divide
between our sides, if you look at H.R. 3. I think the gentleman
recognizes it was a very bipartisan bill. The vote reflects that.
The Senate--however our agreement might be on how the Senate does
business, clearly, they do business differently than the House--but
traditionally, they have been reluctant to take up hyper-partisan bills
when they are moving things through. They will go more to a bill that
has got more broad support. USMCA is a real good example of that. It is
probably the best template for how both sides can work together to do
something big. Something very bipartisan, something very good for our
country and something that we were able to get moved through both
sides.
{time} 1230
If you look at H.R. 19, for example, I would suggest to the gentleman
that whatever the bill number is, it is not really the number of the
bill. It is what is ultimately in it that we can get bipartisan
agreement upon.
H.R. 19 was an approach that we took to say let's go find not the
partisan approaches to healthcare, but areas where we had broad
bipartisan support, including the package of bills that came out of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously.
Most people across the country are shocked when they hear that
Congress actually did work together.
Republicans and Democrats came together to put together a package of
bills that would lower drug prices that the President would sign that
could be in law today where prescription drugs, generic drugs, would be
on the market quicker so people could be paying a lower cost.
That package of bills came out of committee unanimously. Every
Democrat, every Republican worked for months. It took a long time to
put that agreement together, but, ultimately, both sides did come
together.
If we could look at those approaches. And, again, H.R. 19 includes
only bills that were bipartisan. People had worked together on various
elements of improving healthcare, from lowering prescription drugs,
protecting preexisting conditions, but not in a partisan way, in a
bipartisan way that could actually get signed into law.
One way or another, we are going to find some issues where we can
move, both Republican and Democrat coming together, bills over to the
Senate. Those would clearly have a much higher likelihood of not only
getting taken up by the Senate, but actually getting signed into law.
So I would suggest, when you look at some of those approaches, the
bipartisan approach where you don't have a Presidential veto, but you
also have a strong ability to get Senators on both sides to want to
take that up as well.
And then, finally, on school choice, the Education Freedom
Scholarship and Opportunity Act, this is something that President Trump
cited in the State of the Union specifically, and you can see it in
isolated cases.
I come from a city, New Orleans. I was born in the city of New
Orleans. I was on the board of Teach for America in New Orleans, and we
had a dramatic overhaul of our public school system where we created a
charter school movement.
It was actually a Democrat Governor, Kathleen Blanco, who,
unfortunately, passed away recently, who signed that bill, Republicans
and Democrats working together, that has transformed some of the worst
failed public school systems in the country.
New Orleans' public school system--prior to our reforms, considered
by most as the most failed public school system in the country--now has
a very healthy charter school movement where children have real
opportunities. Parents have real opportunities. Schools are competing
for students, and it is working for the student. This is in a large
urban system where it was failed, and now it is very successful.
Clearly, no system is perfect, but there are many more options there.
There are many more options for parents.
Congressman Byrne has a bill--there are other bills that are out
there--to try to give at least some additional options to families so
that, if they are in a failing school, they can have a better place to
go, and, ultimately, the system would be working better for the
students.
So, on all of those fronts, I would hope that we could find those
areas of
[[Page H965]]
common ground and start there, build that, and work with the Senators
and with the President, who wants to address these issues, like we were
able to address USMCA, which was signed into law last week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comment.
First, let me talk about the prescription drug bill. We did pass a
bill that was a compilation of six bills that had five Republican
supporters when we voted on it. So there was a bipartisan bill.
Let me suggest we ought not to dismiss however the Senate operates,
the way the regular order operates is we pass a bill. Yes, we are in
charge, and, like you, we pass bills that we think are important. When
you were in the majority, you did the same thing. Some had Democratic
votes, some did not. But the Senate had an opportunity to send us back
bills.
We have 275 bills that we have done. We think they are all on
substantive matters that deal with items that are good for the people,
for the American people, and the Senate has not acted on them.
The way the system ought to work is we send our ideas over there; if
they have different ideas, they send them back to us, and we go to
conference and resolve it. I agree with the gentleman, that is what we
ought to do, and I am hopeful that we could do that.
But the bill that we did pass, as I say, was a compilation of seven
bills and had five Republicans. But, as you do, five Republicans makes
it a bipartisan piece of legislation, and the Senate could send it back
with something we don't agree on and try to resolve it because we want
to reach that end.
The other bill the gentleman talks about, H.R. 3, the bill that we
brought out had improvements to the ACA to make it work for the
American people.
Your side, of course, wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Our
side differs and believes that, in fact, millions of people, not only
those who avail themselves of ACA--and, in the short term, it didn't
bring down premiums, but it is now starting to bring down premiums, as
we thought it would.
The constant assaults on the ACA by people who want to see it
repealed have obviously hurt that because it has undermined certainty,
which means that the insurers are not certain what the rules are going
to be, and, therefore, our view is the premiums are still inflated.
But, again, I would urge the whip to talk to Mr. McConnell and say:
Look, we have a lot of bills over there. Pass your version of the bill,
send it back and let us work on it, and let's see if we can get to an
agreement.
That is how we have done for hundreds of years, and that is the way
we ought to continue to do it.
I realize that Mr. McConnell, as any majority leader the Senate has,
has challenges in doing that; and what I think, frankly, he does not
want to do is get to a bipartisan agreement which will allow passage
through the Senate.
We don't have that here, as you know. Your side could pass bills on a
partisan basis when you were in charge; we can do the same.
As I say, we had five Republicans agree with us on the bill to which
you referred, but I would hope you would urge Senator McConnell to pass
our bills.
Senator Braun from Indiana was on TV with Chuck Todd on ``Face the
Nation'' talking about impeachment. He said: Let's get through this
impeachment and get to the people's business.
I think that was a reasonable proposition. The problem is the Senate
is not getting to the people's business. They are not passing their own
bills, and they are not passing our bills. In fact, they are spending
all their time confirming judges.
We think that has a purpose of making sure that, for the long term,
whether they are in the majority or not, they will have an influence on
what happens in the United States. I understand that political
motivation, but it is impeding us doing the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scalise and I try to work together. I would hope
that the Senate would work together so that they could send us back
bills of their choice, we can go to conference, and we can make things
happen.
This House, last year, passed over 400 pieces of legislation. I don't
have the exact number that the Senate has passed of significant bills
as opposed to naming post offices or something like that, but it is in
the tens, not the hundreds.
Mr. SCALISE. Clearly, we have got a lot of agreement on our
disagreement with the Senate's way of doing business. Of course, one of
their impediments that I know I have encouraged a change in that they
haven't taken up is the 60-vote rule just to bring up a bill.
So many of the bills, when we were in the majority, that would go
over to the Senate that we felt strongly about that would not be
brought up, it was a majority Republican Senate, but because they have
a 60-vote requirement, the minority could and would, on occasion,
prevent many of those bills from coming up.
But that is why I suggested to the gentleman, what we found is, of
the issues we would like to tackle that we really do feel confident we
can get an agreement with the President on, the Senate has shown a
higher likelihood of taking up a bill if it has got that broad support.
And so in the example of H.R. 3--and, for the record, there were only
two Republicans who voted for it--while that could be called
bipartisan, there was a separate package of bills that came out of
committee unanimously.
So, if you have one approach that still is viewed as very partisan,
with just two Republicans voting for it, to address healthcare issues,
if there is a different way to approach it where every Republican and
every Democrat on the committee of jurisdiction passed those bills that
would lower drug prices and the President said he would like to sign
it, I would think the gentleman would agree, if those two bills are put
side by side, which one do you think would have a higher likelihood of
making it through the Senate to the President's desk? It is very clear
that the one that was unanimous would have a higher likelihood.
And that is why I just suggested H.R. 19, because that was a bill
that, while we would have liked to have included a number of other
issues that maybe just our side might support, we put those on the side
for now to say let's find those areas in healthcare where we have very
broad support amongst Republicans and Democrats, and that is reflected
in H.R. 19. You want to put a different package together.
If the approach is let's address this in a bipartisan way, we have a
very high likelihood of getting not just the President's support, but
also the Senate's support at moving that through.
I don't know if the gentleman has any more comments on that.
Mr. HOYER. I would simply say, if we reach a consensus in the
Congress--we are a coequal, separate branch of government--and whether
Obama was President or whether Mr. Trump is President, I am for the
Congress acting on that which it agrees.
Is it helpful to have agreement with the President? It is. But if we
can't reach agreement with the President, our responsibility as a
Congress, the Senate and the House, is to move policies that we believe
are advantageous for the people.
If the President disagrees, then we have the option of overriding
that veto. It is doubtful that we would do that, I understand. But that
is the process that I think is most productive and most expected by the
American people.
I would again reiterate, on the bill that you keep saying could have
unanimous support, in my opinion, what it would not have in terms of
healthcare is support for doing what we so fervently believe needs to
be done, and that is to make sure the ACA works as it was intended to
do.
If there is an alternative, we should consider that. But, very
frankly, neither the President nor your side of the aisle has had
agreement on an alternative.
Senator McCain, as you know, was the deciding Republican vote on the
last health bill that you sent to the Senate, and you sent that when
you were in the majority. It didn't pass, notwithstanding the fact that
you also had the majority in the Senate.
Two weeks after you had the celebration at the White House, I was
astounded to hear that the President effectively called that a mean
bill.
So we do have substantial disagreements. That does not mean that,
given
[[Page H966]]
the fact that we have a Democratic House, that is, that we are in the
majority, and a Republican Senate with the Republicans in the
majority--now, I understand the gentleman's concern that it is
necessary to get bipartisan agreement in the Senate in order to get
that 60-vote threshold. And you and I may agree on the 60-vote
threshold of getting bills on the floor. It is one thing to pass
something or not.
But, in any event, I would urge the gentleman to urge Mr. McConnell
to pass their prescription bill. And if it is what you say and it can
be done unanimously, send it over here and we will have a conference.
Because both of us have articulated that we are for making sure that
prescription drug costs do not price people out of being healthy. So I
would urge you to do that.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
And now that the Senate has a little more free time, maybe we can get
them to take up some of that legislation. I surely hope that we, on
both sides, will continue working toward those, because there are areas
of common ground that many have found and many have worked for months
to find.
I do want to shift gears and talk about the decorum the night of the
State of the Union.
The President talked about many things, as in any State of the Union,
and I have attended 10 now. We have had Republican and Democrat
Presidents, and there are things that I agree with in certain States of
the Union, and you can stand, you can sit, you can applaud. But I think
we all saw something that goes way beyond and, in fact, violates the
rules of decorum in the House, and that is when the Speaker ripped up
the speech.
Clearly, it was a premeditated move. I have seen actual video of her
practicing or starting to rip it prior to the end of the speech.
But when you go through the speech--and, again, the President's theme
was ``the great American comeback,'' and he talked about things that
are working well in our country, working well for everybody, where
every segment of society is benefiting, and, of course, as every
President since Ronald Reagan has done, highlighting some of those
great things that are happening in our country by bringing people into
the gallery to show the real face on some of these great things that
our country does.
Again, if part of a policy that created that great visual is
something that one side disagrees with, some people stand up, some
people don't. But to suggest that it didn't happen or that it is a
lie--as some in the leadership of your majority actually said, the
whole speech was a lie--I would ask: Was General Charles McGee's
recognition as a Tuskegee Airman a lie? I think that was something
great that people enjoyed celebrating.
Kayla Mueller, the humanitarian worker who was brutally murdered by
al-Baghdadi--it happened. Her family was here. And al-Baghdadi was
taken out by American troops, which I think was the right thing to do.
That is not a lie. That is something that we ought to recognize and
respect.
{time} 1245
When Staff Sergeant Christopher Hake was killed serving a tour of
duty in Iraq by a roadside bomb that was generated from an Iranian
terrorist, which was led by General Soleimani. And now Soleimani is
gone because the President took action to take him out. That happened.
It is not a lie.
In fact, the fact that Soleimani is gone is something we should all
celebrate, just as we celebrated when President Obama gave the order to
take out Osama Bin Laden.
I think for most people there wasn't a dry eye in the House. I know I
have heard from friends all across the country who were tearing up when
they saw First Class Sergeant Townsend Williams, who had been on his
fourth tour in the Middle East, and here was his wife and young
children, and the President surprised surely her, and all of us, by
bringing him back home. What a special moment that was, just to see
that family reunited.
And, again, tears, I think, were not a partisan issue at that moment.
But it clearly did happen, and is not a lie, and it is something,
again, we should all celebrate.
But again, for decorum of the House, for the Speaker to do that, I
think most would agree, was not appropriate. At a minimum, an apology
should have happened. There wasn't.
We brought legislation yesterday to rebuke the Speaker to make it
clear that that is something not becoming of any Member of the House,
let alone the Speaker of the House. Unfortunately, it was tabled on the
roll call vote yesterday.
But I would hope that we could recognize, when that happens again,
that we won't tolerate that kind of activity from our Members, let
alone our leader.
If the gentleman has anything to say about that, I will yield.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, starting a State of the Union with a shout of
``four more years'' reminds me more of a rally than a State of the
Union.
Clearly, neither the Speaker, nor any of us in any way diminished
people that he introduced; some of whom I severely disagree with and
thought that the actions taken with respect to that individual were
totally inappropriate in a State of the Union because it served further
to divide and to undermine any ability to work together.
Having said that, ``four more years'' was disrespectful to this
institution.
The recitation in the gentleman's resolution of the honoring of
individuals he just reflected had nothing to do with the State of the
Union, but had everything to do with honoring people who had done great
things, experienced great hardship, who ought to be empathized with; no
one was saying those were a lie.
One can interpret the speech for what each believed it was and can
say something about it and reflect to the American people what they
think of the substance of the representation of the State of the Union.
It had nothing to do with the people who were honored, whether we
agreed with them being honored or not. Certainly, I agreed with almost
every one of them, save one.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but
those names were part of that document that was ripped, and I am sure
many of them were as offended as we are that it happened. I just would
hope it wouldn't happen again. I wish we would all speak out equally
against that.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, none of those individuals should take
anything that was done personally. In fact, almost every one of those
individuals was honored by people on this side of the aisle and that
side of the aisle acknowledging them and honoring them with appropriate
action.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman making that
statement, and I would share that. I wish the person who took the
action would make that statement to those people because many were
offended. But that will be left to discuss later.
But for now, I look forward to working with the gentleman on all of
these issues that we discussed that the President offered the olive
branch for us to work with him on and, I think, are very achievable if
we do roll up our sleeves and tackle it together.
I think there is, again, a template for how to do it. USMCA is
clearly one, and there are many others. 21st Century Cures is another
example when we were in the majority with a Democrat President and
worked very closely to achieve something that will be a milestone in
curing major diseases for years to come; and, hopefully, we can deliver
more of those kinds of wins for the American people that we all
represent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________