[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 66 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1874-H1878]
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 rise for the purpose of inquiring of 
the majority leader the schedule for next week. I yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-
hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no 
earlier than 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 12 p.m. for legislative 
business.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, 
with last votes no later than 3 p.m.
  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.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider bills relating to 
justice and civil rights: H.R. 1333, the NO BAN Act, which prevents 
origin-based discrimination against those seeking to visit our country 
to do business, see family, or engage in tourism, rejecting the 
previous administration's policy of banning arrivals from predominantly 
Muslim countries; H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act, which reaffirms 
key American principles of justice with regard to immigrants' rights to 
counsel during status hearings; and then lastly, H.R. 51, standing for 
the 51st State. H.R. 51 is the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, to admit 
the District of Columbia as a State and provide equal representation in 
Congress for its residents.
  That will be our schedule for the week to come. The following 2 weeks 
in April will be our committee workweeks so that the committees can 
produce additional product for consideration on the floor of the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I know, just yesterday, one of the 
Members of the House Democrat leadership team, Chairman Nadler, 
introduced a bill to pack the Supreme Court.
  This is a proposal that we have seen in other countries. 
Unfortunately, it is in mostly socialist countries. If you look at some 
of the examples, in 2004, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez packed his 
court, and the result was totalitarian dominance for his socialist 
regime. Congressman Gimenez, who himself fled Cuba, fled a communist 
regime, said just recently on court-packing:

       Packing the courts is a tactic used by brutal dictatorships 
     to consolidate the socialist power, which resulted in tens of 
     thousands of court rulings in its favor, basically destroying 
     the country.

  I wanted to ask the gentleman, is that court-packing bill a bill that 
the majority is going to be bringing to the floor or even marking up in 
committee? I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I have not had a discussion with Mr. Nadler, but as the 
gentleman knows, we have a lot of work to do on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, and we intend to get that work done. We have not 
considered bringing to the floor the bill to which the gentleman 
refers.
  Did the gentleman in his research find any instances in any 
authoritarian country where they refused to consider a constitutional 
appointee to their Supreme Court that the President, with 10 months on 
his term, sent down to the United States Senate or some other body in 
those countries?
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I haven't read the Constitution of 
Venezuela, but I know in the Constitution of the United States, it 
actually gives the Senate the advise-and-consent role, the 
responsibility, as it relates to Supreme Court picks. Obviously, that 
has been kept.
  The borking incident was probably the most embarrassing, egregious 
abuse that started this back-and-forth, where individual Supreme Court 
picks became more personally scrutinized. That process has been abused 
in cases like Bork.
  Even the Kavanaugh hearing got out of control, where disgraceful 
false allegations were made.
  But in the end, the Senate's advise-and-consent role is part of the 
United States Constitution. I don't know if the gentleman is suggesting 
that that

[[Page H1875]]

should be changed. I don't see it. Even with a Democratic majority 
right now, I wouldn't suggest changing that process that is in our 
Constitution.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I don't know about the Nadler bill, but I 
do know that the Constitution says nothing about the Senate's ability 
to simply refuse to consider an appointee of the President of the 
United States. I don't think the Founders had any concept that that 
would be the case when they gave the power of appointment to the 
President of the United States.

                              {time}  1230

  And then when that occurred, when the present Attorney General was 
appointed to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell said, We are not going 
to consider it, ten months before the end of the term of a President of 
the United States. And then they said the reason being is because we 
have an election coming up in just a few months--in that case, it was 8 
months--and the next President ought to appoint.
  Madam Speaker, that deep principle enunciated by Mr. McConnell, by 
Mr. Graham, and others--who was the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, that deep principle was abandoned immediately when it became 
politically pragmatic for the Republican Party to do so and steal a 
Supreme Court justice.
  So he can talk about socialism all he wants. What a distraction that 
is. A failure to want to discuss on the merits of the issues.
  So what do they do, Madam Speaker? They talk about socialism or 
communism or dictatorship, none of which we have in the United States 
of America.
  Now, we just lost a President of the United States that, in my 
experience--and I have served with many Presidents of the United 
States--was the most authoritarian-seeking President with whom I have 
served.
  Madam Speaker, so I tell my friend that we are going to focus on 
issues important to the American people. We want to pass a jobs bill to 
make sure that America is competitive in the 21st century. We want to 
pass a jobs bill to make sure that families have good-paying jobs that 
they can support themselves and their families. We want to support 
bills that build America back better. I want an America that makes sure 
that everybody can ``make it in America,'' not only manufacture it in 
America but make it in America. That is what we are going to be focused 
on.
  Madam Speaker, we hope that the debate is on the merits of those 
proposals, not some aspersion of some ideological tinge that they may 
think their supporters regale at.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 
This is the bill. It is not even a page and a half, but the real change 
in law by the Member of House Democratic leadership Chairman Nadler, 
says, ``A Chief Justice of the United States and 12 Associate Justices, 
any eight of whom shall constitute a quorum.'' So in essence, a hostile 
takeover of the United States Supreme Court, not going through the 
traditional process that has been in place for over 100 years.
  And I think the gentleman knows, if you go back historically, the 
President in power when the Senate was led by a different party--I 
can't recall a case in generations where if in the election year there 
was a vacancy in the Supreme Court it was filled.
  And everybody in the country knew that that was an issue in the 
election of 2016. In fact, it was probably one of the deciding issues 
that helped elect President Trump, was that there was that vacancy and 
the public wanted to be engaged in the direction of the country, as 
well as the direction of the court. It was absolutely a heavily debated 
item in the 2016 Presidential election and President Trump won that 
election.
  But, again, I have never heard anybody suggesting changing the 
Constitution to take away the Senate's advise and consent role. But we 
do see here a bill that was filed just this week by a leader in the 
Democratic Party to have a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court, 
similar to what has been done in socialist countries. And I think it is 
important to point to who has proposed those kinds of changes in the 
past, and what it has led to. And I know President Biden himself is on 
the record many times criticizing heavily the idea of packing the 
Supreme Court.
  Now, that was before he was President. Now that it would be him that 
would be able to appoint these extra judges, I don't know if his 
position has changed. But it is a dangerous precedent. It is the kind 
of precedent that exists in Soviet-style nations. I sure hope it is not 
here.
  But Mr. Nadler did just say yesterday when asked about Speaker 
Pelosi's position, he said, ``Speaker Pelosi and others will come 
along.'' So I was just wondering if that was something that the 
gentleman was planning on bringing to the floor that would be a 
divisive issue as opposed to things that we could work together on, 
like infrastructure, that would be unifying.
  And obviously, there is a lot of talk about infrastructure. This is 
something that there is tremendous interest in on both sides of the 
aisle. I know Chairman DeFazio, as well as Ranking Member Sam Graves, 
have had a lot of conversations about things that we could agree on. 
And I would hope that would be the approach that we take, unlike the 
bill that over 90 percent of which had nothing to do with the COVID--
the $1.9 trillion spending bill, which was hyper-partisan.
  Madam Speaker, I hope we approach this in a bipartisan way. Because 
as I said, there are clearly Members on both sides that want to agree 
on an infrastructure bill and have lots of areas of agreement if we are 
talking about infrastructure. And by infrastructure, I think most 
Americans--if you asked them what they thought was infrastructure, they 
would say roads, bridges, ports, waterways, and broadband.
  Once you get into social policy and Green New Deal-type policies or 
tax hikes that would make America the highest rate above Communist 
China in terms of tax policy--the National Association of Manufacturers 
said that the kind of proposal that is being floated in the partisan 
approach would kill over 1 million American jobs.
  So I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland talking about jobs. Why 
would we want to approach this in such a partisan way that we would 
threaten millions of jobs, that we would make America uncompetitive 
again, and Communist China would have a lower tax rate than America? 
Hopefully, we do the bipartisan approach and not a partisan approach.
  And I yield to the gentleman to enlighten us on what direction is 
being approached right now.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman refers to Communist China, apparently wants 
to follow that example. A communist authoritarian government that owns 
most of the manufacturing capability in China--not all of it. It is 
ironic that in two different debates in less than 5 minutes that the 
gentleman would point to China as the example of what perhaps we ought 
to do, when their tax policy is approximately 100 percent, except what 
they want to allow their citizens to have.
  Madam Speaker, let me just close on that point with: The Supreme 
Court has been packed.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Finally, I want to bring up the crisis that our Nation is facing at 
our southern border. And this has been a crisis that has been brewing 
for months. It is not an overnight problem, but it is an executive 
order-created problem when President Biden on day one got rid of some 
policies that were working incredibly well.
  And every border patrol agent that I have talked--and I was on the 
border last week, Thursday and Friday, in McCollum, Texas, and in 
Donna, Texas, at the Donna processing facility--every border agent said 
the same thing. They said getting rid of the remain in Mexico policy, 
that one action alone opened up the floodgates to a surge, thousands of 
people a day crossing our border illegally.
  Then you couple that with the deterioration of the Northern Triangle 
agreements. And, yes, it was President Trump who negotiated those 
agreements with Mexico, with Honduras, with El Salvador, with 
Guatemala. And maybe President Biden just doesn't like the fact that 
President Trump did

[[Page H1876]]

something that was working well. Why doesn't he renegotiate those 
agreements and call them his own? But they were working.
  Madam Speaker, now today, it is so out of control that we have, for 
example, at the Donna processing facility, a facility designed for 
about a 250-person capacity--when I was visiting that facility last 
Friday, there was over 4,000 people--young kids, primarily--crammed 
into that facility, in those holding cells like sardines.
  In fact, yesterday, we had a committee hearing with Dr. Fauci and CDC 
Director Walensky. And I asked them specifically about what is going on 
down at our southern border; showed them some of the pictures that have 
been taken.
  And if you look at the CDC guidance that is out there on how we, as 
American citizens, have to conduct ourselves--if you own a restaurant, 
for example, whether it is in Baltimore, New Orleans, or anywhere else, 
if there is a capacity limit, and if that limit was 250 people, if 
there were 4,000 people in that restaurant, it would be shut down 
today. And I asked both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky: Would that facility 
be in violation of CDC guidelines? And both of them said, Yes, in 
testimony under oath.
  And then I talked to them about what is happening at our southern 
border. And I asked them: Are these conditions in compliance with CDC 
guidance? Both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky said: No, this is not.
  We talked about the Donna detention facility and the inhumane 
treatment of these young children by the Biden administration in that 
facility. And I asked Dr. Fauci: Is that facility, the conditions in 
which they are treating those young kids by the Biden administration in 
compliance with the CDC guidance? And Dr. Fauci said: No. And Dr. 
Walensky, the CDC director, testified the exact same way, that: No, 
those are not in compliance. And in fact, as we know, they are coming 
across from Mexico.
  Do you know that the CDC guidance designates Mexico as the most 
dangerous nation right now? Along with probably a few others, but they 
are the most dangerous in terms of COVID transmission.
  So CDC guidance encourages American citizens not to go to Mexico, but 
they say if you do come back from Mexico, you are mandated by the CDC 
to show a COVID-negative test before you, as an American citizen, can 
come back into the United States.
  Do you know that not one of these people are being tested for COVID 
when they come in illegally across the Rio Grande from Mexico? And then 
many of them are being put on airplanes, without ID, being paid for 
mostly by the taxpayers--put on airplanes to fly off into cities all 
across the country. Border patrol agents have told us at least 15 
percent of these people that crossed illegally are COVID-positive.
  So I asked Dr. Walensky and I asked Dr. Fauci: Does that process by 
the Biden administration violate CDC's guidance on travel from Mexico? 
And they both testified that, yes, in fact, it does. That if they are 
getting on an airplane, they should be testing negative for COVID. None 
of them are, and in fact, some of them are known to be COVID-positive, 
being put on airplanes, flying to cities all across this country.
  It is going on right now. It was going on Friday. About half the 
plane that I was on when I flew from McAllen back home had people with 
folders that said: I do not speak English, and it had a city on it. And 
it was multiple cities.
  But this is what the Biden administration is doing in violation of 
CDC guidance that you and I have to follow, that our constituents who 
are seeing their livelihoods crushed, their restaurants closed down--
many that won't open again ever--because they have to play by the rules 
that CDC and their States issue. And yet, the Biden administration is 
exempting themselves from this.
  Madam Speaker, now we have legislation, I would like to bring up to 
the majority leader, that would fix this:
  My colleague, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, requires that a COVID test be done 
before someone is released from CPB custody.
  Ms. Herrell wants to prohibit DHS from ceasing title 42.
  There is a bipartisan bill by Mr. Katko and Mr. Cuellar, which 
establishes a regular migration surge border response fund.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would bring 
those bills to the floor to address this crisis at the border that is 
not only a humanitarian crisis and a national security crisis, but it 
is a Biden-created crisis that is violating the very CDC guidance, 
according to Dr. Fauci, that American citizens have to follow.

  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we have a situation that is heart-wrenching 
and unacceptable. And it must be dealt with. In part, this situation 
comes because of the draconian policies of the previous administration.
  It comes also because Republicans have refused, in both Houses, to 
come to agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. So we 
have chaos as a result because our immigration system, as I believe 
almost every Member of your side of the aisle and every Member of my 
side of the aisle believes, is broken.
  Now, unfortunately, what we see in that picture is broken systems 
causing great danger, apprehension, and fear among many people who are 
fleeing to America for refuge. It has, of course, Lady Liberty at the 
head of the harbor, the Hudson River, raises her torch and says, ``That 
is what America is for.''
  Now, having said that, this situation is unacceptable. It is 
unacceptable for humanitarian reasons. It is unacceptable for the 
safety of not only those people that are in that picture, but for 
American citizens as well.
  Madam Speaker, now it is my understanding that the CDC's existing 
pandemic public health order for closed borders is, in fact, being 
followed. In Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, unaccompanied 
children crossing the border are tested--are tested--by the Department 
of Health and Human Services. The migrants entering ICE facilities are 
tested, and they are quarantined if they test positive.
  So protections are trying to be effective, and this administration is 
working very hard to ensure the safety of Americans and the safety of 
these many children who have come across the border.

                              {time}  1245

  None of them have been taken out of the arms of their parents. None 
of them have been made orphans by this administration.
  I didn't hear the gentleman lamenting the fact that we had hundreds 
of children who had been taken out of the arms of their parents, and 
then they could not be found--that is, their parents. They could not be 
reunited with their parents.
  This is a challenge. It is not a partisan challenge. It is a 
challenge for America. It is a challenge for us all.
  This administration is working to try to come to a solution that is 
both humanitarian and effective. I am hopeful that they will proceed in 
accomplishing that objective.
  The gentleman mentions the policies of the Trump administration, 
which substantially underfunded its own policies of trying to help the 
Northern Triangle countries. When I say help the triangle countries, 
unfortunately, the leadership of those countries, in too many 
instances, is not trying to help itself. So, we see panicked people 
fleeing.
  Madam Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman from Louisiana, my 
friend, Mr. Scalise, saw the pictures of two children being dropped 
over the fence--by the way, that very large fence, billions of dollars 
of fence. Smugglers dropped two children over the fence. That is how 
secure it was.
  The tragedy of those children being dropped over that fence alone, I 
don't care where they are from or who they are, but my faith teaches me 
that they may be strangers, but they are brothers and sisters.
  In that context, we need to come to grips, and I am hopeful that the 
gentleman will support the administration's desire to get a 
comprehensive immigration bill adopted in this Congress.
  In 2013, the Senate passed, Madam Speaker, a bill which was supported 
by Democrats and Republicans, 14 Republican Members of the United 
States Senate. We pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring that 
bill to the floor. They will say they brought a

[[Page H1877]]

bill to the floor, and they did bring a bill to the floor, and almost 
nobody thought it was effective in accomplishing the objective of 
having an immigration system that would work.
  So, I tell the gentleman, the pictures that he is displaying ought to 
concern us all deeply. We ought to urge all of our colleagues to 
cooperate and work toward making sure that we don't have scenes like 
that and that we have the ability to deal with this surge at the border 
in a humane way.
  But no one in the previous administration can wash their hands of the 
responsibility of creating a situation which--the gentleman says Mexico 
is adjudged to be one of the most dangerous nations on Earth for COVID-
19. The previous administration said to people trying to seek solace 
and health and safety: Stay. Stay in the most dangerous nation on Earth 
for COVID-19.
  I don't know whether that is a very humane policy. That is not a 
sanctuary for people who are in dire straits.
  We said ``no'' to some people who came here from Germany. We said, 
no, you can't come in. Many of them returned in the 1930s and early 
1940s and were slaughtered. They came here for sanctuary and found 
none.
  That doesn't mean we can take everybody, but it does mean that we 
need to deal with it in a humanitarian way, in a way that honors our 
values and honors these people as our fellow human beings.
  So, I tell the gentleman, in conclusion, that these are sad scenes, 
and we need to respond to them in a humanitarian way, but also a smart 
way. We need to respond to the cause as well as the effect.
  Mr. SCALISE. As we talk about asylum, let's be clear, America has 
laws on how someone can seek asylum. I haven't seen anybody suggest 
that those laws are just repealed, and you just take somebody's word 
that if they say they want to come to America to seek asylum, to come 
in today and jump ahead of everyone else.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on the asylum issue?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman believe we ought to obey America's laws 
on asylum?
  Mr. SCALISE. I think we ought to obey America's laws on immigration 
across the board. If you look at the asylum laws, there is a process to 
seek asylum.
  In fact, every year, people are granted that asylum if they prove 
their case. That is where the law comes into play, which is being 
ignored right here.
  What President Trump did when there was a surge in 2019, he 
confronted it, as a leader should do. He talked to people on the 
ground. He talked to our Border Patrol agents, who are the ones who 
have to deal with this crisis on a daily basis.
  In fact, 40 percent of our Border Patrol agents tonight at midnight, 
like Thursday night at midnight last week, when I was with those Border 
Patrol agents, 40 percent of them were pulled off of guarding our 
border, where their primary mission is to stop drug cartels from 
smuggling fentanyl, cocaine, and heroin into our country, which they 
are doing now at much higher levels, killing Americans all across the 
country.
  Forty percent of them pulled away because they are going to be 
changing diapers in the Donna detention facility tonight because that 
is what they are being tasked to do by the Biden administration. That 
is not their job. It is not why they signed up. Their morale is 
incredibly low.
  Well over roughly 90 percent of people who say they are coming here 
to seek asylum, those cases are rejected by the courts. Rejected. In 
fact, it is kind of hard to make an asylum claim here when the parents 
of many of these kids you are seeing here paid thousands of dollars to 
the drug cartels to smuggle their kids and themselves into the United 
States. It is hard to claim economic asylum, which is the case many of 
them plead, when you paid $4,000 to try to come here illegally when 
there is a legal process to come here, not just the normal legal 
process where you can wait to come into America legally, where we let a 
million people into our country every year, the most generous nation in 
the world, America. But when they go around that system, that is where 
it overwhelms our system. That is what is going on right now.

  President Trump confronted it, not by saying no one can come in, but 
by saying you have to follow our laws if you want to come here. If you 
want to seek asylum, you have to request it like everyone else. They 
allowed them to even come through South and Central American countries 
but stay in Mexico. Mexico agreed with this, and there was an orderly 
system. You got to hear your claim in a very expedient way.
  Today, they are given a piece of paper when they come across the 
border illegally, saying: Come show up maybe 5 years from now.
  Good luck with that. Then, they are given a free plane ticket, 
without an ID, to just be sent off to some other State. I saw manila 
envelopes, and once you got below the ``I do not speak English,'' 
Dallas was on one, Philadelphia was on one, New Jersey was on one.
  I don't know what is going to happen to them when they land in New 
Jersey if they can't speak English. What school system are they going 
to be placed in? Who is then going to be responsible for this breakdown 
at our southern border, which was created by President Biden, which he 
could fix today?
  I have urged President Biden to go down to the border and see this 
for himself, to see how inhumane he is treating kids, in violation of 
his own CDC guidelines, which Dr. Fauci verified yesterday.
  If you read the child abuse and neglect laws of the State of Texas 
where this facility is, this is a violation of the child abuse and 
negligent laws at the President Biden-run facility.
  Again, President Trump went and negotiated with Mexico, went and 
negotiated with those Northern Triangle countries to resolve the surge. 
This could be resolved as well, and you don't need to reinvent the 
wheel because there was a method for how to resolve it legally, using 
the legal system that America has.
  Sure, I would agree it needs reforms, not an amnesty reform, where 
you send a magnet not only across South and Central America but around 
the world that America's borders are open, because that is the message 
today. As the gentleman knows, there are at least six people on the 
terrorist watch list who have come across America's southern border. I 
am not talking about from South and Central American countries, but 
from Middle Eastern countries, from Eastern European countries. Those 
are just the ones we know of that we have caught, and the Biden 
administration won't share that data with the media. The Biden 
administration wouldn't even let the press into this facility, which is 
a national disgrace.
  I could imagine what the press would have said if the Trump 
administration was housing kids in a 33-person facility. There are over 
400 crammed into a 33-person cell in the middle of a pandemic.
  Again, Dr. Fauci said this violates every protocol there is when we 
are trying to get our economy reopened. Other countries have to control 
COVID, too, but in America, we are trying to control it.
  Here is where the double standard and hypocrisy are driving people 
nuts. If any American citizen ran their business in America like this, 
they would be shut down by the Federal Government today. Yet, people 
can come here illegally, and the Biden administration is running this 
facility in violation of those very same guidances.
  Do you know what happened to them? They are given a free airplane 
ticket, put on an airplane, possibly with COVID, and sent into some 
interior State of America. We don't even know where they are going. The 
Biden administration won't share that.
  We have asked for a meeting, by the way. Our leadership team, Leader 
McCarthy and I, have asked for a meeting with President Biden to talk 
about this crisis, and he refuses to meet with us about it. Just 
ignoring a problem will not make it go away. If we are going to find a 
solution to this--again, I listed a number of bills, including some 
that are bipartisan, that would start solving this problem.
  President Biden doesn't even want to go. He put Vice President Harris 
in charge of this mess, and she won't even

[[Page H1878]]

go down to the border, maybe because she doesn't want to be associated 
with President Biden's debacle.
  She was put in charge of it. She is the Vice President of the United 
States. She has a responsibility to go down there. She should have gone 
there weeks ago, but she still hasn't been.
  Maybe if they saw that, if they looked into the eyes of these young 
kids--one of the first girls we ran into might have been 10 years old, 
a girl in one of these cells, and she was crying. We asked her: Why are 
you crying? And she said: I don't want to be here.

  She is an orphan. The gentleman talked about orphans. All of these 
kids, there are no parents with them. They don't want to be here. Many 
were crying because they are jammed into these cells for 20 hours a 
day, at least 15 percent with COVID, 6 inches apart, not 6 feet apart. 
That is what the Biden administration is doing right now.
  President Trump fixed this problem. Again, if President Biden just 
doesn't like President Trump, call it his own name. We don't care. The 
template, if he doesn't want to do what actually worked, then do 
something else that works. But just doing this, it is not only a 
national disgrace, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky said it is a violation of 
the CDC protocols that every American taxpayer has to follow. And they 
don't. Exempting themselves from a problem, but making everybody else 
comply with it, is no way to instill confidence in the American people.
  I hope the President goes down there. I hope the President resolves 
this issue. He should meet with us. He said he wanted to unify the 
country. He said he wanted to work with everybody. It is time he starts 
following through on those promises.
  Mr. HOYER. Donald Trump didn't fix the problem; he delayed the 
problem. That is what happened. That is what those pictures reflect.
  He didn't fix the problem. He would say to those kids: Get out of 
here. Go back to Mexico. Maybe you have a parent there, maybe you have 
somebody who will take care of you, but get out of here.
  That was one way to ``solve'' the problem, I presume. Those kids 
didn't go away. The fear that they have for being home didn't go away.
  Now, I have said, Madam Speaker, this is something that we all need 
to deal with from a compassionate standpoint, from a legal standpoint, 
and from a human standpoint, which I guess is redundant to 
``compassionate.'' But the fact of the matter is that President Trump 
did not solve this problem; he simply delayed it.
  When he left, the pressure was so great because they did not believe 
that this President would simply throw them to the wolves, take them 
from their parents, treat them as refuse.
  We need to deal with this, and, hopefully, we will. Hopefully we will 
get comprehensive immigration reform.
  I will say again that one of the reasons that we have the problem of 
not adjudicating these people quickly is because we don't have enough 
judges. And the reason we don't have enough judges, which were included 
both in the 2013 bill and the subsequent reform bills, is because we 
haven't passed bills to provide the judges on the theory that if we 
don't provide the judges, then we won't be able to approve asylum and 
people won't be able to get in.
  Madam Speaker, I am at the end of this circuitous argument.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, these are children being thrown to the 
wolves, and it is not President Trump who is doing it. It could end, 
and I hope we can work together to solve this problem.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________