tv U.S. House of Representatives Colloquy bt House Maj Ldr Hoyer Min. Whip... CSPAN March 11, 2019 11:02am-11:47am EDT
eastern. president trumps emergency declaration on the border is expected on thursday. they will consider the presidents judicial and executive nominations. live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span two. on friday, house majority leader and minority whip talk about this week's floor schedule. >> on monday, the house will meet at tova clark p.m. for morning our debate and 2:00 p.m. with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.. on tuesday and thursday, they will meet at 10:00 a.m. for debate and 12:00 p.m. for allegedly to business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business with west votes no later than 3:00 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. with that, i yield back to the minority whip. thank you for walking through the schedule. i would like to ask the gentleman from maryland about the process that we have had so far in terms of amendments that have been submitted on legislation. and the way that it has been close, especially to republican a minutes. if you look at the bill we debated a few minutes ago, hr one, only 11% of republican amendments were made in order. more than 60% of democrat a
minutes were made in order. if you look at the entire congress, so far, this year, there were only 16% of republican amendments made in order while 73% of democrat commitments were made in order. which does reflect poorly on the promise that this would be a more open process. i would ask the gentleman from maryland, can you address, at least in the future to make this a more fair and open process so that you are not closing out opportunities over and over again for republican amendments? >> i want to put it into context. for the first time in history, we started this congress with a government shutdown. for the first time in history. completed.s was not the government was not fully funded. , as wenecessary for us
began this session, to have numerous votes to open up the government. we did not get a lot of help from your side of the aisles. it was not a debate. we considered six bills that have been agreed to. there was clearly a disagreement on the homeland security. , on hr one,d you the largest bill in the last congress, you brought that to the floor and had no committee hearings. not a single committee hearing. you had no witnesses. no member of the public was able to testify. it was a closed rule and zero amendments. were made in order. youme make a comparison for on hr one. the bill we just passed. hearings, 19 five
witnesses testified. the primary committee of -- 72 a minutes were made in order. congress, zero democratic commitments made in order. there were no republican amendments made in order either because it was closed rule, no a minutes at all. no hearings, no witnesses. so that, we have as we said we would, an opportunity for the public to testify. an opportunity for amendments to be made in order. i forget exactly how may many a minutes. whatever that number was, whether it was 10, 15, clay 5, 35 or more -- more than we had in order.
the most closed congress in history, the last one. in history. we did not see a single open rule. not one under speaker ryan. not one. i am committed to ensuring that we have a limited amount of closed rules. the gentleman is correct. the government was shut down and we have rules that we put forward to get the government open. there was not an a mimic to say partially open, we said get it to say an amendment partially open, we said get it open. on this2 amendments bill. the proportion of amendments the gentleman is concerned about, we want to make sure that we have amendments considered from both sides of the aisle. that was done here.
was, as opposed to zero, substantial. i yield back to my friend. >> i think the gentleman for yielding back and i would like to point out of the 72 a minutes you identify that work -- 72 amendments that you identified that were made in order, only nine were democratic. the government shutdown has nothing to do with the fact that you committed to having a more open process and it is the reverse of what we saw last congress. if you look at the entire last congress, the entire treaty period, there were more democratic amendments made in order under a republican congress then there were republican amendments made in order. 38% of republican a minutes were made in order, 45% of democrat amendments were made in order over the past two years.
752 democrat amendments were made in order. there were only 645 republican amendments made in order. in this congress, so far, it has been a harshly partisan process through the rules committee. the entire year, only 16% of republican amendments were made in order. 73% of democrat amendments were made in order. looking at hr one again, we had on our side, a colleague of ours, representative fitzpatrick , he actually led the fbi's agency on campaign finance and election crimes enforcement. he actually put people in jail who committed voter fraud. and this is a voter bill, a bill on voting rights and you have a member of congress who actually worked with the fbi to put people in jail and he submitted seven different amendments to clean up some of the corruption
that was in your bill that you just passed. not one of his amendments was made in order. this is an fbi agent to put people in jail for voter fraud. not a partisan issue. and yet, not one of his amendments was made in order. you want to talk about a closed process, let's also talk about the policy that is being closed out. if you want to shut out efforts to clean up voter fraud, that is your prerogative. ultimately, it is not what you promised when you took the majority. if you compare it to the last congress, the entire two-year period, more democrat commitments were made in order then republican amendments were made in order. i would hope that in the future, this process gets less partisan and more fair, as it was promised to be. on that note, i would like to ask the majority leader about word that is swirling around. when you look at the history of the congress, this motion to
recommit is more than 100 years old. it had been a custom. it had been a custom where the majority party brings a bill to the floor and regardless of all of the amendments that are allowed, at the very end of that process, the minority party gets an opportunity to make a final amendment to the bill. that is the motion to recommit. that was not written -- in the rules for a long time. revolution,9 94 there were efforts to take that away from the minorities. when the republicans took over in 1994, the newt gingrich majority, they actually put in the rules, the motion to recommit. it was a custom owing back 100 years. they formalized it -- going back 100 years. they formalized it. they gave the majority that right in the rules. it has been cleaned up over the years but it is a tool that has always been allowed for the minority. we are here it and there are rumors, i would like to ask the
majority leader to clarify, are there any efforts or attempts being made to change and manage the motion to recommit? and i yield. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. we both know, certainly, since the time that i have been here, the motion to recommit on both sides of the aisle have been gotcha amendments. use have been a minutes to for a political edge. you talk about partisanship. both sides did that. understand. so, is their consternation about them? there is. today?have an mtr you did. it was a difficult mtr. of course, it dealt with a problem that does not exist at the federal level. and it said so in its resolution, that there was not a problem. a sense thatving local communities ought to be directed on what to do.
backg said that, let me go to the gentleman's question again. you said you had nine minutes. we had zero. you could say it was 900%, 9000%, whatever you want to say. in your congress on hr one and on our congress. what is not lost on the public congressesident, last was the most closed congress in history. as the government being shut down at the opening of this congress was the first time in history because you did not get your job done. the rights ofhat the minorities and we want to honor the rights of the minorities. -- minority. nothing has been done. those discussions will continue. i understand the gentleman's point. we use the motion to recommit. you have used the road -- motion
to recommit. there is no proposed change currently under consideration. >> i think the gems meant for clarifying that. i hope that tradition continues on that this motion to meet -- recommit stays in order. there are some members that if the -- numbers that if the motion to recommit passes would vote for final passage. it actually was identifying a serious problem. it mentioned in the motion to recommit, what happens in some communities where they are allowing and want the illegals to vote. -- illegals to vote. where, if process somebody has an id, they are automatically sent to the voter registration files. it creates a process where corruption can occur.
where people who are here illegally can get on voting roles. maybe you catch it at the local level. maybe you don't. it creates that opportunity. we had a motion to prevent that from happening. unfortunately, that motion to recommit failed. that is a tool that has been available for any minority to use. in fact, when you bring up hr one from last congress, to cut taxes so that we can rebuild our middle class, which we are finally doing because we cut taxes for every body. people are seeing more money in their pockets. higher wages because of that bill. amendments and committees on both sides when he came to the floor. there were noah minutes on your side or on our side. you did have a motion to recommit. you had an amendment opportunity that we did not have on that bill. at the end of the day, all members on your side voted no. you can see how the economy has taken off and how families actually have more money in because we cut
those taxes. i would point that out and as we move forward, hopefully those rules do not change in a way that would try to diminish even further the opportunities that both sides have to bring amendments to the floor. finally, i would like to ask about the resolution that we had on the floor yesterday. condemn allon to ,orms of bigotry, hatred unfortunately many of our members fell short of the objective that was stated by the majority at the beginning of the week. that there would be a resolution brought forward to condemn comments that were made that were anti-semitic by one of our members. ask theuld like to gentleman, is there going to be any action taken? especially as it relates to the foreign affairs committee to remove the member that we are talking about.
and i yield. >> i have heard that question raised before. you removed mr. king from the years of after 10 support, speeches, and comportps that did not with what we said in terms of rejecting bigotry and prejudice and hate. 10 years. we have, twice, taken action to hate andr that prejudice and bigotry are not the policies of this congress, of this country and should not be the policy of any of our members rhetorically. debating policy, having differences of opinion are clear
. i don't know whether the gentleman heard my speech on the floor. i could not have articulated more forcibly that anti-semitism is unacceptable. anti-semitism has led to , onyx operables results. -- onyxcaust being the optimal results. unacceptable results. the holocaust being the worst. i was disappointed that 23 of your members voted against it. every one of my members, without exception, voted for that resolution. resolution that cut over 400 of us spoke very strongly -- got over 400 of us
spoke very strongly to our opposition to anti-semitism, to racism, to sexism. i have not seen any resolutions on the floor of the house, when you are in charge, that responded to the president of the united states. stoking islamophobia. i saw the resolution. noaw no resolution -- i saw resolution. i saw no resolution on the floor when the president made comments that they were bad people on both sides in charlottesville. -- find people on both sides in charlotte still. those -- charlottesville. those who had racist epithets and who killed one of the participants. i saw no resolution.
friend,ay to my frankly, those of us on our side of the aisle think that the wordsent too often uses theactions that undermine sentiment of the resolution that i voted for and you voted for and the overwhelming majority of the house voted for, saying that is not and should not be the policy of the united states. i will not go into more specifics but the gentleman knows that i could. what is positive is that yesterday, some 400 plus of us voted to say to america and to each of our citizens and those who view america as a beacon of liberty and justice, that we , anyt, out of hand
comments, any actions that would people aszed by most stoking bigotry and prejudice and hate. yes. the resolution as introduced was not the final product. aboutanguage you talked was never introduced. the final product came about through a lot of discussions and addressing the hate and bigotry and prejudice that is directed many people who are somehow viewed as different. and the remarks to which the gentleman referred were pointed out very clearly -- clearly as being remarks which were used through the millennia as waste to diminish the integrity of jewish citizens.
and to imply that somehow, their anport for israel was indication of their lack of loyalty to their country. you and i both know that was used for centuries, millennia to marginalize jewish citizens. and to make them feel unwelcome and rejected. and so i think >i think the resolution was a good thing to do. i am sorry 23 of your members decided not to vote for. all voted for it. we all voted for it. not a single democrat voted against it. and when it came for final
i don't - passage, recall how many republicans but it was the overwhelming majority of your caucus voted against it. so offering the amendment, having the amendment adopted which we accepted because we thought that it was important to make that powerful statement against anti-semitism and we adopted it. unfortunately, when it came to the real vote, not the political gotcha vote, but when it came to the real vote your side all voted against it. or if not all, pretty close. yield back. mr. scalise: as we disagree with the underlying bills we all agree that anti-semitism is wrong. we have been very vocal at rejecting anti-semitism and any form of big thrism issue with the resolution that was brought
forward, first of all, as the gentleman over months has promised a 72-hour rule where there'd be 72 hours to review legislation, as you acknowledge, that resolution continued to change over and over again and by the time it was filed, before members had an opportunity to vote, there wasn't a 72-hour rule. in fact there wasn't even a 72-minute rule. there was less than an hour to review the legislation. as members went through it, it included some things that we all agree should be rejected but many members, and i would refer the gentleman from maryland to the statements made by my colleague from new york, mr. zeldin, who eloquently stated why that resolution fell short at its original objection. to equivocate anti-semitism. asrefuse to acknowledge that members spew anti-sesmtism if we can say anti-semitism sun
acceptable, and i agree if we say that we should reject those policies, the dual citizenship question, which is anti-semitic, the money influence which was offensive and anti-semitic. we keep coming back to this. because these statements continue to be made. but in that is acceptable, unacceptable if you agree that anti-semitism is unacceptable and bad policy, the then why to you continue to leave a member who is anti-semitic on the committee that deals with the policy of the foreign policy of this nation. it's a high profile committee. foreign affair sass blum spot. many members on both sides want to get on that committee pause it's so important at stating our foreign policy to the world. standing with our allies. when you go to other countries and meet with officials if you say you're on the foreign policy committee, the fortune affairs committee, it is a higher level
of respect and acknowledgment that implies that your views represent the views of the united states congress. and that's the concern where the resolution fell short. so many of our members said, how many times are we going to have to keep voting on resolutions that talk generally but don't act specifically to address the problem? if you want to talk about the precedent -- about the president, president trump has been very can clear and vocal, speaking out against anti-semitism. you saw him a few weeks ago from this podium in his state of the union address so eloquently bringing members to the gallery, people to the gallery, the three men who stormed normandy beach on d-day to liberate france and to defeat nazis. the gentleman from pittsburgh, the holocaust survivor, over 90 years old, who survived the
pittsburgh shooting. also at dachau and for the president to so eloquently refer to one of our heros who stormed normandy beach and a year later helped liberate dachau, what a special moment, special moment for this house to see how hatred and bigotry is evil but how the might and power of the united states stands up against it. we should all speak out against it but we should also take the actions that if somebody is continuing to exhibit those kinds of beliefs in this congress, they shouldn't be making policy on the committee that has jurisdiction. that's been the concern, i hope we don't have to come back to it. i hope we don't have to keep coming back to address this problem. it shouldn't be a growing problem. we should all stand up against it when we see it and hopefully we don't see it anymore because
we're so clear, not just in our words but clear in our actions. as we continue to hopefully find common ground, and there is common ground to be found, this wasn't a good week for the united states congress to see the kind of divisions, to see it take days to come up with a simple resolution that should have taken minutes to stand up clearly against anti-semitic actions. so hopefully next week we can return to making policy where we're able to come together in a bipartisan way to address concerns and problems of this nature and i know i look forward to working with the gentleman if we find that common ground, and we will, we ultimately will. with that, i yield back. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: first of all, let my say -- me say i i reject out of
hand the premise that we didn't speak directly to anti-semitism in the resolution adopted yesterday. period. it spoke strongly to that. not only did it speak strongly but if the gentleman heard my remarks, they were very strong with respect to absolute rejection of anti-semitism. apparently the problem is we also spoke against racism. we also spoke against xenophobea. -- xenophobia. mentioned the president, xenophobia. the denigration of immigrant who was been so important to this country at the highest levels of government. the allocations of -- allegations of widespread criminal activity and a broad brush.
that resolution yesterday spoke to that. it spoke about islamaphobia. it spoke about hay trett of -- hatred of immigrants. lgbt. members of our society. it spoke against discrimination and hate and yes, it spoke directly about anti-semitism. as it should have. as i was abchutely commit and the members of this house were absolutely committed, save 23. i don't know why the 23 voted against it but they did. not on our side of the aisle. i agree with the gentleman. hopefully we can continue to not use this as a political football as i think it's being used. and i'm not going to cite some of the remarks of the minority soros or tropt mr.
r. steyer or others. -- respect to mr. soros or mr. steyer or others. mr. jordan. mr. king. there was a difference, mr. speaker. we didn't wait 10 years. initially we acted, the entire democratic leadership with a ery point and direct letter. that anti-semitism was not acceptable. period. no confusion. and within days, we put a suspension bill which by the way the rules are waived on suspension bills as the gentleman knows, you don't necessarily have to give 72 hours. but there were 72 hours that
that was being discussed and people knew it was being discuss and the leader and the whip has referred to that but i hope that nobody would diminish what we said yesterday about anti-semitism. or racism. r any kind of other ism. let us not diminish what we did yesterday. i think this was a good week, mr. speaker. for the house of representatives. we spoke about making sure that voting rights were protected for every american and not only that, protected but facilitated. made easier. to register and to vote. so that all americans could express their opinion on the policies of their country and their state and municipality or whatever office they were voting for. it was a good day to say we are going to have redistricting that is not run by the politicians.
but that every state, not just a few, would have to have a redistricting process that was fair and balanced and not just the politicians drawing their own districts. it was a good day, mr. speaker, was a good week, because we also spoke about making sure that we have campaign finance that discloses to everybody who their contributors are. it's ironic, mr. speaker, i was here when we considered mccain-feingold and the republican leadership in the house and senate both said, you don't need caps, you don't need to limit spending. what you need is disclosure, let people know who is contributing. citizens united undermined that pretty substantially and we have millions and millions of dollars
that nobody knows where it comes from. this bill does that. this bill also said we ought to not be serving on boards of profit-making corporations while making policies that affect them in this house and said yes, the president of the united states and ever president since i have been in the congress, 1981, should disclose their tax returns so that the people know are they acting in their interests or in the people's interests. we call that bill for the people. for voting rights, for fair registration, for campaign inance that is honest, above board and transparent and for good ethical behavior. by us and by the president. so i disagree with my friend, minority whip.
i think this was a good week. in some ways, it was a tough week. but it was a good week. and i am very pleased, not only did we adopt that resolution against hate and prejudice and bigotry against all, including and very point he hadly and starting out with anti-semitism. but we also adopted a bill that will give more trust and faith to the american people in their government and more access to the ballot box. it was a good bill. it was a good week. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. scalise: if we talk about h.r. 1, what the gentleman fails to mention that bill gives billions of dollars to taxpayer to poll tissue answer. most -- politicians. most americans are hardworking.
i don't want to see their taxpayer dollars going to a politician that they strongly disagree with, people that don't like to see on tv. if someone wants to contribute, that's their prerogative, but no one should be forced to give billions of dollars to taxpayer money by coercion from the federal government. that's in the bill. felons voting, in many cases, states have laws against felons voting. we weren't able to get a clear answer, if someone was convicted of child molestation in a state that is prohibited from going to schools, if they go to a school to vote if they are a child molester even the state bars them from going into the school, as bill gives them a school
a child molester which under state law would be prohibited from going into that school where children are. there are a lot of things in that bill that concern many americans across the country. getting back to the anti-semitism debate we're having, the gentleman brought up and the minority leader and other members, the minority leader has been very, very vocal against anti-cement the speaker pro tempore:. andrly when you -- semitism when you saw them giving hundreds of dollars to influence campaigns -- mr. hoyer: would that gentleman yield? mr. scalise: i would make the point that the minority leader s been very vocal and -- mr. hoyer: why in his comment did he mention three americans
of jewish descent but didn't mention the koch brothers and didn't mention the gentleman jewish.ada who's also r. scalise: exactly. we have supporters on both sides regardless of their faith who give lots of money to politics. now if the criticism was there were big donors to democrats, of course that's who was being mentioned. regardless of their faith, they were giving tens of millions of dollars each. as you criticized or brought up the name of the the gentleman from nevada, nobody questions that you are making a comment, and neither should the assertion be made to anyone who brings up the three gentlemen who were mentioned. reclaiming my time, the bigger
issue it's interesting that the gentleman mentioned a bunch of names. but the one name you didn't mention is ms. omar who at the beginning of this week that is what the resolution was going to address, the comments made by ms. omar. left out that key component that many of us wanted to see addressed. but a lot of people found it real interesting for example in section 7 of the resolution, it condemns death threats received y jewish and muslim members of congress. why were not death threats to other members of congress. i surely can speak to that. all death threats against members of congress are wrong. why did the resolution full short? it has hace tillly put together.
it was supposed to be a narrow resolution. clearly on your side you had a lot of division over it. this is what we ended up with, so, yes, our members felt that we are clear in rejecting any kind of bigotry that the resolution fell short of what its original object jeggettive was. and i hope we don't have to come back to this and i hope it doesn't continue and we can continue speaking about this, but i think it's clear let's be clear about who is speaking out against it and who's continuing to engage in it. i don't know if the gentleman uld like to yield one more time. mr. hoyer: i would urge both sides when the leader of our government says things that clearly offend minority groups of all stripes, that we speak
out. i think that's a good thing for us to do and i'm sure we can be joined together to do exactly that. i would also ask the gentleman to perhaps observe the extraordinary diversity of representing all of america on this side of the aisle. so you ought not to be surprised that in representing that diversity, they bring forward issues that we try to also address. a resolution that said hate, bigotry and prejudice is wrong. it is unamerican. unfortunately none of us had ancestors that were free today hateful policies. we were a nation that allowed slavery and went through an extraordinary civil war to
eliminate that blot on we hold these truths to be self-evident. so, yes, we have a lot of diversity on our side of the aisle and that diversity is representing its people. they're americans, but they represent a number of americans who are perceived as different than other americans for some designation either because of race, gender, color, sexual orientation, you fame it. immigrant, you name it. yes, we have a lot of diversity on this side of the aisle and try to respect that diversity and make sure that americans know we are against discrimination against anybody. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. scalise: we appreciate the diversity that we have. we strive to be even more
diverse, but the most important diversity that we have is our diversity of thought. we are proud to respect people of all faiths, all faiths. this was a nation founded on a deep belief in god. we don't have an established religion. one of the things i love most about going to israel as a catholic is that so much of the history of my faith, of jesus christ is represented there in israel, when you can walk the streets of jerusalem and walk in the steps of jesus. and the fact that the jewish people in israel respect that diversity. they respect people of all faiths. and that's one of the proud crowning acheefments of the jewish state of israel. if you look at where we are as a nation, clearly slavery is one of the stains, probably the greatest stain in this nation.
struggled with it in its founding and president lincoln, the first republican president, president lincoln gave his life fighting to end slavery and in this chamber where they had the great debate to finally pass the 13th amendment. one of the proudest moments of our nation. very contentious, but ultimately, it was a struggle that has finally come to a head and again, the president gave his life for that fight. and we still honor and respect -- we respect the fact that we have a room right down the hall, the lincoln room where abraham lincoln as a house member spent time and we can sit and talk in the same place that abraham incoln talked where he had
discussions to end slavery that he was able to secure. we continue to fight. it was wonderful to see john lewis on the floor, true hero, not just a hero of this congress -- we had the honor to serve with sam johnson who was a great hero. spent seven years in the hanoi hilton. we have a true honor to serve with john lewis. whether we disagree sometimes on politics, to be able to sit and talk with somebody who truly lived some of the toughest history of our nation and has the scars to prove it. and yet, he still has love in his heart and exhibits that love and passion and we are honored to be able to celebrate that diversity and it's the diversity of thought that we should fight to achieve equality and opportunity for all men and women in this debate nation. and if the gentleman has anything else. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman
for his comments. let me add, we can honor that by our words and actions today and tomorrow and every day thereafter. and i yield back. mr. scalise: i agree we should continue to honor all of those >> the house will take up a nonbinding execution that robert mueller's reports be made available to the public and congress. white house coverage is here on c-span at the top of the hour. expect it on thursday. lawmakers will take up several of the nominations for the senate will gobble -- gather at 3:00 p.m. eastern. the house was committee will be meeting to work on that measure regarding publicizing the robert mueller report.