tv U.S. House of Representatives House Leaders on Next Weeks Schedule ... CSPAN March 28, 2019 6:39pm-7:21pm EDT
toampaign rally and speaking people of grand rapids, michigan. and in prime time on the crmp span network starting at 9:00 eastern, the confirmation hearing for the acting secretary since january. and at k, the senate budget committee voting on a 2020 budget resolution and 8:00 eastern, hearing from betsy deefost. we take you back to the house floor for house remarks between hoyer and scalise and the recent release. we'll show you as much as we can as the start of the president's rally.
gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyermr. chairman, i anticipated this was going to e an extraordinarily hostile colloquy. louisiana was so incredibly lucky. however, it cost me, i admit to the world, i guess, i hope i don't get in legal trouble, but the republican whip and i had a little sort of side bet, so i
owe the republican whip a crab dinner for four people. that's the bad news. the good news is the minority whip will now be eating the best crab in america, not louisiana crab. it will be maryland crab that i will be giving him for dinner. i yield back to my friend if he would like to ask questions about the schedule and stop -- he already did ask me, i'm told. i knew that game was coming. mr. scalise: i'll be happy to ask both questions again. i look forward to the maryland crab dinner. i think as the gentleman from maryland knows, a lot of times when you go to places and they say it's maryland crab it's really gulf of mexico crabs because they want the best quality to offer the patrons. we were excited to see the buzzer-beater. i know both of us were waiting in those last 12 seconds to see which team would walk away with
the sweet 16 banner. and proud that my mighty fighting tigers of l.s.u. were in that number. but we will come to d.c. and hopefully you will now be rooting for us so you can can say you rooted for the eventual national champion. l.s.u. tigers, to win the final four. with that i'll now yield to hear about the schedule for the coming week in congress. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i think it keeps getting worse, i think. in event we'll move on to the schedule. i congratulate l.s.u., they played an excellent game. as did maryland. it was a really good game. there's got to be one winner, one loser. we lost. we have the youngest team, the fourth youngest team in the ncaas. so we'll be back. we'll be next year, maybe we'll be able to play l.s.u. again if they make it. on monday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.
on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12 p.m. for leverage business. on wednesday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. and recess immediately. the house will reconvene at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of receiving a joint meeting with the senate. his excellency, january sultenburg, the secretary-general of the north atlantic treaty organization will address us. members are advised to be on the house floor and seated no later than 10:30 a.m. for the joint meeting. mr. speaker, on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business with last 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 tomorrow. mr. speaker, the house will also consider major piece of legislation, h.r. 1585, the violence against women re-authorization act of 2019.
frankly, that bill should have been re-authorized prior to september 30 of last year, the last congress. we extended it until february 15 of this year, at which time it lapsed. we're very hopeful and expect that this will pass this next week. it is sponsored by representative karen bass. i'm pleased to bring this bipartisan bill to respond to our nation's crisis of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. the violence against women act officially expired on september 30, as i said, extended and is way overdue that we consider a long-term authorization of this legislation. mr. speaker, it is possible that we will bring to the floor legislation regarding the
crisis that is occurring in yemen. there are 22 million people at risk of starvation. 22 million people. noncombatants and women and children. we also may consider other legislation, if it comes from the senate. i yield back to the minority whip. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for the schedulele update. i would like to inquire, we know that there is only seven legislative days left for congress to meet its required deadline to provide a budget, april 15 deadline. what troubles me is that there has been no budget brought through the house budget committee. in fact, there's been reports that your majority doesn't plan to bring a budget at all. obviously the budgets are very important to show the
priorities of our congress, to show the priorities of each of our majorities, to, as we did in seven of the eight years we were in the majority, not only doing a budget, but then this last year we were able to achieve a two-year budget agreement so we were able to know with certainty what the budget numbers were that we would actually be working on to draft appropriations bills. again, the bills that carry out the priorities of congress to show the country how we're going to properly fund government at the levels that we, as a congress, set, which is what the budget does. as i have seen there is no current budget agreement negotiation going on that's yielding anything. without a budget agreement, does the gentleman plan to provide and bring a budget to the house floor? mr. hoyer: it is very interesting question, mr. speaker, that the minority whip
asked me. i would ask in response, does the minority whip remember when last year when you were in charge you brought the budget to the floor? mr. scalise: if the gentleman yields back. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i'll be happy to walkthrough the last eight years. mr. hoyer: i asked you a simple question, reclaiming my time, i asked you a simple question, mr. whip. you asked me about when the budget was coming. i asked you when did you bring the budget to the floor last year? mr. scalise: if the gentleman would yield. mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. scalise: last year as the gentleman knows we were working under a two-year budget agreement. typically we don't have a two-year budget agreement. you bring one budget and that's the budget for that year. so for fiscal year 2012 the house passed a budget. in our majority we passed a budget to establish those numbers to then start the appropriations process. in 2013 we passed through the
house a budget to establish the 2013 budget numbers to work off of. in 2014 we passed a budget through the house to establish the budget for that fiscal year. in 2015 we passed a budget through the house to establish the budget for that year. in 2016 we actually got an agreement both between the house and the senate, passed the budget, of course, through the house, and the senate, fiscal year 2017. we passed a budget through the house and the senate and got a full agreement to do an appropriations process. in fiscal year 2018, as the gentleman knows, we actually agree to a two-year budget agreement. to not only set the fiscal year numbers for one year, but for two years, which was tremendously helpful in making sure that our nation's defense, which many times had been used as bargaining chips for other budget negotiations, we took that off the table. we made sure our men and women
in uniform had the certainty of a two-year budget agreement, which doesn't happen often. frankly it should happen more often. we should strive towards that. so we achieved it. so in 2019 as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget out of the house budget committee, but we already had a budget agreement to work through the appropriations process because we had done a two-year budget the prior year. we don't even have a one-year budget agreement right now. as the gentleman knows there is no fruitful negotiations to get a one or two-year budget agreement so there is no budget number to work off of, which is why you produce a budget. last year we did bring a bill out of committee but we didn't need to pass a budget because we already had the budget number agreed to from the two-year deal prior. so with that is the gentleman willing to engage in or come to an agreement on at least a one or two-year budget agreement so we can actually have an appropriations process that
works for the country and shows the priorities of this nation? i yield back. mr. hoyer: i appreciate, mr. speaker, the -- a lot of words of the minority whip, he didn't pass the budget last year. there was no fiscal year 2019 budget. he is correct that we had reached a caps deal. that is not the budget, mr. speaker. a budget is a plan that is reported out and brought to the floor and passed and sent to the senate and the senate passes and we have a budget that is in the same position on each side of the aisle. that's a budget. that has rarely been done in the last eight years. a caps deal has been reached. i would like to see a caps deal reached. i've been talking to mr. mcconnell who wants a caps deal reached. i've talked to mr. shelby, both of those republican leaders. i've talked to the white house about a caps deal. unfortunately i don't think mr.
mulvaney wants to reach a caps deal. he wants to use it as leverage, as opposed to allowing us to proceed in the regular order. but a budget is a different kettle of fish, i will tell my friend, than a caps deal. the caps deal does in fact set the 302 level of discretionary funding for both defense and nondefense spending. yes, we reached a two-year cap. deal. i've been -- cap deal. i've been trying for the last two months to get meaningful negotiations under way to do the ame. i haven't been successful. mainly because the president and mr. mulvaney aren't interested in reaching such a deal. i regret that. but the budget committee is meeting this week, next week. it's going to meet next week. and we are going to be reporting will be what the
minority whip refers to as a budget. it will certainly speak to the levels of funding that we need to spend. because i want to pass the appropriation bills by june 30. that's never been done. but i want to do it. i think we can do it. mr. speaker, and i'm going to work toward that objective. it will require reaching what numbers are going to be for discretionary spending. unfortunately the budget the president of the united states sent down to the congress is totally unreasonable and irrational. and there's not a single person, i think, on this floor who will support his budget and i will tell the minority whip that i would be glad to give his party the opportunity to vote on the president's budget. if he asked me, i'll have it put on the floor. mr. speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not able to get to a
budget caps deal. we passed, again, in my view, irrational, and i voted for, it i'm sorry i voted for it, budget control act. creating the sequester. the sequester is a complicated word which starts with s which i tell my people in my districts and town meetings stands for stupid. it was an irrational document that took numbers out of the air without regard to our responsibilities and our opportunities. but i am hopeful, and i tell the republican whip, my friend, that we are going to try to hopefully, working -- working with his party, establish some reasonable, rational numbers for defense and nondefense discretionary spending so that we can move ahead with doing what really makes the difference, and that is the adoption of appropriation bills on this floor, send them to the senate, and have the senate consider them and we'll have a
expenditure on defense and nondefense. a caps deal is not necessarily those priorities per se, but to set a top level of discretionary spending. that's why it is called a cap. now it will be a little over that, this year, i presume, for discretionary spending. most of the budget is not discretionary spending. 2/3 of the budget is either mandatory spending or debt payment. i want to clarify we are talking about a budget plan which can, in fact, include caps in it. but a separate deal. we have made them now for two years since the sequester gone into effect. both sides. both sides.
unwilling to follow the sequester, because we think the sequester does not make rational sense for the security of our country. the president doesn't want to do that either. $180 ts to borrow billion-plus to fund defense and eave discretionary spending at 2009 levels. the budget committee is considering what legislation they should bring to the interior in order to facilitate as the caps deals did to facilitate us to markup our appropriations bills and send them to the senate and reach agreement prior to september 30 and to avoid the historic and
very harmful shutdown that occurred at the end of the last congress and continued into this congress. and i would yield to my friend. mr. scalise: as i pointed out earlier, you have two methods within which to set those caps. you can do it delue the budget the budget or do through it through a separate caps deal, which is why we didn't do a budget and passed it out of committee and showed what our priorities are. we had a caps deal in place from the prior year. the other seven years, there was no caps deal and the budget laid out that number. and the maswrorlt's hasn't done it. at some point you have to produce the number to show what we are going to start the
appropriations process. and the other part of the budget which is equally important is the establishment of the priorities for that majority, how do we get to a balanced budget. you have problems like medicare. medicare is going bankrupt. it would be irresponse i will ankrupt,o let it to go b which we think is irresponse i will and put in our plan. whatever the gentleman's plan to save it, show the american people what the priorities are. and why they haven't done it. they spent the last two years trying to impeach the president, trying to lay out this -- are mr. hoyer: would the alyield? mr. scalise: for the last two years, we heard this collarion
call there was collusion between the family and the president and russia and impeachment from the highest level including the chairman of the house intelligence committee who went multiple times on national tv there was more than credible many were hanging their hat. there going to be indictments. look at the tapes from every national tv show you can imagine of some of the most outlandish claims that were made. now the mueller report comes out and it is clear those claims are baseless. >> the mueller report is not out. >> there was no collusion. >> the mother report is not out. -- the mueller report is not out. >> we will see the full mueller report. transcript of it.
if the gentleman thinks it will show something differently, please share it. they made it clear there was no collusion and it will leave no further indictments. the attorney general of the united states said this. as noted above, the special counsel did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from russian affiliated individuals to assist the trump campaign. so, multiple times they were offered. they never even came close. there was no collusion. these conspiracy theories, it is time for it to end. there was no collusion. if you or any of your colleagues have proof of collusion, as your chairman claims, they need to show that to the attorney general of the united states because it completely contradicts what the attorney general has now said based on
the findings of the mueller report. there was no collusion. so when chairman schiff says more than circumstantial evidence that he has seen that associates of president trump colluded with russia. think thereuote, i is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. and even now that the attorney general makes it very clear there was no collusion, the chairman of the intelligence committee will not recant his previous statements that have been discounted. so today as the gentleman knows, this morning, every member of the minority party on the house intelligence committee called for the chairman of the intelligence committee to step down. every member. i would ask the gentleman, would you call for the chairman of the intelligence committee to step down as chairman after losing so much credibility in the wild and vicious claims he has made that
had been disputed by the attorney general of the united states based on this mueller report, after 22 months and over $20 million of taxpayer money that found no collusion? i yield. >> what it found is six of the president's closest associates, his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his foreign policy advisor, is national security advisor, his lawyer and counsel for over a decade, all committed crimes. or were either convicted pled to crimes. >> will a gentleman yield? >> no i won't. a person on our side of the aisle who does not believe the letter you issued regarding mr. schiff is not totally a partisan distraction from what you hope is not found.
unlike his predecessor, who worked hand in glove with the white house not as an independent branch of government but as an advocate for the white house's position. who clearly should have been removed, and was not. tell the minority whip, mr. schiff is a member of the highest integrity, highest intellect, and great responsibility. we expect, i expect him to pursue his responsibilities as chairman of the intelligence committee to assure that neither russia nor any other country will in the future be able to interfere in the elections of the united states, as mr. mueller concluded the russians have.
almost every american understands that the russians tried to, on behalf of the president of the united states, affect the elections. i hope that friend, we can have the debate. let's look at the mueller report . are otherhere investigations that are going on as the gentleman knows in the southern different -- district of new york as well as the government operations committee, as well as the foreign operations committee, as well as the financial services committee, i was well as in the intelligence committee. in insignificance and the number of investigations that we have had, or oversight hearings we have had when compared to the oversight hearings you had on the obama administration and mrs. clinton and trying to undermine their credibility, an administration by the way, which i do not think anybody was put in legal
jeopardy and there were no scandals in the of mama administration -- in the obama administration. there were disagreements, but the gentleman ought to be very reserved, frankly, in terms of making conclusions based upon a four-page letter before we have seen the mueller report or we have seen the actions of the southern district of new york, before we have seen the results of the oversight hearings that are continuing. i yield. >> i will think the gentleman for yielding. there are a number of items that need to be addressed in what the gentleman just said. first of all, to claim that there was any collusion as you said quote, on behalf of the president of the united states with russia, goes in complete contradiction to the findings that were delivered to us by the attorney general of the united states. i am going to read it one more time. as we noted above, the special counsel did not find that the trump campaign or anyone
associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government. and anyone who would make a claim to the contrary is either being irresponsible or should so -- show the evidence. if there is evidence that the chairman of the intelligence committee has -- that's be clear, he has tweeted things out. this is from chairman schiff and 2017. the campaign accepted help. the russians gave help. the president made fell use of that help. he claimed he has more than circumstantial evidence there was collusion. yet the attorney general of the united states after reviewing the entire mueller report, which i hope we all see, obviously within the confines of the law, the law makes it clear how something like that is reported, i hope the gentleman understands and would not suggest that classified information should be oughtsed, but the report
to be disclosed to show the american people what they found, but we have seen the summary of it. of course we will look at the entire thing. after reviewing the entire thing if the gentleman sees as the summary shows there was no collusion with the president of united states, then maybe this gentleman and all the other people that have made outrageous claims that the president was in collusion will maybe acknowledge they will wrong, maybe offer an apology. who knows. we can hold out hope for that. let's be clear about the statements that were made and the things that were alluded to that are not true, that were not the case. maybe it was wishful thinking and it should not have been. no one should hope that the president of the united states, any president, conspired with a foreign government. but to suggest it over and over again for two years, and for all of this 12 months of investigation, thorough investigation, multiple countries visited, over $20 million of taxpayer money, more
than our committees have to run all their oversight operations, to thoroughly investigate they found there was no collusion. sure, russians tried to meddle with elections. we need to make sure it doesn't happen again and become work together on that. but to suggest he president of the united states colluded and he did not is irresponsible. and it has happened over and over and it continues to this day. it has to stop. this idea that maybe some other attempt to go and harass the president and his family will find something else, it gives credence to the claims it was a witchhunt. and it is time for us to focus on the real problems of this country. it is also time for us to hold people in our intelligence agencies accountable showed up at their job with a partisan agenda. any intelligence agency is no place for you to bring your political agenda. we all have political views. if you accept that responsibility, then you use that position to abuse your power, we all ought to call on
it for her to be rooted out and i hope it is rooted out. if there were abuses of the fisa process, which is a very important court with a narrow focus to protect the national security of this country. if the fisa court was abused by people in positions of power because they wanted to carry out a political agenda, because they did not like the results of the 2016 presidential election, that is not the place for it. the about box next year is a place to carry it out. not wearing a badge and being a member of law enforcement. i hope that is rooted out because we want to see the integrity of those institutions like the fbi restored. i want the country to have full faith and confidence that the people working there are carrying out the national security interest of the country, not their own political interests. there are a lot of questions raised over whether or not that happened. in the end when we resumed -- review the report, people are still hoping there is some mystery indictment out there. they said there are no further indictments.
they said there was no collusion with the presidential campaign. what time will your side acknowledge it did not happen? if you want to change the results of the presidential election, the results are changed at the ballot box. that is how we resolve it in america. we do not find something on a president that does not exist. we have done oversight. the mueller investigation was the ultimate oversight and it found there was no collusion between the president and the russians. maybe some people are disappointed to hear it. we should all celebrate that as a country. we all ought to be concerned that no president of the united states is targeted by an intelligence agency or by a congress or majority or minority because they do not like the results of the election so they will abuse power to try and take them down. that is not the way we do it. and i hope we can finally focus on the real problems of this country and not continue to use
these committees even after they did not find what they are looking for to keep finding something that is not there. the former chairman that was alluded to, mr. nunez, didn't him -- did an impeccable job to find the facts. if you go and look at how he carried himself and managed his committee, the entire time it was about finding the facts. there was no collusion that we found. if someone has proof of that collusion the coop -- keep alluding to, it is time for them to show it. show the american people what you have. don't run around hiding. if you know about collusion, you owe it to the country to show it. if it is not there, stop saying it. hopefully everybody heeds those words and we get back to focusing on what is important to this country. express our political differences, obviously. differences we have with each other, the president, the
cabinet secretary. we have all kinds of forums to express that and corrected, to bring legislation to the floor. if we just do not like someone personally, that is not what we are here to do. i hope we can get beyond that. and i yield to the gentleman. i do not think i will respond to all of that. time being of the essence, i suppose. representsan speaks a party who held eight hearings, all headed by republicans, on mrs. clinton. all eight reached the same conclusion. but the first one was not enough. the second one was not enough. the third one was not enough. 4th, 5th, 6th, t7h were not enough. mr. gaudi was appointed to do one more. because it was pretty close to the election then, mr. speaker.
and the majority leader, now the minority leader of this house, said oh no, they accomplished the political objective. he said that on television. roundly criticized by his party. why did he say that? why did you admit that? but for the minority whip to say that the mueller report billions of dollars spent for applicable purposes, mueller was reported -- appointed by a republican. not a democrat. and the attorney general recused himself so that the deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein, was the one who made the appointment. why did he recuse himself? because he had been involved contrary to what he testified to in his nomination hearing to the russian ambassador. there wasow whether
anything substantive in that conversation because we do not fully know what that conversation was. but the fact of the matter is for the minority whip to be talking about political hearings or oversight, then to say he is had an opportunity to review the mueller report -- you have had more than i have. barr letter.he four pages. appointed by mr. trump. and what we know is barr's reading and his conclusion. but we knew that before because he sent a 19 page letter months ago that he thought this investigation would not reach any conclusion. and that it should not. and that the president could not be held accountable in any event -- any event. that was just policy. so, i listened to a long discussion.
with all due respect, i tell my friend the whip, at odds with the performance of their administration and the eight hearings they had in trying to bring mrs. clinton down, and never finding -- never -- eight hearings, paul led by republicans. to a conclusion that led to anything. so we will see what the mueller report says. i hope. andi am pleased the whip his party voted to have the mueller report fully disclosed. he is correct, there are some national security interests that will probably restrict some of sources ordo not out ways and means of discovering information. but having said that, we will have a time mr. whip to debate
this. we will have time to debate it when we have information. we will have a time to debate it perhaps months from now when all these investigations are through. much would not take too solace in what the mueller report did. said, the as i indictment and conviction of the president's campaign manager. it led to the indictment and conviction either through plea or trial of five other individuals to date. that is not something that i of, ino be very proud terms of the president of the united states being so close to cohen involved, mr. particular, brings that
information forth to a hearing. he was apparently his closest legal advisor for over a decade. so we will see. mr.i do not think now speaker is the time to debate it because the time to debate it will be when we see, and the american people see the mueller report. i want to say to my friend so he understands, i am pleased that we do not have a finding that the president of colluded, asates you said he did not do. colluded of course is not a legal term, it is not conspiracy , the essence of a criminal activity, a conspiracy to commit something that is illegal. but we have time to debate that and discuss it. and the american people hopefully are going to have an opportunity to reach their own
conclusion, which obviously in the final analysis will be the most important conclusion. the good news is we are continuing to do the business for the people. we are continuing to focus on job. we have numerous hearings this week on jobs, wages. we had numerous hearings on health care and the cost of health care and the cost of prescription drugs. we passed one of the most far-reaching reform bills that we have seen on the floor of this house, hr-1. every democrat voted for it. almost every republican voted against it. we have passed just today, pay equity. rational,ssed some reasonable controls on people with criminal records,