tv U.S. House of Representatives Leader Colloquy on Next Weeks Schedule CSPAN May 5, 2019 1:35am-1:56am EDT
"newsmakers," tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. announcer: the house returns next tuesday. here's majority leader steny hoyer and minority web steve scalise discussing next week's legislative agenda, which includes health care, immigration, and border security. this is 20 minutes. . this is 20 minutes. >> on tuesday we will meet for morning our debate and 2:00 for votesative business with postponed until 6:30. on wednesday and thursday we meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning our debate and 12:00 legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will continue -- consider several bills on suspension of the rules -- and us by the close of business tomorrow. house will also consider h.r. 986, protecting americans with pre-existing conditions act
of 2019. on october 22, 2018, the trump administration continued the republican assault on affordable, quality health coverage by issuing new guidance to carry out section 1332 of the affordable care act. that new guidance, madam speaker, undermines patient protections and threatens coverage for americans with pre-existing conditions. h.r. 986 blocks implementation of that guidance so as to preserve protection for pre-existing conditions and to ensure health care remains afordable. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 2157, the supplemental appropriation act of 2019. it would provide relief and recovery assistance for americans affected by recent natural disasters. it includes an additional $3
billion above that which we passed and sent to the senate some weeks ago to address flooding in the midwest and tornadoes in the south that occurred since we passed the first disaster relief bill in january which unfortunately has languished in the senate. lastly, the bill includes an extension of the flood insurance program until september 30, 2019. i yield back to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. i would point out that the president's executive order does nothing to change the protections in law for people with pre-existing conditions under obamacare, as the gentleman know the law protects people with pre-existing conditions from facing any kind of discrimination. section 1332 waivers have nothing to do with that. what they do is allow some state, and there have been a number of state who was requested, the ability to be more innovative and focus on
lowering premiums while protecting pre-existing conditions. those state that was taken advantage of that waiver have used it to, number one prorkvide health care in different ways, more innovative ways for their medicaid population which is something we should all encourage because medicaid in many states is the worst form of health care in many cases, doctors don't even take medicaid policies and don't see medicaid patients so they can't get access to care and these waivers are a way to help open up more access to care at lower costs in many cases while protect preg existing conditions. with that said, when the gentleman laid out the schedule, i didn't see anything on the president's request for supplemental funding for the border crisis, specifically there was a $4.5 billion request that came down from the white house that requested additional funding to address this wave of people that are coming into our country illegally and in many cases they have run out of
detention beds. they are overwhelming the system. it's been reported very widely about that. that's why the president made the $4.5 billion request. i wanted to ask the gentleman if that might be included in this supplemental for the disasters that we would surely like to see addressed. i yield. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the gentleman's comments. i won't respond to his initial comments. obviously we have a disagreement on the impact that the administration has had on pre-existing conditions and on the section to which we are referring. swreel a full debate on that next week when we consider the bill. with respect to the gentleman's question as it relates to the president's proposal for supplemental funding for border security, which by the way was sent down yesterday, and is now being reviewed, the gentleman knows that we are strong supporters of border security.
we want to make sure that the border is also humane. the gentleman did not mention but i want to point out that in the bill that we adopted to fund the government that was shut down for 35 days, in the bill hat we passed, there were $755 billion for construction an technology at ports of entry. where most drugs come into the country illegally. we want to make sure that those drugs stop. we want to have border infrastructure that allows for not only security but checking people who are coming into the country to make sure they do not have ill list substances with them either for their own use or for sale. in addition to that we had $415 million for the border patrol and the customs agents. and for humanitarian relief.
which obviously was anticipating the problem that currently confronts us. and to make sure that people who come across our boarderer treated humanely and with respect. in addition there was $30.5 million i alternatives to detex in family case management which we think is important and in addition to that there was a half billion dollars, $563 million, for immigration judges to reduce the backlog of cases. and lastly, half a billion dollars again, $527 million, to assist central american countries which has had a positive effect on reducing crime and violence which is one of the major reasons people are fleeing those countries, particularly in the northern triangle countries, fleeing those countries and seeking asylum in the united states of america pursuant to american
law. but we are e-- reviewing. we want to make sure our boarders are secure and we are treating people consistent with american law, not separating children from their families which we -- the president says he wants to perhaps renew that policy. we are vigrussly opposed to that policy. and we think the president is wrong in setting previous administrations in separating children. they did so in very few instances, almost exclusively when they were concerned with the safe i have to the child because of the parent's actions toward the child. so i will tell the gentleman we are going to be reviewing the president's request very carefully. ms. roybal-allard who chairs the committee, and mr. thompson who chairs the homeland security committee, both will be looking at it carefully and we'll be making recommendations in the
near future as to the disposition of that proposal. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. of course the final end of year spending bill we got a start on addressing the problem of border security. we had very intense negotiations. and the president laid out the multitude of things that need to be done to actually get full control over the board cher we do not have. that was a start. as the gentleman knows it surely hasn't stopped the flow of people who have been coming across and especially these caravan, these organized caravans in the thousands per day. per day. which is overwhelming our system. i wish it would stop. i wish we would address all the interior security problems and magnet laws like catch and release and asylum loopholes that are encouraging people to come here illegally and in many cases overwhelming our own system. but as the gentleman reviews that supplemental, hopefully we can come to an agreement on how
to, at least in the interim, address the problem but ultimately long-term we need a solution and we will continue to work on that i'll yield. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield, the point of reciting the dollars that were included just some weeks ago to the administration is to point out that they have clearly significant sums with which to operate now and we'll see what funds they need in the future but i wanted to point out that the -- that we have not been negligent or sleeping. with respect to both border security and the humanitarian treatment of those who come across our border seeking asylum. so that as i say we'll review it and see what determination is made on what further resources are necessary. mr. scalise: that debate will go
on. i want to ask the gentleman finally about legislation to confront b.d.s. movement, a major threat to our ally israel, attempts to undermine their economy. there's legislation and of course there's a bipartisan resolution, schneider-zeldin legislation which i strongly support which at least calls out the b.d.s. movement but as we've also seen we actually need teeth. we need real tools that we can provide not just our friend israel but also statesmark states that are also trying to confront this problem and push back against the b.d.s. movement. and the mccaul bill addresses that. very to a senate bill that passed with over 70 votes, very bipartisan, and in fact i believe there's legislation, there's amendments being put together to make the mccaul bill identical to the sthath bill and then the question is, can we get some kind of commitment? i know we've talked about this before, to bring that bill to
the floor so we can finally, truly confront this problem this growing problem of b.d.s. movement across not only the nation but within our country and do it with real treeth like the bipartisan mccaul bill and i yield. mr. hoyer: as the gentleman knows, i thank him for his observation, madam speaker, the bill to which he refers has essentially four parts. memorandum of provision with reference to the m.o.u. for israel assistance package which we strongly support. strongly support the levels of that. that was not controversial. also the syria sanctions bill. of course we have passed the syria sanctions bills and we're working on other bills that relate to that unfortunately, they are being held up in the senate by some republican senators and the syria sanction bill has not been moved in the senate, unfortunately. it also has the jordan m.o.u.
which is not controversial. andit has the syria, jordan m.o.u. are the three factors. one is controversial. it's controversial because whether or not it comports with the law there have been substantial number of state cases that have been ruled that state actions taking on this issue have been held not to be consistent with the law and the constitution. we're concerned about that because i share the gentleman's view, i am an opponent of the b.d.s. movement. i think it harms one of our most important allies. and it is inconsistent with, i frankly think, the welfare of the people in israel and frappingly the palestinians in the west bank. but having said that we are strong supporters of the resolution. that resolution has got
bipartisan support, i think, if it comes to the floor it will have bipartisan support. the gentleman indicated that. and we intend to come forward with that. but we are trying to work to make sure that other suggestions are consistent with law and we may move with those as well. but we haven't made that determination yet. i yield back. mr. scalise: i appreciate, i understand that there hasn't been any determination yet through best a growing frustration that this needs to be atresed by the congress. there's a move to initiate a discharge petition to get that bill brought to the floor and so those discussions will continue, hopefully we can address the problem of b.d.s. not only in resolution but also in legislation that has teeth in law to help those states that want to confront it and also to help in a bigger way our ally israel. final point is on the process that we've seen.
of course this week, only one bill that came under a rule. farce amendments go, we've seen a growing trend toward shutting out republican amendments and if i can just go through with the gentleman as we have looked in this congress, as we are, of the amendment that was come out of the rules committee, 74% of those amendments were democrat amendments, 14% were republican amendments and 12% were bipartisan. if i can compare the last congress when we were in the majority, there were in fact more democrat amendments than republican amendments aloud. 45% of the amendment wide receivers democrat, 38% were republican, in our republican majority and 17% were bipartisan. so when you compare last congress when we were in the majority, we actually let more democrat amendments to the floor than republican amendments, so far we have seen a complete reversal of that where our amendments have been shut out at a very high level.
again 74% to 14%. i would just ask the the gentleman can look at addressing this problem and try to bring some parity to the floor process as it relates to that disparity and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. of course what the gentleman didn't say is the last congress has the -- had the most closed rules of any congress in which i have served and had the most closed congress that we've served in, according to outside observers. but mr. mcgovern, chairman of the rules committee, there were 30 amendments available to this bill. i'm not sure how many were asked on the democratic side or the republican side, frankly, but having said that, there were republican amendments made in order. and we intend and mr. mcgovern, the chairman of the rules committee, has said he intends amendments made
in order as they believe consistent with getting our work done. so i would say to the gentleman, unlike the last congress, i don't think -- i think you'll see closed rules be very much the exception while frankly they were very much the rule in the last congress. but i take the gentleman's point andville discussions with mr. mcgovern. but as you know and i know he's one of the fairest members in this house and we'll p trying to accommodate members. i will also say the gentleman's statistics include the appropriations process where there were a lot of amendments. on both sides of the aisle. we have not gotten to the appropriations process, as you know, it's my intention we get to the appropriations process and frankly try to conclude the appropriations process next month. i'm sure there are going to be a lot of amendments on -- coming from both sides.
i hope when we get to that appropriations -- mr. scalise: i hope when we get that appropriations process there are open rules. you don't have to worry about your side breaking the closed rules since there was only one rule this week. hopefully more starts moving through the process. when we look at last congress we passed over 34 rule, 50 rules, i'm sorry, 50 rules last congress. so far this congress only 34 rules. we actually had 30 bills signed into law at this point in the congress, last congress. 30 bills signed into law under our majority. only 16 signed into law here. so hopefully we see more productivity as well as more openness in that process. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i think that the viers and the members of congress are probably being glazed over right now with these numbers but i'll tell the
gentleman there was not a single open rule in the house that was presided over by paul ryan. not one. not one. check your record. as i say, mr. mcgovern has clearly said that we want to soe amendments made in order that both sides can get a fair hearing. and i think he will -- he's been doing that. i think he'll continue to do it. and i'll yield back the balance of my time if the gentleman is -- i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman -- mr. scalise: as eyes are glazing over, for clarity, there were many rules where every single democrat amendment was included. so if you want to call it a modified rule, closed rule for people watching, when republicans and democrats go to the rules committee to try to amend the bill, when every single democrat amendment is allowed in, that is an open process.
today, for example, the only rule today, over 30 republican amendments were shut out. over 30 were shut out. so many times we had rules where every single democrat amendment was allowed in the last congress, more democrat amendments were allowed than republican amendments. but this hopefully can get addressed and corrected and maybe when we get to an appropriations process it will be more fair in that regard. i would yield if the gentleman has anything else -- mr. hoyer: at the risk of -- mr. scalise: at the risk of the five people watching. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. scalise: with, that i look forward to next week, hopefully -- with that, i look forward to next week, hopefully getting some of those things done. with that, i yield back the announcer: the house returns on tuesday. during the week, members are expected to consider a revised disaster assistance package. the new version includes $3 billion for midwest flood recovery and tornadoes in the
south, in addition to eight for puerto rico. the senate will continue working next week on judicial and executive nominations.live coverage is on c-span . also watch live online at listen on ther free c-span radio app. announcer: "the complete guide to congress" is now available with lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy, spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store. announcer: sunday night on "q&a," harold holder and amity