Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would point out that the President's executive order on section 1332 does nothing to change the protections in law for people with preexisting conditions under ObamaCare. As the gentleman knows, the law protects people with preexisting conditions from facing any kind of discrimination, and the section 1332 waivers have nothing to do with that.

What they do is allow some States--and there have been a number of States who have requested--the ability to be more innovative and focus on lowering premiums while protecting preexisting conditions.

Those States that have taken advantage of that waiver have used it to, number one, provide healthcare in different ways, more innovative ways for their Medicaid population.

That is something we should all encourage because Medicaid in many States is the worst form of healthcare. In many cases, doctors don't even take Medicaid policies and don't see Medicaid patients, so they can't get access to care.

These waivers are a way to help open more access to care at lower costs, in many cases, while protecting preexisting 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 for additional funding to address this wave of people who are coming into our country illegally.

In many cases, they have run out of detention beds. They are overwhelming the system, and it has been reported very widely. That is 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 be addressed.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, at the final end of your 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 get full control over the border, which 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, especially these caravans, these organized caravans, in the thousands 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 the asylum loopholes, that are encouraging people to come here illegally, in many cases overwhelming our own system.

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. We will continue to work on that.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, that debate will go on. Hopefully, we can start addressing some of the long-term problems.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the gentleman, finally, about legislation to confront this BDS movement, a major threat to our ally Israel. It attempts to undermine its economy. There is legislation, and of course, there is a bipartisan resolution, the Schneider-Zeldin legislation, which I strongly support, that at least calls out the BDS movement.

As we have also seen, we need teeth. We need real tools that we can provide to not just our friend Israel, but also States, many States that are also trying to confront this problem and push back against the BDS movement. The McCaul bill addresses that, similar to a Senate bill that passed with over 70 votes--very bipartisan.

In fact, I believe there are amendments being put together to make the McCaul bill identical to the Senate bill. Then the question is, can we get some kind of commitment--and I know we have talked about this before--to bring that bill to the floor so that we can finally, truly confront this growing problem of the BDS movement across not only the world but within our country, and do it with real teeth, like the bipartisan McCaul bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate it. I understand that there hasn't been any determination yet, but there is a growing frustration that this needs to be addressed by the Congress. There is a move to initiate a discharge petition to get that bill brought to the floor, so those discussions will continue.

Hopefully, we can address the problem of BDS not only in a 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.

My final point is on the process that we have seen. Of course, this week, there was only one bill that came under a rule. As far as amendments go, we have seen a growing trend toward shutting out Republican amendments.

If I can just go through it with the gentleman, as we have looked in this Congress, of the amendments that have come out of the Rules Committee, 74 percent of those amendments were Democratic amendments; 14 percent were Republican amendments; and 12 percent were bipartisan.

If I can compare it to the last Congress when we were in the majority, there were, in fact, more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments allowed. Forty-five percent of the amendments were Democratic; 38 percent were Republican in our Republican majority; and 17 percent were bipartisan.

When you compare last Congress when we were in the majority, we let more Democratic 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 percent to 14 percent.

I would ask if 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 to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. I hope when we get to that appropriations process that there would be open rules, as we did.

And I guess the gentleman doesn't have to worry about his majority breaking the record of closed rules, because this week we only had one rule, and, in fact, again, a modified rule, where over 30 of our amendments were shut out. Hopefully, more legislation starts moving through the process.

When we look at last Congress, we passed over 50 rules last Congress. So far, this Congress, only 34 rules. We actually had 30 bills signed into law at this point in the last Congress, 30 bills signed into law under our majority, only 16 signed into law here. Hopefully, we see more productivity as well as more openness in that process.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Well, 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 a 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.

With that, I look forward to next week, hopefully get some of those things done.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source