Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly object to this Soviet-style rules package. If you look at some of the things that are being laid out here, it is all designed to take away the voice of 48 percent of this House Chamber.

This is the people's House. It is one of the great things that we celebrate about serving in the United States House of Representatives, a privilege for each of us who took that oath yesterday to represent roughly 750,000 people, to bring their ideas, their hopes for America, to this House floor, to debate the things that they believe in, that we believe in, that we want to fight for.

We don't always agree. We don't always see eye to eye on what that is, but the beauty is we get to bring those ideas here, have that debate here. Yet, the rules package is attempting to strip that away, to yank away more rights for hundreds of millions of Americans to be represented on this House floor.

That is not who we are. That is not what the House of Representatives is all about. Yet, that is what will be voted on in this rules package.

Just look at the motion to recommit. Now, if the majority were allowing us, Madam Speaker, to bring amendments to the floor on a regular basis, you might not need a motion to recommit. But less than 20 percent of all amendments allowed on the House floor in the last 2 years were Republican amendments, less than 20 percent when we represent almost 49 percent of the Members of this body. That is not what an open, democratic institution is about. That is unbecoming of the House of Representatives. Yet, taking away that ability shows that the majority wants to shut down the debate of the other side, wants to shut down the voices not just of us but of the millions of people all across this country we represent.

Think about the move to get rid of paygo, pay as you go, which had been a hallmark of Speaker Pelosi's majority. She gets rid of that on things like debating the Green New Deal. What does that tell you? That tells you that, number one, they plan on bringing the Green New Deal to the House floor, but they also know that it would have devastating consequences on American families. The hardworking people--in fact, the ones who would be hit the hardest by it--are low-income families who would end up paying thousands of dollars more in household electricity costs. They want to hide that so they get rid of paygo so you don't have to show what the cost to hardworking families would be for radical ideas like that.

This is not who we are. I am a proud husband, a proud father of a son and a daughter. They don't even want you to be able to say that anymore.

Let's open up the people's House to real, honest discourse and debate. Let's debate our differences and settle them here on the House floor, not try to hide the views of 48 percent of this country.

I oppose this Soviet-style rules package.

Madam Speaker, the last vote that we just saw on the House floor is beneath the dignity of the House.

We have rules for a reason. Just because one party is in the majority, Madam Speaker, doesn't mean that the rules don't apply to them. The rules apply to all of us. Just as we are passing laws here, that ought to apply to all people fairly across this country. The reason we have these rules is so that we can rise above the fray.

We have disagreements on this floor. What is great about this country is we have the ability to come and battle over the disagreements, but we shouldn't get into personality conflicts on this floor. We shouldn't be trying to accuse people of one thing or another, disparagingly, on this floor.

That is why we have these rules, so that we can actually debate the issues that people care about rather than engaging in this constant barrage of personality attacks that we have seen week after week after week.

The American people expect us to be spending our time up here fighting for the issues they care about. They want us to be spending time focusing on lowering their prescription drug prices, lowering healthcare prices, rather than this foolishness. They want us to be solving the crisis at the border, not ignoring it, not disparaging it, but actually focusing on solving it.

These are easy issues for us to solve if we come together and spend real time in good faith working on them, rather than this foolishness.

Look at all of the other problems that our country faces, that people call on us to address. They expect that we are spending our time up here focusing on those problems, getting our economy back on track like it is now. It took people working together, and it is working.

We can do more.

Fighting the evils across this world, when you look at what Russia is doing, when you look at what Iran is doing, when you look at what China is doing, us to be coming together, standing up and working on those problems for the people who sent us here, not worried about ourselves, not fighting amongst

ourselves, but actually focusing on their problems, that is why we are supposed to be up here. That is why the rules of the House should apply to all people, not just selectively to some.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the concern, support, and prayers that have been offered. Obviously, we are all praying for the people of south Louisiana as Tropical Storm Barry approaches. In the next 24 hours, we expect landfall. We are surely expecting heavy rain.

I know, as I have talked to local officials, from the Governor to the mayor of New Orleans and other elected officials on the ground, they are prepared. They have asked for different things, including the Governor had asked for an emergency declaration.

I spoke to President Trump yesterday, and he did, in fact, issue that emergency declaration. So, all of the Federal agencies, from FEMA to the Corps of Engineers, to other Federal agencies, are working well with State and local officials to make sure they have the tools they need.

Our first priority, of course, is the safety of the people of south Louisiana. As they protect their homes and protect their property, we just encourage them to listen to their local officials, and, if evacuation orders are issued, we ask those folks to heed those warnings because it is a serious storm. And it is a storm that we are preparing for, but, as they say, you prepare for the worst but hope for the best, and we are doing all of that.

I appreciate the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the calendar next week and, specifically, the bill dealing with the minimum wage, I would ask the gentleman if he has looked at some of the studies that have been done, as well as some of the other actions.

If you look at the city of Baltimore, they had proposed and actually passed a $15 minimum wage, and the Democratic mayor of Baltimore vetoed that, specifically citing the job losses that would come with that kind of change.

The CBO report that just came out a few days ago, as the majority leader knows, cited that you could have up to 3.7 million jobs lost in America if that bill were to pass.

Mr. Speaker, we have a growing economy, a robust, growing economy. We are the envy of the world right now with our economy. People at every income level are receiving the benefits of that in terms of higher wages and more jobs--in fact, more job openings today than there are Americans looking for work.

This is the kind of opportunity we want for all people. In fact, as we are seeing, people at even the lower income, entry-level job levels are the ones benefiting the most from the tax cuts and the growing economy we have as a result of it.

So why, I would ask, would we want to reverse course and pass legislation that not only studies estimate would devastate low-income people--literally, the entire State of Oklahoma, 3.7 million people, eviscerated job losses. That many job losses would come from this bill passing.

You don't need to just look at estimates. You can actually look at what happened in the city of Seattle.

Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the city of Seattle instituted a similar $15 minimum wage. So now, we have a few years of actual data to look at what happened in a city like Seattle.

Mr. Speaker, the University of Washington did a detailed study of that minimum wage increase. What they found were similarly devastating numbers for low-income workers, the same people who would be hurt by the bill that the majority is going to be bringing up next week.

In fact, what the University of Washington study found was that you had roughly 3 million work hours lost, 5,000 jobs lost. They, in fact, found that the cost to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a margin of 3-to-1, devastating low-income workers the most.

If you look at not what might happen if we do this at the Federal level--where the estimates are we would lose 3.7 million jobs in America, mostly hurting lower income, entry-level jobs, those jobs where we want people to be able to get started to become part of the middle class, to become part of the American Dream, and taking that away from them--go look at what they did in Seattle when they actually did this, not when they talked about it, but when they did it, 3 years of data. The study showed it was devastating to low-income people.

I would hope that the gentleman has looked at some of this, the concerns that we have expressed along the way, and the recent CBO score that has underlined how bad and devastating this would be to low-income workers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out it is not we who are paying those wages. It is small businesses, small and medium-sized businesses that are paying those wages to workers.

What we have seen from the current economy, from cutting taxes, not from the government coming in and saying we are going to have some $15 minimum wage that has been proven in other places to eviscerate jobs, to kill jobs and hurt lower-income people, with our current economy, because of cutting taxes, lower income people are benefiting the most. They are seeing wages go up. They are actually seeing wages go up, and the data shows that.

That is why you are seeing such strong economic numbers right now, because the tax cuts are benefiting people at every income level, especially at the lower income levels.

When you talk about the jobs that would be lost, if we split it in the middle, if we go with the median of the study, that is 1.3 million jobs lost. Don't take my number. Don't take your number. Take the median number in the study, 1.3 million jobs. That is the entire State of Maine losing their jobs.

What we have also seen is that small businesses, as minimum wages go to a higher level, look at automating jobs, which means those jobs go away.

It is the low-income workers, the first job for many people, their first entry into opportunity where they can then become a homeowner, then become part of the American Dream, those are hit the hardest. In fact, the study shows that this bill would reduce family income by $9 billion.

I know we can look at it from different sides, but, again, if you just took the median, split the difference between your numbers and mine, you end up with 1.3 million jobs lost and devastation for a lot of people at the lower incomes.

The Seattle study shows not theory but what really did happen in a city like Seattle where they did this. By a 3-to-1 margin, low-income people were hit the hardest and hit very hard in a negative way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the 27 million, let's keep in mind that, as you look at what they studied on the impacts, it is the lower income workers, as the wages might even go up.

And, by the way, wages are already going up today. Without this bill, wages, real wages, are going up and especially benefiting the lower income, the entry-level jobs.

What President Trump wanted to do to rebuild our middle class that was evaporating--it, literally, was going away. We were losing our middle class to foreign countries because we were not competitive as a nation. And now we are competitive--not only competitive, but the envy of the world, the economic leader of the world.

Again, why would we want to bring a bill that would devastate?

And so those 27 million people, if you look again at the Seattle study, what they showed was that the cost to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of 3 to 1.

So even for those people who were getting a higher wage because other costs went up and their hours went down, the amount of time they were able to work was reduced, it actually had a devastating impact to those low-income workers.

So on one hand it might sound really good: Hey, you are going to get a higher wage; but, Oh, by the way, we are not going to be able to give you as many hours to work. And you saw that over and over again in the study, it showed millions of hours lost.

So somebody that is working two jobs, struggling to get by because they want to become part of the middle class, today they are actually seeing a wage increase if that was evaporated because of this.

Even for the people who would see a higher wage, the costs to them would be more devastating by a 3-to-1 margin if you go by what actually did happen in Seattle when they did it.

So that is why I just say that study would be important to look at, because it doesn't show just in theory, which the CBO has a lot of good underlying data to back up with, but then Seattle is where it really did happen and it was devastating to lower income workers.

If the gentleman had anything else on this, I would yield back. I did want to bring up another issue, though, but I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, maybe next week as this debate continues, we will see if I can be more persuasive with my friend, but likely not, but at least we ought to have that debate and at least get these sides out and aired.

Now, I do want to talk about something where I do think we have agreement but maybe a lack of understanding of a timeline, and that is the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. And we have had many meetings. I know we were in a meeting together with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. We know our friends in Mexico want this. Our friends in Canada really want this. We want this, too.

With only 8 legislative days left before the August recess, could the gentleman give an indication if there is the ability to include USMCA on the calendar in these next 2 weeks that we have available?

And I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and I share the same sentiment that Ambassador Lighthizer has done a great job of working with Members on both sides to address questions, concerns, find ways to make sure that those concerns are addressed, whether they are already inside the agreement or if there are other things that can be done to double underscore and highlight those concerns.

But, in the meantime, hopefully, we can move beyond trying to get to yes and actually have a bill where we can whip that and get to yes. I know we have a whip team that I have put together on our side that is ready to go and, hopefully, your side will be able to get there.

It would be ideal if we can do that before we recess. Clearly, that is not the only way to get this done, but we do have to respect, as well, that the other countries, our friends, Mexico and Canada, have an interest in this, as well.

Canada has elections coming up. We don't want to have this jeopardized and become something that gets pushed behind their national elections. Ideally, we can get it done well in advance of their elections and respect the fact that they would like this done, as well, and the good will that is being created between our three countries.

So I am hopeful that we can get through these final issues, get a bill that we can bring to the floor, work together to pass, and then see the benefits in our economy, see an improved NAFTA, a bill that is better for American workers and opening up more access to markets in Canada and Mexico that right now are closed.

So I thank the gentleman for the encouragement, and I remain hopeful, as well, and would continue to encourage that we get this done as quickly as possible.

Finally, on the NDAA bill that we just finished, we had, of course, disagreement on a number of fronts in terms of the priorities of our military, but I would want to bring up one point, and that was the piece of legislation, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act by our colleague, Joe Wilson.

When you all took the majority, you created a new mechanism for Members to bring bills to the floor called the Consensus Calendar. This was the first bill that actually met that criteria, in fact, far exceeded the 290 signatures--he had 365 cosponsors, incredibly bipartisan--to address a real serious problem for spouses of men and women in uniform who died fighting for our country, to make sure that an inequity is corrected that we both agree needs to be fixed.

Here is a bill that can quickly get to the President's desk, and maybe it gets included in other pieces of legislation that might come months away, but here is a bill where a Member worked in good faith, under the rules that were created, and it was unfortunate that the rule to bring the NDAA bill to the floor turned off the Consenus Calendar specifically for that bill, that one bill which happened to be the first bill that met that requirement.

I would just ask if the gentleman could maybe look again at bringing that bill to the floor as a standalone bill in respect of the hard bipartisan work that Congressman Wilson made to address a serious problem for spouses, widows of our men and women who die in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear about what happened.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee made this a political bill by putting poison pills in the bill that undermined our national security. That is not a partisan issue.

And so if you go back to the funding levels--I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I will absolutely be happy to specify what those are, but first of all, let's talk about funding levels.

It is not just about funding levels. If you have a funding level and then you put policy underneath it that limits our men and women in uniform's ability to train safely and to do their job safely and effectively, that is a poison pill approach.

It is a partisan approach. It should have never happened.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 58 years where Republicans and Democrats have worked alike together to pass a National Defense Authorization Act, not making it political, specifically in committee.

There is no Member of our Congress who works better with people on both sides of the aisle to support our men and women in uniform than Mac Thornberry. Mr. Thornberry worked overtime to try to heal this divide, to make sure a bill could come out of committee that was bipartisan, reflecting those 58 years.

In fact, the Senate did this, and I think the gentleman from Maryland knows this well. The Senate did not make it political. The Senate passed a bill with an 86-8 vote, with all the leadership of the Republican side and Democratic side voting together.

That was the approach we wanted to take, Mr. Speaker. If there was a better way, we should have done it together.

But the majority side went against even what Senate Democrats did and chose an approach, for example, that undermined our nuclear missile defense and that went against the AUMF agreement that, if your bill were to become law, would have made it harder for us to counter terrorism activities in the Middle East.

Why would we want to do that in legislation and hamstring our men and women in uniform? In fact, the bill that the majority just passed would undermine the gains we have made in enabling our men and women in uniform to train more safely.

Before we came up with the 2-year budget agreement that we got together, Republicans and Democrats, when we were in the majority, we were seeing our men and women in uniform die in training missions more than they were dying in combat. It was by a 5-to-1 margin that men and women in uniform were dying in training missions, planes falling out of the sky because they didn't have enough spare parts.

We finally started to address that. This bill undermines that, making our men and women in uniform less safe. That is not the approach we should be taking. If the gentleman wants to call that bipartisan, then go look at the fact that no Republicans voted for that bill and eight Democrats voted against it. It was a partisan approach. It was a bill that undermines our national security.

The Senate didn't do that. The Senate came together the right kind of way. It is the way we should have done it here.

If the gentleman wants to talk about the pay raise, let's be very clear and upfront about it. If we didn't even have this bill, our men and women in uniform get that pay raise. It is current law. It is like they are putting a provision in their bill saying the Sun is going to come up tomorrow, and then if it does, they take credit for it.

The pay raise was already going to happen, so they put it in the bill and say they gave the pay raise. It was already there. We got it into law when we were in the majority working with the Democrats. We didn't just say it was our way or the highway.

The NDAA bill, every year we were in the majority, was a bill that was worked on with Republicans and Democrats, and they didn't send it out of committee until they had complete agreement. That was an area where we didn't have political differences.

We are going to have political differences on minimum wage and some of these other issues, but we shouldn't have our men and women in uniform become part of the political divide in Washington. The Senate didn't do it. Our Members didn't do it and tried to work together.

If the chairman wanted to go his own way, that is not the approach we should be taking. It is not the approach we have taken for 58 years. It is not the approach that Senate Democrats took when they worked with Republicans to come up with a bill that put our men and women in uniform as a priority.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader can look at the bill and talk about what is in it. I will tell the gentleman that is already current law anyway. I will also tell him what the Senate did to make sure that they didn't have those poison pill provisions.

They shouldn't have been in the bill. Ultimately, they are not going to be in anything that becomes law. The gentleman knows it, and I know it.

What happened today shouldn't have happened. Maybe it is a lesson that when we get beyond this and we see what the final product is going to be, it will be a bill where we come together.

Ultimately, we will come together to make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools that they need to train safely and defend our Nation safely, but the bill that came out of the House today did not achieve that. It fell very short of where this House should have been in representing our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue this debate as the bill moves through the process, and we look at where the Senate started with a very large 86-8 vote, Republicans and Democrats working together and coming together, we can agree on funding levels. But if the underlying policy undermines the actual money that is being spent, undermines the mission, the ability for our men and women to train safely and defend our country safely, then the funding levels are not being spent properly.

It is about not just the money but how the money is being spent, the policies behind it that allow our men and women to train safely, to defend our country safely. That is an issue. We will continue debating that.

I would predict, in the end, a final product that goes to the President's desk is going to look a lot more like the Senate bill than the bill that came out of the House and, hopefully, addresses all of those problems that were identified earlier. We will continue that debate as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he has anything else.

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

Mr. 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), our distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman and I have been having the conversation for well over a month now about this crisis at the border. I am glad to hear that there is the possibility, maybe the likelihood, that there will be legislation coming to the floor to address the crisis.

I am also aware, as the gentleman is, that the Senate did just pass legislation out of committee to address the crisis. It was a 30-1 vote, a very bipartisan vote, to address the crisis.

In fact, I know that the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, worked closely with the White House to get to a point where, while they don't completely agree on all the details, it seems clear that the White House would be able to have this bill signed by the President, which, again, addresses the crisis before it becomes imminent shutdown.

There was a letter sent just days ago, and Secretary Azar has been making it very clear how serious of a crisis this is, literally to the point where they are about to run out of money to take care of young children who are coming over illegally, many of whom have serious health problems.

They want to take care of these kids. They are properly taking care of these kids, but they are about to run out of money to take care of these kids.

They just sent an Antideficiency Act notice, which means they basically are out of money that has been appropriated by Congress. It would be a violation of the law to spend any money after they have run out of money appropriated by Congress. Under this act, they can spend money in violation of that law if it is to preserve life and safety. They are at that critical of a point.

I make all of these points just to ask the gentleman: As we look at the Senate bill, while it might not be ideal, it can be signed by the President. We haven't seen any details of what my friend is working on right now. I am not sure how closely the gentleman has been working with the White House. Has the gentleman been working with the White House to come up with a bill that can actually be signed by the President in time to avert this crisis before they run out of money in a matter of days?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I just can't urge enough that as these conversations are happening and as this work is going on over the weekend that it is work not just among Democrat appropriators and Democrat leadership but that the

majority is working with Republicans as well and with the White House as well because we have been hearing that there may be some of what would be considered poison pills that might be added.

There are things that the agency is doing. For example, HHS is trying to find more places to house these children. They have over 13,000 children in their custody right now, in their care, and they want to take care of them. They need the money to take care of them. They are literally days away from running out of money to take care of them.

This is the midnight hour, but it is not the midnight hour because they just dropped it. This has been known for over a month. They have been asking for this money for over a month. They are days away from running out.

If this becomes a game where only a partisan bill is brought to the floor with poison pills that everybody knows the White House can't support, when we have seen the Senate take action with a 30-1 vote on a bill that the President can support, if a bill comes out of the House that does have those kinds of poison pills and limits the ability of the agency--not on the wall.

We are not even talking about all the other problems with the border and things that are causing so many people to come over illegally. We still have to deal with that. Now we are just talking about taking care of these kids.

The Senate proved that they can pass a bill in a very bipartisan way that can be signed by the President. We need to be working not just among Democrats but among Republicans with the White House on a bill the President can sign because if we don't pass a bill by the end of next week--the gentleman from Maryland makes the schedule. He knows the schedule. We are not here on July Fourth recess. Once we leave next week, if we don't have a bill that the President can sign passed through the House and through the Senate, they go into shutdown mode. They will literally be in shutdown mode after the July Fourth recess.

The employees of HHS will not get paid. They will have to be finding money to feed these young kids, over 13,000 of them, with moneys that are not appropriated by Congress. They will be out of money.

I appreciate that the gentleman has a group working on a bill, but I can't urge enough that this bill has to be bipartisan and in a way that the President can sign by the time we leave next week. If we go to conference because the House passes a partisan bill when the Senate proved that they can come together and pass a very bipartisan bill 30-1 out of committee that the President will sign--we have to be working on that same track.

Otherwise, if we leave next week without a bill that is signed by the President, they go into shutdown. Those 13,000-plus kids who are being treated will be being treated by HHS employees who won't be getting paid and with money to feed them and take care of their healthcare needs from who knows what account.

There is no money left. Again, this isn't a new problem. This has been known for over a month. We have been urging action.

I would just urge that while the work is being done over the weekend, can we get an assurance that it will be done in a way that we will be working with the White House like the Senate did, Republicans and Democrats, a 30-1 vote out of committee, that kind of approach as opposed to an approach that might include some poison pills that everybody knows then poison the well where it won't be signed by the President?

I yield to the gentleman, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for that commitment because I know that our teams will be talking. The leadership teams will be talking and working, hopefully, completely together in a way where, when we look at the Senate bill, there are components of the Senate bill that I would prefer not be in there, and I know there are things that the White House would rather not have in that bill, but there is give-and- take.

There has been give-and-take, and it has gotten to a point where they at least recognize that, with the things that they might not want, there are no poison pills in it. At least it gives them the tools they need so that the agency can take care of those 13,700-plus kids who are here.

We can talk all day about why a mother and father would send their 12-year-old daughter on a journey from another country into America, but it is happening. When they come here, they need to be properly taken care of, and that money is literally about to run out in days.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I appreciate that, and obviously, when you see that somebody would send their child--let's use Guatemala as an example because they are one of the countries where a lot of these young children are coming from. They went through Mexico. Mexico offered them asylum, and they turned that down and, ultimately, came to America.

I appreciate the fact that people look to America as that beacon of freedom. We are the beacon of freedom for a lot of reasons.

One of the reasons is because we are a nation of freedom and laws. We are a nation of laws, and we need to find a way to get back to the rule of law so that we can have an immigration system that works for everybody, not just for the people who come over one way but for the people who follow the rule of law to come here legally.

Millions of people are waiting today to come to this great country and ultimately will become part of the American Dream. They will add to the richness and greatness of our Nation.

But as those 12-year-old children are coming over, they are right now in the custody of HHS because of our laws. But under our law, they are literally running out of money.

The HHS Secretary sent a letter to all of us over a week ago. In that letter, he said that our valued Federal employees in ORR who care for children and place them with sponsors would be required to work without pay. That is from the Secretary of HHS. Under the law, his employees would be required to work without pay if we break by the end of next week without an agreement that is signed by the President to properly fund the agency that is taking care of these 13,700-plus kids. That was from the letter Secretary Azar and Secretary McAleenan, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, sent to every Member of Congress over a week ago.

The agency has told us what the crisis is. They have told us they are about to run out of money. They have sent the Antideficiency Act notice to make it clear that under the law, if they run out of money, the only money they can spend is for life and safety of those kids, and they are going to be doing that.

But we can prevent that from happening. We need to prevent that from happening.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I need to and, hopefully, will work closely together--not isolated, but together--over the weekend to come up with a bill to solve this problem, recognizing that the Senate is going to, hopefully, move their own bill that, while flawed, does address the basic needs, so that those children can be taken care of and the employees can be paid, and we can come together and get a bill done by the end of next week.

The urgency of getting it done by the end of next week can't be understated because, after that, they have made it very clear they do run out of money. It is not a new issue. It is not something that is thrown at us at the midnight hour. For more than a month this has been identified.

So, I appreciate that we are going to work to get it done. Let's make sure we do work to get it done.

I know there are a lot of other issues we can talk about: the appropriations process, the need to come together on an agreement on what the proper levels of spending are and should be, that the President would also agree with us on, so that we can be writing appropriations bills that would actually have the chance to get signed into law and prevent a shutdown, that kind of impasse, by the end of September.

This is the emergency, immediate need. There are other things that we need to keep working on, and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the coming days and weeks to address those problems as well.

If the gentleman has anything else, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the political differences between the parties are not mutually exclusive to Republicans. Clearly, we have had ours within the Budget Committee.

Now that you are in the majority, the Democrats on the Budget Committee could not come to an agreement amongst themselves about how to get a budget, which is why the Democrat majority, the gentleman's Democrat majority, didn't pass a budget. The first time in 9 years that the Budget Committee hasn't produced a budget out of committee.

We produced all 8 years we were in the majority. We had differences, clearly, and some of those were well written about in the press, but we ultimately came together and passed our budgets, every year of the 8 years, out of committee.

Many of those not only got through the floor but went into law. Sometimes we got those 2-year budget agreements so we didn't need the second year.

This is the time to be working on negotiating our differences. I am glad we are having these conversations on finding out if we can get to a caps deal.

Even the Acting Chief of Staff, Mr. Mulvaney, who was mentioned, would like to get a 2-year deal. I am sure he has some things he would like in a deal that the gentleman wouldn't agree to, but that is going to be negotiated. That is why we have negotiations in June, not in September when it is the midnight hour.

So, I am glad we are having these talks now. Of course we have differences within our parties, the gentleman's party and mine. Ultimately, amongst ourselves, we will have differences, but the ideal objective is that we come together well before the September 30 deadline.

That is why it is important that these discussions are being held now, not in September, so that we can hopefully get that agreement and then write appropriations bills.

I think the gentleman knows, the bills that he is moving through the process this week, next week, are not bills that will be signed into law, not only because, in many cases, the spending levels are well above what we would agree to but, also, the many poison pill amendments that will ultimately get worked out in a conference committee. They won't be in a final product.

But let's at least try to get in agreement on a caps deal. We are in a time frame where, at least, it is responsible to have these differences earlier, not later, in the fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I do appreciate this is part of the process. And, again, I say the reason that it is good that we are having these talks now is because, as we have our differences--the gentleman within his own party, the gentleman with us, us with the Senate, maybe with the White House--we have time to work that out now, and we don't wait until mid- September, late September, to try to get that kind of agreement.

So, we will continue to have these discussions. I am glad we are having these discussions at this early point so that it is not midnight-hour discussions like we were talking about on the supplemental.

Final point: I wanted to just commend the gentleman. We had a very good meeting yesterday, our two leadership teams, with the Canadian Prime Minister.

Mr. Trudeau was here to talk to us about a number of things. Of course, USMCA is the most imminent and most up-front issue. Mexico just passed the agreement.

I know we are having discussions to see if we can find a path forward for the House to move USMCA and get a better deal with our partners, both on the south and north, Canada and Mexico.

They loaned us Lord Stanley's cup. We are going to loan them the NBA trophy for a little while. But, beyond those trade issues, we do, I think, have some common ground on some trade issues that had been needed to be resolved for a long time.

I know we are going to continue to have those discussions, Mr. Hoyer with the White House, to hopefully get to a point where we can, then, get that agreement in place. But I do appreciate that we had a very productive, bipartisan meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and we appreciated that he was here on behalf of his Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I am equally hopeful we can get that resolved, and I appreciate the gentleman's work on that.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I bring a bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by Congressman Cedric Richmond and Congressman Garret Graves. What this amendment is really designed to do is highlight the fact that, as we are embarking upon another mission now to Mars, an ambitious mission to get men back into space, ultimately to go back to the Moon, that we also want to make sure that, as we are investing billions of dollars in this incredible equipment and incredible technology that America has been so ingenuitive in designing, that we also make sure we are maintaining those facilities that are key components to building a lot of that technology and building these massive rockets, like the SLS for Orion.

I am proud that we have the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. It is actually in Congressman Richmond's district and has been a key component to the space program going back to the Apollo days. There is tremendous pride with the workforce and these massive facilities that help design and build this incredible technology that allows these missions to the Moon and these missions to Mars, ultimately.

So, as America is embarking on this great mission and an ambitious mission that we should always continue to achieve, we are proud of our Administrator of NASA, Jim Bridenstine, who actually came from this House, served in this House, and now is very engaged in making sure that this next ambitious mission to both the Moon and to Mars is being carried out properly.

Again, we just want to highlight the fact that, as we are doing this, we want to also make sure that we are maintaining those facilities that are going to build the massive rockets and other technology and equipment that will get us there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I know we have been starting and going through the appropriations process. I would like to ask the majority leader about the conversation we have been having for weeks and weeks, going back to May 1, when the President submitted a supplemental emergency spending bill to address this serious humanitarian crisis at our southern border.

We have had this conversation multiple times in the colloquy. I continued to ask the majority leader when we are going to see a bill on this House floor to address this serious crisis. Each week, we have not been given an actual timeline. In fact, as the majority leader just went over the schedule, there is still no mention of a supplemental bill to deal with this crisis.

I know we have been seeing multiple attempts by Members from our party. I would hope that there are some from the gentleman's party that have recognized that we have to deal with this. We can't keep putting it off.

If the gentleman would look at The New York Times just this week, the headline is: ``When Will Congress Get Serious About the Suffering at the Border?''

I want to read a couple of statements from it because it contains some things that we have been saying that are just not getting enough coverage across the country. More and more now, we are seeing how serious this is. This is about to come to a head, not in months, not in years, but in days.

We are talking about young children who are right now in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, many of whom are coming over with health diseases, serious diseases, who they are able to turn over right now to Health and Human Services to care for their needs.

They are about to completely run out of money. This isn't a new development. They have been saying this over and over for weeks.

The Presidential supplemental request came out on May 1. On May 3, at our colloquy, I inquired of the majority leader: When will this happen? We never got a timeline. On May 10 in our colloquy, I asked the majority leader: When will Congress address this? Still no timeline. Just last week, I brought it up again.

I want to read what The New York Times said in their description of how serious this is, they said: ``It's time to cut the squabbling and pass an emergency relief package.''

Here is a comment from John Sanders, who is the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, ``We are in a full-blown emergency, and I cannot say this stronger: The system is broken.''

Just in this fiscal year, HHS has taken charge of nearly 41,000 unaccompanied children. On average, every single day, over 200 young children are referred to HHS for medical needs.

HHS is about to run out of money in a matter of days, and Congress has still not taken action.

There is a letter that I will be happy to enter in the Record.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and U.S.

Department of Homeland Security.

Dear Member of Congress: We continue to experience a

humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border of

the United States, and the situation becomes more dire each

day. On May 1, 2019, the Administration requested $4.5

billion in emergency appropriations for the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS), the Department of Defense, and the Department

of Justice to address the immediate humanitarian crisis at

our southern border. We write today to ask that you

appropriate this funding as soon as possible.

We cannot stress enough the urgency of immediate passage of

emergency supplemental funding. This funding will provide

resources that our Departments need to respond to the current

crisis, enable us to protect the life and safety of

unaccompanied alien children (UAC), and help us to continue

providing the full range of services to the children in our

custody.

While Congress has been considering the request, the

average daily number of UAC in U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) custody has grown from nearly 870 on May 1

to more than 2,300 today. This is because the number of

arriving children greatly exceeds existing HHS capacity. As

of June 10, 1,900 processed UAC were in CBP custody awaiting

placement in HHS care. However, HHS had fewer than 700 open

beds in which to place them. HHS has significantly increased

the rates at which we are discharging children to sponsors,

but UAC are waiting too long in CBP facilities that are not

designed to care for children.

This is a direct result of the unprecedented number of

arriving children. As of June 10, DHS has referred over

52,000 UAC to HHS this fiscal year (FY), an increase of over

60 percent from FY 2018. Preliminary information shows nearly

10,000 referrals in May--one of the highest monthly totals in

the history of the program. If these numbers continue, this

fiscal year HHS will care for the largest number of UAC in

the program's history. HHS continues to operate near

capacity, despite placing UAC with sponsors at historically

high rates. HHS is working diligently to expand its bed

capacity to ensure that it can keep pace, and based on the

anticipated growth, HHS expects its need for additional bed

capacity to continue.

On May 17, the Administration notified Congress of an

anticipated deficiency in HHS's Office of Refugee

Resettlement's (ORR) UAC program, as required by law. Absent

an emergency appropriation, HHS anticipates running out of

funding as soon as this month. The Anti-Deficiency Act, which

is a criminal statute, requires HHS to take actions to

minimize the deficiency and only to fund operations that are

essential for the safety of human life and protection of

property--similar to those activities allowed during a

government shutdown. In the last few weeks, because of

rapidly depleting funds caused by the border surge, ORR was

required by law to scale back or discontinue awards, and had

to instruct grantees that new awards cannot be used for UAC

activities that are not directly necessary for the protection

of life and property, including education services, legal

services, and recreation. This was done solely to ensure full

compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act and stretch existing

funds as far as possible for the life and safety of children.

ORR would not have had to take these actions to preserve

essential operations if requested supplemental funding had

been provided. lf Congress acts quickly to provide the

requested supplemental funding to address the border surge,

ORR will be able to restore these services. Until such

funding is provided, ORR will only be able to pay for

essential services to protect life and safety.

It is unprecedented for a critical child welfare program to

run out of funding, and ORR is in close contact with grantees

about expected impacts. Once the UAC program is entirely out

of funding, grantees will have to care for children with no

federal reimbursement until an emergency appropriation is

enacted. It is unclear if grantees would be operationally

able to continue caring for UAC, as many are small nonprofit

organizations. This funding lapse could also negatively

impact grantees' willingness to care for UAC over the longer

term and ORR's immediate ability to add new child care

facilities to address the overflow of children in DHS border

facilities that were not designed for children. Our valued

federal employees in ORR who care for children and place them

with sponsors would be required to work without pay.

It is not only the UAC program that will be impacted. On

May 16, HHS notified Congress that the Anti-Deficiency Act

requires HHS to reallocate up to $167 million from Refugee

Support Services (RSS), Victims of Trafficking, and Survivors

of Torture to the UAC program if activities do not meet the

criteria in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b)(l)(B). Last week, HHS

informed the state refugee coordinators and refugee

resettlement grantees in 49 states and the District of

Columbia that ORR was withholding third quarter funding for

those programs. The RSS program addresses barriers to

employment for refugees such as: social adjustment,

interpretation and translation, day care for children, and

citizenship and naturalization. Again, this was not a

decision that ORR wanted to make, or took lightly. HHS's hand

was forced by the current funding situation and the law. HHS

must ensure that it is fully compliant with the

AntiDeficiency Act and that HHS stretch its existing funds as

far as possible to protect the life and safety of children

who are presently, or should be, in HHS care.

While the primary concern of both of our Departments is the

safety of children in our care, DHS faces changing dynamics

at the border that continue to stress its ability to respond.

For example:

More groups are illegally entering the United States, and

they are getting larger.

On May 29, U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents apprehended

over 1,000 migrants illegally crossing from Mexico as one

group, overtaxing border operations. Over 400 migrants were

apprehended within five minutes only two weeks before.

The number of migrants has escalated. with more vulnerable

populations arriving.

In May 2019, an average of more than 4,650 people daily

illegally crossed into the United States or arrived at ports

of entry without proper documentation. In May 2017, the daily

average was under 650 illegal crossings per day.

May 2019 experienced more than 144,000 total enforcements

on the southern border, a 32 percent increase over the

previous month and the highest monthly total since March

2006. This follows two months exceeding 100,000--sustained

levels not seen in over 12 years.

As of June 10, 2019, more than 17,000 people are in CBP

custody, including over 2,500 UAC.

The USBP apprehended nearly 85,000 individuals in family

units in May 2019 along the Southwest border. An additional

4,100 individuals in a family unit were deemed inadmissible

at Southwest border ports of entry. The vast majority of

these individuals have been released into the country due to

a lack of space and authority to detain them. By comparison,

in all of FY 2012, USBP apprehended just over 11,000

individuals in a family unit.

Border Patrol agents are spending more than 50 percent of

their time caring for families and children, providing

medical assistance, driving buses, and acting as food service

workers instead of performing law enforcement duties.

Border Patrol agents are making on average 70 trips to

hospitals every day to urgently get care to these

individuals, further diminishing their ability to perform

their official duties.

The Centralized Processing Center in McAllen, Texas, and

other CBP facilities have experienced outbreaks of flu which

has required standing up separate quarantine facilities to

reduce the risk of further exposing children and other

vulnerable populations to infectious disease. While agents

are providing the best care possible, these groups need more

appropriate care, and they need it now.

If DHS does not receive additional funding, it will be

forced to take drastic measures in August that will impact

other critical programs that support DHS missions throughout

the country. All DHS components, including the Transportation

Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency,

the Coast Guard, and portions of CBP supporting legal trade

and travel will be required to redirect manpower and funding

to support measures to address the crisis.

In addition to the supplemental, it is clear that we need

bipartisan legislation to address the causes of this crisis.

We urge Congress to take swift action to provide the

necessary funding to address the severe humanitarian and

operational impacts of this crisis and to enact reforms to

the root causes of these problems so that they do not persist

into the future.

Thank you for your most immediate attention to this matter.

A copy of this response will also be sent to your state's

executive leadership.

Sincerely,

Alex M. Azar II,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Kevin McAleenan,

Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I know the majority leader received this letter, as has the Speaker, from the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Homeland Security earlier this week, saying: ``We cannot stress enough the urgency of immediate passage of emergency supplemental funding. This funding will provide resources that our Departments need to respond to the current crisis, enable us to protect the life and safety of unaccompanied alien children, and help us to continue providing the full range of services to the children in our custody.''

They are trying to take care of health and life needs. This is life and death we are talking about.

In a matter of days, they will run out of money. This has been going on for weeks and weeks, and Congress hasn't taken action.

I would ask the majority leader if we can get a commitment that this House will take up this legislation that has been sent weeks ago. The majority has had time to review it and hasn't addressed this serious problem. When are we going to see action from the House?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate the urgency of acting next week, not trying to act next week.

I don't have an opportunity to do this often, so I will quote The New York Times again because it is not something I am normally used to doing. But to quote them: ``It's time to cut the squabbling and pass an emergency relief package.''

I know there might be differences over some of the details. There is no wall funding in the request for the President.

The big battles that we had last year, this year, I am sure, will continue on how we can actually secure the border. I would hope we, over the next few months as we debate the appropriations bills, keep coming to an agreement on how to secure America's southern border.

The magnitude of this problem can't be overstated. Just in the last month, over 144,000 people came across illegally that we apprehended. Those are just the ones we know about. This is 3 months in a row now we have had more than 100,000 people coming across illegally. The average is over 3,000 people per day.

And when we look at the amount of young children who are coming across sick, again, more than 200 children every single day are being referred to HHS for healthcare needs. That is the crisis that we want to address today.

This isn't the bigger debate on wall funding, and so I hope we can separate those two, but recognize the President's request did not include a dime for wall funding for this humanitarian crisis. I would hope we would treat it in an isolated way, as it was submitted.

I would just refer to the gentleman when Barack Obama was President and we were in the majority. While we had differences with President Obama, including on immigration, he sent out a request in 2014. His request was for $3.7 billion for an additional border supplemental to address the crisis at the border.

We still had a crisis back then. We have a worse crisis today. But when President Obama submitted that request for $3.7 billion, we didn't squabble over it. I am sure we might have had some disagreements, but in less than a month, we, this Republican House, passed the full amount that Barack Obama requested when he was President and sent it back out of the House. That was quick action. I am just urging we have the same kind of quick action.

We can disagree on the wall funding. Again, this isn't that disagreement. This is a request from the President that was made in May and that is literally coming to a head in days, where HHS has told all of us--nobody is disputing it--HHS completely runs out of money and has no ability to take, safely, any more children who are being sent to them.

And they are coming over at more than 200 kids a day not who are coming across illegally, but as Homeland Security receives them, over 200 a day have serious enough health needs that they are sending them to DHS or HHS. HHS has told us clearly that they will run out of money in a matter of days. I hope it is in a matter of days that we take up the request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I know when we talk about the broader immigration problem, President Trump has been very clear that he wants to work with Congress to solve the problem, the bigger problem, not just a wall, but full border security and closing those loopholes.

In fact, Mexican officials have even pointed out that America's broken asylum law is one of the biggest magnets that is drawing people through their southern border, up to our southern border, and into our country. They even acknowledge it. We need to fix that. We need to work together as a Congress to fix that problem.

President Trump offered to solve the DACA problem. He still hasn't found a willing partner. We need to keep working at that.

We have just had testimony in a committee earlier this week where it was pointed out that, as people come over, unfortunately, they abuse children over and over again because young children are a ticket into the country much quicker than other illegal means, and so they abuse these children over and over again. It is one of the many reasons why we need to solve that problem.

But when they get that asylum ticket, then they are sent into the interior of the country and are told to come back and see us in years, sometimes, for their court date. Ninety percent of those people who get that court date don't show up. We don't know where they are. That is how broken the asylum law is. We need to fix that.

Again, that is not this request. We can have that debate another day. We need to have that debate another day.

When my friend's party was in the majority last time, when Barack Obama took office and when Speaker Pelosi was first Speaker and there was a supermajority in the Senate on the Democratic side, there was never an attempt to bring a bill through Congress to solve the immigration problem. I would like to see us come together and do that. We need to do it. But today, we need to solve the immediate crisis. We will have that broader debate later. Hopefully, by next week we can get that done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, we can continue that work through the weekend and get that done next week. I know there is other work the House is getting ready to take up on the appropriations bills.

On one final note, as we approach Father's Day on Sunday, I would also like to wish the gentleman from Maryland a happy birthday tomorrow. So, hopefully, the gentleman has some fun events planned this weekend, maybe go eat some Maryland crabs. If my friend is really lucky, we will give him some gulf crabs from the Gulf of Mexico. I won't sing ``Happy Birthday'' to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to give the gentleman a review of the restaurant. I am sure it will be really good.

I wish the gentleman well, and I wish all fathers a happy Father's Day this weekend.

I look forward to seeing the gentleman back in a few days, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. 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), the majority leader.

Madam Speaker, as we start the appropriations process to, ultimately, get to the point where we are able to pass our appropriations bills prior to September 30, I think the gentleman recognizes that the only way we will have an opportunity to get to a point where we don't have a shutdown is if we are in agreement, both between the House and Senate as well as with the White House, on the actual number, the amount of money that the Federal Government would be able to spend in that year.

We have had agreements in prior years, budget agreements, on how we are going to do that. I think the gentleman understands that even within the Democratic-controlled House, there is not an agreement. The Budget Committee, the majority's Budget Committee, was not able to pass a budget. It was not even able to pass out of committee an amount of money to determine what we could spend in the House or the Senate. There is not an agreement at all.

In fact, if you look, it is the first time in 9 years that the House Budget Committee did not produce a budget. That budget, that is usually the document that says this is the amount of money that the appropriations bills can ultimately equal up to, whether it is defense or all the other bills.

Next week, more than half of the discretionary spending of the country is going to be on the House floor. The Department of Defense bill alone represents more than half of the discretionary spending, and there is not an agreement between the House and Senate or with the White House on how much we are going to fund defense.

I would like to see us get that agreement, but, clearly, the gentleman

knows we don't have one. Unfortunately, those bills are typically bipartisan, and the Appropriations Committee has produced a very partisan defense bill. That doesn't happen often.

I wish the Democrats on the committee would have worked with the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee to produce a bipartisan bill so that we would have a better chance of getting something that can get signed into law.

If we want to avoid a shutdown, the best way to do it is to work with both parties, not just produce a Democrat-only bill. That doesn't happen too often. Unfortunately, I think that is the direction we are headed.

I would like to ask the gentleman, number one, if he has any kind of idea on how we are going to get to a budget agreement, an agreement on some kind of spending forecast, so that we can have a picture of how we can get bills that can get signed into law and an amendment process that would be fair to both sides.

I think we have talked about this before, how so far this Congress, it has been very tilted, where the lion's share of amendments that are coming out of the Rules Committee are only Democratic amendments. There has been a history this Congress of shutting out Republican amendments on the floor, and I would hope there would be a more fair process as these important bills--DOD, Labor-H, and some of the other bills--are going to be coming to the floor, where the Rules Committee would at least allow both sides to speak as we try to produce a bill that could be bipartisan but, so far, has not been.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I share the majority leader's understanding that there is a negotiation going on to see if we can get an agreement on the budget numbers. We are not there yet.

I understand the gentleman that the majority has to move, at some point, on those appropriations bills next week. We all know that the bills that are being moved are not bills that we have an agreement on and, unfortunately, started off on a very partisan nature. Hopefully, we can get to a more bipartisan nature in the bills, bills like defense, that are coming up.

We want our military to be properly funded, and we want our military to have the certainty that they don't have to operate under a CR, they don't have to operate under a cloud of potential shutdown.

Our men and women in uniform, as we get ready to honor the brave sacrifices that were made on D-Day--tomorrow, of course, marks the 75th anniversary of D-Day and the heroic efforts that so many made, sacrificing their lives. Over 10,000 American soldiers died, and, of course, we reflect and pause to thank them for their sacrifice, to recognize that sacrifice that they made.

And just as they did, today we have men and women in uniform risking

their lives for our country. And we don't want to have this potential that, if we get to September 30 and can't get an agreement on what that proper level should be, that they should worry whether or not they are going to get paid.

So, hopefully, we can keep that work going, those conversations and negotiations going to finalize an agreement that we can get. We are not there yet. We will see where it goes next week.

We then want to shift over now and talk about what else is going to be on the floor next week, and that is going to be this contempt resolution. I haven't seen the language. I don't know when the gentleman's side plans to file.

I would ask the majority leader, it is clear that there is a march to impeachment, that this starts, maybe, the formal march to impeachment on the House floor. But just this Sunday, the majority whip was asked on a TV show if he felt the House was going to impeach the President of the United States, and he said yes.

There has been no evidence that would necessitate an impeachment. We had this nearly 2-year investigation by Mr. Mueller, and it was all about whether or not there was collusion between the President and Russia. They looked into whether or not there was any kind of interference by Russia in our elections.

Of course, he did find that there was interference by Russia. Russia tried to interfere with our elections while Barack Obama was President of the United States.

Now, what did Barack Obama do to stop that? I don't know. I don't know if that is going to be investigated--it should be--whether or not the President did everything in his powers at the time to stop Russia from interfering with our elections.

We need to work together to make sure it doesn't happen again. That should be our focus.

There was no collusion, by the way, and he found that. There was no obstruction of justice.

I know the committee wants to keep focusing and looking into everything that they can to try to find more evidence that wasn't there, but if they start bringing and you start bringing resolutions to hold, for example, the Attorney General in contempt--we haven't seen what the charges are, but some of the things that the Judiciary Committee has asked the Attorney General to produce, if the Attorney General produced that information, he would be violating law.

Why would you hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress for not breaking the law?

Those are some of the things we have seen. Again, we haven't seen the final language. We have heard some conjecture by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, by others who want to start this impeachment drumbeat.

Madam Speaker, I would just urge caution to the gentleman as the House floor becomes politicized to just try to impeach the President because some people just don't like the fact that he was elected in 2016.

There will be an election next year. There are a whole lot of people on the Democratic side who are already trying to get the nomination to unseat the President, and that debate is already going on in the country, and it will happen in full next year.

Let's let the people of this country decide who the President of the United States is. Let's respect the fact that the people of this country, in 2016, said they wanted Donald Trump to be the President of the United States, and he is the President of the United States, and he is carrying out his duties, and he is carrying out the agenda that he campaigned on, as it should be.

If somebody wants to carry out a different agenda, next year they are going to have that opportunity to present it to the people of this country.

But even though there was no collusion identified by the special counsel, this idea that we are still going to just start bringing legislative instruments to the floor like contempt and then, ultimately, as the majority whip said Sunday that he felt that there would be impeachment on the House floor, I would just urge caution to the gentleman. This next week, this legislation that is going to be brought forward is all a part of that.

We should respect this process more. We should respect the fact that the Attorney General of the United States has an obligation to enforce the laws of this country. And when he is asked by Congress to do something that would actually violate laws, we ought to respect the fact that he said he would come and testify to the Judiciary Committee, to the members of the Judiciary Committee.

Then the Judiciary Committee changed the rules of the game and said they didn't want Members of Congress to question him; they wanted staff to question, which would be unprecedented, so he didn't come. But he did say he would come and testify to the committee under the normal processes that have always been in place.

So with that, again, we haven't seen the legislation yet. Once we do, we will review it, but I would just urge caution.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Well, the gentleman mentioned a lot of things that I think need to be addressed.

First, the idea that there is some coverup. Let's recognize and remember that for nearly 2 years of the Mueller investigation, President Trump fully complied with all of the requests that were made, and when the Mueller investigation was completed, first of all, Mr. Barr, the Attorney General, had an opportunity to review that report and give a summary to Congress.

During that period, Mr. Barr invited Mr. Mueller to review the report, to review his summary. Mr. Mueller chose not to participate in that. And so ultimately the Attorney General then gave Congress a summary, which made it crystal clear there was no collusion after almost 2 years and over $30 million of taxpayer money looking into this where the President fully complied, his administration fully complied, and they were probing everything.

The gentleman will yield, but after I first go through this because these are important points to make because anybody that wants to use the term ``coverup'' ought to be very cognizant of what they are talking about when we talk about that investigation. Because that investigation was as thorough as any that we have seen, and the Attorney General and the special counsel were both involved in reviewing it, but the special counsel had an opportunity if he found wrongdoing to file charges. And the gentleman from Maryland knows that.

He could have filed charges, and he filed absolutely no charges. There were no charges filed, because there was nothing wrong that was found.

The task was to see if there was any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign while Russia was interfering with the elections. We know Russia interfered with the elections.

Why did the Obama administration allow Russia to interfere with the elections? That is a question we should be probing. Why? Not just to go back in time, but to make sure it doesn't happen again. And how much time is being spent going and looking and seeing just exactly what Russia did to interfere with our election while Barack Obama was President? They are not doing that. They want to go after all these witch hunts, and was there more collusion. There was no collusion.

And so instead of saying, okay, they tried for 2 years. You had members of your own leadership team saying they had evidence of collusion, and yet, there was no evidence of collusion and they have never come forth and said they were wrong. They have never brought forward what their mysterious evidence was, because there was no evidence, because there was no collusion. And so instead of that, they are continuing to say, let's just hold contempt hearings for the Attorney General here on the House floor.

The majority whip says the House will impeach the President. The gentleman hasn't answered that. Well, where is that going to happen? When is that going to happen? Why don't we actually focus on the problems of this country? Because the same committee that continues down these rabbit holes and on these witch hunts, that same committee that has jurisdiction over this whole Mueller investigation that found no collusion, no charges filed by the special counsel, that is the same committee that has jurisdiction over the border crisis.

And the gentleman knows we have a crisis at our border. It is a serious crisis because we don't have control over our border yet. We need to get control over our border, but in the next 2 weeks-- literally, in the next 2 weeks the department of DHS is about to run out of money to deal with this crisis.

And the President of the United States submitted a supplemental request to this majority asking to give additional funding so that we can take care of those kids that are coming over every day in the thousands, the unaccompanied children where the Department of Health and Human Services is about to run out of money to take care of those kids.

And so what happens to those kids? If they come over illegally, the law says what Homeland Security has to do. And if they come over and they are sick, which some of them are coming over very sick, they are turned over to DHS where DHS takes care of them, and DHS has told you they are about to run out of money and not a thing has been done.

In fact, when the Labor-HHS bill was in subcommittee, one of our Members actually filed an amendment to try to include the money, so that we can keep taking care of the health needs of those kids that are coming over illegally, and that was rejected on a party line vote. Your party voted against that. And the committee of jurisdiction, instead of focusing on how to solve this problem, how we can help resolve this problem in a bipartisan way, which it should be bipartisan, we all ought to care about these kids that are coming over that have a lot of health issues that we are trying address, but they are about to run out of money. And what are we going to do about it? We have asked that this majority do something to address that request that was sent down from the President weeks ago.

But we are literally facing a crisis in a matter of days where they will run out of money. When is that going to be addressed by this majority? We have asked for it to be addressed, and it hasn't. So when is the Speaker going to bring legislation? Would the majority leader be willing to bring legislation? For weeks we have talked about it right here in this colloquy, and it hasn't been addressed. And so before it becomes a crisis where literally DHS cannot take and care for the health needs of these kids that are coming over, why don't we address it now, instead of waiting until they truly run out of money, can no longer take care of those kids and bad things would happen. I don't want those bad things to happen. I know you don't want those bad things to happen. And the President doesn't want those bad things to happen. That is why he sent that supplemental request weeks ago, and it hasn't been dealt with.

I yield to the gentleman.

Four.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would share a lot of the disagreements we have with how the Senate does business, whether it is a Republican or Democratic Senate.

Their rules, in many ways, work to undermine much of the good work that we do here in the House, whether it is a Republican or Democratic majority. We can find a lot of common ground on that disagreement.

As it relates to immigration, I, too, believe America has this unique place in the world as that shining beacon for anybody who seeks freedom, anybody who seeks the liberty that has been fought for with blood and treasure by so many heroes throughout generations to make America the place that people look to when they think about freedom.

We are also the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration, and we are proud of that. That is something we celebrate. We let over a million people a year into America to be a part of the American Dream, to come to seek the American Dream, and that is what it should be about.

It should be about seeking those things that make America great so that more people can come to add to the richness of this country. We do that, but we also are a nation of laws, and we can't lose sight of that at the same time that we want to maintain that beacon.

We only maintain it if we also maintain those great laws that we take an oath to uphold. All of us take that oath. That oath is critically important, because as people want to come here, they want to come here because of what America is. It is our job to preserve the greatness of what America is.

If we start to lose that, if we start to look the other way and ignore this law and try to undermine that law, it really weakens the greatness of our democracy.

When you look at the differences we had on the House floor, so many of us wanted to address the problems that are created by not having a secure border. But when you say, for example, that if somebody comes here when they are actually in a gang database, and by law, we can't even look at that database to see if that person coming into our country is a member of a gang or committed violent crimes, that is not what is the richness of America. We want to maintain the dream that people come here to seek.

We may disagree on the methods of getting there, but let's keep working to try to get to a better place, something signed into law to fix the problems with our immigration system, to get

back to a functioning, legal immigration system, instead of having thousands of people, whether they are part of that culture that wants to seek the American Dream or whether they are coming here to undermine what is great about America, think they can just traipse through, thousands a day at a time, because we have not secured our border.

In our homes, we have windows, doors, a yard. We might have a fence. But if we lock our door, we are locking it for a reason. It is not because we don't want anyone inside. It is because we only want to let in the people who are coming to be a part of what is great about our family and about our home. If somebody wants to come to do us harm, that is why we have the lock on the door.

We let over a million people a year into our country, and that is part of what is great about our Nation. No other country in the world, by the way, is close to the generosity in letting people into their country every year. No country is letting in over a million people a year.

We need to get back to a system where our immigration system works.

We passed a bipartisan bill last week to take care of the disaster needs of so many people around the country, and it was bipartisan. It was an example of what works.

There were some Members who objected. Some of them objected because the humanitarian money that is needed to address this crisis at the border wasn't in the bill.

I am glad the gentleman acknowledged that we need to work to resolve it. Hopefully, we can do that next week before the crisis hits, before DHS actually runs out of money so that we have a severe crisis.

Let's work together to stop it. I know the gentleman has acknowledged he wants to do that. While there are some other things that are going to be on the floor next week that, unfortunately, will be very partisan in nature that we will disagree on, let's also try to work to address that crisis so that, again, we get back to the richness of what's great about this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and look forward to working together next week on the things that we can accomplish for this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate my friend, Royal Roth, on his well-deserved retirement after a long and

happy career. On June 30, 2019, Royal will finish out seventeen rewarding years at the United Parcel Service (UPS), where he currently works as a Vice President in the UPS Global Public Affairs group.

Royal is a welcome and familiar face to many of us. He found his way to Washington via the campaign trail, while working for the late First Lady Barbara Bush during the 1992 election. After the election, he landed at the National Republican Senatorial Committee before moving onto then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole's staff.

After several productive years on Capitol Hill, Royal moved on to The American Trucking Associations before joining UPS in 2002. Royal has worked tirelessly on behalf of American workers, taxpayers, and businesses over the past decades. He retires at the height of his career, with an impeccable reputation and much hard-earned good will behind him.

While Royal will be missed in Washington, he and Patrick will enjoy spending more time shuttling between New Orleans and Fairhope. As an avid University of Alabama football fan, I know we'll always be able to find him watching his beloved Crimson Tide play in Tuscaloosa (and sometime soon, lose to LSU). It is with many thanks for his friendship and years of service that Jennifer and I congratulate Royal and wish him well as we send him off on this new chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the conversations and negotiations that are going on regarding the disaster supplemental. I know the gentleman is well aware that there are some good, I think, very fruitful, negotiations going on. Clearly, we want to make sure about some of the things that weren't in the bill that went out of the House, especially as it relates to the crisis at the border, as it deals with unaccompanied children, as well as making sure that we get the right kind of help to our farmers who had devastation to their crops in these disasters.

I ask the gentleman if he can give an indication of a timeline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Hopefully, those conversations do continue on.

I am encouraged by the negotiations in terms of how both sides seem to be willing to get this resolved and, hopefully, quickly, ideally, if we could have a bill on the floor next week that would be a very bipartisan bill to address this so that we can get the relief.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to ask about the appropriations process because I know the gentleman from Maryland had talked earlier this week about a desire to have the entire appropriations process completed by the end of June. He also talked about a robust amendment process.

I would just ask the gentleman, as we look at this week, the concerning trend that we have been talking about a few weeks now, when amendments came out of the Rules Committee this week, 26 amendments came out that were offered by Democrats, and only 1 amendment was allowed by a Republican.

As the gentleman from Maryland talks about a robust appropriations process, I would hope he would pay closer attention to fairness in that robustness, because 26 Democrat amendments allowed and only 1 Republican amendment allowed is surely not a fair process. It might be considered robust, but in a hyperpartisan sense.

So I hope as we get into the appropriations process the gentleman, and especially the leadership from the Rules Committee, would take into account that this is a process where the House should be able to come together and offer their ideas and let the will of the House prevail, but at least allow for that debate here on the House floor on as many amendments as possible in as fair a way as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate that, and, again, we will be watching and, hopefully, see that they become more fair as we get into that appropriations process.

Finally, I would like to ask the gentleman about legislation that has been filed that is a companion to a Senate bill that passed the Senate with a vote of 77 votes to stand up against the BDS movement.

As we both know, and I know the gentleman has been supportive of these efforts, the concern is that Israel continues to come under attack by many countries around the world trying to delegitimize their economy and delegitimize their status as a Jewish state by this movement to undermine their economy, to boycott and divest from Israel.

So we have legislation. The companion bill is H.R. 336 by Mr. McCaul from Texas. It doesn't have the concerns. There were some concerns over the way that the Senate bill came over, but at least we do know, because of the vote, with 77 votes, it was a very bipartisan vote.

There is strong concern by the Senate to address this and strong concern by many Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to stand up to the BDS movement, and not just in words.

Clearly, there are resolutions out there. We can all give speeches and say that we are against it, but it actually takes real action and real effort, things that are in the legislation that give teeth to our stand against BDS and for Israel.

Of course, if you look at some of the examples in the legislation, not just words, but $33 billion in military assistance to Israel, security cooperation enhancements, things that ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative edge to defend itself from the daily threats that, unfortunately, we see from other countries and terrorist organizations that want to undermine their status as a Jewish state.

With that, could the gentleman give us an indication, would there be a timeline that we can establish to bring this bill to the floor short of the discharge petition?

There is a discharge petition with more than 180 signatures already on it to bring this bill to the floor, but it would be a lot better if it were truly bipartisan from both leadership sides saying that we are willing to stand up against this movement, not just in words, but in deeds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

We will continue to discuss it. I appreciate that.

Clearly, as we have an interest in not just expressing our words, like on many other important issues, we have to back that up with laws, legislation that gives teeth to the words and gives true support to our friends, especially Israel, in such a time of need where this movement is growing. And we want to move as quickly as possible, so we will continue to have this conversation and, hopefully, get a formal timeline as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Clearly, the Senate looked at that as well and worked through that. They actually made some changes to the bill which we conformed into this. The discharge petition has a rule that will actually conform it to the Senate to address those issues.

Again, the Senate bill got 77 votes, highly bipartisan, especially on such an important issue. So, hopefully, we will continue those conversations and come to an agreement on a timeline that is expedited.

Mr. Speaker, unless the gentleman has anything else, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding and for his kind words, too, especially. He has been a great friend and a great leader on this front. I want to commend him for taking on the task of putting together a budget, Madam Speaker, that confronts some of the challenges that our country is facing in a way that not only protects those promises that were made, for example, to seniors.

Seniors were promised the safety net of Medicare, and yet, if we do nothing--and there are some suggesting that we leave Medicare where it is today--it actually goes bankrupt, Madam Speaker, in the next 8 years. It would be irresponsible for us, as Members of Congress, to sit back and say we are afraid to confront these important issues, because failing to confront them literally would lead to a bankrupt program for seniors today and a broken promise by the Federal Government to those seniors.

So we save Medicare from bankruptcy and, in fact, we do it in a way that nothing changes for current seniors. In fact, the only thing that would change is if we didn't do this, it would go bankrupt. So the program is actually solvent again, not only for current seniors, but for younger people, too, who don't think it will be there. In fact, it won't be there for them the way it is for current seniors if we don't make these bold reforms.

Madam Speaker, we also save the Social Security program, another important promise made to people who work through their years and then want to retire and have a safety net. And, today, maybe they have got a lot of other means of savings, too. They might have 401(k)s, or they might have a pension plan from their company. But they also paid into that Social Security trust fund. And, again, if we do nothing, that program goes bankrupt, as well. So we save that program, again, not only for current seniors, but then for younger people. It will also be there for them, too, generationally saving it.

Just like when Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill to save Social Security from bankruptcy, they did it in a way that actually strengthened the program. So for those people who want to hold their head in the sand and say, don't do anything, not doing anything means those two vital programs--Medicare and Social Security--would go bust for seniors today. We can't let that happen.

Madam Speaker, I thank our leader, Mr. Banks, for doing that.

And then, again, we strengthen defense. We continue to build on the reforms we have made to our economy so that we are able to create more jobs, so that we repeal the death tax. We continue lowering taxes, which has gotten such a great revolution in job creation and higher wages for workers. The things that we are doing that are working, we build upon those things and make this country even stronger and greater for generations.

So while putting a budget together is tough--and I know the other side hasn't even passed a budget out of committee, Madam Speaker--we, with this RSC budget, have shown what bold conservative reforms can do to strengthen programs like Medicare, like Social Security, encourage innovation in failing programs, block granting Medicaid to States so States can innovate, strengthening defense, and, again, building on the great successes we are seeing in our economy so that wages can be higher, and we protect people with preexisting conditions.

These are the kinds of things that people call on us to do. We come here to Congress to do the big things, to tackle the tough problems in a way where we protect people who count on us and actually strengthen this country for future generations, so we can build on this great American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the majority leader for going through the schedule and walking through some of the bills we are going to be taking up next week.

As we just dealt with disaster funding, I know the gentleman is well aware of the disagreements that have been expressed by many on our side, as well as the President and some Senators over there, about some of the things that weren't in the disaster bill, some of the problems regarding the crisis at the border, to help make sure that we can do better at addressing that crisis that is real and that is growing, as well as some of the problems that were identified in the agriculture funding that was included in the bill where it was identified that there are some problems in the language to help some of our farmers get the actual money that they needed.

A lot of those fixes have been negotiated, and those talks have gone on for a few weeks now.

I would hope that as the bill goes over to the Senate, the gentleman and his side would continue to work with our side--House, Senate, Republican, and Democrat--to achieve a bipartisan disaster relief bill that can ultimately get all these problems addressed and signed by the President.

Those conversations are ongoing. Hopefully, they will continue through the weekend, and when the bill gets over to the Senate, then we can try to get all of that resolved so we can quickly move that bill through the process to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, first, to address the comment that was made about reluctance on Puerto Rico, it is kind of hard to suggest there is reluctance to help Puerto Rico when we have appropriated more than $90 billion already and want to continue to make sure that Puerto Rico has the relief that they need. Again, over $90 billion of money from the United States Government has already been appropriated.

We have other issues that we need to address, including some problems with the money in the bill that was supposed to go to farmers. It has been identified that a lot of that money can't get to the farmers who need it.

Many American farms that are going under can't get the help they need. Those problems were identified, and we would like to get that fixed.

There were other issues, such as the President's supplemental. The supplemental was $4.5 billion of additional money that is needed to help with this crisis at the border.

I know some on the other side are in denial about the crisis, but it is real. We have had in recent weeks days in which on one day, a single day, more than 4,000 illegal crossings occurred multiple times.

Secretary Jeh Johnson under President Obama said that when he would get that report every day--it was the first report he would get as Secretary of Homeland Security--of how many people crossed illegally the day before, if more than 1,000 crossed illegally, it was a bad day.

Today, we are seeing experiences through Homeland Security where more than 4,000 people cross our border illegally per day. That is a crisis that has to be dealt with.

It is why the President sent a supplemental funding request, and we would like to see that included in this bill. We tried to start addressing that problem.

I know maybe there is an inability on the other side to look into this properly because there is so much fixation with collusion, Russia, and denial about the Mueller report that showed there was no collusion.

We just saw the Judiciary Committee come out with a contempt finding. I don't know if the gentleman is planning any floor time to bring contempt to the floor, the bill that just came out of the Judiciary Committee, but it would be unprecedented--probably the first time in American history--that somebody was found in contempt of Congress for not complying with the law, for not breaking the law.

The Judiciary Committee was, literally, asking the Attorney General to break the law; otherwise, they would find him in contempt. Unprecedented, probably, in our country's history.

This is, by the way, the committee that has jurisdiction over the border and the laws relating to our Nation's immigration laws.

So, while we have got a crisis at the border, you would think the committee of jurisdiction would be focusing on helping to solve the problem and bringing bills to the floor to solve the crisis at the border, instead of all of the things that they continue to do to try to harass the administration and maybe move towards impeachment, to which they have alluded, as opposed to solving the real problems that this country is facing.

So, I would hope that the focus would shift to solving this serious problem and to giving it the attention it deserves and looking at the President's request on the supplemental to fix this crisis at the border, so we can finally get control over it and help all those millions of people who are trying to come to America the right way.

The great part of our immigration law: We let in over a million people a year--the most generous nation in the world. Yet, we have got a crisis where, on some days, thousands of people per day are trying to cross illegally and are crossing illegally.

I would hope we can come together and agree that we have got to solve this problem, and that is what the supplemental request starts to address. It surely doesn't address it entirely. And we have had that debate over the last few months, and we will continue that. Hopefully, we can resolve that, too. But, in the meantime, I would like to see us address that problem.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, let's be clear. On the problems with our immigration laws, the gentleman mentioned asylum. We all know right now, somebody comes across the border on a daily basis--in the thousands on some days. And they come across and claim asylum, coming through illegal parts of our border, not the ports of entry.

The President has made it clear: If you are seeking asylum, there is a legal way to do it. Come through a port of entry and properly seek asylum.

Many people know there are coyotes, people who make money human trafficking people across the border, and they read from a script. They all know the script. Whether they are seeking asylum or not, they just read the script, and they are let in.

We see it all the time, and they know the game. It is a game, because it is a loophole in the law that we have tried to fix and haven't gotten any help from the other side.

But they know that if they read the script and they know--ironically, they have come through multiple countries that have offered them asylum, and they have turned down that asylum.

So that is not the right way to do it. The President said: Come the right way. Nobody said--you have never seen the President say get rid of immigration laws. He said fix the immigration laws, secure the border, have a legal way to come here, and get rid of things like the visa lottery system and turn it into a merit-based system to make this law work better for the people who want to come here and seek the American Dream.

And I know we have beaten this to death, and we will continue to debate it. Hopefully, we get some real conversations over the weekend to solve these other problems in the disaster bill that aren't included and clear up the number.

We have seen a number of $90 billion plus that has been appropriated to Puerto Rico. Regardless, clearly, it is well over 50, probably closer to 90. We will continue to talk about that as well and address this problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the next week to come.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding and for leading on this issue for the economy of the United States of America and for hardworking families.

If you look at what getting back in the Paris accord would do, Mr. Speaker, it would wreck our economy in many different ways.

The people hardest hit by the United States getting back in the Paris accord are the very people who don't need to be hit the most, those with the lowest income in our country, because it would increase energy costs. By outside estimates, this bill, complying with the unachievable requirements that they have in this bill, would cost up to 2.7 million American jobs.

Those jobs wouldn't just evaporate, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs, ironically, if we were to get back into the Paris accord, would go to China and India because China and India, according to the accord, are exempt until 2030. They don't even have to comply.

By the way, why don't we look at the countries that are begging us to get back into the Paris accord? Not one of the countries in the entire European Union is in compliance with the unachievable targets set in the Paris accord. In fact, France, which Paris is in, is not even in compliance with the target.

Then they tell us: Hey, America, why don't you come into this thing, this disaster of an agreement that none of the countries in Europe are in compliance with?

Then you look at what it would do, again, to wreck America's economy.

Let's talk about carbon emissions. If this is really about carbon emissions, like the Green New Deal and other crazy ideas that would wreck the American economy, get rid of fossil fuels. You don't have to fly around on planes anymore. You don't have to worry about missing a flight because there wouldn't be any flights. That is how ludicrous their ideas are, yet they believe in them.

They all do this under the guise of carbon emissions. As they say on the other side, climate action does have some cost. Let's talk about that cost: $250 billion in higher taxes, as well as lower wages for American families.

You wonder why they are rioting in the streets of France. In Paris, where the accord was signed, they are having riots over this radical idea. By the way, again, they are not even in compliance with it.

Then you look at where these jobs would go. The jobs would go to China and India, which are not only exempt, Mr. Speaker, but those countries actually emit four or five times more carbon than we do here because we have good environmental standards in America.

We have been decreasing our carbon emissions in America. In fact, we have decreased our carbon emissions down to the level that they were at in the year 2000.

We are doing it not by signing some radical job-killing accord; we are doing it through American ingenuity, something we have always celebrated in this country, something that we are the world leader at.

Why would we want to give that advantage away? And not just giving it away in the name of saving the planet, giving it away to countries like China and India, who are increasing carbon emissions dramatically higher than us.

This is a disaster for our economy. We need to reject this bad deal.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill that would create a government takeover of the internet.

If you look at the bill, first of all, it is always interesting to pay attention to the titles of bills--the Save the Internet Act. Whom do you want to save the internet from? Many would say they want to save it from the heavy hand of government.

I have asked my friends on the other side of the aisle to please show me what is so broken about the internet that the Federal Government needs to come in to save it.

First of all, if you look at the growth of this great industry, this is one of America's greatest exports. It is one of America's greatest economic drivers. Some of the best jobs in America are created from the technology industry that has boomed and thrived because of the growth of the internet.

How has this internet grown? It has grown because there is no heavy hand of the Federal Government slowing it down. If you go back to look, as the internet continued to grow, as applications continued to get developed on all kinds of devices, small handheld devices, the things that people are able to do, the improvements in their daily lives, because of the growth of the internet, the private money that has come in, billions of dollars of private money has come in to help develop this great superhighway. It has come in, in large part, because the Federal Government hasn't figured out how to regulate and slow it down.

Then along comes this bill. Let's be keenly aware of what this bill is trying to do. The bill actually imposes what is called title II regulations of the internet. What are title II regulations? These are laws that were created in the 1930s when there was a monopoly telephone company.

You would have to google it these days because most people might not remember, but they used to have these little plugs that they would push in and pull out. You would literally pick up a telephone that was plugged into a wall back then--it wasn't a remote device--and you would call an operator and the operator would patch you through.

That was the series of laws that they are now trying to apply to the internet. Can you imagine these archaic 1930s laws being forced upon the internet that is growing so robustly that we are the envy of the world? Our technology, American technology, is dominant in this industry because the government doesn't have these heavy-handed regulations.

Then along comes this bill, the Save the Internet Act, to save us from this growth, to save us from this job creation. I think people can clearly see what is going on here. This is a battle we are having on a lot of fronts. It is a battle of individual freedom versus government control.

Should you have the choice to decide which provider you want to get your internet service from? The great thing about the internet today is there are so many different people competing for your business, and they are spending billions of dollars to do it.

Take a look at 5G. Maybe you are on a 3G network or a 4G network, and now all of these private companies are spending their own money, billions of dollars, to build out a 5G network.

Mr. Chairman, what we would like to see is more of this competition. Yet if you go back to look when the Federal Government did try this-- because this isn't some newly created idea. Back in 2015, when there was a different administration in the White House, a different FCC, the FCC started to impose these kinds of regulations and limit the growth of the internet. What happened during that period in 2015? You saw a dramatic drop. Over $3 billion of investment went away. Private money that used to come in to grow and expand these networks, 3G, 4G, hopefully 5G, when the government started to impose these kinds of regulations, people stopped investing because they said the Federal Government telling them how to spend their private money so that we can have a better, faster internet, they weren't going to do it.

If you look at what this bill doesn't do, that is the really interesting part. When they talk about the people who are limiting content and closing off lanes to the superhighway, it is not those service providers. It is the edge providers.

These big companies that are the application developers that actually do control your data, they are not part of this bill. They were exempt from this bill.

So the thing that we want to do and see is a freer, more open internet, which we have already. The government is not regulating the internet today, and it is growing and expanding to the point where we are the envy of the world. We have some of the best job creation in this industry. We don't need the Federal Government to come in and save us from this great growth and expansion.

Let's let the internet stay free and open like it is today without the heavy hand of the Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend, the majority leader of the House for the purpose of inquiring about the week to come.

Only because we are no longer in the mix as well.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to a robust debate on the unaptly titled bill, ``Save the Internet.'' I think a lot of people shiver at the thought of the Federal Government saving us from the internet.

The title II regulation that would be imposed would allow the internet to be regulated like a utility. This is not the phone company of the 1970s. This is probably one of the greatest innovations that America has produced for the world, allowing us to be a world leader, dominant leader, in a growing technology field. Primarily because the government hasn't figured out how to regulate it, it has been able to grow so robustly.

I would hope that we have that full debate and people are very aware of the negative connotations and, ultimately, the damaging effects of a Federal regulation of the internet that could slow down that dramatic innovation that we have seen with the Federal Government not regulating it. It will be a robust debate.

Hopefully, we debate a number of other issues. I know we had a robust debate on the floor just a little while ago on the BDS movement. It is a growing concern for all of us who feel passionately about Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.

I know the leader has been a leader in this Congress and a leader throughout this country in an incredibly bipartisan way standing up for that unique relationship, but we have seen threats from other countries. You have seen heavy debate in Europe.

You have seen debate in areas in Palestinian circles that want to undermine Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State by trying to boycott products made in Israel, to crush Israel's economy. That is why it is so important that we stand up against this BDS movement.

While we weren't successful in the motion to commit, there is legislation that is incredibly bipartisan.

S. 1, a bill that has come over from the Senate, unfortunately, hasn't been referred to committee, nor, also, H.R. 336, similar legislation that would allow us to help support our friends around the world who want to stand up against the BDS movement and stand with our good friend Israel.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman, is there any plan to allow either or both of those bills to come to the floor so we can send a strong message to our friends around the world and to enemies of Israel, as well, that we are not going to support this BDS movement.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, if I could further inquire, S. 1 has not been referred to committee. Is there a plan to refer the bill to committee and, ultimately, to allow it to move through the process, as it has been incredibly bipartisan but also incredibly timely, that we as the United States Congress stand with our friend Israel and stand against what is a growing movement that should be of concern to all of us?

I yield to the gentleman.

That is correct. And I know those pieces of legislation are just resolutions, not actual policy.

And, ultimately, if we are going to make the stand, it has to be legislation with teeth, with actual authorizing language and with the ability for us to give true support to our friends--not just words, but actions as well.

So, hopefully, we can move both, and I would just continue to urge.

And the gentleman from Maryland's support for Israel is unquestioned and has been admired by people on both sides. I would just urge that we, as a House, move those bills, one or both of the actual substantive bills, to the floor as quickly as possible, as they have already moved through the Senate.

S. 1 had 77 votes in support--so, strongly bipartisan--coming out of the Senate, but still no referral in the House. Hopefully, we can get that expedited.

And with that, on the idea of legislating by resolution, I know that has been a growing trend in this Congress of this majority to move, instead of substantive bills to deal with things like lowering healthcare costs or helping create more jobs.

There have been a lot of bills that are just press releases, resolutions that

don't actually change law or help change policy or work in a bipartisan way to get bills to the President's desk that can address the growing issues that our country faces.

Are we going to see a continued trend in this majority of just resolutions, or are we going to finally get to bipartisan policy on some of these big issues?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, opposed unanimously on our side, if I can point out.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

It was heavily debated in the Energy and Commerce Committee, as it should be, and I am sure it will be heavily debated on the floor.

A number of these other issues that the gentleman mentioned, you know, we litigated those on the floor. The ones that went over to the Senate, some with only Democratic votes, you know, H.R. 1, for example, the Senate majority leader made it very clear that bill will not get any time on the Senate calendar. There are a lot of others that we would like to see real movement on.

I know there was concern of a lot of people that there were three different committees in the House this week that spent the bulk of their time going after the President personally again.

We have got the Mueller report coming. The summary has already been laid out and made it clear there was no collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction of justice. We will see the report.

What we talked about was that the report be filed in compliance with law, and the law makes it very clear that things like classified information aren't released. That is the law. I think we agreed that that is how it should be, that you don't release classified information. You release the pertinent date.

I look forward to seeing that, and we will see that. But, then, it seemed like a continued assault in three different committees continuing to focus on harassing the President personally, as opposed to focusing on some of those policies.

But one of the policies that should be coming out of the House where there is a real deadline is the budget. April 15 is the deadline.

I know, over and over again, Members of the Democratic leadership, including the Speaker, herself, said: Show me your budget. Show me your values.

There is no budget. And we have been concerned that the agenda doesn't follow--the priorities in the budget are really what you lay out. Those are your values. Those are your priorities.

While they are moving a bill that lays out caps, it is not bipartisan. But, ultimately, when we get a caps agreement, the gentleman knows it is going to have to be a bipartisan agreement.

Last night, the Budget Committee produced only a partisan, one-corner deal--barely a one-corner deal. Typically, they have what are called four-corner deals where the House, Senate--Republicans and Democrats-- come together and say: We are going to agree on what those spending levels need to be so that we can then write our appropriation bills, set the priorities of the country, and avoid a government shutdown.

That didn't happen in the Budget Committee. It was a very partisan bill that was moved out; but, more importantly, it was not a budget.

I would hope that with the little bit of time that is remaining to meet that legal deadline that the majority would try to actually produce a budget and follow through on those over-and-over again quotes: ``Show me your budget.'' ``Show me your values.''

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Hopefully, we can get a bipartisan agreement on what those levels need to be to properly fund our defense, to properly do the other things the government should do and limit the ways it can possibly be carried out, and then, ultimately, to be able to get the bills that follow it passed in time, well before the September 30 deadline.

One of the areas that there is very productive movement on is the new trade deal between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, USMCA. I know there are bipartisan working groups. The White House has been in negotiations with the majority, the Speaker and your team.

Can the leader give any insight into where the conversations are going in the House to get a timetable for when we can start having a plan for that?

You look at Canada's House of Commons, they have their own deadline of when they rise, and, obviously, we want to be aware of our other partners that are included in this negotiation.

Is there talk of a timeline yet, if the leader could share where those conversations are going.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I am encouraged by the conversations that both I have been in as well as the conversations that I am aware are going on on your side as well, because this is a bipartisan win for the country.

This agreement would help ensure that, as we all support free trade, we also want more fair trade, and this agreement, in many different categories and many different industries, would help create more American jobs and help American workers get treated even more fairly by our neighbors to the north and south.

Finally, if I may inquire of the gentleman, we have talked a number of times about the Born-Alive Act, the bill that we have made multiple unanimous consent requests to bring up the discharge petition moving through the process. There are other means to bring it up even quicker, and one would be if the gentleman would schedule the bill for the floor.

I would just inquire: Is there any plan to schedule the Born-Alive Act on the floor through a direct means versus some of these other tools that are being considered?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's candor.

We will continue to pursue other tools that we have available as the growing momentum around the country builds, as people saw what happened in New York with a law ushered in that allows babies to be murdered after they are born alive, the Virginia Governor gruesomely describing what he hopes to be a similar law in his State, other States taking those same kinds of actions. So there is a growing bipartisan interest that feels very strongly that we need a Federal law to protect babies who are born alive outside the womb.

So we will continue to pursue all of those tools that are available and look forward to the workweek ahead next week as we finish our work prior to the Easter recess.

Does the gentleman have anything else?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I yield back the balance of my time.