Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Four.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.