Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

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. 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.

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

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

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

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. 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. SCALISE

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), who is the majority leader.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I hope when we get to that appropriations process that there would be open rules, as we did. And I guess the gentleman doesn't have to worry about his majority breaking the record of closed rules, because this week we only had one rule, and, in fact, again, a modified rule, where over 30 of our amendments were shut out. Hopefully, more legislation starts moving through the process. When we look at last Congress, we passed over 50 rules last Congress. So far, this Congress, only 34 rules. We actually had 30 bills signed into law at this point in the last Congress, 30 bills signed into law under our majority, only 16 signed into law here. Hopefully, we see more productivity as well as more openness in that process. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. Well, as eyes are glazing over, for clarity, there were many rules where every single Democrat amendment was included. So if you want to call it a modified rule, closed rule--for people watching, when Republicans and Democrats go to the Rules Committee to try to amend a bill, when every single Democrat amendment is allowed in, that is an open process. Today, for example, the only rule today, over 30 Republican amendments were shut out--over 30 were shut out. So, many times we had rules where every single Democrat amendment was allowed. In the last Congress, more Democrat amendments were allowed than Republican amendments. But this, hopefully, can get addressed and corrected, and maybe when we get to an appropriations process, it will be more fair in that regard. With that, I look forward to next week, hopefully get some of those things done. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate it. I understand that there hasn't been any determination yet, but there is a growing frustration that this needs to be addressed by the Congress. There is a move to initiate a discharge petition to get that bill brought to the floor, so those discussions will continue. Hopefully, we can address the problem of BDS not only in a resolution but also in legislation that has teeth in law to help those States that want to confront it and also to help, in a bigger way, our ally Israel. My final point is on the process that we have seen. Of course, this week, there was only one bill that came under a rule. As far as amendments go, we have seen a growing trend toward shutting out Republican amendments. If I can just go through it with the gentleman, as we have looked in this Congress, of the amendments that have come out of the Rules Committee, 74 percent of those amendments were Democratic amendments; 14 percent were Republican amendments; and 12 percent were bipartisan. If I can compare it to the last Congress when we were in the majority, there were, in fact, more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments allowed. Forty-five percent of the amendments were Democratic; 38 percent were Republican in our Republican majority; and 17 percent were bipartisan. When you compare last Congress when we were in the majority, we let more Democratic amendments to the floor than Republican amendments. So far, we have seen a complete reversal of that, where our amendments have been shut out at a very high level, again, 74 percent to 14 percent. I would ask if the gentleman can look at addressing this problem and try to bring some parity to the floor process as it relates to that disparity, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, that debate will go on. Hopefully, we can start addressing some of the long-term problems. Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the gentleman, finally, about legislation to confront this BDS movement, a major threat to our ally Israel. It attempts to undermine its economy. There is legislation, and of course, there is a bipartisan resolution, the Schneider-Zeldin legislation, which I strongly support, that at least calls out the BDS movement. As we have also seen, we need teeth. We need real tools that we can provide to not just our friend Israel, but also States, many States that are also trying to confront this problem and push back against the BDS movement. The McCaul bill addresses that, similar to a Senate bill that passed with over 70 votes--very bipartisan. In fact, I believe there are amendments being put together to make the McCaul bill identical to the Senate bill. Then the question is, can we get some kind of commitment--and I know we have talked about this before--to bring that bill to the floor so that we can finally, truly confront this growing problem of the BDS movement across not only the world but within our country, and do it with real teeth, like the bipartisan McCaul bill? I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. 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.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would point out that the President's executive order on section 1332 does nothing to change the protections in law for people with preexisting conditions under ObamaCare. As the gentleman knows, the law protects people with preexisting conditions from facing any kind of discrimination, and the section 1332 waivers have nothing to do with that. What they do is allow some States--and there have been a number of States who have requested--the ability to be more innovative and focus on lowering premiums while protecting preexisting conditions. Those States that have taken advantage of that waiver have used it to, number one, provide healthcare in different ways, more innovative ways for their Medicaid population. That is something we should all encourage because Medicaid in many States is the worst form of healthcare. In many cases, doctors don't even take Medicaid policies and don't see Medicaid patients, so they can't get access to care. These waivers are a way to help open more access to care at lower costs, in many cases, while protecting preexisting conditions. With that said, when the gentleman laid out the schedule, I didn't see anything on the President's request for supplemental funding for the border crisis. Specifically, there was a $4.5 billion request that came down from the White House for additional funding to address this wave of people who are coming into our country illegally. In many cases, they have run out of detention beds. They are overwhelming the system, and it has been reported very widely. That is why the President made the $4.5 billion request. I wanted to ask the gentleman if that might be included in this supplemental for the disasters that we would surely like to be addressed. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.