Legislative Program

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the floor schedule for next week, and I welcome the majority leader back to the colloquy. It is good to see him spry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information as we look toward this appropriations process coming to the floor next week.

I would hope it doesn't take the same tone that it took in committee, and that is a hyper-partisan approach, which in years past, we have seen Republicans and Democrats come together to ultimately determine how best to fund this United States Government. And any bill that is going to get sent to the President's desk is going to ultimately be a bipartisan bill.

Unfortunately, that is not the bill that is going to be coming to the floor. There are a lot of very extreme radical elements that were put in that bill, but there was also something very alarming, and that was a break, a departure, from over 40 years of bipartisan agreement on what is known as the Hyde amendment.

Henry Hyde, in the 1970s, was able to get agreement between Republicans and Democrats to say on all the things we may disagree with, let's at least agree that taxpayer funding should not be used for abortions. And overwhelming majorities of Republicans and Democrats have supported that going back to 1976.

This appropriations bill guts the Hyde amendment. And why this Democrat majority decided to break from decades of bipartisan agreement on Hyde is perplexing. But I would hope, among many other things, we would be able to have that full debate on the House floor; that amendments like restoring Hyde would be made in order, not a closed process, not a very narrow process where the goal would be to push a hyper-partisan bill out of the House that won't become law, which means it would be a very futile exercise that we would be participating in next week, but, in fact, to work in a bipartisan way on those things that we can come to an agreement on about how to properly fund the government.

I am not sure if that is being anticipated with the seven bills that are coming in this bloated bus, but I would hope that the majority, as the Rules Committee looks to determine which amendments would be made in order, would go to an open process and let things like the Hyde amendment be debated, and frankly, to be supported in the bipartisan way that it has always enjoyed going back over 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman could shed light on that, and I would yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, hopefully, like I said, we get the opportunity to have that open debate process so that we can bring amendments like restoring Hyde to this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask about something that is going to be coming up next week, and that is this January 6 Commission that the Speaker created is expected to meet next week.

Yesterday, we saw an alarming departure from Congressional tradition, and that is Speaker Pelosi unilaterally made a decision to remove minority members from that committee. You go through the history of Congress, and prior to this year, never has the Speaker denied the minority the ability to choose who they are going to put on committees. And not only did it happen yesterday with multiple members, a ranking member of a standing committee was removed, an officer in the United States Navy was removed from that committee, without explanation.

That, first of all, undermines all credibility that this committee will have. It is clear that now it is an attempt by the Speaker to just completely politicize that committee. Why the majority chose to abuse power in that way and deny minority rights in that way is perplexing, but it doesn't bode well for the institution, and it surely doesn't bode well for the impartiality and the credibility of this committee.

I don't know if the majority is looking at reconsidering that decision, but obviously, it is unprecedented. And if the gentleman wants to explain that, I will be happy to yield.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. That was not the reason that Ms. Cheney was removed as chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. It had nothing to do with the statements that were made.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. An opinion we don't share because it is not accurate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the opportunity that we asked for, and I think the majority leader knows that the minority leader put a number of issues on the table that he wanted included in that review, and those were rejected. They were rejected by the Speaker, and they were rejected by the majority.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. The majority leader will have an opportunity, but there were a number of things you said that I think need to be cleaned up because they are just not accurate.

If you look at the Members that were kicked off from the minority side yesterday--still no explanation given, by the way--that includes a ranking member of a committee and an officer in the United States Navy who was removed yesterday by Speaker Pelosi with no reason given in an unprecedented way.

Maybe Speaker Pelosi and maybe this majority don't want to see all the facts come out because those two Members who were removed yesterday were raising very serious questions that ought to be answered, whatever those answers are. Whatever those facts are, they were publicly raising questions.

Maybe because they raised those questions that might be uncomfortable for the majority, they were removed from the committee with no explanation given. That had never happened before in the history of this Congress.

Again, if you want the facts, don't sit there and say that you want the facts if you are going to remove people who are trying to get facts, who are raising serious questions that should be answered. They raised them publicly, and they were going to raise them in the committee. Maybe because they were going to raise those tough questions, they were removed by the Speaker, Members of the minority who were removed by the Speaker.

I don't know if that is the new precedent that the majority leader wants to see in the future. But I will tell you, since the gentleman likes quoting Liz Cheney, I will read this quote from Liz Cheney: ``Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority have no business determining which Republicans sit on committees.'' That is from Liz Cheney, if the gentleman wants to quote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, that is a quote about Mrs. Greene, but it is a general quote about whoever it is. You could go down your list.

By the way, there were Members of the majority who are on that committee who voted on January 6 to reject electors. Maybe not this year's January 6, but as the gentleman knows, every Republican President this century has had Democrats on this House floor object to electors being seated, including multiple members of the January 6 committee on the majority side. They weren't removed. In fact, they were appointed by the Speaker.

Yet, two of our Members, who raised very serious questions about facts that should be answered, wherever those answers lead, were removed because maybe the majority doesn't want all the facts to come out. Maybe they only want a certain narrative to come out. That is not an investigation. That is a kangaroo court, if that is the approach that is going to be taken.

But the action taken yesterday by the Speaker, the unprecedented action, undermines the credibility of that commission, and it is a shame for the institution because the Members we appointed were going there to find the facts, to help participate in finding the facts.

Clearly, that is not the interest now of this committee. That was exposed yesterday in the Speaker's unprecedented action.

It is not something that this institution, whether it is Republicans running it or Democrats--and as the gentleman knows, that pendulum swings both ways. But never before this year had a majority removed Members that minority leaders submitted for committees. It is just not what has happened in this institution. But, now, it seems to be the norm because maybe some people that are asking tough questions are asking too tough of questions that this majority doesn't want to be answered, kind of why this majority won't have a hearing on the origins of COVID.

In fact, it was Mr. Jordan, along with myself and others, who has raised serious questions that have been backed up by many medical experts around this country that COVID-19 very likely started in the Wuhan lab and was leaked out. Medical experts from every walk of life have looked at the genetic makeup of this COVID-19 virus and said it couldn't have been transferred from bats to animals to humans. In fact, it was likely modified genetically in the lab in Wuhan.

Yet, there is not a single hearing that has been held by this majority on whether it was gain-of-function research, possibly funded with taxpayer money. All of those questions should be raised, but maybe the majority doesn't want those facts to come out.

We should want the facts to come out wherever they lead. So don't pound the desk and say you want the facts when you remove people who are asking questions to get at the facts. It shouldn't be a one-sided question and argument.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, but why not look at all of them?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if the facts were what the majority wants, then the majority wouldn't be afraid of certain Members asking tough questions that maybe the majority doesn't want.

Since the gentleman brought up Mr. Jordan, I will tell you a question that Mr. Jordan has been raising publicly. One of the questions Mr. Jordan has been raising is: Why weren't the Capitol Police better equipped when there was intelligence prior, weeks prior to January 6, that there may be large crowds, that there may be threats? Why weren't the Capitol Police more equipped? Were National Guard offered to the Capitol that were rejected? And at what level, if that is the case, were they rejected?

Maybe he was starting to ask those questions. Maybe he should have just sat back and not raised those questions until after the committee started, but he started raising those questions.

By the way, they are important questions to be answered, but he won't be able to ask those questions about why the Capitol Police weren't better equipped because Speaker Pelosi yanked him off the committee when he was selected by the minority leader.

You can talk about the power of the Speaker and brag that that is her power, but just because you have the might doesn't make it right. What she did was an abuse. To say, ``I am just going to choose who on the Republican side I am going to allow, but, boy, if some other Members are going to ask tough questions, I have the power to take them off,'' that is not what power is used for.

This House, this democracy, we should want the facts. If some Members are going to ask tough questions, you should want everybody to be asking tough questions. If the facts lead there, you go there. If the facts don't lead there, you go somewhere else and ask more tough questions.

If some Members are going to ask tough questions that the majority doesn't want to be asked, that undermines the credibility of that commission to remove them from asking those questions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, they haven't said publicly whether they would or not. Mr. Jordan sure did. Again, maybe he was punished for raising tough questions in advance of the hearing instead of waiting.

But in the end, those were questions. Sheriff Nehls, who was also one of our selections, was right there with these brave Capitol Police officers, holding down the House of Representatives so that the Chamber wasn't breached. Sheriff Nehls was right there.

But, again, if the integrity of that commission is now undermined because Speaker Pelosi chose to remove people who were going to ask tougher questions, then, ultimately, it proves that this is not a commission set on finding the facts. It is a commission set on establishing a narrative regardless of the facts. That is a disgrace, for this institution to go down that road.

There is still time to reconsider. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the majority to reconsider how they use or abuse the power that is vested upon them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that as that commission starts, it will not include other Members, Republican Members, who wanted to ask some of those tough questions in terms of supporting the police.

I don't think the gentleman has seen any stronger support for police than on this side of the aisle. I have been maybe more vocal than anyone about support for the United States Capitol Police because I wouldn't be here alive today without the bravery and heroism of the Capitol Police, and I think we all stand with them.

Ultimately, when you look at the supplemental that came through the House in May, there were a number of Members on the Democrat majority side who voted against that supplemental who have been vocal about defunding the police.

And, in fact, we have been trying to bring up H. Res. 352, which expresses support for police in opposition to this crazy, radical idea of defunding the police, where in many of these cities that have actually defunded the police, they have seen rapid increases in crime.

Even more--and I know I have held roundtables with sheriffs from the New Orleans area, as many of my colleagues have met with law enforcement--they will tell you the biggest challenge today, in addition to the growing crime wave, they are seeing is a demoralization around the country for police because they see these efforts to defund the police and they see elected oficials speaking out publicly against police. It is not coming from the Republican side. I think the gentleman knows where it is coming from.

Why won't this bill be brought to the floor to just express support for police?

The fact is that the majority on the Democrat side will not bring a resolution to express support for police, H. Res. 352, by Ms. Malliotakis and others, at a time when we are seeing around the country not only a demoralization but an increase in resignations. People are leaving the great work of law enforcement because they see in those communities that have defunded the police a lack of support. Most sheriffs will tell you they are having trouble recruiting new people right now because of the attacks on police all around the country that we saw from the summer where cops where murdered, shot, beaten. Yet a resolution to express support to let them know that we have their back still won't be brought to the floor by this majority.

I hope the gentleman would look at bringing H. Res. 352 to the floor so that we can actually express to all police that we support them and that we do have their back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I will just point out that President Biden himself a year ago said he supports efforts to divert money away from police, which, by the way, is the same thing as defunding police. If you are diverting money away from police, then you are defunding police. But, again, there is a resolution that has been sitting out there for a while now expressing support. I hoped we would bring that to the floor and express that support.

There are also a number of other issues dealing with inflation. We are seeing a dramatic increase in inflation across this country. Everything someone buys when going to a grocery store, we are paying more for things like eggs and milk. If you try to go on a summer vacation right now, you are paying over 40 percent more for gasoline. You are seeing it across the board, and that dramatic increase in inflation is a tax. It is a tax on hardworking families.

This chart shows for the gentleman so many of those things. Used cars are up 45 percent, if you can even find a car to buy because there is such a shortage when the government is paying people not to work.

The borrowing, by the way, and spending of trillions of dollars-- which are some of the items that are going to be coming to the floor next week and beyond, trillions more, much of it deficit spending--is part of the reason we are seeing inflation: gas 45 percent up, home prices 15 percent up, milk 5 percent, laundry machines 29 percent, if you can get one. You might have to wait 6 months to get a washer and dryer.

All of this is a tax on hardworking, middle-class families.

What we should be doing is bringing legislation to the floor to confront these problems, not to keep spending trillions and trillions more in deficit spending and higher taxes that ultimately would lead to more evaporation of middle-class jobs which is what the majority is bringing, but I would hope that the gentleman would look at working with Republicans on legislation to start addressing some of these problems that are affecting household families all across the country.

Republican, Democrat, Independent, doesn't matter, they are seeing this problem, and they would like to see this Congress confront it, not make it worse with more deficit spending, with more multitrillion- dollar spending bills and higher taxes that will ship more jobs overseas, shutting down energy production in America.

While the President is signing or authorizing agreements with Russia to use pipelines to ship their energy to other countries, he is shutting down pipelines in America so that we can use more of our natural resources, again, leading to higher prices across the board, things that are adversely affecting families.

I hope we can bring legislation to confront these challenges to the floor, and I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we look at those bills coming to the floor next week, frankly, they would make those problems worse. I know when we talk about the inflation side--we talk about inflation, because it is the thing we hear the most when we talk to our constituents back home, because regardless of the statistics, the data is little solace if you see your dollar going for less further, less far. In fact, you see your dollar not going as far because whatever you are making, you are spending even more money than you were spending before and waiting longer to get things because of these policies.

In fact, the spending itself is part of the problem that is leading to inflation. People get that. And so they look at these multitrillion- dollar spending bills and they are starting to ask the questions: What is really in those bills? If it is not things to help my family, because I am paying more with all of this new spending, what is in it?

We just found out today there are millions of dollars in the bill that is coming to the floor next week specifically just for one entity, Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte, San Jose, California; Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the country. So not only is Hyde being discarded, the mutually agreed upon, bipartisan, and not just Henry Hyde with a few other people. Henry Hyde passed this in the 1970s under a Democrat majority. Democrats and Republicans said taxpayer funding shouldn't be used to provide abortions, and it had always been sacrosanct in spending bills that this Congress passed, Republican and Democrat, since that time until now.

So not only are they gutting Hyde in the bill, but they are putting millions of dollars into Planned Parenthood by name. This is what drives people nuts when they see that kind of spending and a disconnect because they are paying more money for regular household goods. And instead of us confronting that on the floor, they see this kind of spending that is generational, because it is the next generation that will have to pay for it. Because as much as it seems this majority wants to raise taxes to spend more money, even all the taxes that would run more jobs out of this country don't cover all of this kind of radical spending.

I would hope we go a different direction. We surely will be opposing that kind of radical spending and it surely won't be helping those families who just want answers, who just want to see relief from the problems that they are facing.

I yield to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, the final point I would like to bring up to the leader, we are seeing something that is actually very encouraging in Cuba; that is, the people of Cuba taking to the streets to demand freedom; something that has been decades in the making. I would hope that we see all government leaders, Republican, Democrat, executive branch, legislative branch, all expressing our support for the Cuban people who seek freedom, because I think one of the most heartfelt signs that I know I saw, and so many of my colleagues saw just a week ago, were not only people taking to the streets to call for freedom, they were carrying the American flag in Cuba.

We see this all around the world. It is one of the things that for all of our differences brings us together, and that is that here in the United States Congress, we are not only working to promote freedom in this country and to preserve it for future generations, but this freedom that we work to preserve inspires people all around the world. Whether it is Cuba, or in Iran which we saw years ago, or any other country, when people seek freedom, there is really only one flag that they wave, and that is the United States flag.

Our colleague, Mario Diaz-Balart, whose family fled Cuba, like so many of our colleagues, some first generation. Carlos Gimenez, former mayor of Miami-Dade, personally fled Cuba seeking freedom--and talking about the American Dream--he is a first generation who fled a socialist nation who is now a sitting, voting Member of the United States Congress, who now wants to express support for the Cuban people.

So there is a resolution, H. Res. 527, that expresses our solidarity standing with the people in Cuba who are seeking freedom. I would just ask the gentleman if he would look at bringing that bill to the floor. The people in Cuba are trying to get that freedom, and they are being heavily oppressed. Many may even be being murdered right now as they have shut down the internet. They shut out the media, because there is no freedom of the press.

We are hearing stories that are very alarming. If we can express our support that we are standing with those people in Cuba who do seek freedom as well, I think it would be a strong signal. I ask the gentleman if we could bring that to the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Hopefully, we can work together to get that brought to the floor and express that support in unison and that would send a strong message.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source