Matt Gaetz

Mr. GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am here to solve problems, too, but we have decade after decade of history showing us that you don't solve any problems with continuing resolutions and omnibus bills. That creates more problems, more debt, more inflation, more pain for American families. So the way to solve problems is to break the fever dream of governing by continuing resolution and omnibus bills and instead return to the very single-subject spending bills that we will only get if my resolution passes to vacate Speaker McCarthy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sober, wise, or cautious about the path we are on. We are on a path to financial ruin if this House does not take a different posture, a different procedure, and yield toward different outcomes and a better future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to my remaining time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think I have caught the signal, too. The signal is for $33 trillion in debt, facing $2.2 trillion annual deficits. Our fellow Americans may be watching and wondering, how does that happen? How does the greatest country in the world have a process so broken that it would be laughed out of the rooms in the halls of the State legislatures where many of us come from? Here is how it works. The law says we are supposed to have the very single-subject spending bills that my colleague referenced in the summer; that we are supposed to have that and move it. But there is a dirty little secret in this town, and that is, if you delay, if you hold the bills, if you make multiple contradictory promises--as Speaker McCarthy has done--and you back everybody up against shutdown politics, well, nobody wants to shut the government down. No one cheers for a shutdown and, of course, when people are backed up against shutdown politics, the decision calculus changes. So year after year, decade after decade, we break the law, and we do the same thing. We pass a continuing resolution, then we pass another continuing resolution, and then it is either another continuing resolution or an omnibus bill or a series of minibuses that lump these disparate things together. The American people want all of us to take votes on single-subject matters. They don't want to see these things all mushed together and logrolled. It was concerning to me to hear of a secret deal on Ukraine funding that would have logrolled more money with Ukraine with our southern border. Now, how offensive is that to our Customs and Border Patrol, to our ICE, to the people that are suffering as a consequence of our border that some of my colleagues are only willing to stand up and fight for our border if they can send billions to Ukraine to fund their border, too? Well, I have had enough of that, and that is why I brought this motion to vacate.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that the majority leader said in those remarks, except one thing. It is astonishing to hear any colleague give Speaker McCarthy credit for moving on to the single-subject appropriations bills. As you heard my colleague Mr. Biggs say, that was never the plan from Speaker McCarthy. The week before we moved on to those single-subject appropriations bills, the plan was another CR. He pitched a CR. They tried to get us to vote for a CR, and a brave few said we are done governing by continuing resolution. We are here to eulogize the era of the continuing resolution. We will not do it. We will not pass it. These bills can go. The spending may rise and fall as the years pass, but the notion that we are going to lump in the Department of Education and the Department of Labor with our military and our troops and our Border Patrol is fundamentally unserious, and I would suggest chaotic. We cannot do that. It was only because we forced that to happen. By the way, if we continue with Speaker McCarthy, the appropriations process will go right back to what he wanted it to go back to--just a sideshow, just a puppet show, just something to keep the hamsters on the hamster wheel as they continue to back people up against a calendar, centralize power with the lobbyists and special interests that move all kinds of money through the leadership. That is how they get their way, and that is why the American people have been getting screwed decade after decade. I am not going to tolerate it anymore without a fight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, it is lovely to hear from the principal architect of Mr. McCarthy's debt limit deal, but here is the reality: The only Republicans in America who believe that the debt limit deal was conservative are in this Chamber right now because all over America, Republicans think that when you negotiated that debt limit deal, they took your lunch money. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will just say that if this House of Representatives has exceeded all expectations, then we definitely need higher expectations. While it is heartwarming and kind that the Speaker calls people on their birthday and visits their district and congratulates them on their children, please know this isn't a critique of the individual. It is a critique of the job. The job hasn't been done. We have had multiple contradictory promises. It is quite something, for those of you keeping track at home, the last three speakers you have heard opposing my resolution all voted for the debt deal. So if you believe that the debt limit deal that Speaker McCarthy brought into law was a good thing, maybe you agree with their perspective. I think the debt limit deal was a terrible deal, and it really was the original sin of the McCarthy speakership, and it is one of the reasons I seek to vacate the Chair now.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague says we have passed the strongest border bills in history. Well, guess what? Look at the border right now. We didn't use sufficient leverage in the debt limit or in any other thing to actually get results on the border. The border is a disaster; really something I don't think you are going to be campaigning on that you fixed the border. Second, the gentleman said he streamlined regulations. What the gentleman from Louisiana doesn't tell you is that all of the regulatory reform he was just bragging about is waivable by the stroke of a pen of someone in the Biden White House. Do you really think you have anything for that? It is a total joke. Finally, the Welfare-to-Work that the gentleman from Louisiana said we have, the welfare programs that they said they streamlined with their Welfare-to-Work stuff, they are actually going to grow. While they did work requirements, they blew out those programs of expanded eligibility. I am really glad my colleagues didn't put work requirements on Medicaid. It probably would have resulted in Medicaid expansion. When it comes to how those raise money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute to this fight from those who would grovel and bend knee for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership, who have--oh, boo all you want--who have hollowed out this town and have borrowed against the future of our future generations. I will be happy to fund my political operation through the work of hardworking Americans, $10, $20, and $30 at a time. My colleagues can keep showing up at the lobbyists' fundraisers and see how that goes for you. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I tried to get one of the three podiums on the Republican side, and my colleagues wouldn't let me have them, so they sent me over here. Mr. Speaker, you know what, I will make this argument at any desk in this building, from the well, from the Chair. I will make it on every street corner in this country that Washington must change. We have to break the cycle. We have to break the fever. I would hope, truly, that the reforms that we are fighting for are reforms that would last and be embraced and that would democratize power in this institution beyond the privileged few who back us up against shutdown politics and Christmases and deadlines in order to achieve their objectives. Mr. Speaker, high inflation is on the verge of bankrupting American families. Our economy is breaking in half. A typical American family can't afford to buy a House in 99 percent of U.S. counties. Inflation is stealing more than $700 a month from working Americans; nearly $9,000 a year. Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he has failed to take a stand where it matters; so if he won't, I will. I make no apologies for defending the right of every hardworking American to afford a decent life for themselves and their families, and we have a greater opportunity to do that and to build coalitions under new leadership. We have to rip off the Band-Aid. We have to get back on a better course. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how this vote is going to go. Usually when a vote comes to this floor, it is pretty pre-determined. This one, I am not so sure. I am sure that we have made the right argument: that this place deserves single-subject spending bills; that we should have 72 hours to read a bill; that something that spends more than $100 million shouldn't be put on the suspension agenda such that we can't amend it; and there shouldn't be secret side deals made on a continuing resolution to lump Ukraine in with border security. That is not right for Ukraine or border security because it fails to give either of those issues the dignity that they would require. We can return that dignity to this House. We can get back on a better path. We can have single-subject appropriation bills. We can set a budget, a budget top line. We haven't had a budget in this place since I was in high school. Let's get a budget. Let's get our act together. Let's get on with it. Let's vacate the Chair, and let's get a better Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question: What was the secret side deal on Ukraine? House Democrats and President Biden have said that as Speaker McCarthy was asking Republicans to vote for a continuing resolution so as to avoid having to take the Senate's plus-up in Ukraine money, that the Speaker of the House was actually cutting a side deal to bring Ukraine legislation to this floor with President Biden and House Democrats. So let me get this straight: To extend Joe Biden's spending and Joe Biden's policy priorities, the Speaker of the House gave away to Joe Biden the money for Ukraine that Joe Biden wanted. It is going to be difficult for my Republican friends to keep calling President Biden feeble while he continues to take Speaker McCarthy's lunch money in every negotiation. The Speaker of the House has responded to these reports of a secret side deal on money for Ukraine, opaquely stating that he still wants to fund Ukraine and our border. I have a few replies to this statement. First, the Speaker's statement confirms the existence of a secret deal. I have talked to Members of our own leadership who have said they didn't even know that Speaker McCarthy was negotiating a secret side deal outside of our Conference, outside of his own leadership team for the sake of Ukraine. Second, Ukraine has lost the support of a majority of the majority. The last time there was a freestanding Ukraine vote on this floor, it was last week--101 Republicans voted for it, 117 Republicans voted against it. According to the Hastert rule, which Speaker McCarthy agreed to in January, you cannot use Democrats to roll a majority of the majority on something as consequential as Ukraine. So for all the crocodile tears about what may happen later this week about a motion to vacate, working with the Democrats is a yellow brick road that has been paved by Speaker McCarthy, whether it was the debt limit deal, the CR, or now the secret deal on Ukraine. Third, this is swampy logrolling. The American people deserve single- subject bills. I get that a lot of folks might disagree with my perspectives on the border or on Ukraine, but can we at least agree that no matter how you feel about Ukraine or the southern border, they each deserve the dignity of their own consideration and should not be rolled together where they might pass where each individually wouldn't? This is what we are trying to get away from. This is the spirit of the January agreement we made with the Speaker. No more lashing these disparate issues together so that the American people's interests are subjugated here on the floor of the House. Do you know how we should stand up for our border? Demand that the United States Senate take up our single-subject appropriation bill that funded the border. It created Republican unity. We voted for it. It has the policy demands that the continuing resolution that Speaker McCarthy advocated for on this floor did not. Our DHS's funding bill requires E-Verify, and then hours later after we passed that, the Speaker wanted us to vote for a continuing resolution that didn't include E-Verify. Retreat is never a strategy to win anything. Mr. Speaker, just tell us, what was in the secret Ukraine side deal? What commitments were made to President Biden to continue the spending of President Biden in exchange for doing things for President Biden? It is becoming increasingly clear who the Speaker of the House already works for, and it is not the Republican Conference. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that these questions be answered soon because there may be other votes coming today or later this week that could be impacted by the answers to these questions. Members of the Republican Party might vote differently on a motion to vacate if they heard what the Speaker had to share with us about his secret side deal with Joe Biden on Ukraine. I will be listening. Stay tuned.

Mr. GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. GAETZ. Declaring the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives to be vacant. Resolved, that the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives is hereby declared to be vacant.

Mr. GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, the continuing resolution being offered today is a bad deal for Republicans. The entire premise of this continuing resolution is that if Republicans surrender on every single issue except the border that it will be good politics because we will force the Democrats to defend bad border policy. However, Madam Speaker, surrender has been a virus that has afflicted my fellow Republicans for far too long. To prove the point, just look at the border policies that we are supposedly fighting for. The border policies that Republicans will argue for this morning represent a retreat from the border policies we took last night. Last night, we said we wouldn't fund DHS unless E-Verify was passed because they had to take up H.R. 2. Now we are saying we will give Mayorkas and the Biden administration more money even if they don't pass E-Verify. Overnight, in the last 11 hours, the Republican border position has gotten weaker through this continuing resolution. That is why I am voting against it. We cannot be serious about border security without E-Verify. I will fight for E-Verify. Eleven hours ago, the Republicans fought for E- Verify, and now the white flag of surrender.

Mr. GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has passed funding bills to fund our veterans, our troops, our Border Patrol, our State and foreign ops. These are the core functions of government. The Senate should take up and pass those bills to make sure those folks are paid, and they should do it today. The rule we are on now advances a continuing resolution that weakens the Republican position on strong border policies. Just last night, we passed a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that was lashed to policy requirements at the Department of Homeland Security. They had to do certain things to fix the border to get the money, and one of those things was E-Verify. Last night, we stood together and we demanded that E-Verify be included if Mayorkas wanted the money, and this continuing resolution that the rule we are on now would facilitate strips E-Verify and takes it out. Why would Republicans just overnight back away from such a strong and necessary provision as E-Verify? I will be voting against this continuing resolution because I want House Republicans to have the strongest position on the border. The American people will come with us on that. We have just got to have the courage to lead and not surrender. I know big businesses don't want E-Verify, but we should want it anyway for the American worker.

Mr. GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague from Arizona's amendment to cut funding to USAID. For the American taxpayer watching, USAID is essentially a venture capital fund that Americans pay for that invests in businesses and economic development in other countries overseas. At a time when we are $33 trillion in debt and facing $2 trillion annual deficits in this country, it would seem to me to be an easy decision to reduce the investments in Albania or the developing world, for which we are borrowing money from China to make. That seems like an easy thing to do, yet our colleagues call it drastic. I would take the USAID fund down to zero. They would fund it to the tune of billions of dollars. Maybe a compromise position is that we would be willing to send USAID everything that was found in Senator Menendez' jacket. Maybe that is something that can bring us all together. If there is going to be international bribe money paid that we are going to be involved in, rather than sourcing it from the American taxpayer, we could source it from corrupt Democratic politicians. I am here to bring us together.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the amount of funding allocated to USAID by $4.5 billion. As I mentioned earlier, USAID is a vehicle through which the American taxpayer pays for economic development in other countries. I think instead we should spend more money on economic development of our own country, and actually, if we spent less money overall, we probably would see less inflation, more prosperity, and the type of economic growth that we saw during President Trump's time in office. USAID may have started with laudable goals, but today, they are promoting abortion globally with American tax dollars. They are pushing President Biden's national gender strategy. I never thought we needed a national gender strategy, but if we need a national gender strategy, can we at least not spend so much money promoting it abroad? It is silly. The DEI programs that are embedded in The 1619 Project have been embraced by United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and we see that continue to manifest through USAID. American taxpayers should focus their resources and their efforts on the American people and the American economy. This is a thoughtful reduction. It should be easily agreed to. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, my amendment makes a $4.5 billion cut; $3.5 billion of that stops us from retiring global debt for Ukraine. Now, I don't think it is an unrealistic position to say that the United States of America should not deficit spend to retire the debt of other countries. Think about that. We are borrowing money from China to go settle the debts of Ukraine that they accrued far before this war with Russia. My colleagues say this exists to counter the PRC. We are never going to out-bribe the PRC on the global scene. We are going to need another strategy. If you listen to the debate of those opposing my amendment, hear the substance: Oh, my goodness, people around the world are having problems buying food and buying fuel, and if the U.S. taxpayer would just sacrifice a little more, it might be easier to buy food and fuel in other countries. I have a message for my Democratic colleagues: People are having a hard time buying food and fuel in this country as a consequence of the very inflationary spending that I am trying to reduce with this amendment. We should retire our debt before we retire Ukraine's debt. That is such an obvious statement, I am shocked I have to say it on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, where I am just glad we are still hanging our flag. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to believe what I am hearing. The gentlewoman is saying: But there is malaria and tuberculosis and sickness and ailment all around the world. The gentlewoman need look no further than her home State of California where the human condition continues to decline. She would need to look no further than the major cities throughout our country that are under Democrat control. Maybe before we go solve all of the world's problems, maybe before we function as the world's policeman and the world's piggy bank and the world's debt payer, we ought to focus on the issues that we have here in this country. They are real, and frankly, too often, they metastasize from the gentlewoman's home State. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, the reason we are here debating this issue is because my colleague from Georgia (Ms. Greene) has found there are distributions that could possibly go to Ukraine. She is fighting admirably, often alone, and she is the reason that we are actually making some progress in this Congress to comport the will of this body to the will of the American people who think we have sent too much to Ukraine. $115 billion--it is inflationary, escalatory, and could likely lead to an accident that could sleepwalk us into world war III. I am in strong support of the Taylor Greene amendment and all of her amendments to engage in this very noble effort to stop the United States from funding the war in Ukraine.