Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Well, I will be watching, for sure.

Mr. SCALISE. We all will. On Monday, the schedule shows that the infrastructure bill is supposed to be coming up before the House floor. Is that going to be for debate and consideration, or will there be an actual vote on Monday night on the infrastructure bill?

Mr. SCALISE. Well, we know that next week we anticipate, as the end of the fiscal year comes, that there would be the continuing resolution possibly coming out of the Senate. I know when it came out of the House, it was very clear that the Senate was not going to entertain the debt ceiling as part of the continuing resolution. So, clearly, the Senate is going to have to resolve what happens with the debt ceiling, although we have been told extraordinary measures would continue through October. So that is not as looming of a deadline as the September 30 government funding deadline that the CR would be involved with. I know, on our side, we were very disappointed to see when something had to be pulled out on Tuesday, whether it was going to be the Iron Dome funding or the debt ceiling. Knowing that the Senate was not going to process the debt ceiling as part of that instrument, it would have seemed, to keep that on track, to remove the debt ceiling and deal with that separately, as the Senate ultimately will have to, and then keep the CR with the Iron Dome funding moving forward on something that could be a bipartisan vote. Obviously, that didn't happen Tuesday. I would expect we will see something very different happen in the Senate. They may send that back to us sometime next week. Does the gentleman have a timeline for what we should expect on legislation dealing with the funding of government prior to the September 30 deadline?

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman that if you go back, both Republican and Democrat Presidents, whether it was a Republican Congress or a Democrat Congress, you had budget agreements that involved both agreements on spending and on debt. Bipartisan agreements. The gentlemen should also recognize that this year there has been no such effort to reach out to the Republican side to get agreements. The gentleman is well-aware that under President Biden, while he promised during the campaign that he would work with everybody, he would work with Republicans, work with Democrats, instead, it has been a go-it- alone strategy on spending and on debt. Very much to our opposition, we were against the trillions of new spending. We weren't consulted about the debt.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I do need to correct the Record because the gentleman implied that the relief packages from 2020 were part of the debt ceiling that is being raised in the current legislation that is moving forward. That is just not accurate. I have seen talking points out there, but Mr. Speaker, if you look at the trillions that my friend and I supported that were good policy, that was included in the debt ceiling negotiation from last year. It was in there. It was part of the debt ceiling negotiation from last year. That was passed on a bipartisan basis. What we are talking about for this year, including the $1.9 trillion that was not a bipartisan package, is new debt. What is being anticipated in the $4 trillion, $5 trillion-dollar-package that the Budget Committee is taking up is going to be new debt that would be included in the debt ceiling negotiation that my friend would expect us to vote for. We don't support that new spending and that new debt. We did support the spending and the debt from last year in the relief packages that we all supported--and we paid for it--in the debt ceiling negotiations from last year. The gentleman might have different talking points, but that is a fact. It was legislation that was voted on in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. SCALISE. It was voted on on a bipartisan basis and was passed by Congress. Where the debt ceiling is today is ultimately going to be negotiated in the Senate, but it won't be in the bill that was sent over to the Senate on Tuesday. The Senators have made it clear. They don't have 60 votes for that bill. It is a 60-vote bill. They might have to take it up under a reconciliation package. That is for the Senate to decide. Maybe in the next few days the Senate will decide that and send it back, but that was not something that anybody expected the Senate to pass when it left the House on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Again, this will continue as we see whatever comes out of the Budget Committee that will be trillions. We know it is trillions. We just don't know how many, maybe 4, maybe 5 trillion in new debt that the date that was put in the legislative text--it wasn't an amount, it was a date that the majority party included--in December of 2022 that maybe that changes in the Senate, but it would include the trillions, not only that were included in the $1.9 from earlier this year that was partisan, but also on this tax-and-spend bill that is moving through Budget tomorrow. I would like to ask one final question about other potential legislation for next week. I know the gentleman and I have had conversations in the past about bills that maybe aren't currently scheduled that could be, some of them have been added to the schedule, not all. We know there is a crisis at our southern border. There are a number of legislative instruments that have been filed to try to confront it. I haven't seen any of those come to the floor. They are surely not listed for next week, but there are a number I would at least like to bring to the gentleman's attention to see if they could--as we are watching the border get even more out of hand--potentially give tools to the President to address it in a way where he is not addressing it today. We know there has been a bill by Ms. Herrell, the number of that bill is H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, which would allow for enforcement of Title 42 in a way more clear than the administration has expressed their abilities. We also have H.R. 4828 by Mr. Katko which gives even more additional tools to help secure the border. I would hope the gentleman would look at those legislative instruments. As there are maybe more days we will be here than there are legislative instruments anticipated, these could be other bills that we could take up that would deal with very pertinent and serious problems that our country is facing that aren't being addressed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I look forward to having those conversations with the gentleman from Maryland on that and all the other issues that will come before us next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding and especially for his passion, the statements that he just made, and the importance of not only standing up for Israel, which we all need to do, but standing up against anti-Semitism, against the kind of attacks on Israel that the very Iron Dome are necessary for. The Iron Dome represents one of those great partnerships between our two great nations, this great bond between the United States and Israel, allowing Israel to defend themselves, defend themselves against attacks from Gaza, against attacks from terrorists who want to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. That is what this has always been about. It had been heartening for decades that this was always a bipartisan issue. We shouldn't have to be here today to pass this bill because it should have been passed on Tuesday. There was a vote on the House floor to ensure Israel had the money to defend themselves, to put that billion dollars back in. On a straight party-line vote, every Democrat voted it down. I don't know why on Tuesday they were against Israel's Iron Dome's defense. Today, maybe things will change. Hopefully, things will change. But we ought to always stand with Israel, and especially with what their Iron Dome represents. I have been to Israel. I have been to areas where the Iron Dome is actually utilized effectively to save Jewish lives, to save everybody's life who lives in Israel, whether it is Jews, Palestinians. Anyone who lives in Israel under threat of terrorist attack can at least have some solace at knowing that the Iron Dome is there to protect them. Thousands of rockets were fired into Israel by terrorists, and that is why we need to put this billion dollars in place to allow them to replenish the Iron Dome missiles that saved lives in Israel. Save lives in Israel, that is what this is about. We should be with Israel, not just on Thursday. We should also be with them on Tuesday, on Monday. Every single day, we need to stand with our ally Israel against attacks that we see from anti-Semites around the world. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of this bill.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Marty Reiser, a man of immense character and integrity who selflessly served the American people for over 20 years. After graduating from the College of the Holy Cross, Marty started at the Department of Commerce as an appointee under President Ronald Reagan. In the 1990s, Marty came to the House of Representatives, where he worked for Congressman Dan Miller in a variety of roles, ultimately finishing up as his chief of staff. After leaving Capitol Hill, he went on to a think tank and taught high school before managing Xerox's governmental affairs team. In 2011, Marty came back to the House, joining the Ways and Means Committee's Health Subcommittee, where he was instrumental in crafting legislation that would provide quality healthcare for millions of Americans. On August 18, 2014, Marty joined my team and has been a vital part of it ever since. With a servant's heart and attention to detail, Marty is an expert not only on House procedure, but on all issues passing through the whip's office, and is relied upon in all other leadership offices as well. Thank you, Marty, for your faithful service to the House of Representatives, and best of luck in your future. You will be missed.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to object to this whole process. What we are doing here today, this is an example of the misplaced priorities of this Democrat majority. Let's start with the bill at hand, this package of bills that includes a budget that I am sure very few people in this Chamber have read, that authorizes the taxing and spending of trillions more dollars. Now, what does that mean? They call it the for the children act. It really should be called the mountains of debt for the children act because that is what it does. If you look at inflation today, every family in America is facing inflation. They are paying over 40 percent more for gasoline, for cars, for things that they buy at the grocery store. Families know that if you add trillions more in debt, trillions more in spending, trillions more in taxes, inflation will only go up and you know who is going to pay for it. It is not anybody in this Chamber, Madam Speaker. Under their own budget--it says it--it is the children. That is who is going to pay for it. Right here. Just go to page 7 where it authorizes up to $45 trillion in debt--we are at about $28.6 trillion right now--$45 trillion in debt with taxes and spending through the roof that will hit every family in America, Madam Speaker. Then let's get back to those priorities. Now, you would think with the backdrop of everything that we have been dealing with in Afghanistan, as we here in this Chamber, with so many of our veterans who served in Afghanistan honorably, have been calling on the President to ensure and commit that he will get all Americans out. Yet, what is our President doing? I will tell you what he has been doing. He has been working the phones pressuring Members of Congress this week. I wish, Madam Speaker, I could say he was pressuring Members of Congress to help get Americans out. That is not what he was doing. He was working the phones this week pressuring Members of Congress to vote for this trillions of dollars in spending and tax package. That has been President Biden's priority. He just said today he is going to bow to the Taliban's deadline of August 31 even if we don't get all Americans out. President Biden should be the President of the United States; not bowing to terrorists; not bowing to anybody except committing that he will get all Americans out instead of living by some artificial deadline. Every ounce of his energy ought to be focused between now and next Tuesday, the date he set and the date the Taliban set, every minute he ought to be spending between now and next Tuesday should be focused on getting all Americans out. But if he fails to do it, people will look back and say: What was he doing instead? What were the President of the United States' priorities? He was pressuring Members of Congress to vote for this garbage: trillions of dollars in debt and spending, rather than focus on getting Americans out of harm's way that he left behind. It is a national and international disgrace. Our priorities ought to be with the American people. That is what we will fight for. That is why we oppose this whole process.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, but I specifically want to talk about a provision that is being gutted that for decades has been bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, that is the Hyde amendment. Back in the 1970s, when Henry Hyde came to Congress from Illinois, one of his main objectives was to protect life. He started on a quest to do that on a number of different fronts, and he ultimately found a bipartisan consensus put into law back in 1976 to say that no taxpayer funds should be used for abortion. It was actually something that Republicans and Democrats rallied around. Since that time, every appropriations bill that has moved through Congress, for over 40 years, has included Hyde protections, until today. This is a sad day when you see how the Democratic Party has changed from the party back then. I want to read a quote, Mr. Speaker. This is from 1994. A prominent United States Senator said: ``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' You know who said that? Joe Biden said that, Mr. Speaker. Where is that Joe Biden today? Where is that Democratic Party today that has changed and moved so far away from those principles that were bipartisan? By the way, most Americans today, including many people who consider themselves pro-choice, think it is wrong to use taxpayer funds for abortion. Yet, this bill guts that decades-long tradition. Again, I will read from Joe Biden himself. ``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' Why would we be abandoning that decades-long tradition that is also held by most Americans across this country? Not only, Mr. Speaker, are they gutting Hyde protections in this bill, they actually put millions of taxpayer dollars in this bill to fund Planned Parenthood facilities. So that is how far the party of old on the Democrat side has gone, to this Democrat socialist party that now supports taxpayer funding of abortion, including directly to the largest provider of abortions in America. This must stop. We will fight to stop the gutting of the Hyde amendment and the break from this bipartisan tradition. Before this process is over, let's get back to those principles that unite most Americans and should unite all of us in Congress, that no taxpayer funds should go to provide for abortions.

Mr. SCALISE

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.