Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

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.

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.

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.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as we remember the life of Jerry Lewis, I remember the first time that I had the opportunity to meet with him. It was back in 2005. I was a State representative from Louisiana, and Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the whole New Orleans region. Thousands of people were out of their homes. The city was decimated. The whole region was decimated, and we were starting to work on a plan to rebuild New Orleans. Obviously, there was a big Federal role to be played. President Bush had committed to help us, but it took action from Congress to ultimately make that happen, to rebuild the levees so that the communities could be protected, to help people get back in their homes. And that brought me to Jerry Lewis. He met with me and a few other people, and he committed to do the things that needed to be done to help us get back on our feet at our lowest point. That is who Jerry Lewis was. The city of New Orleans, the people of the New Orleans region, owe a great debt to Jerry Lewis for the things he did, the real action he took to help build New Orleans back after Katrina.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. Hopefully, we just let it expire. Clearly, that is our hope. We urge the majority to consider that because, if you look at voting, it is good that we are finally limiting the time so we can have a normal voting schedule or at least get closer to that. As we look at the appropriations process, for example, where appropriations bills will start moving out of committee in July, may start coming to the floor in July, as we know, if we have a robust, open process for appropriations bills, typically you might have 100 amendments on a given appropriations bill, and so many times we have late-night votes. We have 2-minute votes because, if Congress is truly going to process those amendments in an orderly way, even 15-minute votes or 5-minute votes haven't worked. So we went to a 2-minute voting schedule. You can't do that if we have proxy voting because, as the gentleman knows, it does eat up a lot more time and delays our ability to move through a normal appropriations process. So looking toward that, the July 3 date is there. If it expires, as we hope it does, I think that would help Congress to more effectively work through some of the big bills that we have on our calendar ahead. I know you all will be considering that. I think the gentleman knows where we are and what we would hope happens. I do want to ask about some of the crises that we are seeing around the country. You look at inflation continuing to be a growing problem. We had in our committee the Federal Reserve Chairman Powell just a few days ago, who talked about the concerns with 5 percent inflation we continue to see. Whether it is gasoline prices, double-digit increases, everything we buy at the grocery, you are starting to see larger increases in costs for grocery items. Housing, if you are just trying to buy a house, to renovate your house, those costs are higher. If you want an appliance, you might have to wait for 6 months. Much of that is because of the labor shortage. Every small business you talk to says the biggest impediment they have to getting their businesses back up again is that the Federal Government is paying people more money not to work than to go back to work. When you have millions of job openings, it doesn't seem to make sense that we are allowing people to be paid not to work when businesses are trying and struggling to get back on their feet from this pandemic. I don't know if there is an anticipation to bring legislation to start confronting some of those problems. Clearly, we see the Vice President at the border today. While she is not at the areas of the border where you see the biggest increases in illegal crossings, we know that there is a crisis in the United States. And it is not just people in South and Central America coming across. We are seeing people from Middle Eastern countries. There have been people on the terrorist watch list who are coming. I hope that as she comes back from that trip--hopefully she has met with Border Patrol agents. People have told us what the problems are. The President could address all of this today by reversing some of his executive actions that have opened the border. But if he doesn't, I hope Congress would look at bringing legislation to confront a lot of those challenges that I talked about. I am not sure if you all anticipate bringing bills like that, but I would ask the gentleman if he had any comment on that. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the House majority whip the floor schedule for next week. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) my friend, the House majority whip.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, as we look at some of the bills that are going to be coming to the floor next week, I know there has been a lot of talk about infrastructure. As we saw over these past few days, there is a bipartisan bill that is being worked through mostly in the Senate, where a number of Republicans and Democrats had seemed to reach an agreement on what would be considered traditional infrastructure without tax increases. It has now become a little more confused by a suggestion that maybe the Speaker has said it has to be tied to a budget reconciliation bill that would possibly raise taxes, which is surely not where we are. It doesn't seem to be where the bipartisan group in the Senate is. I would ask the gentleman: Is there any expectation--because we don't have a budget that has moved through the House, and a budget would have to move first to create the ability for a budget reconciliation bill to move through the House or the Senate, if that even happened. Is there expectation there would be a budget resolution coming to the floor in the upcoming weeks? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, for decades, we have never really had a disagreement on what infrastructure means. I think most Americans would recognize the definition that we have always gone by on a bipartisan basis, and it is roads and bridges, waterways and ports. I think, recently, both sides would agree that broadband is something that we would include in that definition, but that is what always was the traditional definition of infrastructure by both parties. It seems like on the majority side they are trying to change that definition to include a lot of extraneous things of which were not part of the Senate bipartisan agreement. But the other new addition seems to be this idea that a bill, a shell reconciliation bill to raise taxes, would now be something that would maybe hold hostage the rest of the bipartisan agreement. I hope that is not the road we go down, especially considering there does seem to be a lot of bipartisan movement on something that we would all agree is traditional infrastructure. I know the bill next week that is being brought to the House floor does not meet that bipartisan test of what Senators and others who are trying to work together have reached agreement on. So, hopefully, this doesn't get bogged down in a fight on things that are not considered infrastructure. I don't know if the gentleman has anything to add to it. I would hope we would go down the road where both parties could come to an agreement and we could actually get something done. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. I hope as we look toward something that we could all agree on, that that is the road we stay on, so to speak, as we talk about infrastructure, not extraneous things that we don't agree on. Clearly, we have looked at and agreed on things like broadband, and we have seen the FCC take good steps to continue to expand broadband, especially in rural areas where there is a true digital divide that we are trying to overcome. I know Congress has come together many times in the last few years to try to put more money in place to bridge that gap on the digital divide. There is still more work to do. Especially during the pandemic, we saw there are more needs. But if we could keep it focused on those things, I think you will see a lot of bipartisan agreement. Once it gets beyond that, that is where things break down. What I want to ask about, something that is going to expire at the end of next week, and that is this proxy voting scheme that has been going on since May of last year. From what the majority had presented when this got created was the reason that proxy voting was there is because we had a pandemic and things were shut down, and people had trouble getting around and maybe were concerned about the virus and not wanting to leave maybe their home or their local community. Obviously now, with a vaccine readily available for any American who wants to take it, with more States opening up, and you are seeing even here in Congress many committees that were not having in-person hearings are now getting back to in-person hearings. So what I would ask the gentleman is: When proxy voting expires on July 3, can we let Congress get back to the normal work and not renew proxy voting? Because, as we have seen, there is a lot more cooperation, a lot more agreement you can reach when you are here in person working together that you just can't get on a Zoom or Webex call or just somebody staying at home proxy voting and not coming here to Washington when now everyone, who wants to, can come. We have looked at what this has done. It has hurt the institution, in our opinion. But there are six Democrats who, since this got started last year, have never come to vote in person except for the vote for Speaker of the House because that is a vote that you cannot cast by proxy. So if they were able to get here for the vote for Speaker in January, yet on every other vote have not cast a single vote in person, then it is clear it is not because they have no ability to get to Washington. It feels like there is an abuse of this proxy voting that has shown it needs to end. I don't know if there is an expectation next week that the majority would renew this. We would urge strongly that we let it expire on July 3, and then get back to the work that we do in person. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we know, the Federal Reserve Chairman has some tools available to him, if need be, to address problems in the economy that we are starting to see, but we also know that those tools are very harsh. Hopefully, those tools would be a last resort. So it is important for us, as policymakers, to not just sit back and wait for problems to occur that then the Federal Reserve Chairman has to address because we haven't. Because we know if he does those things, whether it is limiting money supply, interest rate increases, those are all things that would hurt hardworking families all across the country. So as he even recognized, right now the enhanced unemployment benefits that are, by all accounts, the reason that we are having a worker shortage, the reason that every small business is having trouble getting more people back to work so they can meet that supply demand that is starting to create inflation, he did acknowledge that when those enhanced benefits run out, then you will see the worker shortage get better and improve and people start going back to work. We could end those earlier, acknowledging there are millions of job openings. We shouldn't be paying people money to not work when there are jobs that are available right now and they can't find takers. What we have seen is a majority of States now have said: We are going to end those benefits on our own so that people can get back to work, so that we can get our economies moving. Many large States--Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and many other States-- by the end of next week will do that. I am proud that yesterday in my State, our Governor, who is a Democrat, signed a bill working with Republicans to end our enhanced unemployment benefits in Louisiana by the end of July. He acknowledged, as a Democrat, that you can work together, and that this is a problem, so let's address this problem. While States are addressing it, some are not. Many have. But, hopefully, Congress can look at ways where we can address some of these problems earlier so that it doesn't fall in the lap of the Federal Reserve Chairman, and then he has to take harsh steps to deal with the problems that we should be fixing as we see them coming. I yield to the gentleman if he has anything else. That is all I have.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that because I work well with our Governor. We might not see eye to eye on everything, but Governor John Bel Edwards is addressing those problems adequately. He worked with the Republican legislature. They got an agreement, and it was a good agreement. I know you have a good relationship with your Governor. You and I have a good relationship. Hopefully, we can use those good relationships to prove people wrong who look at Congress and say: Why can't they get agreements on things? Again, we are seeing some positive movement on the Senate side. I haven't seen the details, and the details are very, very important. But, hopefully, on these big issues, we can work together and build those relationships so that we can actually solve these problems and solve them in a way that doesn't harm families, where it could end up in a harsh place if we don't confront those problems. I know we will be talking more about that in the future. If the gentleman is not the one doing the colloquy in the future--we hope the majority leader is back--I have enjoyed this colloquy with you. We, obviously, enjoy our relationship on many fronts, but it has been a pleasure to work with you on the colloquy. Hopefully, the majority leader is here next time, and he has big shoes to fill. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. He will probably be moving around even faster. I will not challenge him to a race. I am not quite where he is yet, but I am working to get there. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to codify the Hyde amendment language, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, we can have that debate and work together to achieve that vision for the future as we are dealing with the problems of today and our infrastructure needs for today, but also do it in a fiscally responsible way. I think that is what the two sides, especially in the Senate, are looking at. I still haven't gotten an indication, specifically, as it deals with some kind of reconciliation bill that may or may not come to the floor. Hopefully, it is not some attempt to raise taxes and do things that would undermine our economy, our competitiveness, and our ability to create more opportunities for people to achieve the American Dream by entering into the workforce and ultimately moving their way up and having their own opportunities as well, which would be undermined with higher taxes. If that part of the equation gets brought in, clearly, that changes the dynamic. But, hopefully, we stick to the traditional infrastructure needs that you and I would both agree need to be met. Hopefully, we can find a path to get there together. That is what we will be working toward in the week ahead. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has nothing else, I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the House majority whip the schedule for next week. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip of the House.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and we look forward to that robust process through both committee and, ultimately, on the floor. The last point, I wanted to ask about deals with infrastructure. We are seeing a lot of different groups both in the House and Senate that are working on various infrastructure plans. I know we had Members on our side, Ranking Member Graves and others, who rolled out a plan recently that covers traditional infrastructure, which would be roads and bridges--even broadband, waterways--paid for along the way, not with tax increases but with responsible budgeting. I wanted to ask because we are hearing different reports on what may or may not come to the House floor. Budget reconciliation, possibly, and tax increases, unfortunately, are still being floated out there, which is different from what we are hearing right now with the bipartisan Senate plan. Can the gentleman shed light on what is anticipated on the floor, whether it would be a budget reconciliation bill in the weeks or months ahead or maybe a bipartisan plan, which we would surely encourage, laying out some ideas of infrastructure that would be bipartisan that we would support? Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could answer that, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for walking us through those. Of course, I would first like to, as we note that the majority leader is not here, wish Mr. Hoyer a speedy recovery. I got to speak with him yesterday, and he is doing better and appreciates the prayers and thoughts from our colleagues. And I told him: You don't have to rush back. You want to make sure you get better before you come back. And I know from experience to take the time and get better. And I offered, by the way, use of my physical therapist, and maybe he and I will do some joint physical therapy when he returns. But he was in good spirits and is looking forward to coming back. I know the gentleman from South Carolina shares that as well. MR. CLYBURN. Absolutely.

Mr. SCALISE. I am sure the gentleman from Maryland is watching right now as he is recovering, but I said, we are used to sparring and having some fun conversations back and forth through the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, but we also look forward to seeing him back in the middle of this fray soon, too. If I may, I did want to ask. There were a couple of bills that deal with the origin of the coronavirus, and I know we have been having those conversations about trying to get a deeper investigation into the origin of the coronavirus. But the Senate had passed over a few weeks ago a bill, S. 1867, that came out of the Senate unanimously back in May, which requires the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information that relates to the origin of COVID-19. I am not sure if this is a bill that you all were looking at bringing up, but we wanted to just ask if we could have S. 1867 brought to the House floor. It was a bill that passed unanimously out of the Senate, which does indicate that there was strong interest on both sides to get that information declassified so we can get more information about the origin of COVID for all of our Members to be able to see, not just those Members that have access to that information. I am not sure, again, if the gentleman was looking at that, but if that is something you all could look at, I think it would be well received by both sides, and then would help us quickly get that information available for all to see. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. There is an old adage: ``Why put off tomorrow what you can do today?'' There is unanimous support for S. 1867 to not wait until August. And, in fact, it was May when Senators--all Republicans and all Democrat Senators--recognized that this is something we should do and we should do now, and this would get more information out to the public, as well as to our Members. I would also ask if the majority would look at H. Res. 90, which is a resolution that supports the international investigation into the origin of COVID-19. There are many countries. We have heard a lot of European countries have expressed interest in having an international commission to look into this. I don't know why the United States would be reluctant to be a part of that investigation. But, again, in light of all of the new information that has come out, some emails recently since our committee has met, show more and more that there is a high likelihood that COVID-19 started in the Wuhan lab. Whether it was intentional or not, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that it likely started there. We have not had a single hearing, not any of the standing committees, and here we have a committee that, by its name, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus was established for the purpose of investigating COVID-19, all elements of it, not just what is happening here in America. We just recognized over 600,000 deaths from COVID-19 on the steps of the Capitol just a few days ago. So, clearly, it has hit our country hard, but it has hit the whole world hard. Millions of people have died. And now there is real evidence that has come out, including from some of our own scientists here in America, that they may have been aware over a year ago that COVID-19 originated in the lab as opposed to what the original projections were that it was a bat-to-human transmission. Now there is a lot of evidence pointing to the opposite of that. In fact, many of us were calling for that investigation over a year ago, and some were called conspiracy theorists, yet now the hard scientific data shows that it may have been, in fact, started in that lab. Why are we not having those hearings now in our committee, other committees, again, not months from now? But if China knew of this, there may not be scientists that we can get access to, but we have American scientists who were in communication with those scientists. Whether it is directly or indirectly, there may have been taxpayer funds that were involved in that. We should be trying to find that out now. And China may be trying to cover some of that up. The quicker we can get those hearings and those investigations, the more we can find out while it is still possible to find it out. I think it would help a lot of us to understand what really happened, what went wrong. Because if it was started in that lab, this would be a disaster dramatically greater than Chernobyl in terms of devastation to the world, loss of human life. We should all want to be finding out. There were a lot of investigations into Chernobyl. This is dramatically worse than Chernobyl. And if it was self-made, that is something we should be investigating now. I am not sure why there is a reluctance to do it. But I would ask the gentleman, if I could just reiterate, I know we sent a letter--over 200 of our colleagues signed on--asking that we investigate it, all the committees of jurisdiction, including ours. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, we will continue to press for that investigation. And, you know, I am from New Orleans, and I know what it is like to have cooks in the kitchen, but I also know how important it is to have a lot of eyes looking at the same thing. And the more eyes looking into something where there is mystery, where there is uncertainty, where there is speculation, I think the more people looking at this, the better. Again, our committee is uniquely set up. There are other committees that are set up to look at different aspects of it. We should all be looking at it because the more questions we ask--it seems like right now more questions are raised. We need to get answers to those questions, and we get those answers by having that oversight hearing. We don't want some kind of Soviet-style coverup. We want to be looking at those questions and having people brought in. There are American scientists, some people who work for this United States Government, who could help us answer those questions, and they haven't been brought forward. We can compel them to come forward, especially in light of these emails that have come out recently, which show that some of those scientists were aware over a year ago that it may have started in the lab. That was not shared with us in previous hearings. I think a lot of our Members on both sides would like to find that information out as much as we can. And the more we are asking questions, the more I think we will get answers that everybody in the country and around the world wants to know. So, we will continue to press for that. I also want to ask about the appropriations process. I understand the Committee on Appropriations is starting to do some work to start bringing up the bills in committee so that we can, hopefully, have an appropriations process move forward. We would be strongly encouraging a bipartisan appropriations process but also an open appropriations process. So, as we look to the floor schedule, we are hearing that maybe in July some of these bills would come to the floor. As the gentleman knows, when we bring appropriations bills to the floor, whether it is a fully open process or even a modified process, you typically have well over 100 amendments that come to the floor on these appropriations bills. Does the gentleman anticipate that we would start, around July, seeing some of those bills come to the floor? And will we have that ability on the floor to have those kinds of amendments brought forward in a process that we have seen in the past? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Hopefully, we can keep that difference in mind. I appreciate the gentleman filling in, and we will see the gentleman from Maryland back soon enough and maybe even moving a little faster than before. I am not going to challenge him to a race because he would defeat me in that. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor on behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation that we welcome Troy Carter into the congressional delegation. Of course, for Troy, this is not his first time in public service. In fact, he has committed his life to public service. He served in the State legislature in the House of Representatives, then served multiple terms on the New Orleans City Council, and then went back to the State legislature serving as a senator. In fact, until last week, he served with distinction in the Louisiana State Senate. He is replacing, of course, our dear former colleague, Cedric Richmond, and we are proud to see Cedric make his way down Pennsylvania Avenue to come over here to the House to be a part of this special ceremony. Speaking on behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation, Madam Speaker, we look forward to continuing that great tradition as Republicans and Democrats working together for the best interests of our great State of Louisiana as well as for the Nation. We welcome Troy Carter to the delegation and to the United States Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield to Congressman Troy Carter.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCALISE. As we talk about asylum, let's be clear, America has laws on how someone can seek asylum. I haven't seen anybody suggest that those laws are just repealed, and you just take somebody's word that if they say they want to come to America to seek asylum, to come in today and jump ahead of everyone else.