Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these gun control bills that are being brought forward. They are brought forward under the guise of background checks. Let's look at what these bills would actually do. We had identified any number of problems with this bill that we were trying to improve, and every one of those was shut out, shut out by the Democratic majority who wanted to try to stifle the opposing side's debate because they think just saying background checks makes this a good bill. Let's talk about what this bill will do to make criminals--felons-- out of law-abiding citizens. If you loan your gun to a friend under this bill, maybe they are thinking of buying a similar gun to protect themselves and they want to go to a shooting range to see if this gun is the right kind of gun to protect themselves with, which they have a right to do under the Second Amendment of this Constitution, loaning your gun to that friend in that act would make you a felon subject to a year in jail and subject to a $100,000 fine, Mr. Chairman. We tried to fix that. They shut that amendment out. In this bill, if you loan your gun to a friend who maybe has been a victim of domestic violence--and one of my colleagues who is here in opposition to this bill is one of those victims of domestic violence. She had an amendment to fix this bill to say, if she has got a temporary restraining order against her boyfriend who has been beating her and she is afraid he is going to come back tonight, under one of the bills, if she goes to buy a gun tonight and the Fix NICS system isn't working, she may have 20 business days to get that gun. Now, good luck if the boyfriend shows up to beat her up that night and she says: Don't worry, I am on day 8. I only have another 12 days before I can buy the gun. Will you come back so I can defend myself then? Do you really think that is going to happen? You know what that means to her. So in the bill we said: What if you can loan your gun to her? She goes to a friend and says: I know you have a gun. I don't have a gun. I am trying to protect myself because I have got a TRO, but I know he is probably going to come back. Under this bill, you will be a felon, a year in jail, $100,000 fine. We tried to fix that, too, Mr. Chairman, and they shut that amendment out. That is what this bill does. Oh, by the way, we are talking about law-abiding citizens here. If you go hunting with a buddy and you try to loan your gun to a buddy, Mr. Chairman, they say there is an exemption in the bill. But it is written so vaguely that you not only need to bring your hunting partner, you might need to bring your attorney to find out if loaning your shotgun to your friend makes you a felon under this bill. These are law-abiding citizens. These are people who use guns to defend themselves, which is the basis of the Second Amendment. Our Founding Fathers believed every American has the right to defend themselves, because every day, on average, in this country guns are used by good people to defend themselves against bad people, and it is going to make it harder for them to get access to these guns to defend themselves. So, again, we tried to fix some of these problems. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about another problem we tried to identify and fix. If you loan your gun, you will be a felon.

Mr. SCALISE. So now we have identified areas where law-abiding citizens can become felons. We tried to fix it; they wanted that to stay in place. So what is that motivation? But then we identified another problem. If someone who is in this country illegally goes to buy a gun and the system flags them, and it says: Wait a minute, this person is not even here legally. They are breaking Federal law trying to buy a gun. We said that we should notify ICE so at least our Border Patrol agents in the interior can deport them. They blocked that amendment. So now a law-abiding citizen can become a felon under their bill, but someone who is here illegally trying to buy a gun in violation of the law can't be turned over to authorities. This is a bad gun control bill, and we ought to reject it.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Terrapin from Maryland, for yielding. I want to say, first, we are going to miss Karen Haas. Karen Haas served this body so well, as the majority leader talked about, and in such a fair way, treating all Members with the dignity and respect that they all deserve as we all carry out the work of the people's House. When you think about the different roles that she has played, serving this Chamber, this body, for decades in a number of different roles, but, of course, most notably to all of us, twice as Clerk of the House. She was actually here once before, left, realized just how much fun it is to be in this House and work for this great body, and came back. We thank you for coming back again and for your great service during these times. So much work goes into the operations of the House. The things that we do on a daily basis, whether it is a Member filing a bill, when you go down to drop your bill in the hopper, it is Karen and the entire team that she has put together at the Office of the Clerk that receives the bills, that processes the bills. When we all vote for and sometimes against the Journal, it is the Clerk that puts together the Journal of the House to make sure that the things that we do are properly recorded throughout time for people to go review. It is an important job. But it is the work that she has done that we all see on a daily basis that we are going to miss. As Cheryl Johnson takes her place, best of luck to you as well. We wish you all the best, but we are going to miss Karen. We wish you the best in your next endeavor. You can come visit us from time to time. Karen, thank you so much for the work that you have done on behalf of not just us as Members of Congress, but on behalf of all the American people who count on this institution to function properly, for helping us make sure that it is done in a proper, efficient, fair, and impartial way. Best of luck to you, Karen.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. I would just ask if the gentleman would urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to move swiftly to bring this bill up for a vote as we continue to use every legislative tool we have available to, hopefully, try to get a unanimous consent agreement to bring the bill to the floor. But ultimately, if that is not allowed, and if the committee process doesn't work and actually take attention to this in a quick way, then we will go a different route and use the discharge petition route. So we have continued to try to make the point that this issue needs to be addressed by this Congress. The President, in his State of the Union Tuesday night, was very clear that Congress ought to address this issue. And the President, in his speech--and I thought it was an incredibly eloquent speech, confronting the challenges we face, but also talking about the greatness of this country and highlighting some of the people who achieved greatness, the three men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and the challenges they faced to liberate Europe, to keep America free. Ultimately, one of those gentlemen actually went on to help liberate Dachau; and to see the Holocaust survivor who was at Dachau, and liberated by that very gentleman, to both be on the same row of the gallery, was a special moment, a special moment that reminds us of the greatness of this country. And as the President talked about that at the end, he challenged us, he challenged Congress to reach for greatness, not gridlock, but for that same greatness as we confront the challenges that this great Nation faces today. This action, the fact that, in many States of this Nation, it is allowed to kill a baby after it has been born, is a moral wrong that we need to fix. That is another act of greatness that we need to rise up to; and I hope we do in the quickest way possible. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I want to share and join in with him in the tribute that has been paid to our former colleague John Dingell. I served proudly on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with Chairman Dingell, and what a giant, what a true institutionalist of this House, the longest serving Member, a colleague of whom we will have fond memories and will share those fond memories, I am sure, in the days and weeks to come. I know, Madam Speaker, and to my colleague from Maryland as well, every time we go into that room, the committee room for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we always get to look up now and know that it is named after our colleague John Dingell and always remember his wit-- because he was tough, but he had a great wit to share along with the combat that you would always get to engage in with him. I will always remember, when the vote was finally called, he always had his own unique way. As the clerk would be calling the roll of the committee and they would call a member and the member would say ``aye'' or ``nay,'' he would always say: ``Dingell votes aye.'' He would have his unique way of addressing the issue of the day, and we will always remember him. To his wife, Debbie, and his family, we keep him in our prayers. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going through the schedule, and I would share that assessment as well, that if those arrangements are made early next week, I would expect a large contingent of our colleagues to want to be there. We will all be there in spirit with John and his memory, as well as our wishes to his family. As he and I may have disagreed on some issues, he was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and we would talk about that. Mostly, when I had those conversations with Chairman Dingell, it was about this great institution, this people's House that we both have the honor to serve in, and his appreciation for what this institution means to our great Nation. Those will be memories I will always cherish. As we look to the schedule, I know the gentleman alluded to the conference committee that is meeting. I am encouraged, as I talk to different conferees, by the conversations, the issues that they are tackling. Clearly, the issue that has been at the front and center of the differences that we are trying to work through deals with border security. As we look to resolve the differences, ultimately, it is my hope that we find a way to properly fund the tools that are needed to actually secure the border, as our experts, our men and women who risk their lives to keep our border safe, have laid out in detail: obviously, technology to help them do their jobs better, the need to increase security at ports of entry and to have more of the drug-testing equipment that can do a better job of keeping drugs out of our country. Clearly, part of that solution has to be some form of physical barriers--whatever you want to call them, wall, physical barrier--along areas where we have the worst problems. If I can bring to the gentleman's attention, there was a story yesterday in the Washington Examiner titled, ``Border agents just apprehended convicted child molesters and an MS-13 member at the Texas border where there's no barrier.'' This is a Washington Examiner article from yesterday, and I include it in the Record. [From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 7, 2019] Border Agents Just Apprehended Convicted Child Molesters and an MS-13 Member at the Texas Border Where There's No Barrier (By Eddie Scarry) U.S. Border Patrol agents said Thursday that they apprehended several illegal immigrants at the southern border in Texas, in places where there are no physical barrier walls to deter illegal crossings. Among those caught crossing into the U.S. were a Mexican man with a previous conviction in Georgia for child molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina showing a conviction for ``Indecent Liberties with Child,'' and another Honduran male with a Florida record that identified him as a member of the violent M-13 gang. The apprehensions occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to a release by the Border Patrol. I toured a portion of that sector in January, and agents said that areas that feature a 25-foot barrier of concrete and steel have proven critical in blocking illegal border crossers, forcing them to attempt their crossings in specific areas where they can be apprehended. They've asked for more of the same kind of border wall to fill in the long gaps that current exist. When President Trump said during his State of the Union address Tuesday that his proposal is for new barrier that ``will be deployed in the areas identified by the border agents as having the greatest need,'' this is what he meant.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, for my friend, the majority leader, I want to read this comment and ask a question about this. Among the other things that they were able to identify as they were able to stop, just earlier this week, some of these people coming in, a person with ``a previous conviction in Georgia for child molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina showing a conviction for `indecent liberties with a child,' and another Honduran male with a Florida record that identified him as a member of the violent MS-13 gang.'' This is just one more example, earlier this week, of people who are coming across our border illegally in areas--and the article notes that this happened in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to our Border Patrol agents, in areas where there is no physical barrier. So as the gentleman himself has said just a few days ago, and I quote, ``physical barriers are part of the solution'' to improve border security, I would ask the gentleman, when we get this conference report hopefully wrapped up this weekend, can the gentleman give an assurance that there will be money to properly not only secure the border but to include the physical barriers that are not there in those areas where we have child molesters and gang members coming across our southern border? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think we are all going to be encouraging those members of the conference committee to continue the work that they are doing. That headway seems to be going in the right direction. Hopefully, we come up with a bill by early next week that we can vote on next week before we get to the deadline on the 15th to continue to properly fund those other areas of the government that haven't been funded. That includes the border security that is necessary, including physical barriers. Shifting gears, I would ask the gentleman about a piece of legislation that we filed that we have been trying to get unanimous consent to bring up, and this is H.R. 962, a bill by my colleague, Ann Wagner from Missouri. As we saw earlier, in these last few days, you had the Governor of New York signing legislation that, among other things, would allow for a baby that comes out of the womb alive, whether it is from an abortion that wasn't successful--whatever the case, if a baby comes out of the womb alive, the fact that in the State of New York, and now we saw the Governor of Virginia talking on a radio show about how that process and procedure would be carried out where the baby, after it is born alive, can be killed legally in those States. As we talk about the sanctity of innocent life, clearly, there are many different divisions amongst the parties on the issue of abortion. But to many, this issue transcends abortion. This isn't related to abortion anymore. If a baby comes out of the womb and is alive, the fact that in only 26 States there are protections that that baby can't be killed, that means in nearly half of the States in this country, that baby still can be killed legally. I still don't completely grasp how that is legal in America, that someone who is born alive can still be killed and have that be legal in certain States. So we have a bill called the Born-Alive Protection Act that would ensure that, regardless of how you feel about abortion--pro-life, pro- choice--after the baby comes out of the womb alive, it shouldn't be able to be killed. H.R. 962 gives that protection that it can't be killed. I would ask the gentleman if he would allow that bill to come to the House floor for a vote. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that when we did bring that piece of legislation last year, the Born-Alive Protection Act, it did pass the House, 241-183, in a bipartisan way, with six Democrats voting with us to pass that bill to the Senate. It did not get passed in the Senate. However, as you look now, there have been a number of alarming developments that have raised the profile of this issue. When the Governor of New York signed into law his legislation and celebrated the fact that, in his State, you can kill a baby after it has been born, and you saw applause in the legislature over that, it shocked people across the country. It horrified and angered people across the country. When the Governor of Virginia, just a few days ago, went to a radio station and described, in detail, how a baby born alive can still be killed, can be killed after it is born alive, and it is legal in that State, it is legal, and not protected in nearly a majority of our States, this issue has come to the forefront of Americans. Again, pro-life, pro-choice, wherever you are on this issue, the vast majority of Americans feel strongly that you should not be able to kill the baby after it is born alive. So we can talk about a long, drawn-out legislative process, but now there is more interest and more anger to confront this violent act of murder. How can it be anything other than murder to kill a child after it comes out of the womb? So I know we can talk about a long, drawn-out procedure. I have made it very clear I will be filing a discharge petition if we can't get to the point where we get this bill brought to the floor in a quicker way. There is a quicker way to do this and address this problem. Again, if you ask most pro-choice people in America, they don't think it is right that you can kill the baby after it comes out of the womb. And so, as the gentleman can talk about a regular order procedure, this bill has passed the House before, and now there is more interest in the Senate to confront this issue. We have the ability to give them that opportunity. I would just ask if the gentleman would reconsider, to move this in a quicker way and allow the unanimous consent motion to go through. If no one objects, we can bring that bill to the floor. And so far, as we have been making the motion for unanimous consent, there has been no opposition expressed. They have just not allowed the motion to go forward and be recognized. So I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider and allow us to, at least, have that opportunity to try to bring this bill to the floor in the quickest way possible, to stop this barbaric process from being allowed anywhere in America.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. So, Mr. Speaker, is there any guidance under section 956 of the House rules to have that motion be in order?

Mr. SCALISE. Again, seeing no objection on either side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, can the Chair advise what is required pursuant to section 956 of the House rules to allow my motion to be considered?

Mr. SCALISE. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SCALISE. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, can the ruling of the Chair be challenged?

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to rule on the motion of unanimous consent.

Mr. SCALISE. So, Mr. Speaker, is there a motion that can be made under the rules that have been cited to allow for the immediate consideration of H.R. 962?

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if this unanimous consent request can't be entertained, I would urge the Speaker and the majority leader to schedule the born-alive bill immediately so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life, and I would ask all others to join in in that request.

Mr. SCALISE. I understand the guidelines the Chair decided, Mr. Speaker, but seeing no objection from either side of the House, would that constitute clearance and allow the Chair to entertain my motion under the rules of the House?

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, clearly, as a suspension, it wasn't in the traditional sense--obviously, it went down. There being a sense of the House resolution, typically, those are resolutions where both sides work together. I ask the gentleman, do they anticipate approaching senses of the House in a partisan way or, hopefully, in a bipartisan way, where we can work together to get a true sense of the House that could pass? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I know we look forward to welcoming the President of the United States to this House Chamber on Tuesday night for the State of the Union Address. I appreciate the work that we are going to do together to secure our Nation's border and properly fund our government, and unless the gentleman has something else he would like to add, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, hopefully, it is not a trend that we see. Madam Speaker, I know the last few weeks have been contentious. We have a lot at stake as we try to get an agreement on something that actually can work to properly fund the government and properly secure the border. I am glad that the conferees are finally meeting. I hope we don't see any attempt to run out the clock, because we do have a limited amount of time, although it is far more than enough time to reach an agreement, if all parties are truly there in earnest, and I do think they are. I hope that they put all options on the table and listen to all the proper expert testimony that has been given on why we need to have certain amounts to secure the border and certain tactics and techniques and technology that are all going to be part of this. Hopefully, at the end of that discussion, very quickly, they can reach an agreement that we can then bring to the House and the Senate and pass in a bipartisan way that the President can sign to finally properly fund the government and secure our Nation's border. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's quick candor. Madam Speaker, as we wrap this up, I would ask about an issue that a number of our Members were concerned about and hope this is not a trend. In the House Natural Resources Committee, the majority, yesterday, as they were proposing their new rules for the committee-- and each committee, as we know, proposes their new rules as a new Congress is sworn in and established on a committee level--in the oath that is administered to men and women who come before the committee to testify, the original proposal suggested removing ``so help you God'' from the oath. One of the Members on our side noticed that omission and put an amendment in place to restore ``so help you God'' in the oath. Fortunately, that was added back in. I would ask the gentleman, is this going to be a trend? Is there going to be some kind of general movement by committees to try to remove ``so help you God'' from the oaths that are administered to witnesses?

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing that proposal laid out. As the House and Senate Republican and Democrat conferees meet together, I do think, and have an optimistic approach, that we are not that far removed from reaching a deal, if we can ultimately find a way to put a real amount on the table that shows how we can secure the border, as our experts--the men and women who risk their lives to secure the border--have suggested in their proposal, if we can come to a place where we can agree on a way to actually achieve border security, and that includes physical barriers. When the gentleman from Maryland, I think it was 2 weeks ago, was talking about some Democrats who were going over to the White House back then, it was said that they didn't have the authority to negotiate. Do the Democrat conferees have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Democrat majority in the House? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to let him know that his side said they wouldn't negotiate during a shutdown. Obviously, the shutdown is over now. Will there be a counteroffer now put on the table?