Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives House Schedule January 6 Committee  CSPAN  July 22, 2021 4:16pm-5:16pm EDT

4:16 pm
view of government funded by these companies and more including charter communication. >> broadband. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology and empowering technology in communities. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> robert novak's nickname was the prince of darkness named that by his friends and jourmists. in 2007, two years before he died at 78, a book was published of his 50 years as a author and conservative political
4:17 pm
commentator and appeared on his book, "the prince of darkness." listen at or wherever you get your podcasts. >> house minority whip steve scalise and majority leader steny hoyer. mr. scalise and mr. hoyer talked about the house agenda. that, m majority leader, i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, for yielding. monday, the house will meet at
4:18 pm
12:00 p.m. for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 10:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. that's an acceleration from 12:00. we have a lot of business to do next week. we have a lot of appropriation bills so we want to make sure we're not meeting late, late into the night. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday the house is expected to meet at 11:00 a.m. for legislative business. on thursday, 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. and on friday, 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the house will consider several bills under suspension. in addition, the house will consider at least seven of the 12 appropriation bills for fiscal year 2022. recognizing the importance of completing our work well in
4:19 pm
advance of the deadline at the end of september. i'd let the members know that unfortunately -- well, first of all, let me say we marked up all 12 bills, and they have been reported out of committee. . the senate has not reported out or considered a single appropriation bill. we have 60 days before the end of the fiscal year, approximately, give or take. the house will consider a seven bill mini bus h.r. 4502. that will include seven appropriation bills. the labor-health and human services an education bill, the agricultural bill, the rural development -- agriculture and rural development, energy and water development, financial services, and general government. interior, environment, military construction, and veterans' affairs. transportation and housing and urban development appropriations acts. there will be additional bills
4:20 pm
on the appropriation obviously after the seven five additional appropriation bills that will be available for consideration. three of those bills, as i understand t. have been noticed by the rules committee for amendments to be filed. so they will be ready to go next week, and i'm hopeful that we will be able to move some of those bills next week. they will be the legislative branch appropriation bill, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriation bill. and the department of state and foreign operations and related programs appropriation bill. that will leave the defense bill and the homeland security bill. lastly, additional legislative items are possible. that will be our schedule for the week to come. i expect it to be long days, which is why we are going in at
4:21 pm
10 a.m. and 11 -- on one day, 10 a.m. on two of the days which we usually go in at 12. i would hope that that would preclude us from going very late at night, but i think everybody ought to expect that we will be here into the evening. i yield. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as we look towards 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, you have seen republicans and democrats come together to ultimately determine how best to fund this united states government. any bill that's going to get sent to the president's desk is going to ultimately be a bipartisan bill, unfortunately that's not the bill that's going to be coming to the floor. there are a lot of very extreme radical elements that were put in that bill. there is also something very alarming, that was a break, departure from over 40 years of
4:22 pm
bipartisan agreement on what is known as the hyde amendment. henry hyde in the 1970's was able to get agreement between republicans and democrats to say on all the things we may disagree with, let's agree that taxpayer funding should not be used for abortions. 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 foot ill exercise we would be -- futile exercise that would
4:23 pm
be doing next week but come to an agreement on to properly fund the government. i'm not sure that's being anticipated with the seven bills 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. frankly, to be supported in the bipartisan way that it's always enjoyed going back over 40 years. maybe the gentleman could shed light on that but i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. he is certainly accurate that the hyde amendment has been in our bills for a very long period of time. what i think is not completely accurate that it's been bipartisan support. it has enjoyed bipartisan support in that there were democrats who obviously supported the hyde amendment.
4:24 pm
and i realize that this has made it controversial. having been left out of the bill. i don't know what the rules committee is going to do. we'll have to wait and see what they do. but in any event i want to tell you that large number on our side of the aisle believe that a actually protected -- that a actually protected health care matter for women ought not to be determined by their financial ability. there is controversy with respect to hyde. there is also controversy with respect to federal employees as well that i know well because i chaired that subcommittee. we give to federal employees the health care benefit, but then we say they can't use it for some things. actually, that money is their money, it's not our money. it's given in compensation for their services. but in any event there are
4:25 pm
controversies i would tell the gentleman. i'm not sure what the rules committee will do. and therefore don't want to speak for them. mr. scalise: the gentleman yield back. mr. hoyer: sure. mr. scalise: hopefully we get that opportunity to have the open debate process so we can bring amendments like restoring hyde to this floor. i'd also like to ask about something that is going to be coming up next week, 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. prior to this year, never has the speaker denied the minority the ability to choose who they are going to put on committees.
4:26 pm
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's clear that now it's 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. it surely doesn't bode well for the impartialality and the credibility of this committee. i don't know if the majority is looking at reconsidering that decision, but obviously it's unprecedented. and the gentleman wants to
4:27 pm
explain that, i would be happy to yield. mr. hoyer: well, i think the gentleman can explain it. i think, frankly, your party is hoisted on his own pi tard -- pitard. we brought to this floor with mr. katko and mr. thompson agreeing on the process, offering to the house an equally divided five-five commission. the five being totally in the republican -- republicans being totally in the hand of the minority leader. we brought to the floor the subpoena power being equally divided between the parties and having to cooperate in accomplishing the issuance of a subpoena. and very frankly although there was some discussion of it, there was no doubt that the staff would have been resolved question of being equal staff
4:28 pm
on the republican and democratic side would have been resolved in the senate. i see the gentleman shaking his head. i can tell him i know it would have been resolved. period. and the republican party objected to that commission. equally divided 5-5. with the minority leader strenuously lobbying against it being passed in the united states senate. it was not passed in the united states senate. the press asked me if it's defeated in the senate what are you going to do? i said we are going to move forward, of course. that's what we are doing. we are moving forward. now, the makeup of that committee, three of the persons who are appointed by the -- were recommended by the minority leader were accepted by the speaker. two -- i'm not going to spend a
4:29 pm
long time going into the quotes of the two or their premises, but all i can say is when asked the question, miss cheaney -- ms. cheney, who i know you kicked out of leadership because she tells the truth, said -- mr. scalise: i would ask the gentleman -- that was not the reason that ms. cheney was removed as chair. nothing to do -- mr. hoyer: that's one opinion. now, she said -- mr. scalise: we don't share that's not accurate. mr. hoyer: i clearly know we don't share that view. but it was referenced that, well, she may tell the truth but she ought to stop telling the truth. that was one of the references made as you replaced her as your third in line because she,
4:30 pm
from our perspective, and from i think a large perspective of the american people told the truth. and she continues to at the time truth. she was asked the question, what do you think about this nonpartisan investigation? she said i am absolutely confident we will have a nonpartisan investigation, that it will look at the facts. that it will go wherever the facts may lead. there are three members from the minority leader proposed that the speaker has agreed to. or did not object to. she's objected to two members. and the rhetoric around this from minority leader and from those two members has been disgraceful. thus this must be an investigation. the idea that any of this has become politicized really unworthy of the office that we all hold and unworthy of our republic. i don't blame you, i probably would have taken the same reaction as you have taken, but
4:31 pm
from the speaker's perspective and from others, this needs to be a commission that does, in fact, commit itself to going where the facts lead. and determining the who, what, where, , when and why. i have some very strong feelings as to why the insurrection or as some say the tourist visit on your side of the aisle, mr. whip, the tourist visit that resulted in the death of a number of people , terrorizes members of this house who thought their lives were in danger because people were trying to break into the house chamber. the rationalization of that activity has been rampant by many on your side of the aisle. we have some strong feelings on this and we are going to get to
4:32 pm
the facts. the american people will make the ultimate judgment, obviously. and we want to see that commission, again, hoist on your own pitard the overwhelming majority of you voted against, mr. speaker, they voted against a commission , five republicans appointed by the minority leader, appointed by, not recommended by, and five democrats. subpoena power shared. and notwithstanding the fact that some of you apparently don't agree, i guarantee you it would have been equal staffing. that would have been resolved. that was not a big issue. it was a make up issue to vote no in the united states senate because in our view, so you understand, donald trump didn't want the commission.
4:33 pm
so donald trump was saluted and we didn't get a commission. which was a commission that almost exactly to the jot and diddle as mr. katko said, what the minority leader asked for. so you don't like the result now, i get it. but i believe as ms. chaney said this is going to be -- as ms. cheney said, this is going to be a fact-finding select committee. witnesses will say what they're going to say. by the way, one of the people that was rejected by the speaker may well be, and maybe both, witnesses before the select committee. i don't know that. nobody's told me that. but that may be the case. so we're going to proceed. i know there's disagreement. that's not surprising. but you looked the opportunity
4:34 pm
that you asked for in the eye and rejected it. so here we are. >> that is not what -- mr. scalise: that is not what we asked for. the majority leader said, there were a number of things that need to be cleaned up that were just not accurate if you look at the members 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, maybe this majority don't want to see all the facts come out. they were surely raising those
4:35 pm
two members who were removed yesterday, those -- were raising questions. 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 if the committee with no explanation given. that had never happened before in the history of this congress if you want toe the facts, don't sit there and say you want the facts if you're removing people who are trying to get facts who raising serious questions that should be answered. they raised them publicly and were going to raise them in the committee and 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's the new precedent that the majority leader wants to see in the future but i'll tell you, since the gentleman likes quoting liz cheney, i'll read this quote
4:36 pm
from liz cheney, quote, speaker pelosi and the democrat majority have no business determining which republicans sit on committees. that is from liz cheney, if the the gentleman wans to quote. mr. hoyer: is that a quote about ms. greene? mr. scalise: it is a quote about ms. greene. there were member that committee who voted on january 6 to reject electors. maybe not this year'sian 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
4:37 pm
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's not an investigation. that's a kangaroo court if that's the approach that's going to be taken. the action taken yesterday by the speaker, the unprecedented action, undermines the credible of that commission and it's a shame for the institution because the members we appointed were going there to fine the facts, to help participate in finding the facts, and clearly that's in the the interest now of this committee. that was exposed yesterday in the speaker's unprecedented action. not something that this institution, whether it's republicans running it or democrats, and as the the gentleman know that pendulum swings both way, but never before this year had a majority move moved members that minority leader submitted for committees.
4:38 pm
that's not what's 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. it was mr. jordan who, along with myself and other, has raised serious questions that have been backed up by many medical experts around the 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 various 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. and yet there is not a single hearing that's been held by this majority on whether it was gain of function research, possibly funded with taxpayer money, all
4:39 pm
of those questions should be raise bud 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 fact whence you remove people who are asking questions to get at the facts. shouldn't be a one-sided question and argument. i would yield. mr. hoyer: the legislation we passed said said the speaker would appoint all the members. these members were not kicked off, they never got on. liz cheney was asked whether that was the appropriate thing to do and her response was, so you had her quote, i agree with what the speaker has done. now the reason she agreed, yes, they've raised questions. and on your side you want to raise questions. you want to look at everything but january 6. maybe january 6 as well but you wanted to look at this incident, that incident the other incident, the incident over here are. they relevant incidents?
4:40 pm
sure they are. but not to january 6. but why not look at all of them? do i have the time in mr. scalise: the gentleman has the time. mr. hoyer: when you were in charge you didn't look at some of the ince dens that happened while you were in charge that were similar in nature. very frankly, i think those incidents ought to be looked at, not by this commission, because they were incidents that did not involve insurrection. did not involve stopping the work of the congress of the united states, did not terrorize members of this house. now i know that some of you have had pictures taken of you in this house. you look pretty terrified to me. you thought there was something serious happening. and this stuff that this was a tourist visit is absurd. and the issue of dissembling is
4:41 pm
not new. president trump put that in an art form he didn't like what was going ohere. he created something over here with a tweet or a comment or an action that he took. that's shell game. the issue is, what happened on january 6? what was the insurrection about? what were people coming into the capitol saying let's hang the vice president of the united states? not from our party. people shake their heads. i'm not sure why they're shaking their heads. they saw it on television. they see it on the tapes. over and over and over. they see people being convicted. i happen to think the sentences are too short. it was treason. it was treason. based upon a lie. we need to get to the bottom of
4:42 pm
it. what the speaker has done is made sure that we're going to get to the bottom of it, not withstanding the fact, and i'll repeat again, all of you had the opportunity to vote, 5-5, shared subpoena, and the leader was empowered to appoint anyone he wants. the legislation that passed this house said the speaker would appoint. the speaker. did she consult with the minority lead her she did. did she disagree with two he appointed? she did. she did not appoint them. that was in her power. i agree with her. liz cheney agreed with her. why? because that would have been dissembling, not looking for facts. mr. jordan has said over and over again he believes the election was stolen. court after court after court after court said no proof.
4:43 pm
no proof. so we are where we are. we're going to proceed. we're going to proceed, if the speaker decides to withhold the three and name two others so be it. we're going to proceed. we're going to proceed and we're going to get the facts and we're going to get those facts known to the american people. it's going to be widely covered. there are going to be a lot of witnesses. and we're going to find out the who, maybe that's the problem. the who. and the what. and the where. and the why. for the first time in history, americans, trump signs waving,
4:44 pm
stopped the business of the congress of the united states. an insurrection. and from my view a treasonous act. so we're going to proceed. i yield back. mr. scalise: and again, if the facts were what the majority want, the majority wouldn't be afraid of certain members asking tough questions that may be -- that maybe the majority doesn't want. since the gentleman brought up mr. jordan i'll tell you a question that mr. jordan has been raising publicly. one of the questions mr. yordan 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? may be threats? why weren't the capitol police more equipped? were national guard offered to
4:45 pm
the capitol that were rejected? and at what level if that's 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. and by the way, they're 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's her power but just because you have the might doesn't make it right. what she did was an a abuse to say i'm just going to choose who on the republican side i'm going to allow but boy, if some other members are going to ask tough questions i have the power to take them off. that's not what power is used for. this house, this democracy, we should want the facts. and if some members are going to ask tough questions you should want everybody to be asking
4:46 pm
tough questions. if the facts lead there, you go there if the facts don't lead there, go somewhere else and ask 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 and i would yield. mr. hoyer: does the gentleman believe that the three members that the speaker accepted and was willing to appoint would not have asked those questions? i yield mr. scalise: they haven't said publicly whether they would or not mr. jordan sure did. maybe he was punished for raising tough questions in advance of the hearing and should have waited. but again, those are questions. sheriff nehls, also one of our selections, was right there with these braif capitol police officers, holding down the house of representatives so the chamber wasn't breached. but again if the integrity of that commission is undermined
4:47 pm
because speaker pelosi chose to remove people who are going to ask tougher question, ultimately it proves that this this is in the a commission set on finding the facts it's a commission set on establishing a narrative. regardless of the facts. that is a disgrace for this constitution to -- for this institution to go down that road. there is still time to reconsider. i urge the majority to reconsider how they use or abuse the power that's vested upon them. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. your side had an opportunity to support the capitol police. your side had an opportunity to support law enforcement. your side had the opportunity to increase the capability of the capitol police to respond to insurrectionist violence, criminal agents. your side had that opportunity and what did it do? to a person, voted no.
4:48 pm
and we passed it. we passed support of the capitol police. we passed support to spenten our defenses. we passed legislation to try to make the capitol more secure and our capitol police safer. we passed that legislation. not with a single one of your votes. and it went to the senate. and it sits. and you read what that's doing to the morale of the capitol police. and some of your comments about the capitol police. so you had that opportunity, i'd say to the speaker, the republicans had that opportunity. and just as they rejected the five and five, they rejected support of the capitol police. and 17 of them voted against giving them a gold medal.
4:49 pm
why? because the insurrection was mentioned in the resolution. and of course there was no insurrection, it was a tourist visit. as they ambled politely through the halls of congress. saying how appreciative they were of the efforts being made by their democratic representatives. if you saw it that way, if you believe that, it is impossible for me to understand why. so i tell the whip, mr. speaker, that the republican party has had two opportunities to have an even, fair commission. they rejected, apparently, according to what the whip says, because we didn't want to
4:50 pm
look at seattle. we didn't want to look at this city or that city or the other city or this, that, or the other. by the way, vice president biden made it very clear that those who committed criminal activities were not demonstrators, they were criminals. biden said that. and i agree with him. what they didn't want to look at is who recruited the crowd that came in here. who riled that crowd up? and who deployed them to the capitol of the united states for the specific objective of stopping the steal? what he meant of course is us acting. and his vice president, who he talked to on numerous occasions about stopping the election,
4:51 pm
concluded that that was not legal. that was not within his authority. so he acted consistent with the law. that really annoyed mr. trump. so here we are. we should have had a bipartisan commission. we should are moved that forward. and, yes, we should support the capitol police by adopting a supplemental. by the way, the senate supplemental is more, in terms of dollars, than the house supplemental. so it's not a question of the we spent too much money to do this, to make the capitol safe, to make the capitol police armed, to give them opportunity to get intelligence that they need to conceive. what a distraction that the capitol police weren't prepared .
4:52 pm
the question is not whether were they prepared, the question is why did american citizens try to commit insurrection and treason in the capitol of the united states? and topped our work. not for very long. we came back. we did our work. and we got it done. to the benefit of our country and our democracy and our image around the world. our democracy was resilient. and nobody was angrier, i will tell you, and i think, mr. scalise, you were there, mr. speaker, nobody was angrier at what was happening that night than mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate. who said, he believed subsequent to his voting against impeachment that notwithstanding that he believed the president bore responsibility. as the minority leader said.
4:53 pm
not all responsibility but bore responsibility. we are going to look ive. you can talk all you want. your leader has now decided he's going to withdraw the three. and not participate. we regret that. but it's not going to stop us. it's not going to stop us getting at the truth. not going to stop us at having the american people know the who, what, where, , when and why of the first time since 1812 when a foreign power invaded our capitol. that the capitol of the united states was invaded by people who were seeking to undermine the democratic processes under our constitution. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's unfortunate that as that commission starts it will not include other members, republican members, who wanted
4:54 pm
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. i think we all stand with them and ultimately when you look at the supplemental, when it 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. 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 many of these cities that have actually defunded police are seeing rapid increases in crime. even more, and i know i held round tables with sheriffs from
4:55 pm
the new orleans area, as many of my colleagues have met with law enforcement, they'll tell you the biggest challenge today in addition to the growing crime wave they are seeing is the demoralization around the country for police because they see these efforts to defund the police and they see elected officials speaking out publicly against police. it's not coming from the republican side. i think the gentleman knows where it's coming from. but why won't this bill be brought to the floor to just express support for police? the fact that the majority on the democrat side will not bring a resolution to express support for police, h.res. 352, by miss mallin tackies -- mallin -- but an increase in resignations, people 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
4:56 pm
they are having trouble recruiting people because of the attacks on police all around the country that we saw from the summer, through where cops were murdered, shot, beaten. yet a resolution to express support to let them know 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 we can actually express to all police that we support them and that we do have their back. and i would yield on that. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you had an opportunity to support the police and you voted with those who wanted to defund the police. all of you. you had an opportunity. just a few weeks ago. we had a bill on the floor to support and to fund the capitol police to make them safer, more effective, and better able to enforce the law. and you-all, to a person, voted
4:57 pm
no. you had the opportunity. so -- and you voted with those who you say on our aisle didn't want to do that. but it passed. why? because the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming majority of democrats, that's the only reason it passed, voted to support the police. our capitol police. and i will tell you, that is also true of members in terms of supporting law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels. are there some who say some things? yes. there are some people who say some things on your side. i have quoted a couple of them. that i'm sure you don't support. but having said that, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. we had a bill on the floor that supported the police. you voted against it.
4:58 pm
every one of you. mr. speaker, you can talk all you want about supporting it, but very frankly the bills you vote on next week support the police. they are not defunding. unlike the trump budgets, if you look at the trump budgets, who cut law enforcement funding? trump budgets. check me on that. then come to the floor and say hoyer was not telling the truth. check me. you had an opportunity, mr. speaker, the minority had an opportunity to support the police. they voted no. the senate's doing the same. it's a shame because it's undermining the morale of the capitol police. you have seen this reported in the newspapers.
4:59 pm
this is not me saying t they don't understand why -- mr. scalise, is absolutely right. the capitol police have kept him in particular and others who were attacked by a crazed, apparently left wing, but a crazed bad person. maybe mentally defective, but did a very bad act and he was targeting republicans. and we all stood up and -- when mr. scalise was in the hospital and thanked the capitol police for protecting him and others on that site. that was a terrible, terrible criminal act. the guy was probably a democrat. i don't know. and we call him out for being that. that's what we ought to all do.
5:00 pm
and on january , some very bad criminal people acted in this congress, in this capitol against our democracy, against our democracy, against our constitution. and we want to study it. we want to get the facts. so it doesn't happen again. and so we know who is fomenting this insurrectionist psychology. who rationalizes that on this floor? now. i yield. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just to point out 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 the police. if you are diverting money away from police you are defunding police. again there is a resolution
5:01 pm
that's been sitting out there for a while now to -- express support, i hope 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 somebody buys from 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% more for gasoline. you are seeing it across the board. and that increase in inflation, dramatic increase, is a tax. it's a tax on hardworking families. that shows for the gentleman, so many of those things, used cars up 45%. if you can even find a car to buy because there is such a shortage. when the government's paying people not to work. the borrowing, by the way, and spending of trillions of dollars, which is 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
5:02 pm
part of the reeb we are -- reason we are seeing inflation. gas up 45%. home prices 15% up. milk, 5%. laundry machines, 29%, if you can get one. you might have to wait six 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 tax that is ultimately would lead to a more evaporation of middle class jobs, which is what the majority's bringing. but i would hope that the gentleman would look at legislation, working with republicans, to start addressing some of these problems that are affecting household families all across this 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
5:03 pm
spending bills and higher taxes that will ship more jobs overseas. shutting down energy production in america while the president's signing or authorizing agreements with russia to use pipelines to ship their energy to other countries, he's 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 would hope we could bring legislation to confront these challenges to the floor. . i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have brought them to the floor, we will continue to bring them to the floor, we hope you'll support them we created three million new jobs, more jobs in our first five months than any administration in history. you forgot to mention that figure. at double the monthly rates of the five months prior to that.
5:04 pm
under the trump administration. the average number of new unemployment insurance claims has been cut in half. last week that number was about 400,000. the same week last year it was 1.5 million. under the trump administration. small business optimism has returned to its 2019 average. the economy grew at 6.4% in the first quarter. independent reports forecast america this year reaching the highest level of growth in nearly four decades. furthermore, as you know, the director of the federal reserve has opined that he thinks that yes, there is a surge in inflation, yes, we're concerned about it. federal reserve is watching it. we are watching it. we want to keep inflation in
5:05 pm
check. the gentleman referenced that we're paying people not to work. let me remind the gentleman we had four bills which did similar things that were passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion last year. overwhelming bipartisan fashion. and none of them would have become law without the signature of president donald trump. what happened? donald trump left. bipartisanship left with it. not because he was so bipartisan, but he thought that doing what we were doing was good for the people and therefore i think he thought good politics. i think that's accurate. the fact is that this economy is now doing exactly what we want it to do. it's growing. now it's surged, there's no doubt about that, and that surge has resulted in inflation hiking
5:06 pm
at a higher rate than we'd like. including the products that the whip mentioned, mr. speaker. we need to contain inflation. it does rob those, particularly on fixed incomes. but the multitrillions spent last year, one of which, the cares act, was spend almost a unanimous vote in this house. $2 trillion. so we did that because we believed that the magnitude of the challenge confronting us with covid-19 both to the health of our people and the health of our economy demanded such a robust response. one of our members, who had been vaccinated, some members hadn't been vaccinated, has come down now, hopefully the vaccinations that he has will moderate any
5:07 pm
adder haves impact of this delta various. but i would say to the gentleman it's a little bit like the commission. you want to focus on the bad news, not focus on the good news. you want to focus on other news, not the central news of the insurrection. and i understand that strategy but there's a lot of good news happening in america. there's some bad news too. part of it is because people haven't gotten vaccinated. your state has that problem. mississippi has that problem. south carolina ha some -- south carolina and some other states have that problem. my state has that problem. not to the extent of some other states but all 50 states are seeing a surge.
5:08 pm
so that getting up and getting off the field at this point in time is not appropriate. and i think that we're going to find that the president's program that he suggests, as he says, and i agree, will have a generational impact for decades to come in making sure that our economy continues to grow, that our people are educated, that we expand the middle class, lift people out of poverty, as we did with children who are now 50% of them are going to be lifted out of poverty. that's good news for america. it's good news for all of us. those kids are going to be better educated and make more productive contributions to our society. so i hope a number of you will support pieces of legislation that will carry that vision of the montana's into -- of the
5:09 pm
president's into fruition. will work toward that end. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. as we look at the bills coming to the floor next week, frankly they would make those problems worse. i know when we talk about the inflation side, talk about inflation because it's 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 less far. you see your dollar not going as far. because whatever you're making, you're spending even more money that you were -- 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. so they look at these multitrillion dollar spending bills and they're starting to ask the questions, what's really in those bills? if it's not things to help my
5:10 pm
family, because i'm paying more with all this new spending, what is in it? we just found out today there's millions of dollars in the bill coming to the floor next week, there's millions of dollars for one entity. planned parenthood of san jose. 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 1970's under a democrat majority. democrats and republicans said, taxpayer funding shouldn't be used to provide abortion and it had always been sack ro sacrosanct in spending bills that this congress passed, republicans and democrats since that time, until now. so not only are they gutting hyde in the bill but they're putting millions of dollars into planned parenthood by name. this is what drives people nuts
5:11 pm
when they see that kind of spending and a disconnect because they're pay manager money forking rehousehold goods and instead of us confronting that on the floor they see this kind of spending that is generational because it's the next generation that will have to pay for it. as much as it seem this is 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 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're facing. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it was not radical spending in 2020 because trump signed the bills. trump left and it became radical spending. that's situational ethics, mr.
5:12 pm
speaker. i'll leave it at that. mr. scalise: the final point i'd like to bring up to the leader is, we're seeing something that is very encouraging in cuba and that is the people of cuba taking to the streets to demand freedom. something that's been decades in the making. i would hope that we see all government leaders, plunker democrat -- plunker democrat -- republican, democrat, everyone, expressing support. i think one of the most heart felt signs i saw and my colleagues saw just a week ago for not only people taking to the streets to call for freedom, they were carrying the american flag. in cuba. and we see this all around the world. it's one of the things that for all of our differences brings us together and that is that here in this united states congress,
5:13 pm
we're not only working to promote freedom in this country and preserve it for future generations but this freedom that we work to preserve inspires people all around the world. and whether it's cuba or in iran, which we saw years ago, or any other country, when people see freedom there's only one flag they wave. that's united states flag. and our colleague, mario diaz-balart, whose family fled cuba, like so many of our colleagues, some first generation, carlos gimenez, personally fled cuba seeking freedom. talk about the american dream. first generation who fled a socialist nation who is now a sit, voting member of the united states congress and wants to express support for the cuban people there's a resolution, h.res. 527 that express ours solidarity standing with the people in cuba seeking free dom. i would ask the gentleman to
5:14 pm
look at bringing that to the floor. as the people of cuba are trying to get that freedom, for being oppressed, many may be being murdered right now as they've shut down the internet, shut down the media because there's no freedom of the press, we are hearing stories that are alarm larming, if we can express our support that we're standing with people in cuba who seek freedom as well, i think it would be a strong signal. i would ask the gentleman if we could look at bringing that to the floor. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. the president of the united states has strongly expressed support for those seeking liberty and freedom in cuba. he said shortly after the demonstrations occurred, he has maintained that position. i share that opinion with him. we are discussing what action we might be taking here in this house. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman and appreciate that. hopefully we can work together
5:15 pm
to get that brought to the floor and express that support in uniform. with that, mr. speaker, i yield >> the house committee investigating the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol holds its first hearing tuesday. officers from the u.s. capitol police and washington metropolitan police department will tell member what is they saw and experienced on that day. watch the hearing live tuesday, beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, on or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> president biden signed an updated version of the victims of crime bill into law at the white house. the measure would use money collected as legal penalties to pay for victim compensation and assistance programs.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on