Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule update.
I would like to inquire, we know that there are only 7 legislative days left for Congress to meet its required deadline to provide a budget, the April 15 deadline. What troubles me is that there has been no budget brought through the House Budget Committee. In fact, there have been reports that your majority doesn't plan to bring a budget at all.
Obviously, the budgets are very important to show the priorities of our Congress, to show the priorities of each of our majorities, as we did in 7 of the 8 years we were in the majority, not only doing a budget, but then, this last year, we were able to reach a 2-year budget agreement, so we were able to know with certainty what the budget numbers were that we would actually be working on to draft our appropriations bills. Again, the bills carry out the priorities of Congress, to show the country how we are going to properly fund government at the levels that we, as a Congress, set, which is what the budget does.
As I have seen, there is no current budget agreement negotiation going on that is yielding anything. So, without a budget agreement, does the gentleman plan to at least provide and bring a budget to the House floor?
I yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, last year, as the gentleman knows, we were working under a 2-year budget agreement. Typically, we don't have a 2- year budget agreement. You bring one budget, and that is the budget for that year.
For fiscal year 2012, the House passed a budget. In our majority, we passed a budget to establish those numbers to then start the appropriations process.
In 2013, we passed through the House a budget to establish the 2013 budget numbers to work off of.
In 2014, we passed a budget through the House to establish the budget for that fiscal year.
In 2015, we passed a budget through the House to establish a budget for that year.
In 2016, we actually got an agreement, both between the House and the Senate, and passed the budget, of course, through the House and the Senate.
In fiscal year 2017, we passed a budget through the House and the Senate and got a full agreement to do an appropriations process.
In fiscal year 2018, as the gentleman knows, we actually agreed to a 2-year budget agreement to not only set the fiscal year numbers for 1 year, but for 2 years, which was tremendously helpful in making sure that our Nation's defense, which many times had been used as bargaining chips for other budget negotiations, we took that off the table. We made sure our men and women in uniform had the certainty of a 2-year budget agreement, which doesn't happen often. Frankly, it should happen more often, and we should strive toward that, so we achieved that.
In 2019, as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget out of the House Budget Committee, but we already had a budget agreement to work through the appropriations process because we had done a 2-year budget the prior year.
We don't have even a 1-year budget agreement right now. And as the gentleman knows, there are no fruitful negotiations to get a 1- or 2- year budget agreement, so there is no budget number to work off of, which is why you produce a budget.
Last year, we did bring a bill out of committee, but we didn't need to pass a budget because we already had the budget number agreed to from the 2-year deal prior.
And so with that, is the gentleman willing to engage in or come to an agreement on at least a 1- or 2-year budget agreement so that we can actually have an appropriations process that works for the country and shows the priorities of this Nation?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am hopeful that we are able to start an appropriations process and, ideally, to complete it by summer--well in advance of the September 30 government funding deadline--because we shouldn't be operating under deadline after deadline, where we go until the midnight hour.
But as the gentleman knows, you can't start an appropriations process until you actually set what are known as the 302 numbers, the 302(a) and (b) numbers, so that we know what each appropriations bill can target in terms of its overall spending number, to have that caps limit.
Ideally, it would be done through a budget with the April 15 deadline, but maybe the gentleman is going to be able to work with the committee to get a budget passed out of committee before the deadline and, if not, as the gentleman urges, a hopeful desire to get a caps deal. I would like to get a caps deal as well.
I supported the last caps deal because it gave us 2 years of certainty. It was bipartisan. It was an agreement that, while we may disagree on top-line numbers--and we want more money for defense, and some on your side might want more for nondefense discretionary--we finally came to an agreement. That did give tremendous certainty to our men and women in uniform. So over 70 percent of this Federal Government was fully funded for the fiscal year.
Clearly, we had a difference on border security, and that remaining area of our budget wasn't funded. But at least the 70-plus percent of the people of this country who rely on those services and want a strong defense were able to see us achieve that. Hopefully, we can do something like that again well before the deadline. That is the objective.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, you have two methods within which to set those caps: You can do it through the budget--which 7 of the 8 years we were in the minority we did--or you can do it through a separate caps deal, which 2 years ago we were able to do for a 2-year period, which is why we didn't do a budget last year. We passed it out of committee and at least showed what our priorities are, but we didn't need to pass a budget to get a caps deal because we had a caps deal in place from the prior year.
The other 7 years there was no caps deal, so the budget laid out that number, and the gentleman's majority has done neither. You don't have a caps deal or a budget, and so at some point you are going to have to produce the number to show what we are going to start the appropriations process using.
The other part of the budget, which isn't talked about as much but is equally important, is the establishment of the priorities for that majority. How do we get back to a balanced Federal budget, for example? We laid that out in our budget multiple times.
We have programs like Medicare. Medicare is going bankrupt if we do nothing. It would be irresponsible for us to let Medicare go to bankruptcy. Actual reports show it could go bankrupt in the next 8 years, which we think is irresponsible. That is why we put, in our budget, a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy.
Whatever the gentleman's plan would be to save Medicare from bankruptcy, I would urge him to show it. Show the American people what the priorities are. But they haven't done that.
And why? Why haven't they done that? Because they have spent the last 2 years trying to impeach the President, trying to lay out this foundation that there was collusion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman will yield in a moment.
But let's be clear, for the last 2 years we heard this clarion call that there was some collusion between the President or his family and Russia. We heard all this talk about impeachment and everything on down from the highest levels, including, now, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who went multiple times on national TV and said there was more than credible evidence of collusion.
Finally, everybody was waiting on the Mueller report. Many were hanging their hat, saying it is going to show all these things. There is going to be a list of indictments. Go look at all the tapes from every national TV show you can imagine of some of the most outlandish claims that were made. And now the Mueller report comes out, and it is clear those claims are baseless. There was no collusion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Clearly, we have seen assessments of it. If the gentleman thinks it is going to show something differently, then please share it, but they made it clear there was no collusion and there will be no further indictments.
In fact, the Attorney General of the United States said this: ``But as noted above, the special counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.''
So multiple times they were offered, they never even came close. There was no collusion.
These conspiracy theories, the witch hunts, it is time for it to end. There was no collusion.
If you or any of your colleagues have proof of collusion, as your chairman of the House Intelligence Committee claims, they need to show that to the Attorney General of the United States, because it completely contradicts what the Attorney General has now said based on the findings of the Mueller report.
There was no collusion.
And so when Chairman Schiff says, ``more than circumstantial evidence''--that he has seen--``that associates of President Trump colluded with Russia''--in August, ``I think there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.''
And even now that the Attorney General makes it very clear there was no collusion, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee will not recant his previous statements that have been discounted.
Today, as the gentleman knows, this morning, every member of the minority party on the House Intelligence Committee called for the chairman of the Intelligence Committee to step down, every member.
So I would ask the gentleman: Will you call for the chairman of the Intelligence Committee to step down as chairman after losing so much credibility in the wild and vicious claims that he has made that have been disputed by the Attorney General of the United States based on this Mueller report after 22 months and over $20 million of taxpayer money that found no collusion?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Crimes of collusion?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there are a number of items that need to be addressed in what the gentleman just said.
First of all, to claim that there was any collusion as you said, ``on behalf of the President of the United States with Russia'' goes in complete contradiction to the findings that were delivered to us by the Attorney General of the United States, and I am going to read it one more time.
As we noted above, the special counsel did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government.
Anyone who would make a claim to the contrary is either being irresponsible or ought to show the evidence. If there is evidence that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee has, and let's be clear, he has tweeted things out, here is what we know. This is from Chairman Schiff. In 2017, here is what we know: The Russians offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help. The President made full use of that help. He has claimed, again, that he has more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion.
Yet, the Attorney General of the United States, after reviewing the entire Mueller report, which we hope we all see, obviously, within the confines of the law--the law makes it clear how something like that gets reported--I hope the gentleman understands and wouldn't suggest that classified information should be disclosed--but the report ought to be disclosed and show the American people what they have found. But we have seen the summary of it, and, of course, we are going to look at the entire thing.
And maybe then after reviewing the entire thing, if the gentleman does see, as the report summary shows, that there was no collusion with the President of the United States, then maybe this gentleman and all of the other people who have made outrageous claims that the President was in collusion, will maybe acknowledge they were wrong, will maybe offer an apology. Who knows. We can hold out hope for that.
But let's be clear about the statements that were made and the things that were alluded to that aren't true, that weren't the case. Maybe it was wishful thinking and it shouldn't have been. No one should hope that the President of the United States, any President, conspired with a foreign government.
But to suggest it over and over again for 2 years, and then for all of this 22 months of investigation, thorough investigation, multiple countries visited, over $20 million of taxpayer money, more than our committees have to run all of their oversight operations to thoroughly investigate, they found there was no collusion.
Sure, the Russians tried to meddle with elections and they have done it before, and we ought to make sure that it doesn't happen again, and we can work together on that. But to suggest that the President of the United States colluded when he didn't, is irresponsible. And it has happened over and over, and it continues to this day. It has got to stop.
This idea that maybe some other attempt to go and harass the President and his family is going to find something else, it gives credence to the claims it was a witch hunt. It is time for us to focus on the real problems of this country.
It is also time for us to hold people in our intelligence agencies accountable, those who showed up at their job with a partisan agenda.
The FBI, CIA, or any intelligence agency is no place for you to bring your political agenda. We all have political views. But if someone puts that badge on and accepts that responsibility, and then uses that position to abuse power, we all ought to call on it to be rooted out, and I hope it is rooted out.
If there were abuses of the FISA process, which is a very important court that has a very narrow focus to protect the national security of this country, if the FISA court was abused by people in positions of power because they wanted to carry out a political agenda because they didn't like the results of the 2016 Presidential election, that is not the place for it.
The ballot box next year is the place to go carry it out, not wearing the badge and being a member of law enforcement in this country. So I hope that is rooted out, because we want to see the integrity of those institutions like the FBI restored. I want the country to have full faith and confidence that the people working there are carrying out the national security interests of the country, not their own political interests.
There are a lot of questions raised over whether or not that happened. But in the end, when we review the report--we have seen the summary. If people are still hoping that there is some mystery indictment out there--they said there are no further indictments. They said there was no collusion with the Presidential campaign.
So at what time is the gentleman's side going to acknowledge it didn't happen? If you want to change the results of the Presidential election, the results are changed at the ballot box. That is how we resolve it in America. We don't try to go find something on a President that doesn't exist.
We have done oversight. You have done oversight. The Mueller investigation was the ultimate oversight for 22 months and it rooted out and found there was no collusion between the President and the Russians. Maybe some people are disappointed to hear it.
We should all celebrate that as a country, but we all ought to be concerned that no President of the United States is targeted by an intelligence agency, or by a Congress, or a majority, or a minority because they don't like the results of the election, so they are going to abuse power to go and try to take them down. That is not the way we do it.
I hope we can finally focus on the real problems of this country and not continue to use these committees even after they didn't find what they were looking for to keep finding something that is not there.
The former chairman that was alluded to, Mr. Nunes, did a very impeccable job of carrying out his duties to find the facts. It was always about the facts. And if you go and look at how he carried himself and managed his committee, the entire time it was about finding the facts. They looked and we looked. There was no conclusion that we found.
If someone has proof of that conclusion that they keep alluding to, it is time for them to show it. Show the American people what you have. Don't run around hiding saying you have something when the Attorney General says it is not there.
If someone knows about collusion, they owe it to the country to show it. But if it is not there, stop saying it. It is irresponsible, and, hopefully, everybody heeds those words and we get back to focusing on what is important for this country. Express our political differences.
Obviously, if there is a political difference that we have with each other, with the President, with a Cabinet Secretary, we have all kinds of forums to express that opposition to correct it, to bring legislation to the floor.
But if we just don't like somebody personally, that is not what we are here to do. And I hope we can get beyond that.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is an ultimate move towards something like impeachment, which I hope wouldn't come, and with all the things we know--there are no high crimes or misdemeanors and there is not even collusion--there are still committee chairmen in the gentleman's own party who are talking about impeachment. It is not something made up. There are leaders in the gentleman's party talking about it.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee issued more than 80 subpoenas. Again, the majority can keep looking. Look at the summary of the Mueller report--2,800 subpoenas, more than 500 search warrants, and interviews of approximately 500 witnesses. So the gentleman can talk about people who were indicted who have nothing to do with the collusion and nothing to do with any ties to the President. Maybe somebody had filed a false tax return, then go throw the book at him.
Mr. Cohen came and lied to Congress, and he deserves to go to jail for it. What did the majority do? They brought him back as their star witness, a man who was already guilty of lying to Congress. He came, swore himself in, and likely lied to Congress again. So, again, throw the book at him.
But in terms of what the basis of the investigation was, it was to find collusion, and they found none: no further indictments; no evidence of collusion; in fact, saw the Trump campaign pushing back and even offers for help.
Foreign governments like Russia trying to interfere with our elections clearly happened--not just Russia, other countries too--and we all ought to be concerned about it. We all want to make sure that our defenses are as high as we can make them so that they are not able to collude.
We have seen companies in America that were taken advantage of during that campaign season, and they have taken corrective actions, too, so that Russia can't use social media companies in this Nation to try to take advantage of our electoral system.
But in terms of collusion with the President of the United States and a foreign government, it didn't happen. If anybody has evidence to the contrary, then show it to the American people. Stop alluding behind some cloak-and-dagger conspiracy theory that it happened still to this day when the Mueller investigation concluded it didn't happen.
We will get the full report. I look forward to reviewing it just as the gentleman from Maryland is looking forward to reviewing it, and maybe we will continue this conversation.
But if all of the findings that the Attorney General gave us in his summary are accurate, which I don't discount they will be--I think they will be at the highest level of confidence that the Attorney General's summary is accurate. If it is not, then clearly we will take that up separately. But if it turns out to be accurate, then I think we all ought to celebrate, number one, the fact that there was no collusion, but then move on.
The people who made accusations that turned out to be baseless ought to apologize and recognize there are people's personal lives and integrity that were being questioned. If it turned out they were wrong in making those accusations, then they ought to hold themselves accountable and to a higher standard. Those are the points that I was making.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's concern about addressing those important issues.
I will say, for the five people whom the gentleman referenced, anybody who broke the law ought to be held accountable. But after 500 witnesses are interviewed and over 2,800 subpoenas, all looking to find collusion with the Russian Government, not one of the people the gentleman mentioned had anything to do with colluding with the Russian Government.
If they made misstatements or if they didn't pay their taxes, after 2,800 subpoenas, then make sure that they are held accountable for the things they did, but don't suggest that it had anything to do with collusion with Russia, because it didn't.
Again, Mr. Speaker, go pull 500 names out of the phonebook, and if you put the full weight of the United States Government and 2,800 subpoenas into looking into 500 random people, I am sure not one of them will have done anything wrong--and hopefully not. But if they did and it had nothing to do with what you were initially looking for, let's not try to suggest it had anything to do with collusion, because it didn't.
We will see the full report. We look forward to seeing that. Again, hopefully, if the full report shows what we have already seen in the summary, that there was no collusion, then people who have been claiming there was collusion will also hold themselves accountable and maybe apologize, maybe recant, but surely stop continuing any kind of witch hunt and then focus on these important issues like getting our economy even stronger; working with this President to solve big problems which we have the opportunity to do to get a real trade agreement with our neighbors Mexico and Canada, all of whom want to have better trade relationships with us and help benefit our economy, create more jobs, and have fairer labor standards; something we have in front of us, an opportunity to do in a bipartisan way, maybe get a budget agreement so that we can have, certainly well before the September 30 deadline, how we are going to fund our government in a responsible way, make sure our men and women in uniform don't have to wonder whether or not they are going to get paid while they are deployed in a foreign country; make sure we can focus on lowering healthcare costs; and immigration reform that can solve some of the big problems on border security and some of the other areas.
So, hopefully, we can find agreement on that, and I am sure, in the coming weeks, we will on some, if not all, those issues. I look forward to working with the gentleman to do that.
I appreciate, while we go back and forth sometimes, we can have a little fun with our hobbies, but we also have big, important tasks; and I know that the gentleman carries out his role in the most responsible way to promote the agenda that he thinks is best for this country, as do I, and, ideally, we can find a lot of intersection where we can work together to get really good things done for the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source