Rep. Roy weighs on resolution to remove Rep. Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee
Washington—During a Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday, January 31st, Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) spoke on H. Res. 76, a bill to remove Rep. Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Footage of his remarks is available here, and a transcript is below:
"I would note that we're here for a very obvious reason. The door was opened. And now we're dealing with that. The door shouldn't have been opened. I'm reminded when I was in the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005, and Miguel Estrada was being filibustered by the democrat majority at the time. We know why. We know this because a memo that said, very specifically, that he was being filibustered because he was a Hispanic conservative, was found, but then shoved aside, we couldn't talk about it because it was found on a server and “uh we shouldn't get it.” There's a whole lot of backstory on that. But there was a lot of drama around that, there were seven judges being held: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, because she's black. That was all happening. We just sweep that aside. And you can fast forward, and Bill Frist was being pressured to deploy the nuclear option. I remember, in part of all those conversations, the Senate lawyer, and the Judiciary Committee, first decided not to deploy the nuclear option. In 2013, Harry Reid did deploy the nuclear option. 2017, then certain things changed at the United States Supreme Court. So now we live in that world, it is what it is. Now, here, we sit, the door was opened, I just went back and reread my speech on the floor. I hadn't done that yet. I went back and reread my speech on the floor. I stand by every word of that speech and in it, I referenced the fact that I just a few months prior had been in agreement with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with respect to January 6, which there's disagreements on our side of the aisle and some of that, but it's back to the votes at the time. And that I'd taken very strong disagreement and sought apology from our colleague on our side of the aisle about some of the remarks that were said, but felt that this was not the right path to go down. I stand by that. So here we sit. I could associate myself, and do, with all the remarks the gentleman from South Carolina, very strong disagreement, with a lot of the statements that Representative Omar has made. We've covered most of them. The “that some people did something” is the one that really sticks in my craw, pretty strongly. Raises a whole lot of flags for me. I think there are a significant amount of justifications that raise issues with respect to service on the foreign affairs committee, but I would not go down this road."
"But I'm also reminded in August of 1993. Juan Gonzalez was a batter for the Texas Rangers and was plunked by Alex Fernandez from the White Sox. And a little bit later, Robin Ventura came to the plate for the White Sox and Nolan Ryan was on the mound. And Robin knew what was about to happen. Nolan plunked him, and then Robin Ventura charged the mound and then Nolan Ryan beat the crud out of him on the mound. That's what happened. We all know that's what happened. So old school baseball, Nolan Ryan would define old school baseball. This is raw politics. That's what this is. When the doors opened, then there's a question and you have to decide what you're going to do. We're not going to unilaterally disarm. She's not going to do it. I'm tired of that. It just is what it is. Guys took a shot at someone on our team, about statements I disagreed with, and took that very much to task. But I've got strong disagreements with Representative Omar, if it were “I’m just starting from scratch”, I would not choose this path. I'm just saying, say whatever stuff you all want to say we'll say whatever stuff we want to say, our managers will pick our team. Let's go battle it out in committee. That's what I would say. I would say that's the right place to be. But at this point in time, it is my considered judgment that, like Nolan Ryan, we've got to respond. I'm just gonna be blunt and honest about it. That's just my belief. I think it's important. And I hope we'll get through this. We'll kind of hip check each other. Maybe we can sit down and figure out by the end of this Congress, next congress, whoever's in charge, we figure out how we're going to play ball going forward and set those rules. And I would say the same thing about open rules, close rules, structured rules. And I mean, the ranking member can scoff. We've had X number of votes. We'll have continued debate about this stuff over time. There will be closed rules, there will be structured rules, there will be open rules. I'd like to have that debate. I'd like to have the considered judgment of the ranking member on that as I have debate on my side of the aisle. I'm just saying that we can figure out how to protect this institution and try to decide how to do things the right way. But in this instance, I'm going to be very open and honest about why I'm going to vote for this resolution. That's why, again, recognizing the statements that the representative has made, I find to be highly problematic, extremely concerning. Raising very serious questions from a foreign affairs perspective, as the ranking member has raised about statements made and how he feels about people being on certain committees over here. I think we should, in my opinion, we should withdraw from that battle going forward, and then let each manager pick their team."
###