Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon with a number of my Democratic colleagues to speak about the subject of paramount concern for most Americans: the economy. Healthcare, the economy, and their jobs are what folks are focused on when they wake up in the morning. The Joint Economic Committee now headed on our side of the aisle by Don Beyer from Virginia, released two reports today that all Americans should look at carefully. One of them focuses on the failure of the 2017 Trump tax cuts which Chairman Neal will be focusing on shortly. Republicans claim that the tax cuts would pay for themselves and not add a penny to deficits and debt. That is a theory that we have heard time and time again from Republicans to support their tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country. Both experience and evidence tell us that their tax cuts always end up driving our deficits up, hurting the middle class, and placing the burden on future generations. I hope Americans will read that report and draw the same conclusions that so many economists have made about the dangerous tax scam. The second report which we will be focusing on this evening concerns the economy more broadly. It asks a question that many Americans may be asking this year: Is the Trump economy doing as well as the President claimed it would? And: Can the President take credit for economic growth that began long before he took office? I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) for his efforts as vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee, as well as the former vice chair, Carolyn Maloney, who now heads up the Oversight and Reform Committee. I will be yielding to Mr. Beyer soon to speak more about the content of the committee's report. He will be followed by Mr. Neal who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and a senior member of this body. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people, not only about taxes, but about the economy in general. But first I want to speak a little bit about this President's record on the economy. President Trump sought office on a raft of economic promises. He promised to create 25 million new jobs in 10 years. He promised 6 percent growth in our domestic product. He promised to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt. He promised to get wages up for American workers with $4,000 raises as a result of the tax cuts. And the President promised to make healthcare much less expensive and much better. Let's see how he is doing. On the first measure, job growth, job growth has slowed under President Trump. Let me repeat that. Job growth has slowed under President Trump compared to the level of the economic expansion that began under his predecessor. This chart--and it will probably be hard to see for many viewers-- shows that job growth was highest here in the years before President Trump took office and then lower, following. Now, what does that mean? Let me give you the big figure, Madam Speaker, because the specifics of the chart will be difficult for people to see on the floor and in the gallery. What it means is that, on average--and this is an important fact to remember--under President Obama, there were 227,000 jobs created per month over the last 35 months of his term. Now we have had 35 months of the Trump term. What has he done to realize that promise of 25 million jobs? Madam Speaker, 36,000 less jobs per month have been created under Donald Trump than under Barack Obama in the same timeframe. Now, that is important because the President, of course, claims that this is the best economy we have ever seen. As I said, that is 36,000 fewer jobs per month, and 1.26 million fewer jobs over President Trump's term from the trend he inherited. Madam Speaker, I am going to show you a chart on how the economy that President Obama had put in place with the help of the Congress was going straight up. At this pace, President Trump's 4-year term will not achieve the same level of job creation as the previous 4-year term of President Obama. In fact, he would fall--listen to this figure--2.5 million jobs short. So, when we hear the President at a rally claiming this great economic boom, remember, 2.5 million less jobs created. President Trump also loves to cite the low unemployment rate, which, in December 2019, stood at 3.5 percent. That is, indeed, a low number. It is a good number in the sense that it shows that so many of our people are working. But underlying those facts are so many of our people are working one, two, and three jobs so they can support themselves and their family. Now, when he took office, the rate was 4.7 percent. It is 3.5 percent now and 4.7 percent when he took office. Compare that to the decline in the unemployment rate during the same period in President Obama's second term. At his second inauguration, the rate was 7.9 percent. He left office with 4.7 percent. That is 3.2 percent less. He left the office with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, continuing a strong decline. Under President Obama, a decline of 5.3 percentage points from when he took office; under President Trump, a decline of 1.2 percentage points. Madam Speaker, let me give you that figure again. Under President Obama, he inherited from George Bush a declining employment. It spiked at 10 percent, and under President Obama, that came down to 4.7 percent. That is where you get the 5.3 percent reduction. Actually, he halved the unemployment rate if you figure it that way. Under President Trump, however, he inherited a downward trend--in other words, less unemployment as opposed to more unemployment from Bush to Obama--and he has failed to keep the pace that President Obama established. This was the decline in the unemployment rate under Barack Obama. This is what has happened: steeper decline under Obama, got to a low number, and it has been reduced by 1.2 percent as opposed to the 4.7 percent that Obama reduced it to. While President Trump boasted that his administration would see a 6 percent GDP--that is growth in the domestic product of our country, our entire production--that would have been good; 6 percent would have been phenomenal. It was also not attained. Over the first 11 quarters of his term, that figure was 2.6 percent, dropping to 2.1 percent in the third quarter of last year. The Federal Reserve estimates that 2020 will see it fall even lower as any short- term stimulus from his tax cut disappears. Mr. Neal is going to talk about the tax cut and what was promised and what was delivered. Madam Speaker, I would simply point out to you that what you see is, essentially, a level 2.5 percent average growth under President Obama and under President Trump, notwithstanding the extraordinary trillion- dollar tax cut that was infused in the economy. Again, Mr. Neal will speak more to that. It is clear the Trump tax cut did little to boost GDP as he claimed it would, and, of course, he claimed many more jobs. On deficits and the debt, President Trump's promise would seem laughable if the reality weren't so dangerous. Instead of reversing deficits and eliminating the debt, he has overseen an increase fueled by his 2017 tax cut that gave $2 trillion in new, unpaid-for tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest in our country. Last week, to the surprise of no one who understands the history of Republican tax cuts, President Trump suggested he might seek cuts to Medicare and Social Security to offset the deficits created by his tax cuts. I will leave it to Chairman Yarmuth to go into greater detail about the Trump deficits. We have all seen this President's campaign on reducing America's trade deficit, but it has increased on his watch. In fact, according to the Joint Economic Committee's report, as many as 450,000 jobs were lost in 2019 alone as a result of this President's trade wars. The President loves to stand at the podium at his rallies and shout slogans about how his is the best economy ever and how he inherited a mess from President Obama. Those statements, sadly, as so many of his have been shown to be, are not accurate. That is a polite way to say it. The facts tell the opposite story. Over the course of the Obama Presidency, 10.8 million jobs were created as the unemployment rate fell from, as I said, 10 percent to 4.7 percent. In the last 11 quarters of President Obama's term, real GDP growth was averaging 2.6 percent--a remarkable turnaround from the 8.4 percent deficit, decline, that he inherited, a decrease in the last quarter before he took office. Now, annual median income, Madam Speaker, you will note, under President Obama, the red line starts declining 2008, 2009. The deepest recession that we have experienced in our lifetimes, which started in December of `07, you will see real household income declined significantly. But you will see, when the recovery program that President Obama and Democrats put in place in our country, the American Recovery Act, you saw employment going up, average income going up, and you see it going up to $63,179. The tax cut, you will see a real spike here. This is under President Obama, and then you see the tax cut, this line here, and then you see a flattening out. While it has increased, it has been a much slower increase. So, when he says it is the best economy, the folks here who were experiencing this kind of increase would beg to differ. Compare that to the first 2 years of Trump's Presidency with an increase in annual median household income of $1,400. This indicated, under President Obama, an increase of $4,800 in median income, three times as much--as a matter of fact, more than three times. In fact, incomes at every level have grown faster under Democrats than under Republicans since 1968. So this is not just picking a particular year to make a point. This is 68 years, average. The blue, Democrats, increase in every quintile. That means those at the bottom increase substantially and, yes, those at the top increase. This is not, as some Republicans charge us with, class warfare. Everybody did better, on average, with Democratic Presidents in the 20 years during that period of time that we had the Presidency and the 30 years that the Republicans had the Presidency. Those are the averages, and you can see, in every quintile, everybody in America did better under the Democrats' economic programs. President Trump's economy is just the latest chapter in a long story in which, time and time again, Democratic leadership has seen our economy out of a recession and danger as President Obama did when he inherited, as I said, the deepest recession anybody less than 95 years of age in our country has experienced. This is a contrast that House Democrats will be highlighting this year when Americans will again entrust the President and Congress with crafting economic policies. That means jobs for them. That means some money to invest in their children, in their families, in their mortgages, in buying a car, a refrigerator, or a new stove or fixing their heat when it goes out. What President Trump doesn't seem to understand, however, is that a thriving economy is more than growing the stock market. Let me say this as an aside. I don't have a slide here now, but the average growth in the stock market under Democrats from 1948 until 2008--I am not sure exactly when we ended the study--was more in every Democratic administration. It is about real economic security for American workers and their families; it is about whether America is still a place where everyone has a fair shot, where everyone has access to opportunities, and where everyone can get ahead. That is what that chart shows, and that is over a significant period of time. By that measure, the President's record has been dismal. Now, healthcare, what I started with, is one of the greatest concerns. Jobs and healthcare were our issues in the last election. We added 63 Members to the Democratic side of the aisle, which is why we are in the majority, because people knew that we were the party that was focused on healthcare and on jobs and had delivered. This chart shows the uninsured rate. It was going down over the last 3 years, but because of the assault on the Affordable Care Act and the uncertainty that was created, as you will see, 2014, 2013, 2016 the President is elected, it comes down and flattens out. Why? Because they are not supporting healthcare. We need to get it back up so there are less and less uninsured. Mr. Neal represents the State of Massachusetts where 100 percent of children are covered and 97 percent of adults. That is what the Affordable Care Act was based upon, the Massachusetts plan, when Governor Romney was the Republican Governor in Massachusetts. As a result of the policies of this President, the number of Americans without health insurance rose to 8.5 percent in 2018. That was the first increase in a decade. Not having health insurance is bad for your health and bad for your psyche and bad for your family. His efforts, meaning President Trump, alongside congressional Republicans to repeal, undermine, and sabotage the Affordable Care Act have brought uncertainty to health insurance markets and made it harder for working families to get affordable coverage for the care they need. We are working very hard on that. We are trying to bring prescription drug costs down. We are trying to fix the problem of surprise billing. We want to make sure that Americans have affordable, quality healthcare. On wages, we see another lost opportunity. For 3 years, President Trump and the Republican-led Senate have refused to support legislation to raise the minimum wage, which has not been raised in over a decade, which the House finally passed a bill last year, under the Democratic majority, which tries to lift that minimum wage so people can live and support themselves when they are working 40 hours a week. No American working 40 hours a week ought not to be able to afford to support themselves and to help support a family. According to the monthly jobs report for December, hourly wage growth slipped to its lowest rate in 18 months. When you listen to the President talk at these rallies about this economy, remember that figure and check it. Go to Google or go to some reference point. Check it. According to the monthly jobs report for December, last month, hourly wage growth slipped to its lowest rate in 18 months. That is a far cry from the $4,000 annual salary increase President Trump promised would trickle down from his tax cuts for the wealthiest in America. American workers deserve better. America deserves better. American exporters deserve better. American farmers and small business owners deserve better than this uncertain Trump economy. All Americans deserve better. That is why the Democratic-led House voted last year to raise wages, ensure equal pay for equal work, and give Federal employees a long- overdue cost of living adjustment. That is why we voted to lower prescription drug prices, a bill that sits in the Senate, untended by Senator McConnell. That is why we voted to make it easier for more workers to save for secure retirement, thanks to Chairman Neal and the Ways and Means Committee. That is why we voted to protect multiemployer pension funds, so that hundreds of thousands of people would not be left out in the cold after contributing to and being promised a pension in their old age. Now, as we look to 2020, House Democrats will continue to make economic opportunity our focus. I look forward to bringing more legislation to the floor this year to ensure that we do not squander the gains of our recovery under President Obama. We will keep looking for ways to help America get ahead. I hope all of my colleagues will look at the facts that I put forward and see what the Obama economy did and that the last 3 years have been a continuation of the Obama economy. Just look at the line. It is almost a straight line up. I appreciate that a number of my Democratic colleagues are here this evening to add to this conversation. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my friend, former Lieutenant Government, former Ambassador, and the vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Beyer, and I appreciate his leadership on the Joint Economic Committee. I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), one of the senior Members of the House of Representatives, the dean of the Massachusetts delegation and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who, as I said earlier, is as knowledgeable about tax policy and its consequences as anybody in this House.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I hope the American people really focus on this. So much has been said by both sides that the American people really need to look at this themselves and figure out when did they do well, when did their families do well, who was watching out for their healthcare, who wanted to make sure that we bring up the income of those at the lowest levels of incomes in our country, and make a decision on their behalf as to who they want to support and who they believe. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), chairman of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I thank him for his leadership on the Budget Committee. I might say, as a result of his work, last year, 2019, we completed the appropriations process. Unlike the previous year, when our Republican colleagues were in charge and the government was shut down when the new Congress took office, we kept the government open. There was no drama. On January 3, everybody was working and being served by their government. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), whose father was such a good friend of mine and who does such an excellent job. His dad would be proud of him here in Congress.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; for his leadership on the minimum wage, to try to lift people up at the bottom of the wage scale; and also for his leadership on healthcare, to ensure that they have access to affordable, quality healthcare. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), a Representative from the Philadelphia suburbs who served so well in the military of our country and then became a very successful businesswoman. I know she knows a lot about how to run a business and how to run an economy.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I know that she is working her district very, very hard, and listening to people, which is what we need to do. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), who is the leader of the group that I am very enthusiastic about that is helping our historically Black colleges and universities. I thank her for her leadership on that and so many other educational issues and economic issues for our families.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I am now pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), one of the senior Members of the House of Representatives, the chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that deals with so many of these issues that have been discussed over the last hour.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, Kathy, members of the Fitzpatrick family, and Members on both sides of the aisle from Pennsylvania who have lost a dear colleague with whom they served; he served with honor. He served with civility. He served as an example. Madam Speaker, at a time when rank partisanship has become sadly pervasive in Washington, Mike Fitzpatrick shone a bright light of consensus building, civility, and respect. He was an example that all of us could follow. I was sad to learn of his passing. My thoughts, of course--and I know I speak for all of us, not in a partisan sense, not in a Democratic or Republican sense, but in a human sense--are with his wife, Kathleen, their six children, and his entire family which includes our colleague, of course, Brian, his brother who succeeded him representing Pennsylvania's Eighth Congressional District. Madam Speaker, it speaks volumes that Mike had so many friends here on this side of the aisle in addition to his own side. The words that the Republican leader spoke could be spoken by all of us. That is because he looked past party labels and saw in all of us fellow Americans, drawn to service like he was, eager to do right by our constituents, as he was. Our colleague from Washington State, Mr. Denny Heck, shared a story about a bill he and Mike were working on together in 2013 when Republicans were in the majority. Mike was the lead sponsor. His party was in charge. But because the bill would have a better chance of getting on the suspension calendar if it were a minority bill, he gave over the lead sponsorship to Denny, giving up the greater measure of credit in order to get the bill done. That is who he was: getting things done; not taking credit, but getting the substance realized. That was leadership--responsibility and focusing on substance and achievement rather than politics and process. That was Mike Fitzpatrick. During his two periods of service in this House, Mike made a real difference to keeping children safe online, to help those affected by the housing collapse, and to track and stop the financing of terrorist groups around the world. He will be remembered by all who served with him, by his constituents, all of his friends, and, certainly, his family; remembered for the kind person that he was, for the thoughtful person he was, for the courteous person he was, and as an effective legislator, for his good nature and his integrity. I want to thank my friend, the Republican leader, for leading this tribute, and I want to thank all of those on both sides who have taken the time to share stories about Mike and the impact he had on us, on this House, on Pennsylvania, on America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes of the week expected no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. The House will consider H.R. 1230, the Protect Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This bill ensures that victims of age discrimination in the workplace can enforce their rights so that older Americans are able to strengthen our economy by continuing to contribute their talents to the workforce, a proposition that I personally believe is very important. In addition, the House will consider H.J. Res. 76, a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval of the Department of Education's borrower defense to repayment rule that leaves student loan borrowers who were defrauded by their educational institutions with little or no recourse.

Mr. HOYER. That is a possibility, but they have not yet been scheduled.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. As to the issue of authorizations of military force consistent with the War Powers Act and consistent with the Constitution of the United States, which sets forth clearly that it is the Congress and only the Congress that can declare war, we believed and still believe it was necessary to move as quickly as possible to clarify that the expectation of the Congress of the United States is that it would be included in any conversation, discussion, and debate with reference to whether or not we ought to take an act of war. Without getting into the complexities, I would call your attention to an extraordinarily good article that was in today's paper by Jim Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy and a Navy Cross awardee who fought in Vietnam and who served in the United States Senate, with reference to whether or not legally the action that was taken by the President was justified. Let me say something, Mr. Speaker. I would hope this debate--and I said this yesterday during the course of the debate--would not descend into demagoguery. I was very disappointed with a remark that was made by one of the Republican Members of this House when he said, they are ``in love with terrorists,'' referring to the Democrats, presumably, who were proponents of assuring that the War Powers Act would be honored by the President and with the constitutional requirement that we are the ones, and only ones, who declare war. Not one of us loves terrorists. He went on to say: ``We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.'' Now, that is interesting from, frankly, a member of a party whose President criticized very, very sharply and directly a Gold Star family, the Khans. It is ironic coming from a party whose President-- our President, but of the Republican Party--said he didn't respect John McCain, one of America's great war heroes, who showed such courage. So my point to the gentleman is that I would hope--Proverbs 19:5 says this: ``A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies will not escape.'' I would hope the gentleman that uttered these comments would apologize to every Member of this side of the aisle. The gentleman correctly, just now, I thought, made a very calm and correct statement with respect to that we ought to have a substantive debate. I have criticized this Congress, others have criticized this Congress, from both sides of the aisle, for not, over the last 30 years, passing Authorizations for Use of Military Force. The last one we did, of course, was in 2001 and 2002. The gentleman asked whether those bills may come to the floor. We voted on them, as you know, previously. Those amendments passed. They were in the National Defense Authorization Act to directly address the issue of authorization of military forces and the expenditures of funds in military action. Nobody laments the loss of Mr. Soleimani, who did, in fact, not only plan, but execute and fund terrorist actions that resulted in the loss of American life. Having said that does not absolve us from the responsibility for policies which are akin to or are acts of war. Without going further into that, let me refer to what we did yesterday, and let me read from this War Powers Act, Mr. Speaker. Congressional Action, paragraph (c): ``Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces. ``Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.'' That is what we passed yesterday. Many Republicans, Mr. Speaker, said, well, this is an act that has no consequence. I would hope that none of us believes that the expression of opinion by the Congress of the United States by majority vote in each House has no consequence. If that is the case, we are in a bad time in our democracy. So, what we did yesterday was consistent with section (c) of section 1544 regarding congressional action, and it is exactly what we did yesterday. It will go to the Senate. It will have, as we understand from the Parliamentarians in the Senate, privileged status, meaning that the Senate will have to consider that, and also meaning that it can be passed or defeated by a majority vote. This is a serious time. Taking the kind of military action we took was a serious step. Many of us were not very pleased with the lack of substantive information that we received at the briefing this week. Obviously, many Members of the United States Senate were not pleased as well. So I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, it is important that this body, confronted with one of its most important and serious and consequential decisions--that is, the declaration of war and military action against another nation--that it be debated seriously without pejoratives being projected at either side, without invective similar to the one that I just read, and without the aspersions that somehow, if you believe the Constitution of the United States requires the Congress to act before we can take actions of war, that somehow that implies that you are in bed with or temporizing about or favorable to those who commit terror. That is a McCarthy tactic. It is highly offense. And, if said on this floor, would be subject to the words being taken down and the Member not being allowed to speak again on this floor during that day. Mr. Speaker, let me, in closing on this response, simply say to the Republican whip that I agree with his premise that we ought to have a careful, adult, substantive discussion about policies that may plunge this Nation into war. That is our duty. That is what our citizens expect of us. I think we had that yesterday. Strike that. I think in some instances we had a serious discussion, but in some instances there was too much invective that we were giving aid and comfort to terrorists. That is a slippery slope if we cannot discuss what posture the United States ought to be in and exercise our constitutional duties to decide whether this Nation ought to go to war with a foreign country, with another nation. Hopefully, we can have that in the future, because it is one of the most consequential debates that this body ever has. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, again, that we may be taking up additional legislation consistent with the War Powers Act. I believe the Senate, hopefully, will, next week or--at the latest, I think they have 15 days or 10 days to consider it and put it on the Senate floor for a vote so that we can transmit to the President of the United States Congress' view on how carefully we ought to approach these issues. Very frankly--I will say, sadly--there is much sentiment on this side of the aisle that the Commander in Chief does not address these issues carefully and thoughtfully and in concert with his advisers and the advisers in the Congress of the United States. We had no consultation. We didn't even have a notice, much less consultation of this action. No one, I would close with, laments the loss of a life who has sponsored, funded, and advocated terrorism. But this is not about him. It is about us. It is about our Constitution. It is about our responsibility. It is about how these decisions ought to be made.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I thank the gentleman for calling that to my attention.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would call my attention to those statements and the speakers of those, I would be happy to oblige and talk to them. I really do believe, Mr. Speaker, this issue should be handled in the most responsible and respectful way possible, because it is one of the most serious, if not the most serious, issues with which we will deal. And we ought to deal with one another based upon the intellectual arguments, the constitutional premises, and the law, not on personalities or assertions of malintent.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Simply to focus on the Record and to make clear the Record, the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to which the gentleman refers authorizes the use of force: One, to defend against Iraq, not Iran; and two, to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. For counsel or the administration to argue that the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force authorized the action that was taken, I think, is incorrect. That is what they do argue. It hasn't been resolved by a court, but I believe, and I think many on my side of the aisle and, frankly, I think many scholars around the country have opined, that the 2002 authorization did not authorize that particular act. Again, no one laments the loss of Soleimani. Everybody agrees that he sponsored, paid for and ordered committed acts of terrorism. And we will continue to believe that the Congress needs to speak. Whether or not a court would hold that the section that I just read with reference to the President would have to take action in the event that the Senate and the House adopt the concurrent resolution that we passed yesterday, and that is now at the Senate and under the War Powers Act will have to be considered by the Senate, and will be subject to a majority vote, not a 60-vote threshold for passage. I would hope that if Congress did that, that the President would certainly take that into consideration and consult with the Congress on any further action that he might take; unless, of course, and as the War Powers Act authorizes, the President can and should, and the military can and should take any actions necessary to defend itself in the face of imminent threat and/or actual threat.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in answer to the gentleman's question, the expectation is that we will have, consistent with the letter just sent to all of our Members, and instructions to Mr. Nadler, or suggestions to Mr. Nadler, we do expect there to be legislation on the floor next week with reference to what we call supplemental legislation for the appointment of managers, the funding of the effort. And we expect the papers will be sent sometime soon.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, of course, we have 275 bipartisan bills which have been sent from the House to the Senate involving very, very serious issues, dealing with the environment, dealing with wages, and dealing with jobs, dealing with making our communities safer, dealing with violence against women, dealing with equal pay for equal work, which was something that John Kennedy signed in 1963, but is, today, not a reality, unfortunately. So there are many issues I could name. Obviously, a lot more, because there are 275 and we sent over 400 bills to the Senate and they sit untended. Why? Because the Senate has been confirming judges. Why? So they can put in judges that agree with their positions. That is the irony of a party that was so intent, in my political life, in making sure that judges acted only on the law. What philosophical imprimatur has to be given to judicial appointments nowadays? And by a majority leader who refused a President of the United States who submitted a nominee, Mr. Garland, for 11 months. It is inconceivable to me that any Founding Father thought, for 11 months--now, it has a been a few days since we passed impeachment that we have sent those papers up. For 11 months, a President of the United States, pursuant to his constitutional authority and responsibility, sent a nominee to the United States Senate; 11 months before the election. And the majority leader said, tough. We are not going to consider it. We are not going to allow the committee to consider it. We are not going to allow it to be reported out to the floor and there is going to be no vote on it. So, yes, there has been some delay, because in that context and in the context of the majority leader working hand-in-glove with the defendant, or the respondent, however you want to call it, in a civil case, criminal case, hand-in-glove. By his own admission he was not going to do anything that the President didn't want him to do. It is like the prosecutor saying--or the juror saying, I am not going to do anything that the defendant doesn't want me to do. So, yes, we have been very concerned, and are concerned to this day. An honest trial--and that is what is the responsibility of the United States Senate. An honest trial tries to elicit from both sides all of the relevant evidence. We are concerned that it appears that the Senate, certainly at this juncture has made no decision to receive all the relevant evidence. We think that is inconsistent with their responsibilities under the Senate rules and to the American people. We lament that fact and we have been trying to get from the Senate what are the rules? Mr. Speaker, the other side talked a lot about process, about how they needed to have this avenue, that avenue, and the other. That is all we were asking because this is the trial, not the time when you have, essentially, a grand jury deciding whether or not there is probable cause that the President of the United States has abused his power. That is especially what our role is, as an analogy to a criminal case. But there was no expression from the Senate that a normal process to determine the truth of the allegation was going to be pursued in the United States Senate. The Speaker simply wanted to have that assurance. We have not gotten it. The American people have not gotten it. What has happened since we passed that resolution? A number of people have come forward. Mr. Bolton, in particular, said that he will testify. Other people have been identified as having relevant, pertinent, firsthand knowledge, not hearsay, firsthand knowledge of the allegations that are included in the Articles of Impeachment I and II. I am hopeful that, in fact, the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, will come to an agreement that all the fact witnesses will raise their hand to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Senate is going to raise their hand under Senate rules and say they swear to be impartial in consideration of the evidence, yet they will not allow the evidence, apparently, at this point in time at least, to be elucidated. I am hopeful that changes. I expect, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, to the Republican whip, that those papers will be transferred in the near term. I don't know specifically when but in the near term to the Senate. I am hopeful the American people will get what they deserve from the United States Senate serving as essentially jurors and will be sworn in as such by the Chief Justice, not by the Vice President presiding over the Senate but the Chief Justice presiding over a quasi-legal, quasi- political process. I will tell my friend that a letter has been sent. I do expect legislation to be considered next week, which is necessary to proceed with the process. I hope the process proceeds, Mr. Speaker, in a judicial, fair way that allows all the evidence on both sides, from the President's side and the House's side, which will carry the argument justifying the Articles of Impeachment and the finding of fact that those articles are, in fact, worthy of having the President of the United States removed for abuse of power. That is the issue. It ought to be argued fairly on both sides, and the evidence ought to be adduced on both sides.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, the Constitution does not provide for a trial in the House of Representatives, period. However, Mr. Speaker, the minority continues to make the analogy of what is done in the House: impeachment, analogous to an indictment, making a charge and determining that there is probable cause. Secondly, in the Nixon administration, there was a Democratic Congress, and there was discussion back and forth. Guess what? The President's witnesses came forward. What happened in this case? The President said nobody can testify to the Congress. I believe that was obstruction of justice, but that is for the Senate to decide--certainly, obstruction of the Congress. In the Clinton administration, the same thing happened. Witnesses came forward, including, I believe, the Chief of Staff of the White House. So it was a very different situation. In addition, in both the Nixon and Clinton administrations, the minority shoves aside the fact that there were special prosecutors that had depositions of all the witnesses and were available in the United States Senate at the time of the trial. So the Senate had full information. Thirdly, the gentleman does not either remember or assert, Mr. Speaker, that the Judiciary Committee said to the White House counsel that you can participate. There is time for you to come down. There is time for you to call witnesses. There is time for you to make your case. Mr. Cipollone, the White House counsel, notified the committee they were not interested. Why were they not interested? Because, in my opinion, their expectation is they were going to go to the Senate and have the case dismissed without any evidence being adduced. Mr. Speaker, I think that is unfortunate, but those are the facts. That is what happened. If you make a further analogy of the grand jury, the defendant plays no role in the grand jury, none, zero, zip, no counsel, no witnesses in the room. The jury decides if there is probable cause to believe that X committed an offense worthy of going forward. That is what happens. There is no participation. There was participation here. The President had opportunities here. All the Republicans participated and could cross-examine the witnesses that did, in fact, come forward in the Judiciary Committee, Oversight and Reform Committee, Intel Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, and Financial Services Committee. I would hope that would happen in the Senate. If you want to know the truth, Mr. Speaker, that is what ought to happen. If it is just presenting information that is not relevant in this trial, i.e., ``I did a good job on the economy. I did a good job on foreign policy. I did a good job on protecting our borders.'' That is the President's argument in a political sense. I understand that. But that is not legally relevant information as to whether or not he abused his power in particular in the phone call with the Ukrainians in which he withheld money appropriated by the Congress of the United States to help protect an ally, Ukraine, against incursion by Mr. Putin. I am sure Mr. Putin was very pleased that that money did not go to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian forces. We think that was an abuse of power. My friend the Republican whip thinks it was not. I get that. That is what makes the world go around, differences of opinion. It is now in the Senate. That is where a trial is provided for in the Congress. That is where witnesses should be provided. That is where both sides ought to be able to make their arguments before the jury, the United States Senate. Then and only then should the United States Senate make a determination whether or not the allegations had merit and warrant the consequences. I tell my friend, when you make these analogies of what happened here in the House, it is done. The whip may think it is bad, Mr. Speaker. The whip may think it wasn't done correctly. But the proof in the pudding will be: Is he urging the Senate to do what everybody in America thinks of as a trial? That is what the Senate under the Constitution is: the trier of the facts and law, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I would hope the gentleman would be urging as strenuously in the Senate, where trial and proper procedures should be followed, as they did here in the House.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, I don't know what analogy he is using to process, but what he just said would effectively say, if the witnesses weren't called and presented in the grand jury, then the defense attorney can't call them, then the prosecutor can't call them. That is absolutely untrue. I could use a harsher word of how lacking in substance I think that representation is. The Senate is now trying the case. The grand jury has sent the case over there strong enough to have a significant majority of the House vote for it, by the way, in a partisan sense, not a single Republican. Well, there was a single Republican. As a matter of fact, there are three or four who have talked to me privately--I will not mention their names--but they didn't vote, as they talked to me. But the fact of the matter is, what the gentleman's proposition is is that if you didn't call the witnesses in the House, then you can't call them in the Senate. Now, the reason for that is because they don't want the witnesses called, which is why the President told them, Don't testify in the House. They were asked to testify. And what happened when we asked them to testify? No, you have to have a subpoena. What happened when we had subpoenas when we talked to Mr. McGahn? He went to court. And when he lost, he appealed, and they were going to appeal to the Supreme Court. That takes forever. The fact of the matter is there was certainly, from our perspective, overwhelming evidence, not that he withheld money, but the reason he withheld money. Obviously in the cases cited by the minority whip, Congress had not appropriated and directed that money to be sent to Ukraine. And, in fact, President Obama gave significant aid. He didn't give them missiles, but he gave significant aid and assistance to the Ukrainians. But the fact of the matter is, we didn't direct him to send the money. We directed this President to send the money. Why? As we have done before on Russian sanctions very early on with Mr. McCarthy and I cosponsoring legislation which directed the President to impose the sanctions on Russia because we weren't confident that he would do so on his own. But the analogy that the gentleman continues to make as a rationalization for why the Senate does not appear to be going to have a fair, open trial-like, as the Constitution requires, with swearing to be impartial, meaning they want to get at the facts and make a judgment on the facts, he has not, Mr. Speaker, explained why he is not recommending the same fairness that he wanted to have here. He wasn't in charge. He says he didn't get it. I get that. But they are in charge over there. And I would urge the minority whip to urge the majority leader to have a trial as we would expect to have a trial if either of us were under indictment. We would expect to be able to call witnesses, and we would understand that the prosecution would call such witnesses as they believe necessary and are relevant to the case. That is a very important phrase I want to emphasize, ``relevant to the case,'' because so many of the witnesses, like the whistleblower, who is protected by our laws that we have passed from being exposed to adverse actions, and the President says, Bring us the whistleblower. The Republicans say, Bring us the whistleblower. The whistleblower doesn't have any knowledge to testify on. They are correct: it was hearsay. He heard from somebody that the guy down the street committed a crime. I didn't see it. He told me. So what do I do? I call up the police and say, Joe Doe told me a crime is being committed down the street. You better go see. So I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, hopefully in closing, that we have passed--Republicans all voted ``no,'' I get that. But the House of Representatives believed by a majority vote that we had made a case for probable cause. And under those circumstances, the Constitution says the Senate will then try that case to determine whether or not, in fact, the probable cause was accurate. All we are asking is that it be done in a fair, open, and complete manner. Because there was no Special Prosecutor, there was no way to compel some of those witnesses who refused to come testify, who now, John Bolton being the specific example, are saying, Yes, I will testify. Personally, I don't believe that the Senate majority leader wants John Bolton to testify, but he clearly has firsthand knowledge, not the whistleblower, not somebody told me, but firsthand knowledge. By the way, when he heard about it, apparently he called it a drug deal. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the whip will urge the Senate to do what he wanted done here, or perhaps take the position, they are wrong means we can be wrong. Maybe two wrongs will make a right. That is not the way we usually think of it, but I am hopeful that not only will the minority whip, the Republican whip do that, I hope the minority leader will do that. It would be good for the country.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just one second so I can clarify?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we did not have a trial. The Constitution does not require a trial. We are not the trial forum. The Senate is the trial forum. Certainly the gentleman has watched enough television trials, maybe been in trials for all I know, I am a lawyer, so obviously I have been in trials. That is the place where you call witnesses. That is where the defendant has the right. He has no right in the grand jury to call witnesses. He has no right in the grand jury to be there. He has no right to have his lawyer in the grand jury room. Now, we afforded the President of the United States that right, and he rejected it. His lawyer sent a letter to Mr. Nadler and said, Thank you, but no thanks. We are not going to play. So, Mr. Speaker, in my view, the minority leader, minority whip continues to conflate the responsibility we had here in the House and the responsibility the Senate has. The Senate is the trier of facts, not the House. The House is the determinant of whether there is probable cause, and we did that and it is over in the Senate, and it is their responsibility and duty. They lift their hands to swear they will be impartial, to get all the relevant evidence--relevant evidence, relevant evidence--not just some fishing expedition on either side, the prosecution or defense. And with that, I hope we can end this debate, because it will be endless if we do not, simply because we are not going to agree, Mr. Speaker. We have, obviously, very different perceptions as to what the duty of the House was and very different perceptions that if we thought what we did in the House was wrong, we ought to repeat it in the Senate. I think the papers will be going to the Senate. The Senate will decide what it is going to do. I hope the Senators comport themselves as the Founders and the people would expect.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else at this time.