Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Nobody has fought harder than Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko to make sure that this legislation moves forward. And, of course, we worked very hard with the Senate to try to have these protections included in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, we didn't get there. Mr. Chairman, while I am glad that Congress was able to take small steps to address the hazards of PFAS contamination through passage of the 2020 defense authorization bill last month, that action alone was not enough. That is why the House is taking further action this week. These contaminants, known as forever chemicals, because they do not break down and can remain in the human body for many years, have been shown to raise one's risk of deadly cancers, reproductive and immune system disorders, and other health problems. For decades, we have known that PFAS contamination is a problem. According to the EPA, millions of Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of PFAS through their drinking water. The Trump administration, under its own PFAS Action Plan, promised to establish a drinking water standard by the end of last year. Let me repeat that. The administration planned to have a standard by the end of last year. Unfortunately, that has not been accomplished. It has taken neither of the steps that it indicated it would, making this legislation very necessary. That is why the House is considering PFAS legislation this week introduced by Congresswoman Dingell and Congressman Upton, a bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate Mrs. Dingell for her continuing leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the others who have worked on this legislation, including the gentleman from New Hampshire, Chris Pappas. The package of 12 bills was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee in a bipartisan vote in November. Its provisions will, among others, establish a protective safe drinking water standard for PFAS contamination based upon science; improved testing of existing PFAS chemicals; limit the introduction of new ones; and provide for their safe disposal. Most importantly, it will begin the process of helping clean up PFAS- contaminated sites under the Superfund program. Critically important, particularly the sponsors are fighting contaminated sites in their own areas. The Defense Department, which for years has used firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals, has failed to clean up sites across the country that have contaminated the drinking water of countless Americans. Why is that? Because the EPA has failed to list these chemicals under the Superfund law, notwithstanding their toxic and adverse effects. This legislation is a major action aimed at safeguarding public health and protecting Americans' access to clean and safe drinking water. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representative Dingell for her leadership on this issue; her partner, Fred Upton, the former chairman of the committee; Chairman Pallone and subcommittee Chairman Tonko of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who have both done extraordinary work on this legislation. Mr. Chair, I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his committee's efforts to address this issue as well. Mr. Chair, I commend the 50 members of the bipartisan House PFAS Task Force--50 members, bipartisan--who have been working diligently on this issue for years. Mr. Chair, I also commend Representative Chris Pappas and Antonio Delgado from New York, who have both focused very much on this issue and believe this legislation is critical. This legislation may be the first comprehensive PFAS bill brought to the House floor, but I doubt it will be the last. Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to join in voting for this bill. I hope that the Senate will take it up without delay and send it to the President's desk for approval with the strong bipartisan support it deserves. I might mention that I have had extensive conversations with a former Member of this House, now the Senator from Delaware, Tom Carper, who has been very focused on this. And the director of his committee, who used to work for me, Mary Frances Repko, who is one of the most knowledgeable people I know, she has talked to me about this legislation. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee, I want to thank the sponsors who have worked so hard on this, and I am glad that we could bring this to the floor at the first opportunity.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us hope that demagoguery will not play too great a part in the consideration of this piece of legislation. I just heard one of my colleagues on the other side mischaracterize the position of my party and of this resolution. This resolution is the law. This resolution is consistent with not only the law, the War Powers Act, but the Constitution of the United States. I thank Representative Slotkin for authoring this resolution, as well as Chairman Smith, Chairman Engel, Representative Khanna, Representative Lee, and others who have been working hard to ensure that Congress maintains its role as a coequal branch of government when it comes to matters of war and peace. This President, as we have seen, has consistently treated the legislative branch as inferior to the executive branch. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we have had numerous votes on this floor last year to stand up for the coequal status of the Congress of the United States. Too often, our Republican friends have sided with the executive department, diminishing the authority and the position of the Congress of the United States. This is not about this President, nor is it about shrinking from confronting terrorism and terrorists. Again and again, we have seen this President ignore Congress' directives on appropriations, including by shifting money away from the military to fund his costly and ineffective border wall. This President has refused to disburse emergency funding for disaster relief that Congress allocated to help the people of Puerto Rico and other places where Americans are in need of help. This President withheld congressionally appropriated funding to help Ukraine repel Russian terrorism. After criticizing his predecessor for the use of executive orders, President Trump has doubled down on using them to circumvent the will of Congress and the American people. This resolution is to say: Mr. President, obey the law, obey the Constitution of the United States of America, which gives Congress the sole authority to declare war. If you read the language of the resolution, it continues to say that we are for, certainly, defending any of our people at risk, period. The War Powers Act provides for that. Article II of the Constitution provides for that. The President has ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony, directing subordinates to build a wall of obstruction unseen in our history. It should, therefore, be no surprise that we representatives of the 320-plus million people of America, who expect us to be their voice in this critical issue of declaring war--and this resolution does not prohibit in any way the President of the United States, under his Article II powers, acting to defend our military, our allies, and our homeland. With the actions taken last week, the President is unilaterally moving us toward involvement in another deadly and destabilizing war in the Middle East. I am glad, frankly, as we all are, that the response that came from Iran was either ineffective or simply meant to be a message. I don't know which. Thankfully, however, the Congress has, under law and our Constitution, a remedy to reassert our position as a coequal branch--as a matter of fact, an Article I branch--and ensure, as the Founders intended, that only the Congress, speaking on behalf of all the people, could declare war. Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 because they believed a Democratic President, and it was a Democratic Congress that adopted the War Powers Act, because they believed a Democratic President had overstepped the bounds. Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, determined to ensure that no President can send our troops into war without the people's representatives authorizing it. I suggest to my friends on both sides of the aisle that is what the Founders intended. We must use this tool of congressional power or, by our silence, acquiesce to the growth of the imperial Presidency, which by the way, has been going on for some 40 years, maybe even 50 years, irrespective of who is President. This is not a partisan resolution. This is a resolution consistent with the Constitution of the United States of America, which did not want a single person to be able to take America to war, to put our men and women at risk. Let us be absolutely clear: Qasem Soleimani was a dangerous purveyor of terror and violence and a practice thereof. He was an architect of Iranian efforts to dominate the Middle East through aggression and fear. He has American blood on his hands, as well as the blood of our allies. He has met the justice he deserves. I say that notwithstanding the fact I do not know from the information I have received whether or not, in fact, it was absolutely essential to take his life now because of imminent danger. Perhaps it was. In any event, no one laments the loss of Soleimani's life, at least in this country and by freedom-loving people throughout the world. We are relieved that the Iranian counterstrike was limited and caused no American or allied casualties. Mr. Speaker, my constituents and the American people are deeply concerned about what comes next with a possibility of further retaliation and escalation from Iran or its proxies. There may be a time when such action is called for, but it is this body that needs to make that decision, the United States Senate and this body. Iran is a dangerous enemy of freedom and a sponsor of terror. It continues to harbor ambitions of dominance over its neighbors and to call for the destruction of Israel. This Iranian regime is no friend and must not be trusted. Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. I believe this Congress would vote to ensure that that was prohibited. This resolution makes those facts clear. We must have a sound, long-term strategy to deal with Iran and bring it into compliance with international laws and norms. The threat of military force must continue to be a part of any strategy, along with sanctions and diplomacy, and this resolution in no way contravenes that premise. The best way forward is for Congress and the administration to work together. That is what our Founders had in mind. Proper congressional oversight and involvement will help ensure, not undermine, that the administration adopts and pursues the best possible strategy to check and oppose Iran's malign ambitions. Let us not demagogue one another. There can be differences. This resolution is brought to this floor of the House to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to again urge this President, as we have urged Democratic Presidents, to ensure that they follow the strictures of our Constitution on behalf of the safety of our people and the respect we have throughout the world. We are a nation of laws. This resolution is about the laws.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 3, 2019, providing for morning-hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 116th Congress, except that House Resolution 778 shall supplant House Resolution 10.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of December 16, 2019, I call up the bill (H.R. 5430) to implement the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada attached as an Annex to the Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5430.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. This vote today, Madam Speaker, is a reminder that, even while the House was working on a serious matter regarding the President's accountability for abuses of office, we were still working hard to deliver on our promises to the American people to focus on economic opportunity, and in this instance we were working together. This USMCA agreement before us is a vast improvement over the first version shown to us by President Trump and his team. We worked together, and it now includes critically important changes offered by Democratic members in order to ensure that its enforcement mechanisms are stronger, that it protects American workers, and that it will help lower prescription drug costs and improve access to medications. This agreement, Madam Speaker, will also remove some of the uncertainty created by the tariff policies that have been pursued by the President. I am glad that our House Democratic working group was able to secure new provisions to ensure that America's trading partners uphold the rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively. And I am glad that this agreement includes strong, rapid-response enforcement mechanisms that will allow us to block imports produced in facilities where these commitments are violated. I, and this Congress, will be closely monitoring the enforcement of this new agreement to make certain that the administration is doing its job and workers' rights are protected. I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Neal of the Ways and Means Committee, and Ambassador Lighthizer, who represented the administration in his straightforward, honest way. Their hard work and negotiations with the White House to improve on the administration's initial draft were successful. I thank, as well, the members of the Democratic working group who spent months working alongside the Speaker and chairman to fight for the provisions necessary to secure House support. This agreement, Madam Speaker, is truly the product of bipartisanship with many victories for Democrats, of which all Americans can be proud, and obviously, victories for Republicans, as well. I hope we can approve it today with a strong, bipartisan vote of support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, following the vote on the passage of H.R. 5430, Members are advised that there will be no more votes in the House until January 7. Madam Speaker, I want to wish all Members of this House, their staffs, and all the employees of this institution, on whom we rely so much and who do so much for us and for our country, a happy holiday season with their family and loved ones and with their neighbors. May God bless our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk. The Clerk will report the motion.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I have had the honor of serving in this House for over 38 years. I have served during six Presidencies. I have been here through moments of tremendous progress and terrible tragedy. I have seen periods of rank partnership and patriotic bipartisanship. I have seen our two-party system work, and I have seen it break down. Never in all my years of serving in this great institution that I love and the people of my district did I ever expect to encounter such an obvious wrongdoing by a President of the United States, nor did I expect to witness such a craven rationalization of Presidential actions which have put our national security at risk, undermined the integrity of our elections, and defined the constitutional authority of the Congress to conduct oversight. We have heard from Republicans that this impeachment really has to do with policy differences or how we feel personally about the President, about his temperament or that we simply dislike him. Throughout the Trump Presidency, Democrats have resisted pursuing impeachment even as we watched with dismay and disgust at a pattern of wrongdoing. That pattern included: Ordering Federal agencies to lie to the public; Firing the FBI Director for refusing to end investigations of his campaign; Siding with Vladimir Putin against our intelligence agencies; Taking funding away from the military to put towards an ineffective border wall; and Setting policies that have led to the separation of families and caging of children. We have, to be sure, deep disagreements with the policies and actions taken by this President. There has been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for Mr. Trump, little talk about the 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton. The policy difference, or those votes, this President was elected legitimately because we have an electoral college. But none of these are reasons to pursue what Chairman Schiff has called a wrenching process for the Nation. In fact, Democrats rejected that process emphatically in three specific votes: In December of 2017, Democrats overwhelmingly voted against pursuing Articles of Impeachment, including the Speaker and me. We did so again in 2018, with over 60 percent of the Democrats rejecting pursuing Articles of Impeachment. And again just months ago, in July of 2019, 60 percent of the Democrats said no to pursuing Articles of Impeachment just days before the infamous July 25 telephone call. We did the same with 60 percent of Democrats voting not to proceed. Credible witnesses, many of whom were appointed to office by President Trump, have corroborated the details and timeline of his abuse of Presidential power, which forms the basis of the first Article of Impeachment in this resolution. I will not recount all of the witnesses or abuses that have occurred. I congratulate my colleagues and Mr. Nadler and his committee and Mr. Schiff and his committee for setting forth a compelling case. They have been laid out fully in the articles before us and by colleagues in their remarks. What I will do is remind Americans that the House provided President Trump every opportunity to prove his innocence, but the witnesses were precluded from coming forth. The witnesses who had personal knowledge did not come, either at the President's request, in which he refused to show up because he thought it was a sham, as so many of you have said, or to the committees. Instead, he ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate. Perhaps they could have exonerated him. This, itself, I suggest to you, is unprecedented. When Presidents Nixon and Clinton were asked to hand over documents and allow officials to testify, ultimately, both complied because it is the law. Such actions of the President can be taken as further evidence of his obstruction and abuse of power. It is, in and of itself, impeachable conduct, the subject of the second Article of Impeachment. These two articles, of course, concern two very profound constitutional issues about the abuse of power in our Republic: First, whether it is acceptable for the President of the United States--any President--to solicit foreign interference in our elections. There is a difference as to whether he has done that, and the place to try that is in the United States Senate. But we believe strongly there is probable cause to conclude that, to undermine our national security, the integrity of our elections, and the integrity of our democracy. Secondly, whether it is permissible for the President to obstruct Congress and act as if he is above the law and immune from constitutional oversight. On December 4, the Judiciary Committee heard the testimony of constitutional law experts who weighed in on these points. Some 1,500 historians have said the same thing as Professor Noah Feldman said: If we cannot impeach a President who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. ``We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship.'' The votes we are about to take concern the rule of law and our democracy itself. Let us not forget the words of John Locke, so influential to the Founders of our Republic. John Locke, a millennia ago, said this: ``Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.'' This impeachment asks whether we are still a republic of laws, as our Founders intended, or whether we will accept that one person can be above the law. In America, as we have said over and over again, no one is above the law, but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking the law, even a President, will that be true. If the House does not act, if we wait and delay, we run the risk of allowing the President's misconduct, if we believe it to be so, to be repeated at the expense of the integrity of our elections, our national security, and our constitutional system of separation of powers. Democrats did not choose this impeachment. We did not wish for it. We voted against it. We voted against it once, we voted against it twice, we voted against it three times, as recently as July. We did not want this. However, President Trump's misconduct has forced our constitutional Republic to protect itself. These votes that we are about to take and the process that will follow in the Senate are not only an assessment of the President's commitment to the Constitution or to his oath of office; it is, as well, a test of our own. Damning evidence of the President's high crimes has emerged. Nevertheless, Republican Members of this House and of the Senate have continued to defend the President, whose actions seem to many of us to be indefensible. All of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. It is what makes our two- party system function. It is what helps hold Presidents and majorities accountable. But party loyalty must have its limits. And as evidence of the President's impeachable offenses have mounted daily as the witnesses testified, it has become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed. Now, Democrats and Republicans together face a test before our constituents, our countrymen, and our creator. The New York Times on October 18 summarized the question now posed to House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats: ``Compromise by compromise, Donald Trump has hammered away at what Republicans once saw as foundational virtues: decency, honesty, responsibility,'' and, yes, even civility. It went on to say: ``Will they commit themselves and their party wholly to Mr. Trump, embracing even his most antidemocratic actions, or will they take the first step toward separating themselves from him and restoring confidence in the rule of law?'' Madam Speaker, we have seen Republican courage throughout our history, from the Civil War to the Cold War. In 1950, Margaret Chase Smith, the Senator from Maine, a Republican, spoke bravely against the cancer of McCarthyism in her party, leading six of her Republican colleagues in a ``Declaration of Conscience'' against their own leadership. ``We are Republicans,'' they declared. ``But we are Americans first.'' In 1974, one Congressman took the brave and principled step of becoming the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support impeaching President Nixon. He said to his colleagues and to the country: ``It is not easy to align myself against the President, to whom I gave my enthusiastic support . . . on whose side I have stood in many a legislative battle, whose accomplishments in foreign and domestic affairs I have consistently applauded. ``But it is impossible,'' he went on to say, ``for me to condone or ignore the long train of abuses to which he has subjected the Presidency and the people of this country. The Constitution and my own oath of office,'' he said, ``demand that I `bear true faith and allegiance' to the principles of law and justice upon which this Nation was founded,'' he concluded, ``and I cannot, in good conscience, turn away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and compelling.'' My colleagues, that Congressman's name was Larry Hogan, Sr. He represented the Fifth District of Maryland, which I now represent. His son is presently the second-term Republican Governor of our State. When Larry Hogan, Sr., died in 2017, every obituary led with praise for his act of political courage. Who among us, many years from now, will receive such praise as a man or woman of courage? Who will regret not having earned it? We have talked a lot about partisan differences. There is one person who has spoken today who is neither a member of the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party. His name is Justin Amash, who represents a Republican district. He left the Republican Party, and in doing so, he admonished his colleagues that: ``This President will only be in power for a short time, but excusing his behavior will forever tarnish your name.'' He spoke on this floor in support of the two articles that we will consider this evening, neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Representative Amash, of course, is the only Member of this House who has no allegiance to either party, but to his country. He is supporting, as I have said, both articles. We need not ask who will be the first to show courage by standing up to President Trump. The question we must now ask is: Who will be the last to find it? The pages of our history are filled with Americans who had the courage to choose country over party or personality, but as President Kennedy wrote: ``The stories of past courage . . . can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this,'' President Kennedy said, ``each man''--each woman--``must look into their own soul.'' Madam Speaker, I urge my fellow colleagues in the House and, yes, in the Senate, to look into your soul, summon the courage to vote for our Constitution and our democracy. I understand we will all not see the same conclusion, but to do less betrays our oath and that of our Founders, who pledged their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor. Let us neither turn away from the evidence, which to me seems so clear, nor from our good conscience, which compels us to do what, in our hearts, we know to be right. Let us not allow the rule of law to end or for tyranny to find its toehold. With our votes today, we can bear true faith and allegiance to the vision of our Founders and we can show future generations what it truly means to be Americans first. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise and thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger for the hard work that they have done, and all of their staff. The staffs, I know, have been working around the clock on both sides of the aisle. I want to congratulate the staff director for the extraordinary work and leadership she has shown to get us to this objective. I rise in strong support of this legislation, of both of these packages, which will fund all 12 bills before the end of the calendar year, unfortunately, not by the end of the fiscal year. I would have been very happy to get all of this done by the end of the fiscal year, and we did our work in a timely fashion; but, unfortunately, the Senate did not pass any of its bills prior to the end of the fiscal year, and, therefore, it was impossible to get that done. I want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Shelby, as well, for the work that they have done. I want to thank all of those who worked together, focused. There was some talk, I know, about going into next year, but this is the right thing to do. This is what the American people expect us to be doing. This will provide our country with the certainty needed to carry out its work serving the American people and to continue making long-term investments in our national security, public health, public safety, and economic growth. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee members and staff worked hard to produce appropriations bills that the House passed in June, when we passed bills to fund 96 percent of the government by June 26 of this year. Sadly, the Republican Senate, as I have said, and the Trump White House failed to do their jobs for months, necessitating two short-term delays that brought unnecessary uncertainty. As a Member who has served on the Appropriations Committee for more than 36 years--although many of those years I have been on leave--I know how much work is involved in reaching agreement on funding bills. Nobody, not one of the, I guess, 433 of us who are here, got everything that they wanted or believes this is a perfect bill, but it is a work product worthy of the Appropriations Committee, the House of Representatives, and this country. It makes compromises, which are absolutely essential. It takes a lot of late hours, caffeine, and placing trust in colleagues across the aisle to achieve that objective. What Appropriations Committee members and staff have negotiated with the Senate and White House, as I said, is not perfect. The chair does not think it is perfect. The ranking member doesn't think it is perfect. I am sure there is nobody on either of the committees who thinks it is perfect, but it achieves key priorities and will avert a damaging government shutdown and give certainty to agencies as they move forward in the next 9 months of the fiscal year as to what resources they are going to have available to get their jobs done. I know there is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth about how awful the CR is for the Defense Department. I agree with that, but there ought to be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth about the adverse effect on nondefense agencies, because the effect is the same: uncertainty and an inability to operate in any kind of regular order fashion. This bill does not give President Trump additional border security funding over last year, but it does give him what he had last year. That is a compromise. People on my side are not happy about that; people on Ms. Granger's side, I am sure, are not happy about that. But it is a compromise, and it does continue critical investments in fighting poverty and expanding opportunities in communities across the country. Specifically, this bill increases funding for Head Start, National Institutes of Health, and initiatives to promote clean energy and a healthier environment--important victories for those items and the working Americans we are fighting to protect every day. This bill includes funds to secure our elections against foreign interference and provides funding to study the effects of gun violence in our communities. Ms. Granger mentions it raises the military pay, but it also raises the civilians on parity, a policy that we pursued for many, many years. It is good for our staff. It is good for the Federal employees, and it makes us competitive in the ability to retain people whom we need. It raises the cap for staff pay. Now, maybe we ought to hide that, but, very frankly, our staffs are underpaid. The hours, the talent, the intellect, the commitment, the patriotism they bring to their jobs, we don't compensate them properly. We are not competitive, certainly, with the private sector, but we are not competitive with the executive department, and we lost good people. So I applaud the committee for that action. This comes just a week after we were able to secure a victory by extending paid parental leave for Federal civilian employees across all agencies in the annual defense authorization bill. Critically, these appropriations bills have buy-in from the administration, having been negotiated by Secretary Mnuchin on behalf of the President. There is no legitimate reason that these bills would be vetoed, and my expectation is that they will not be vetoed, so we will pass them through the House. Hopefully, the Senate will pass them in the next 72 hours and send them to the President and he will sign these bills. All of us ought to be proud of the fact that we got that done by the end of the calendar year. Again, let me stress, my objective will be, next year, to get that done by the end of the fiscal year. I can't remember when we last did that, but I will tell all of my colleagues that that will be my intent to set that as an objective as it was to subject December 20 as the deadline for getting these bills done. I strongly urge the President to sign these bills. Federal employees in my district and in every congressional district in the country deserve better than to be told to go home without their paychecks. Madam Speaker, 800,000 people who work for us--we are the board of directors--we told 400,000 of them: You are not critical. Go home. Stay there. You can't come to work legally even if you wanted to. And to 400,000, we said: No, you are critical. Come to work, but, by the way, we are not going to pay you. Now, they believed and we did, in fact, pay them retroactively, but that ought not to be the way you operate any small, medium, or large business, much less one of the largest enterprises on the face of the Earth--I guess, the largest enterprise. So I hope all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will join me in voting for these appropriations bills, these 12 bills, quite frankly, the only bills that have to pass. There are a lot of other bills that ought to pass from a policy perspective, but the government doesn't shut down if they don't pass, whether it is a tax bill, an environmental bill, whatever bill. Let's send a resounding message of support to make it clear that this is the bipartisan path forward to avoid a shutdown and do our jobs for the American people. Again, I congratulate the chair; I congratulate the ranking member; and I am so pleased that they are together. I join them in asking every Member to vote for these bills. It is our job. It is our responsibility. It is our duty.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chair, with this legislation, Democrats are fulfilling our pledge to the American people in passing legislation that will bring down prescription drug costs for the people. That is one of the three central pillars of our For the People Agenda. With H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, we are delivering for the people. This legislation, named in memory of my dear friend and our colleague, Elijah Cummings, who fought so hard to lower the cost of prescription drugs, will give Medicare the power to negotiate directly with drug companies, which will help bring drug prices down, as we do now, Madam Chair, for our veterans. It will make those lower drug prices available to Americans with private insurance as well--not just Medicare, but with private insurance--and it will create a new out-of-pocket limit of $2,000, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs for those on Medicare part D. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 3 will save American taxpayers approximately half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now, H.R. 3 reinvests those savings, Madam Chair, in key initiatives, including expanding Medicare benefits to cover dental, vision, and hearing services; investing in new research, treatment, and cures; and combating the opioid crisis--all three objectives that the American public overwhelmingly support. President Trump, Madam Chair, promised in 2016, before his election, that he would work to negotiate lower drug prices, something this bill would give his administration the authority to do. For that reason, he ought to support it. He said in 2016: ``When it comes time to negotiate the cost of drugs, we are going to negotiate like crazy.'' He said that in a campaign setting. Hopefully, he still believes that today. I hope he will join in encouraging the Senate to take up H.R. 3, because in 2018, he said this: ``One common cancer drug is nearly seven times as expensive for Medicare as it is for other countries. . . . This happens because the government pays whatever price the drug companies set without any negotiation whatsoever.'' So said President Trump on October 25, 2018. He went on to say just 2 months ago, in October: ``. . . we want to bring our prices down to what other countries are paying, or at least close. . . .'' Madam Chair, that is what this legislation does. President Trump went on to say: ``. . . and let the other countries pay more. Because they're setting such low prices that we're actually subsidizing other countries, and that's just not going to happen anymore.'' Those were remarks before the Cabinet meeting on October 16, 2019, just a few weeks ago. That is what this legislation does. That is why the Senate ought to pass this legislation and the President ought to sign it. I hope he will join us in encouraging the Senate to take up H.R. 3 without delay and pass it. And I urge the President to reverse his opposition to this bill and sign it, his opposition being totally inconsistent with those three quotes that I just articulated. Too many Americans, Madam Chair, are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs. I have heard awful stories from constituents in my district, as I know every one of us has, about families rationing insulin and having to forego rent or food or other necessities in order to pay for their prescription drugs. That is not an option. Without them, their health will deteriorate, and, yes, they may die. One senior from Clinton, Maryland, in my district, wrote to tell me that one of her prescription drugs more than doubled in price, and she left the pharmacy empty-handed because she couldn't afford it. With H.R. 3, we can bring relief to people like her. With H.R. 3, we can lower the cost of prescription drugs so that Americans can live healthy lives and pursue their American Dream. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Neal, Chairman Scott, and their committees for working hard on this bill to help Americans lower their prescription drug costs and live longer and healthier lives. Madam Chair, this should not be a partisan issue. The President articulated the desire to achieve the objective of bringing prices down. That is what this bill does. That is what CBO says it does. So I urge my colleagues to support this. Now, Madam Chair, I know you could do this, but I want to do it because I am so proud not only of Haley Stevens herself, who is an extraordinary Member of the Congress of the United States, a wonderful member of the previous administration, and somebody who has worked in the private sector and the public sector and who has been elected president of your class, Madam Chair, the freshman class, an extraordinary group of 63 people, 64 if we count our friend Conor Lamb who was elected in a special election just before you--and he, of course, lords it over you that he is a senior member of the freshman class; I understand that. But Haley Stevens leads an extraordinary group of 64 people who have contributed so much to our society already in their lives, in their productive, constructive lives, and now have come to the Congress. And they came with a promise to do three things, at least: Number one, to help with wages and jobs and opportunities; Number two, to bring prescription costs down; and Number three, to invest in infrastructure. In this bill, we meet one-third of those promises, and they have made it possible. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), the president of the freshman class, so she may manage the remainder of the time.

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. Members are advised that no votes are expected in the House on Monday. Again, no votes on Monday, but we will do legislative business. We will be debating suspension bills, and the votes will be rolled until the following day. On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Let me stress that so that every Member understands. We normally go in at noon for a schedule like this on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but we will be going in at 9 a.m. on those days, as well as Friday. Members are advised that the first votes of the week on Tuesday are expected between 9 and 10. Again, I want to emphasize that, although we do not have any votes on Monday night, we expect Tuesday to be a full workday, so Members really ought to come into town on Monday. We will consider several bills, Mr. Speaker, under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. As Members know, the current continuing resolution expires on December 20. The House will consider some appropriation measures. Hopefully, and my expectation is, they are making progress in the Appropriations Committee on coming to a resolution on the 12 appropriation bills. It is my hope that we will consider those appropriation bills on the floor on Tuesday, perhaps a series of minibus packages to fund all of government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I would urge all of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to do everything they can in the next 24 hours, frankly, to bring this matter to a close and agreement so that the staff will have an opportunity to put the bills together for consideration next week. This week, negotiators were able to reach an agreement on a new trade agreement. The Republican whip has been asking me about that agreement. I have assured him we wanted to get to yes, and we have gotten to yes. We are pleased at that, this trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. It is possible that the USMCA trade agreement could be brought to the floor next week. The only reason it is possible and not assured is the administration is working on submitting implementing legislation to the Congress. My presumption is they will have that legislation to us in the relatively near term. It will be, therefore, available for consideration next week. This week, the House Judiciary Committee began markup, as the House knows and the country knows, of two Articles of Impeachment. Following committee action on these articles, the Judiciary Committee will make a recommendation to the full House of Representatives. We will determine a path forward on the floor following that recommendation. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, as is always the case in the last week, at least the last scheduled week of a session, there may well be other pieces of legislation that will ripen for consideration and that may well be considered next week. We will announce those as soon as we know which, if any, bills qualify for that treatment.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman making the comment with respect to the Defense Department and the importance of funding them, and I agree with that. I want to point out that the same challenge applies to all the other agencies of government. The more quickly they can be funded, the more they know what their funding is for the next 9 months--that is, between December 20 and September 30--and the more able they are to plan and rationally run their agencies. So I appreciate his observation about the Defense Department. It applies to all of government. We are hopeful that we can fund, and our intention is to fund, all of government with full-year or at least the balance of the year appropriation bills.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. We don't have a specific day, but I will tell him that it is our intention, assuming that the administration gets the enabling legislation to us in a timely fashion, which is my expectation they will do, to consider that next week. Now, which day next week has not been decided, but we do intend to consider it next week. We want to pass it before we leave here.

Mr. HOYER. Ambassador Lighthizer, as I have said all along, we have perceived as an honest broker. I think he has dealt with us fairly and openly. Very frankly, we believe that the agreement that has now been finalized is substantially stronger and better than it was when it was first given to us for consideration. I say that in the sense that we took the position, and I have taken this position on the floor, the gentleman knows, that enforcement was critical. The Chamber of Commerce has said, if you have a trade agreement without effective enforcement, you don't have a real agreement. What we were able to achieve was, we think, real enforcement, which protects workers, which protects the environment, which protects other aspects of the agreement. We also are pleased that some of the things that were in the bill that we thought were harmful to consumers, in particular, were dropped. But it was an honest negotiation, as the whip has pointed out. It was a hard negotiation, not so much between Mr. Lighthizer and ourselves, but between Mr. Lighthizer and some of the other interest groups, including our friends in Mexico. We have now reached that agreement. Hopefully, we can pass this next week. Our friends in labor have endorsed this agreement. The Maryland/ D.C. AFL-CIO has endorsed this agreement because they have the confidence that, unlike NAFTA--for which I voted, Mr. Speaker--in which there was no successful enforcement action over the last two decades, this will have the opportunity for successful enforcement for economic reasons and for other reasons. And I hope that this will move forward.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the gentleman very candidly, I have not discussed with Mr. Nadler or others on the Judiciary Committee that issue. So I really can't give you the rationale that was articulated by the chair or by others. I will say, however, that the President has indicated he wants to move with dispatch on this issue. We are doing that, and we have little time left. Very frankly, there were other witnesses to come forward, and very frankly, there were a lot of witnesses who were precluded from coming forward that we thought would amplify, frankly, people who work for and with the President who may have had information to give. But I can't specifically articulate the rationale, but we can get that for you.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, of course, this is not the jury in the sense of a petit jury that is going to decide guilt and innocence. It is, from a lawyer's standpoint, more analogous to a grand jury, which simply decides whether or not there is probable cause to believe the President abused his power in the exercise of his authority and, secondly, in the second Article, refused to cooperate with the Congress exercising its constitutional responsibility of oversight. Secondly, let me say to the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, the President was given the opportunity to appear with counsel and to call such witnesses as he wanted to call--I believe that is correct--but to appear and defend against the allegations that are incorporated in the Articles of Impeachment, and the President chose not to appear. The President chose not to have counsel present. Mr. Cipollone, counsel to the White House, in fact, responded to the offer to appear and said: We have chosen not to do so. So to say that the respondent in this case--I won't call him a defendant. But the respondent in this case, the President of the United States, chose not to respond, chose not to appear, chose not to produce evidence in his defense. One could conclude that perhaps they decided they didn't have any, but I won't conclude that, but that could be one conclusion drawn. But I will tell the gentleman, first of all, this is not a jury that is deciding guilt or innocence; it is a jury deciding probable cause whether or not there is cause to believe. And, of course, we had extensive hearings at which many witnesses testified, some of whom worked for the administration, with the administration, in the White House, who testified to the facts, which most constitutional experts believe, if believed, constitute an abuse of power. But, again, I will say to the gentleman, the central reality is the President refused to appear.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, my friend articulates many things that have no basis in fact and believes, in my view, that if he says it enough times that people will believe them. To that extent, I think he mirrors the President of the United States, who does the same thing. First of all, the rules have been followed. Secondly, the evidence that has been adduced is overwhelming and has not been controverted. John Bolton, when talking about this deal, which we believe is an abuse of power, said that this was the equivalent of a drug deal. That is John Bolton. My friend has talked for many weeks about how the Mueller report found nothing. First, let me read from the Mueller report something that was not part of an article but certainly informs us as to the intent and the feelings of the President of the United States. The Mueller report said this: ``Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including Russian interference and obstruction investigations. ``The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. ``These actions,'' the Mueller report said, ``ranged from their efforts to remove the special counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal, to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation, to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses and the potential influence of their testimony. ``The special counsel did not reach conclusions because''--and this is critical, and the whip constantly ignores this when he says the Mueller report found nothing. ``The special counsel,'' it says, ``did not reach conclusions because Department of Justice guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting President. Therefore, the Mueller report makes clear, however, that it does not exonerate the President by saying this. If we had confidence''--the whip may want to hear this. The Mueller report said: ``If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. But, based upon the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment that the President did not, in fact, participate in obstruction of justice.'' But because DOJ, for whom the counsel worked--not a special prosecutor, the special counsel--counsel demurred, essentially refused to make a judgment that he thought he was unable to make. But he made it clear that they could not find that the President did not obstruct justice. Let me say something else. There are a number of people who thought the Mueller report and the Mueller investigation had great effect: Paul Manafort, pled guilty to lying; Roger Stone, convicted; Michael Cohen, the President's counsel, convicted, in jail; Michael Flynn, convicted of lying, the national security adviser appointed by President Trump, convicted; Rick Gates, the deputy campaign manager for President Trump, convicted; George Papadopoulos, who the President claimed was his foreign policy adviser--or one of his foreign policy advisers--convicted, pled guilty, served a short period of time, and now is a candidate for Congress on the Republican ticket in the State of California. They all think that the Mueller report had some consequences. That is the context in which we see this crowd. No wonder so many of them didn't want to testify. And when Mr. Sondland testified the first time and then, after that, he saw some of these convictions, he amended his testimony. He came in and said, oh, yes, there may have been some discussion about a so-called quid pro quo or a bribery or extortion. He didn't say those words. Those are my words. He talks about obstruction of Congress and how there was no back and forth, and he says, well, they could have gone to court. As a matter of fact, we have gone to court time after time after time. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, the court has said that Congress is entitled to that discovery. Now, they keep appealing it. Mr. Speaker, that is the President's modus operandi, which he has pursued all of his adult life. When people said he owed them money; when people said he didn't fulfill a contract; when people said he should do this, that, or the other, he almost invariably took them to court and delayed and delayed and delayed. There is an editorial in ``USA Today'' which says this: ``Trump has met the impeachment investigation with outright and unprecedented defiance.'' We share that view. No President in history has refused to cooperate with the Congress of the United States in the exercising of its constitutional responsibility of oversight other than this President. Those are the facts. This is not ``The Washington Post'' or ``The New York Times.'' That editorial went on to say: ``Allowing this obstruction to stand unchallenged would put the President above the law and permanently damage Congress' ability to investigate misconduct by Presidents of either party.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I would again reflect that Articles of Impeachment under the Constitution of the United States are what Mr. Mueller said was the appropriate option if the Congress believed that this President ought to be held accountable for abuse of power, because he said he couldn't do it because the Justice Department policy said he couldn't do it. We have had hearings. Those hearings were participated in by the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle. Time was divided equally between the sides for questioning of witnesses. The witnesses were an ambassador hired by Secretary Pompeo, appointed by the President to represent us; Mr. Sondland, a close friend of the President's, apparently, or at least a big contributor of the President's, appointed by the President, who came back and said no. Certainly, I believe there was a quid pro quo that, if you didn't start an investigation, if you didn't announce that in public, then there wouldn't be the $391 million that you needed to defend your country and to defend freedom in Ukraine, which this Congress had, in a bipartisan way, sent to the President of the United States and that the Defense Department and others had certified reforms contemplated by that legislation had been effected, and they recommended the payment of that money. And in addition, you could not have a meeting with the White House if this didn't happen. So my friend continues to say no wrongdoing; nothing; no crimes; no this, that, and the other. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. And no matter how many times he says it, whether it is an editorial in ``USA Today'' or an editorial in some other paper or articles in some other paper or--I will tell my friend--people with whom I talk on your side of the aisle--I will not name their names--they, like Zelensky, would be afraid of retribution, just as Mr. Sanford found out that disagreeing would incur the wrath of the President of the United States and get a response, either in a tweet or some other way. Mr. Zelensky is in a very difficult position. The freedom of his country, the security of his people, he believes, are contingent upon whether President Trump will treat him fairly and as consistently as the Congress would want them treated. So I say to my friend: We are going to move ahead. We will all have a chance to vote on these articles, and we will have a chance to debate them. And then the Senate will have a trial, if, in fact, articles pass this House. And that trial will be where the President, presumably, will offer witnesses. But I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that Republican Senators are quoted frequently saying, we ought to have no witnesses. Republican Senators are saying, we ought to have no witnesses. Perhaps they just want to pass it so quickly. But it is as well, I think, because they don't know of any witnesses who will absolve the President from the actions that have been testified to without effective opposition to those premises. So, Mr. Speaker, we can debate this. We are going to debate it, I am sure, next week. It will be debated in the United States Senate, and we can continue to debate it here today. But the evidence, in the perception of many, is overwhelming and uncontradicted.

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman tell me where he did that?