Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think I am speaking English. Let me repeat. What the Mueller report said was the Department of Justice policy was that they could not indict a sitting President of the United States. It went on to say, as I quoted, that did not mean that they could assert that there was no obstruction of justice. And if they thought they could assert that, they would have asserted it. And Attorney General Barr then mischaracterized the Mueller report before it was released to put, in my opinion, the President's spin on the Mueller report, which, very frankly, the gentleman's side of the aisle has continued to spin all the time. I mentioned the six people who were convicted of lying to the investigation, close associates of the President of the United States, now in jail or waiting to be sentenced. Mr. Stone falls into that category. Mr. Barr said that there was no obstruction. He was wrong. He mischaracterized, misstated, and misled the American people. And Mueller said in his report that was not what he found. Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy is a crime. But there were, in addition to the six people I have talked about, 10 Russians indicted for participating in trying to undermine the integrity of the elections in our country on behalf of Mr. Trump. Now, the gentleman indicates that the Mueller report has not been mentioned. The Mueller report is not the gravamen or the central--we lawyers say ``gravamen''--but the central tenet here. The central tenet is, on July 25 and, frankly, leading up to that and succeeding that, the President of the United States involved himself in a way to enrich himself in terms of the election that was coming up, 2020--not the 2016 election, the 2020 election. The evidence has not been rebutted that that was the fact; and, in fact, people close to the President of the United States confirmed it. What the articles say is there was an abuse of power, which is what almost every constitutional scholar says was the central concern of our Founding Fathers when they included the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States: to be a check on authoritarian power serving its own interests, not the people's interest. That is what the central claim here is. And with respect to the other Article of Impeachment, it does not mention the Mueller report because what it was focused on--although Mueller focused on the obstruction of justice evidence, not the charge, but the evidence. What we are focusing on is the biggest attempt to prohibit the Congress of the United States and the exercise of its legitimate constitutional responsibility of oversight from getting information, either in testimony or in documents. And almost every scholar of past Presidents--including President Nixon and including President Clinton and the extraordinary discovery that was exercised against President Obama on a regular basis--found that this President has stonewalled more than any other President and with less justification than any other President, because most Presidents referred to executive privilege. This President went much more broadly than those who dealt with him personally, but simply wanted to preclude information from getting to the Congress so that it could make decisions based upon that evidence. And, of course, the other suit that we have is a President who said he was going to release his tax information to the American people. He has fought in every forum to prevent that from happening, notwithstanding the legislation, which was not adopted by us--it is very old legislation--which says the tax writing committee can get that information. And I would suggest the American people ought to have that information so they can determine for themselves whether this President is acting for his benefit or for their benefit, which is his constitutional responsibility.

Mr. HOYER. I didn't say that. Don't mischaracterize what I said. I did not say that.

Mr. HOYER. That is accurate.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The irony is that the reason we got cooperation in the Nixon case and in the Clinton case is because those administrations cooperated. This administration has absolutely not cooperated. The gentleman has those letters, and he put them down as if they mean something. They are further evidence of delay. The committee requested legitimately. What the gentleman didn't say--he said we ought to go to court. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman knows what happened when we went to court, because we have gone to court five or six times. We haven't lost a case yet. We have not lost a case yet where the court has said that Congress is entitled to that information. So these letters are fine, but they are delay and dissemble as we throw them on the table, as if they mean something. The gentleman says the Russians interfered in our election. They did. The irony is, one of the reasons that the Obama administration didn't get more involved in that is because there was knowledge by some that they were interfering on behalf--or suspicion of--Mr. Trump because of some of the evidence we have heard. Mr. Stone's case, Mr. Gates testified about the knowledge that the President had about WikiLeaks and of the President's invitation for WikiLeaks to release information. Sondland changed his testimony. We have gone to court. The administration has refused to cooperate. The gentleman ignores those facts. They are facts, and they are facts that are generally accepted across the land, even by those who are supporters of the President. So we are going to have this discussion. They are going to have this discussion in the Senate. But the President chose not to come to the House to defend against the allegations. His counsel said they weren't going to participate. They had the opportunity; they did not take it. We will see what happens from there.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we could go, I guess, all day on this. But the fact is, let me say, with that letter, the gentleman says 1 week. The fact of the matter is this President has been defying Congress for years in terms of giving it information it constitutionally had the right to have. He has not responded. In fact, we have gone to court, and we have won every case. It is not like the court said: Oh, well, they have the right to do this; they can talk back and forth for days, years, and months. The court said: No, they are entitled to that information. Don't send me a letter; send me the information I request. For my friend to pretend that that was just 1 week's delay--it has been years of delay to responding to information requested legitimately by the Congress of the United States. After months of going to the court, the courts have come to a conclusion over and over and over again that the Congress is entitled to that information. Two courts have now decided that we are entitled to his tax information and to his financial information. We haven't gotten it. Why? Because he appeals again. Why? Because that is his modus operandi, as I said. He did it in the private sector, and he is doing it in the public sector. What surprises me is that--I am not wishing it, but my friend may be in charge someday again, and my friend is going to be very upset with the precedent that the gentleman is arguing for at this point in time in terms of not cooperating with the Congress of the United States in conducting its constitutional duties. As I say, we could go on and on on this. We are going to have additional hearings. I would repeat again, from a USA Today editorial: ``Trump has met the impeachment investigation with outright and unprecedented defiance,'' which is one of the reasons I suppose he didn't appear and he instructed people who have information, like John Bolton, like Secretary Pompeo, and like so many others: Don't appear. Don't testify. Don't provide information. That is obfuscation and refusal to cooperate. But we will have an opportunity to deal with these in the future. I would hope that, at this point in time, Mr. Whip, we might cease and desist so our friends could have an opportunity to say what they want to say. But I am prepared to proceed if my friend is so disposed.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Of course he is.

Mr. HOYER. This could go on forever. Of course not. I didn't make that assertion. Don't put it in my mouth. My friend has every right, not only the President, but every citizen has the right to repair to the courts of the United States for redress of their grievances and the pressing of their case, period. The President has that right. I never asserted that the President ought to be impeached on that basis, nor do I assert it now, nor do we assert it in our articles which have yet to be voted on, so we will see what they do on that vote. But let me remind the gentleman and let me remind Mr. Speaker of the House, we had a vote in 2017, we had a vote in 2018, and we had a vote in 2019. Those votes were on whether or not we ought to move Articles of Impeachment forward to impeach the President of the United States. I voted ``no'' on each one of those votes. Over 60 percent of the Democrats voted ``no'' on each one, some higher, on each one of those votes in '17, '18, and '19. So when you assert, Mr. Speaker, that somehow the Democrats were just frothing at the bit to impeach the President--I don't want to impeach this President. I wish this would pass from us. No one ran for Congress to impeach the President of the United States. But no one ought to shirk their responsibility. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, my belief is that there is not a single Republican in this House, not one, confronted with these facts against President Obama who wouldn't have voted to impeach President Obama--not one of the minority. I am convinced to my bones, and I have been here a long time and served with a lot of people, that not one of them would have voted against either one of these articles if President Obama had done the same fact pattern with the same evidence. Not one of the minority would have voted against one of these articles. That is my view, Mr. Speaker, but we will see. I said this morning, quoting the papers, that we are not whipping this. This is not about whipping some partisan vote. This is about each Member having to decide for themselves, with their conscience, with their moral values, and with their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, whether or not--and my friend quotes one witness, one constitutional expert. Three constitutional experts said, if you do not move forward on impeachment, effectively, the executive power will be unchecked and you will create a king, not a President. Three times this Congress said: We are not going forward. But then, on July 25, a phone call occurred in which this President clearly said to an ally to whom we wanted to give $391 million to defend himself and his people and his country, but withheld because: I would like you to do me a favor. That favor was not to help America, and that favor was not to clean up corruption, because he already had certified by his departments that they had met that criteria. It was, as the evidence is almost uncontroverted, to help him in the coming election and to undermine somebody he perceived to be one of his, if not the, principal opponent. This is a heavy decision this Congress and this House will have to make, and each one of us will have to make it. Let us hope that each one of us makes it honestly and unrelated to politics or party, but related to patriotism and oath of office.

Mr. HOYER. The good news is they didn't bring impeachment against President Obama because he did nothing to warrant such an action. How proud I am of that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for his service and the chairman for his service. I also want to thank the staff. It has been an extraordinarily arduous, sleep-depriving and angst-creating process, I know, to get this bill from this floor over to the Senate floor and through conference, so I congratulate the staff. We are blessed as a country and as a Congress to have extraordinarily qualified people who could, frankly, make very significantly more in the private sector stick with us and with our country. Their patriotism and their talent is an extraordinary benefit to us all. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Smith and the Democratic members and the majority staff of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the ranking member and the minority staff. They have been working very hard on this legislation. The conference report before us represents a compromise. No one ought to think that is a pejorative. It is what we do. And it means, in compromising, you do not get everything you want. Obviously, many of the things that we passed on the floor of this House that we believed were very, very important items are not in this conference report. It could lead some to say, well, then we won't vote for it. That would be a mistake on either side of the aisle. I am particularly pleased, however, that this report, this bill does include, for the first time, 12 weeks of paid parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child for all Federal civilian employees. There was, for a period of time, a suggestion that it only apply to defense employees. I would suggest that the national security of our country is, in interrelated ways, dependent upon all of our employees, and we ought to treat them equally. I wrote a letter urging that, and others weighed in as well. I am pleased that the committee ultimately decided to treat all Federal employees the same, even though we limited it not to family leave, but to parental leave. Now, that is a step in the right direction. We know that the bonding between moms and dads and infant children is critically important, and this will give them the opportunity to do so. And it will give them the opportunity to not have to make a determination whether or not they don't get paid in order to create this bond, but they will be enabled to, as so many could not if they were not paid, take advantage of this benefit. So I am disappointed that we don't have full coverage, but this is a first and very significant step. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who has been a giant in her advocacy of this policy for our people, for our employees, and, by the way, for our infants, whether they are adopted or whether they are naturally born. I will continue to fight for the full measure of paid family and medical leave to be extended to our employees and would urge others around the country to do the same. While some private businesses are already instituting paid leave, it would be appropriate that all do so. In addition, this conference report, unfortunately, does not include a comprehensive set of provisions that were adopted in this House to protect communities affected by PFAS. Now, PFAS is a category of chemicals that essentially do not disappear and are toxic when introduced into our waters and exist on our military bases, in some respects, because of the use of foam for fire suppression, but for other reasons as well. I know that the chairman fought very hard for this. I know that the President's position was that he did not want this in the bill and indicated that it would not happen. But I thank Mr. Smith for fighting so hard for this, and I know that we will keep fighting. I want to tell the House that I intend to bring a bill to the floor incorporating the provisions that were in the defense bill but dropped. I will bring it to the floor in January. I have talked to Mr. Pallone about that, and he is looking forward to doing just that. I am trying to shorten this up a little bit, Madam Speaker. The last two things I want to mention before I make some general comments is that I was sorry that the antidiscrimination provision that was included in this House dealing with transgender people who wanted to serve their country was eliminated from the bill. I think that was wrong. I am one of the people like John McCain. John McCain, when asked whether or not gays and the LGBT community ought to be able to serve in the military, said: I want to know whether they shoot straight, not whether they are straight. Martin Luther King, Jr., told us to judge people by the content of their character, not other arbitrary distinctions which may or may not impact on their performance and their value. I will continue to fight that ban, which undermines our national security and the military's effectiveness and does not reflect the values and ideals that our military defends. And if you review the 1948 actions, or 1947 actions of Harry Truman when he integrated the services and he was told, ``Oh, if you do that, it is going to undermine morale; you ought not to do that,'' very frankly, I see this exclusion as very much like that opposition to that action. Finally, I will also continue to advocate for a change in policy regarding Yemen. That war is a human-made disaster. It is not our fault, but we ought not to be complicit. In closing, let me say this: This is $738 billion of hard-earned tax money, more than anybody in the world spends. I have been, for the 39 years that I have been here, a strong supporter of our national security. I don't know that, other than when we had political fights such as the Republicans voting against the defense bill when it passed the House here, that I have voted against a defense bill or an appropriations bill. I am certainly not going to vote against this one. I am urging people to support it. But, Madam Speaker, I want to say to all of my colleagues that we need, with great diligence and courage, to look at the defense budget and look at that $738 billion with an eye that the pot is not unlimited and that our national security depends not only on our defense investment, but on our domestic investment and education and healthcare and the welfare of our people. I would urge that the committee focus on how it can effect diligent oversight on the expenditure of this extraordinary amount of money, which I will support. We included $733 billion. We have no more security because of that extra $5 billion. And I will tell my friends that $733 billion was acceptable to some of the folks I talked to on the Republican side of the aisle. So I am supporting this bill, but as I have urged privately, both the chairman and the ranking member, we need to look very carefully at how we are expending this amount of money to ensure that it is spent effectively and that we cannot get the same level of defense at a lower level of expenditure. That is a tough job to do, but it needs to be done. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Dennis Compton, who earlier this year stepped down as Chair of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Board of Directors after more than eleven years. Since 1992, I have had the distinct honor of serving as a Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. I have established friendships with many members of our nation's fire and emergency services throughout those years. I got to know Chief Compton well, attending the memorial service for fallen firefighters in Emmitsburg and the annual Congressional Fire Services Dinner together with him every year. I know it was a difficult decision on his part to step down as the Chairman of the National Fallen Firefighters Board of Directors. Chief Compton has always cared deeply about the mission of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to honor our fallen heroes, provide support to their loved ones, and reduce the number of firefighter injuries and deaths. Even though he will no longer serve as Chairman, I know he will remain steadfast in his commitment to firefighter health and safety. In his many different professional capacities, Chief Compton has shared his thoughts and knowledge with thousands of firefighters about the attributes of leadership, character, and integrity. These attributes define who he is as a friend and leader and have earned him many well-deserved distinctions and honors from his peers. Indeed, his legacy will be felt for many years to come in the countless men and women of the fire and emergency services who will carry out their work aimed with the lessons he imparted and will surely continue to impart in the years ahead. I would also like to honor him for his dedication and commitment to our nation's firefighters, for his unwavering support for the family members of our fallen heroes, and for his many contributions to the bipartisan work of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. Serving as a Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I have seen Chief Compton's tireless efforts up close. Prior to his role as Chairman of the National Fallen Firefighters Board of Directors, Chief Compton served in the Phoenix Fire Department for twenty-eight years. He also served as Fire Chief in Mesa, Arizona, for six years. Chief Compton also served as Past Chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Institute (CFSI) National Advisory Council and Co-Chairman of the Fire Service-Based EMS Advocates Steering Committee. Our nation's fire service owes Chief Compton a debt of gratitude. On behalf of my fellow Co-Chairs of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I extend my thanks and appreciation to Chief Dennis Compton for his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there are few alliances as critical to America's national security, to global stability, and to our Nation's values as the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israel and America share common values and together are committed to the principles of democracy and individual freedom. The United States will always stand by our ally, Israel, period. Let me be clear. Military assistance to Israel is critical to America's national security. It is an investment in our security as well as Israel's. That is why I am opposed to imposing conditions on that assistance. Since even before its independence in 1948, Israel has sought to achieve a secure peace with its neighbors on the basis of the principle of self-determination for both the Jewish people and for the Palestinian people. The Jewish people deserve to live in peace and security in their ancestral homeland, and Palestinians deserve the opportunity to chart their own future of peace and opportunity in a land of their own. That was the foundation of the peace process in the 1990s and subsequent efforts by Israeli Governments to achieve peace with security. It makes clear in this resolution that both parties ought to take meaningful steps to end mistrust and avoid obstacles to peace. This includes encouraging both sides not to take any steps that make the pursuit of peace harder. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case, and the attacks on Israel undermine daily--and if not daily, too often--the ability to achieve an agreement helpful to the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. I want to thank my friend and leader of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Engel, Representatives Lowenthal, Pocan, Deutch, Price, Schakowsky, and Gottheimer, representing a broad spectrum of feelings about how we deal with and support our ally, Israel. But they have come together, as well as all of the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to work hard to ensure that this resolution reaffirms Congress' strong support for the U.S.-Israel relationship, while contributing positively to helping Israel achieve the peace and security it seeks with the Palestinians. The resolution says that settlements and annexation are inconsistent with that objective. I hope Members will support this resolution. I disagree with my friend from New York, that this is not policy that has been adopted by Republican administrations as well as Democratic administrations. To say this is an Obama policy that we are overturning--which is apparently much of what the focus of this administration is, overturning the policies of their predecessor--is incorrect. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush believed that a contrary policy would undermine the realization of peace between two peoples. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will on a bipartisan basis overwhelmingly support the restatement of America's policy.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding me time, and I thank him for his leadership. And, of course, I thank Terri Sewell, who is from Selma, Alabama, who has been a fighter for voting rights all of her life. I thank her for sponsoring this bill along with myself and so many others. It was in Selma in 1965 that another friend and one of our dearest colleagues, John Lewis, was nearly beaten to death for having the audacity to demand the right to vote, the right to register, the right to participate in a meaningful way in our democracy. That year, after that Bloody Sunday in March of 1965 and the later march to Montgomery that followed soon after, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act to protect against voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement. One of its core provisions required that the Federal Justice Department preclear any changes to voting rules in jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination and voter suppression. Let me, as an aside say, that these elections are Federal elections, so very frankly, my constituents have an interest in making sure that constituents of every other district have an opportunity to have their voice heard. This is not a State's rights issue, as the administration puts forth. This is an issue of America's values as a democracy, which is that all Americans--and that was not always the case, we had to amend the Constitution of the United States in order to effect that end--that all Americans have the right and ought to be facilitated in exercising that right to vote. Sadly, we know that, notwithstanding the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, State after State, jurisdiction after jurisdiction, not solely in the south, adopted policies aimed at preventing the exercise of the franchise, of preventing the ability to register to vote and to neuter the vote being cast by redistricting efforts that in effect put people in a place where they could not elect the person of their choice. As a result, millions of Americans after the Voting Rights Act was adopted were finally able to vote and have their voices heard in their democracy. However, we ought to be chastened as we consider this legislation in knowing that for 100 years after the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were adopted, for 100 years, for a century, it was still necessary for the John Lewises and the Martin Luther Kings to march. Some gave their lives to redeem that promise that so many gave their lives to ensure. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the formula for that preclearance process in 2013 and charged Congress with updating it. We have responded this day to that charge. Under the previous Republican- led Congress, that charge was ignored. Again, I would ask my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to think of their failure to act. Ronald Reagan said to Gorbachev, ``Tear down this wall.'' Today, we have an opportunity to tear down the wall of discrimination and exclusion to millions of Americans who have been confronted with policies that make it more difficult for them to vote. I hope the Senate will join us in tearing down this wall of discrimination, oppression, and exclusion. I continue to believe that the decision made by the Supreme Court was a bad decision, which did not reflect the reality of the success of the preclearance provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that, ``Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Today, the Democratic-led House will vote to restore the full force of the Voting Rights Act. And I hope every Republican will join us if they want to ensure that discriminatory practices do not prevent citizens from voting. We have given this bill the designation of H.R. 4. I said in a press conference a little time ago, H.R. 4, H.R. for the people. Whether you spell it F-O-R or F-O-U-R, this is for the people, for our democracy, for justice, for inclusion. We have given this bill the designation of H.R. 4, appropriately, because it is one of our most important pieces of legislation. Along with H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which contained a number of provisions strengthening ballot access, making voter registration automatic, and expanding early voting, H.R. 4 is part of the Democrats' effort to protect Americans' fundamental right to vote. H.R. 4, my colleagues, restores the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. As you take your card and contemplate putting it in the slot and pushing either the green button or the red button, reflect upon those who died, not only in the civil rights movement, but those who died on foreign shores defending freedom and democracy. Because as you vote today, you will be voting to defend or to ignore the fundamental formula for democracy, which is having people's votes count. By updating the preclearance formula requiring reasonable public notice before changes to voting laws or regulations; permitting the Attorney General to request the presence of election observers anywhere there is a threat of racial discrimination at the ballot box--these are not just State elections, I tell my friends; these are elections, which impact my constituents in your State and every other State, when they elect Members of Congress, in the United States Senate--and increasing accessibility and protections for Native Americans and Alaska-native voters. Again, I want to thank Representative Sewell for her leadership in this effort and John Lewis and so many other heroes; my friend Jim Clyburn, the Democrat whip, who fought for voting rights; for all those of African American descent who fought for voting rights; for Native Americans, the first two women of whom we have in the Congress now. I thank Chairman Nadler for working closely with Terri Sewell and others to strengthen this legislation by including language to ensure that jurisdictions that purge voter rolls or reduce early voting opportunities are subject to preclearance requirements. It is very nice to say, Well, you can file a suit after the election is over. You may not have the money to do that, and, in any event, it is a fait accompli. It is too late. That is why preclearance has been honored for half a century, and that is why it is so sad that the Supreme Court set it aside. And, of course, I want to thank, one more time, my dear friend, John Lewis, who throughout his lifetime has held up the beloved community. Voting rights is part of that beloved community. In Selma 54 years ago, John risked his future, his life and his limb, so every American could cast a vote. Today 434 of us ought to join John Lewis, not walking across the bridge with Alabama troopers waiting to beat us and confront us, but to that little box where we have the right to vote. Nobody can stop us from voting in that box today. Let's make sure that nobody stops any of our fellow Americans from putting their card in that voting slot and making democracy all that our Founders promised it to be.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I apologize for a little bit of lateness here. On Monday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. 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 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Members are advised that votes on Thursday could occur later than usual. It is now approximately 12:30 when Members could get out. I want to make it clear that next Thursday we may go later than the usual time that Members are expecting to leave. We will consider several bills, Madam Speaker, under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. The House will consider H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. This legislation would lower prescription drug costs for every American, as well as level the playing field for American patients and taxpayers. Last year, House Democrats promised to lower healthcare costs by lowering the price of prescription drugs for the people, and we are proud to deliver on that promise this coming week. In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 729, the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act. This bill is a package of bipartisan legislation that protects vulnerable coastal and Great Lakes communities impacted by the climate crisis. Lastly, it is possible the House will consider the NDAA conference report. Other legislation is possible, as well, as we come to the close of this first session of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the answer is, I hope so. As the gentleman probably knows, we have made some proposals back. Mr. Neal has talked to representatives from the Mexican Government about this and representatives of the Canadian Government about the enforcement issue, which has been somewhat the holdup. As the gentleman knows, both the Speaker and I voted for NAFTA. We believe that what is being worked on now is an improvement to NAFTA, but it is only an improvement if you can enforce its provisions. As the gentleman knows, over the last two decades plus, there has been no successful enforcement action issued under the present NAFTA. When the Speaker and I voted for NAFTA, we voted for it on the theory that it could be enforced, and there was a side-bar agreement. Unfortunately, as the gentleman also knows, the side-bar agreement did not lead to effective enforcement. As a result, I know that enforcement is being discussed by Mr. Lighthizer. And I want to say that we perceive Mr. Lighthizer as representing the administration and negotiating in good faith and as an honest broker. We are appreciative of that fact. But we are now, as I understand it, and don't hold me to this, but as I understand it, we are in discussions with the Mexican Government as to whether or not they will agree to some of the enforcement actions, which implies there is a general agreement between the administration and ourselves on what should be or could be included to effect enforcement. But in answer specifically to the gentleman's question, I will be very happy if we can get agreement and bring this bill to the floor as early as next week, if it is ready to come. Now, the problem is, as the gentleman knows, there is a process that needs to be effected, but I will tell the gentleman that the Speaker and I both would like to see this legislation pass as soon as possible, if, and in the context, we have effective enforcement included.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman that I don't accept his premise that Mr. Schiff or the committee spied on anybody. They do have records, apparently. The gentleman asked me how deep my knowledge is. And I will tell him, frankly, not very deep. But I do not accept his premise that either Mr. Schiff, personally, or the committee spied on people. They did receive information as a result of subpoenas and discovery with reference to what was going on, what were the facts, but I would have to get greater knowledge of the information to give the gentleman a broader response than that in terms of volume or substance.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, what we do know, by the facts, is that the President abused his power. The gentleman does not want to speak to that, Madam Speaker. We do know the facts that were testified to in the committee. The gentleman, like the President, seeks to distract. I reject out of hand any assertion that either Mr. Schiff or the committee spied on anybody. Did they pursue discovery so that they could get the facts and the truth? They did. I don't know the amount. I am not a member of the committee. I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee. I am not privy to all the information that may be available, but I reject, again, out of hand that either the chairman or the committee spied on people. The gentleman has been a Member of this body for some period of time, and I am sure he watched what went on with Benghazi. Thousands and thousands and thousands of pages were received by subpoena, with cooperation by the Obama administration. The chairman of the Government Oversight Committee had thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of subpoenaed evidence or information. But I will, frankly, Madam Speaker, look at this information because I believe it is a very serious and egregious accusation that Mr. Schiff or the committee spied on anybody. They may not like the discovery process. They may not like the information that was complied by the discovery process. They may be upset that it did not absolve the President of the United States from clearly abusing his power as President of the United States for his personal gain. But I have no reason to believe it, and no evidence has been offered, just a bald-faced assertion that somehow, Madam Speaker, Mr. Schiff spied on people. I reject that and believe that to be totally without merit.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman said he was in my position of not having a lot of information, yet he makes conclusions, assertions, and accusations that I believe are not based in fact. He continues the process argument that the Republicans have made over and over and over and over again. Why? Because they do not want to address the facts of this case, because they do not believe, correctly, that the facts are on their side. I would hope that we could move on. We will see whether there are any facts to sustain what the Republican whip has asserted. I believe there are not, but I am not going to continue to argue process here. There will be a time in the relatively near future when we will argue substance, the Constitution, the laws in this country, and our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of our country, our national security, and the integrity of our elections.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, apparently he got $391 million to say he wasn't intimidated. The witnesses to which the Republican whip referred, 75 percent of those witnesses, three out of four, said they believed that the offenses that were testified to by some members of the White House National Security Council, by an Ambassador, by an Under Secretary to Mr. Pompeo who Mr. Pompeo has said is a very credible individual, they all testified, and based upon that testimony, witnesses concluded, three out of four, that, in fact, they believed the offenses that were discussed were worthy of impeachment. So, I don't know what hearings the gentleman is listening to, Madam Speaker, but the hearings that I listened to had three out of four constitutional experts saying very emphatically that, in fact, if those facts were true--and, of course, we are not going to try them here. They are going to be tried in the United States Senate. All we do in this body under the Constitution is see whether or not, effectively-- although it doesn't say this--there is probable cause to believe that, in fact, an abuse of power occurred. The three experts who testified yesterday said it was. One expert said it was not. So 75 percent of the experts who testified and, frankly, literally hundreds and thousands of editorial writers, op-ed writers, citizens of this country have said this is an abuse of power. The Senate will make that conclusion. They will decide whether or not in the trial phase of this matter. But to indicate that the evidence is not overwhelming that was elicited in the hearings by the Intelligence Committee is simply to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the facets of this conversation always is that, I believe, the Republican whip adopts premises that are not supported by the evidence. Ambassador Sondland, a contributor of $100,000, maybe more, to the Trump campaign in 2016, appointed by President Donald Trump and sent to represent the United States abroad, testified that, in fact, he heard and believed that there was a relationship between releasing the $391 million and having a visit at the White House to confirm the United States' continuing support for Ukraine, our ally and friend, assaulted by Russia, which, of course, Putin is pursuing. Ambassador Sondland made it very clear that those were the conditions for that money being released. This was not hearsay. This is not Democrats. This is somebody who was a substantial supporter. Apparently, the whip believes that if you are a supporter of somebody else, you must have a bias. So apparently, Ambassador Sondland either had a bias for or maybe he had a bias against because his testimony is firsthand, not hearsay, and, in fact, his testimony is there was a relationship between that. Now, what I said, Madam Speaker, is not what the Republican whip attributed to me. What I said was the process, not that we had made any conclusion at this point, that the process is this House, under the Constitution, has the responsibility if it believes, and we will see if the Judiciary Committee concludes that, if it believes that there is probable cause to think that bribery was committed, an abuse of power was committed, a solicitation of a foreign government to participate in America's elections. If it concludes that, then the process is not that we make the decision that, yes, those are the facts. It is to be tried in the United States Senate under our Constitution. They will then conclude, like a jury in any case in our courts will conclude, whether or not those facts lead to the conclusion that abuse of power was committed. I just want to make sure the gentleman characterizes what I said. A conclusion has not yet been made. What I said was the facts seem to be pretty clear, however. There does not seem to be much difference. The President of the United States, himself, gave to us and the public notes of the conversation he had: By the way, ``I would like you to do us a favor.'' That was in the context, Madam Speaker, of the President's withholding $391 million. And, of course, Mr. Mulvaney said that it happens all the time; get over it. Well, I don't know whether the American public is going to get over it or whether the House or the Senate is going to get over it or not. But that was the attitude of Mr. Mulvaney: Of course we did this. It is always done. Get over it. We will see what is concluded. There is one more point I want to make. The gentleman says that over 100 Democrats voted. Three times--in 2017, in 2018, and in 2019--prior to that July 25 phone call, Articles of Impeachment were filed. Three times, the majority of Democrats voted not to proceed and moved to table those resolutions. Three times a majority of Democrats voted. There was no rush to judgment. And, very frankly, prior to this July 25 phone call and the whistleblower having the courage to come forward and say to the inspector general, I think this is of concern, and the inspector general making a determination that, yes, this was a serious matter requiring urgent consideration and that being transmitted to here, before that point, there was a Democratic Party that was saying, whatever our personal feelings may be about the election or about this President's operations in office, there was not sufficient evidence on which to move forward. We were having hearings, and we said, until the facts are such that we feel it is timely and appropriate to move, we would not move. There was no rush to judgment. 2017, 2018, and 2019 rejected a rush to judgment, a majority of Democrats. I made a couple of motions to table. So, Madam Speaker, we are now proceeding, as our constitutional responsibility dictates that we do, and we will see what happens. But all this talk about process--and I reject any assertions with respect to Mr. Schiff and/or the committee--is to distract. We will focus on the facts; we will focus on the evidence; and we will focus on what the reasonable conclusions based upon that evidence will be at some point in time in the future if the Judiciary Committee makes that determination that they want to recommend the House considering such action.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, what he said was he thought there was, in fact, a quid pro quo. Of course, as the gentleman points out, he had a bias: a substantial contributor to Mr. Trump, appointed by Mr. Trump as Ambassador to the European Union. His response to that question was--I would suggest if there was a bias from these witnesses that testified yesterday, simply because they support him, the same would apply to Mr. Sondland. But when asked whether or not there was a quid pro quo, his answer was yes.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Granger for their leadership on this committee. I want them to know that I appreciate their commitment to doing the appropriations process the way we are supposed to do it. But this day is a recognition of failure, a failure to do our work as those who adopted the Budget Committee report in 1974, as those of us who have served on the Appropriations Committee since 1983, 23 years active on the Appropriations Committee, but still on it but under a waiver. This is an admission of failure. It is a recognition of failure. It is a recognition that the Senate did not do its job. It is a recognition that the White House would not cooperate in getting to 302(b) allocations. I talked to Senator McConnell in January of this year. Leader McConnell and I agreed that we wanted to get the appropriations work done in a fashion that it was intended to be done, considering discretely and individually appropriation bills, considering them on the floor. Now, frankly, we did not do that. We did not do it for time's sake, so that we could do things in a timely fashion. And we considered three omnibus bills, minibuses as we called them, and we sent them to the Senate prior to June 26 of this year, which gave the Senate more time. They had all the time they needed. And because the White House, and, in particular, the acting chief of staff, Mr. Mulvaney--who has been one of the most negative people I have dealt with in terms of fiscal responsibility and doing the work of the House on time, and the person who would say ``amen'' would be John Boehner. Paul Ryan would be not too far behind. But Mr. Mulvaney wanted to go to sequester. That was his original play. And when that didn't fly some months into the sequester gambit, he went to a CR for the whole year. But then he found the Pentagon rightfully was very concerned about that proposal that would damage our national security, so he continued to delay. I don't know whether the President was involved in it or not, frankly. So we did not get to a 302(a) allocation. For those, Mr. Speaker, watching all this jargon that we are using, that means how much discretionary money we are going to spend in total. By the way, our citizens, Mr. Speaker, ought to know that it is only about one-third, maybe a little less, that is discretionary. The other is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, things of that nature. We needed to come to an agreement on how much we were going to spend. After all, we understand the President has to sign the bills. But it was not the committees that made that agreement. It was not the Budget Committee that was involved in that agreement. It was Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Mnuchin meeting together. The Senate wasn't really involved. We got to a number, and that was good, in July, which meant that the Senate had another 2 months to pass its bills, to come to an agreement. They didn't have to take our 302(b), and they weren't going to take it. They would have taken it within the constraints of the Mnuchin- Pelosi agreement or, more properly, the Pelosi-Mnuchin agreement. But they still did not enact a single appropriations bill. Now, the floor is not filled. The galleries are not filled, Mr. Speaker. This is sort of inside baseball. But, very frankly, there are only 12 bills that need to pass. All the other bills can be put off. It will have adverse effects, but it will not shut down the people's government. But if we don't pass these 12 bills, it shuts down the people's government. For the first time in the history of the Congress, this Congress took over with a government partially shut down. I am going to vote for this CR, but I do not delude myself that this is a successful pursuance of the appropriations process. It is not. It is a failure. It is not our failure. We did our work on time. The Republican whip, Mr. Speaker, keeps telling me: Well, it was a partisan exercise. It may well have been a partisan exercise, but 10 bills went to the United States Senate unattended, untouched, unconsidered, and so we are here. The alternative is shutting down government at midnight on December 21. That is not an acceptable alternative. I want to tell my friends, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say to those in this Chamber, that I have great respect for Ranking Member Granger, with whom I have worked for longer perhaps than either one of us want to say, but a long time. I have respect for her commitment to the appropriations process, her commitment to regular order, and her commitment to doing our work in the fashion that the American people can have confidence. Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in Mrs. Lowey, the chair of the committee. I know that they are working together and have the same objective. That does not mean they agree on every dollar, as to how it ought to be allocated, but it does mean they think it ought to be considered in the way that it should be. This is not the way it should be. This is the way it is, and I am going to vote for it. I urge my Members to vote for it. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, if I am upset today, if we don't get our work done, and I mean done, and you talk about a CR on December 20, I will not be happy. I don't know what that means, but I am going to have additional discussions with Senator McConnell, as I have had with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate and the ranking member, Mr. Leahy. I have talked to both Mr. Shelby and Mr. Leahy. They want to get this work done. There is no reason on God's green Earth that we cannot do the appropriations bills in the way that they ought to be done, except we lack the will to compromise. We lack the will to work together. We lack the will to do the American people's business on time, rationally, and without creating a sense that this institution cannot and does not work. I hope we use these days that are left between today and December 20 in a productive, effective way so that the appropriations process can be concluded on December 20 or before. This probably is going to have no constructive effect this day, but I hope in the days to come that we will all have such a sense of urgency that we owe it to the country, to our people, and to this institution to show the American people we can make it work. Let's do it.