Brad Wenstrup

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, for over a year the administration and Republicans in Congress have emphasized the urgency of passing the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA. With this bipartisan vote, and with the hard work from both sides of the aisle, we finally have the opportunity to rebalance North American trade. In spite of delays, this opportunity that exists for all Americans is finally here today. It has been 25 years since our North American Trade Agreement was established, and it has not been updated to reflect the modern economy. Under this new trade agreement, our farmers, manufacturers, and workers will finally have a deal that modernizes North American trade, boosts our economy, and strengthens our Nation's role in the global trading market. American farmers will now have increased access to the Canadian market to sell products like dairy, poultry, eggs, and wheat, a vast improvement over the status quo. It improves intellectual property provisions that will protect innovation, safeguard American trade secrets in Canada and Mexico, though certain protections could be stronger. USMCA also modernizes trade with Canada and Mexico by establishing a new gold-standard digital trade chapter to continue the growth of our digital economy. It includes a new chapter dedicated to helping small- and medium-sized businesses, which make up 98 percent of our Nation's exporters. Our economy relies on trade with our North American neighbors, and these additions will support American companies, farmers, and workers. In fact, USMCA is predicted to create over $68 billion in new economic activity and 176,000 new jobs here in America. USMCA is a win for the United States and a win for North America. At long last, Americans will have an updated trade agreement that works for them. The stage is set for further agreements that help hardworking Americans. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the President, Ambassador Lighthizer, and all of my colleagues for working so hard on this over the last couple of years. I encourage Members to support this.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, since 2016, America has seen a pattern of failed and disproven attacks and allegations against President Trump. Today is the fourth impeachment-related vote since President Trump took office. It is yet another attempt to reach their predetermined conclusion of impeachment, a conclusion built on political bias, accusations, and innuendo. These repetitive and false allegations reveal a political obsession disguised as some kind of righteous oversight. When they didn't win at the ballot box, they pursued a Russian collusion narrative that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had to waste time and taxpayer dollars to prove false. When the Russian collusion malicious deception didn't work, Madam Speaker, Democrats sought a new path forward to impeach President Trump: They created a made-for-TV set of hearings complete with witness auditions held in the basement of the Capitol. Despite all of their efforts, the charges the House considers today lack evidence to support them. There wasn't one witness who said a crime or impeachable offense was committed. Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues, no crime, no impeachable offense. That is a pretty good defense if you ask me. I will work diligently to further reveal the truths and further reveal the abuses of power, Madam Speaker, that Democrats paid for and enacted during the last 3 years, abuses of power from the other side of the aisle within this body and within our FBI. Americans deserve the truth. All in all, history will be remembered today as the political impeachment that set the precedent for Presidents to be impeached every time there is a divided government. I oppose the articles before us today, and I yield to the other side and their superior imaginations.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the 50th Anniversary of the Clermont County Chamber of Commerce. The Clermont Chamber of Commerce has a rich history of working to enhance the Clermont County community and providing quality services and employment opportunities to its residents. The Chamber represents approximately 800 businesses and individuals from around the area. As a pillar of the community, the Chamber has grown to become the 3rd largest Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and plays a leading role in the economic development and continued success of Clermont County and the Greater Cincinnati region. I am thankful to have such a positive working relationship with the Clermont County Chamber of Commerce and look forward to fifty more years of collaboration in the name of bettering Clermont County, its businesses, and those we serve.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Chair, 26 years ago, my sister had two forms of leukemia that most people die from immediately; but because of earlier clinical trials and innovative treatments, there was a way to get some leukemia patients into remission. Then we developed bone marrow transplants, and I matched her for that. Five years later, they called her a cure. Today, my sister is alive, working, raising a family, and we have treatments for leukemia that lead to a cure without even needing bone marrow transplants. These treatments are just steps in finding cures; and, as we work to lower prescription drug prices, I want to make sure that we are looking at it from all angles. We need to be aware of the impacts on the quality of and access to care when considering effective solutions to lower drug prices. H.R. 3 threatens and, actually, puts a knife in the heart of the pillars of research and development that have helped make America the leader in health innovation. Relying on foreign countries to set our prices is misguided. I don't want to see the U.S. be controlled or manipulated by an arrangement some other cabal of countries makes to affect our markets and our patients. Other countries do not always share the same priorities we do on access to quality care and saving lives. What do we sacrifice with this bill? The best care? Cutting-edge research? A lifesaving drug? Unfortunately, the approach before us today is a dangerous one. Government price controls and a looming threat of a 95 percent tax will dramatically hurt our country's ability to research and innovate new cures. Estimates show that the bill would lead to the loss of dozens of new drugs. That means fewer lifesaving drugs and fewer American lives saved. As a physician, I can attest that every doctor's goal is to get the best treatment for their patients. We can do more without going and having this stop development and innovation. The Republican alternative to this bill, H.R. 19, is bipartisan, and it is an effort to lower prescription drug prices while also protecting patients' access to new medicines and cures. Americans deserve to have a healthcare system that delivers treatments when they need it most and makes care more affordable.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Roe for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4356, the Protecting Families of Fallen Servicemembers Act. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the armed services, I know how important it is to protect the families of those who serve when tragedy strikes. That is why I was proud to join Representative Harder to introduce this legislation, which will allow the spouses and dependents of servicemembers who are killed or catastrophically injured in the line of duty to terminate their phone, internet, and TV contracts without penalty. Last year, the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act of 2018 passed the House with overwhelming support. That legislation included a number of changes to existing law to protect our servicemembers and our Gold Star families. However, due to a drafting error, the bill only allowed servicemembers, not their spouses and dependents, to end their phone, internet, and TV contracts without penalty. This bill corrects that error and ensures that grieving families are able to terminate contracts, giving them the freedom to relocate based on the needs of their families. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for advancing this legislation to the floor, and I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and thank University of Cincinnati nursing students Mariah Collins and Hannah McJessy for their life-saving assistance to the victim of a tragic drive-by shooting on Short Vine Street in April. Mariah and Hannah were walking on Short Vine Street when the shooting occurred. After witnessing a man fall to the ground, they leapt into action and used a belt from a bystander as a tourniquet to slow the victim's bleeding until he was able to be transported to UC Medical Center for care. Mariah and Hannah are heroes. I am proud to see them recognized for their extraordinary courage and actions. I can think of no two recipients more deserving of the certificate of merit from the American Red Cross than these two outstanding women and future nurses. I wish them both the best of luck in their medical careers.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and retirement of the Cincinnati Reds legendary Hall of Fame broadcaster, Marty Brennaman. Yesterday, Marty signed off for the last game of his famed career. He has been part of our lives and the voice of our beloved Reds for 46 years. Marty was with us for his very first broadcast when Hank Aaron tied Babe Ruth for the most home runs hit ever. He was with us when Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's longstanding record for most career hits. He was with us through three World Series titles. Marty Brennaman is an institution in Cincinnati. He feels like family. Marty helped make both Riverfront Stadium and the Great American Ball Park feel like a second home to so many. I know we will all miss hearing his play-by-play, his insights, and his stories. Although I never saw Marty swing a bat, I will be glad to replay his greatest hits for the rest of my life. I know I join Reds fans across Cincinnati and the country in a collective good-bye to one of our greatest, and this one belongs to Marty.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this, and I am glad we are having the opportunity to bring this resolution to the floor. At this time I am pleased that we are going to be able to get to the documents that are being requested in this resolution. I am pleased that if there is going to be a resolution that it is the one that the Senate put forward in a bipartisan fashion. This is what we asked for in the Rules Committee last night, and I am glad that it has come forward today. The question in hand--and we have heard lots of comments, some of it rehashing old history, some of it rehashing history that was disproven by the Mueller Report--but at the same time we are questioning what the DNI's authority is in this situation, according to statute. I think it should be discussed. In this situation where the DNI determined that this should not be sent to Congress, but also did not, in review of the complaint--because the complaint was given to DOJ for appropriate review, DOJ officials reviewed the complaint in light of legal issues identified by the IC IG in his cover letter and determined that no further action was warranted. Tomorrow we are going to hear from the DNI in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I think is appropriate. As I pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, I don't think that the other side would be happy if we only heard from the DNI and not the IG. So it is appropriate that we do that. He talked about the timely fashion of it. I think it is appropriate that you go through the Department of Justice and make sure you are doing everything right, and we need to hear from the DNI tomorrow. We also have received the transcripts of the conversation between the President of Ukraine and the President of the United States. The President made supposedly, and is being accused of making, a mysterious promise to Zelensky in return for Ukraine reviving an investigation against Joe Biden and his son. In fact, there was no such promise. The President wanted allegations of corruption potentially involving an American official to be investigated. What I see in this transcript is the President of one country speaking to a President of another country about trying to eliminate corruption within their government. The other comment that had been made is the President offered a quid pro quo related to military aid for Ukraine. There is no quid pro quo in that conversation. There is no mention of an aid package to Ukraine at all. It is not in there at all. So while one might want to keep saying that, it is not in there. Another myth, the President urged President Zelensky to work with Rudy Giuliani to investigate Biden's involvement in securing the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor eight times. Fact: The President mentioned Rudy Giuliani in that conversation only after Zelensky mentioned him first and referred to Biden in only one exchange. I, myself, have some confusion on what the rules are within the intelligence community and involving the executive branch. A couple of years ago in an open hearing, when we were discussing with John Brennan--this was in an open hearing--the former CIA director, obviously an expert in intelligence, when I asked him about the conversation between President Obama and President Medvedev where it was caught on tape where he said: I'll have more flexibility after my election. Medvedev said: I stand with you, and I will let President Putin know. I asked him if that was a red flag. His answer was: I am not going to comment on a private conversation between two heads of state. Since that time, I have wondered what the rules are within the intelligence community. Are conversations between two heads of state completely off-limits within the IC? I don't know. I have asked that question time and time again. I have asked some high-ranking officials who should know the answer to that, and I have gotten no answer. What I have heard in the testimony here today, I heard someone say, ``favor,'' ``favor,'' in response to the potential of this President asking for a favor. I did not see that, and I don't know who made the quote. I would like some clarification on that. Where we stand right now is kind of a recurring playbook. It is always moving the goalpost, right? We want to see these documents. Okay. The President has given you the documents. Okay. We are going to see what the whistleblower had to say. And now, what do we hear? Well, I am concerned that there may be more out there that we are not getting. It is always moving the goalpost. Listen, I speak in favor of this resolution. We should get to it, move on with the business of the country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the renowned minority whip.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an additional 1 minute.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 1 minute.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me make a few comments, if I can. This was reviewed by the criminal division of DOJ today that found no violation whatsoever. Let me make another point, because I have heard accusations along the way that certain entities here in Congress don't care about whistleblower protections. We do care. We care about the whistleblower process. We care about their protections. Let's be perfectly clear on that. As Republicans, and sitting on the intelligence committee, we recognize the value of this process. We are for it. We have heard a lot of comments, yesterday especially, that were made that would imply guilty until proven innocent when we haven't even seen the whistleblower claim. We just got the transcripts of the President with the President of Ukraine today, and we don't even know the circumstances of the claim. I don't know if anyone on the other side has had contact with the whistleblower, but I know nothing about this whistleblower except that there is a whistleblower. And I have not seen the complaint, and I look forward to seeing it. We have been through a lot as a country. Time and time again, our country gets challenged--challenged from outside, challenged from within. We have been through a lot. As Mr. Spano alluded, we are about ready to go home. Yet we have got an urgent matter on our hands, we have been told; yet leadership is saying: But just go home. Well, if this is such an urgent matter, why are we going home? And I also will bring up the point again that tomorrow we are scheduled to hear from the DNI. Let's give that process its due, and let's know facts before we speak and before we pass judgment. That is all we are asking to do. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I heard something before, that no one asks for a favor that doesn't want something in return. You know, when my wife asks me for a favor, I don't ask for something in return, I have got to tell you. And I have to say, I agree with what Mr. Welch had to say today. I thank the gentleman for his words. We do have an oversight, but we also have a process in our country. So I am very curious to hear tomorrow, fortunately, in an open hearing, what the DNI has to say, and how he may have interpreted the law differently, or DOJ did. And I think that the American people deserve that, and I am glad it is going to be in an open hearing. There is a lot we can talk about. We can go back and forth on this. But I will tell you, amongst my constituents, what I hear at home is that there is a lot of hypocrisy out here. When you talk about having oversight, or quid pro quo, and you are only willing to look at one side of it, or one event of it, or one possible event of it, I should say, only willing to look in one direction, you lose the trust of the American people. You lose the trust of the American people. When I was a child, I watched the Watergate hearings. Do you know what I was impressed with? You had both sides of the aisle seeking the truth, regardless of who was in power or who was in question. We haven't seen that for 3 years. So, let's get this resolution on the floor. It is a foregone conclusion. We are all in agreement. This is something we want brought forward. Half of it already has been, and the other half is being delivered at 4:00. That is what we were here to debate today, this resolution. You wouldn't know it was a resolution we were all in favor of. So let's have our vote and move on. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the rabbi for coming to the Capitol today to share with us a time in prayer, a time when we often need it. America has been through many battles. We have many debates. But we always come out strong, and we come out together, at the end of the day. I thank the rabbi for his kind prayer and thoughtfulness as we proceed forward as a Nation.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have had the pleasure of serving with Ms. Stefanik on the House Intelligence Committee, and I couldn't agree more with the points she has made. As a veteran and as a member of the House Armed Services Committee for the previous three terms and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am familiar with the U.S. military as well as with the intelligence community. This amendment, if adopted, would require the Director of National Intelligence, not the Secretary of Defense, to submit a report to Congress regarding strikes taken against terrorists outside of areas of active hostilities, as well as an assessment of combatant and noncombatant deaths. This amendment is problematic for several reasons. First, there already exists transparent oversight mechanisms with respect to civilian casualties, and that report is fully available to the public. Requiring the DNI to conduct a review already completed by the Secretary of Defense is not only wasteful but demonstrates a gross disregard for the DNI's time that should be spent overseeing the intelligence community's efforts against U.S. adversaries. Further, this amendment circumvents the normal legislative process and completely bypassed the House Intelligence Committee. Tasking the office of the Director of National Intelligence, an organization over which House Intelligence has oversight responsibilities, requires consultation with the House Intelligence Committee. However, we were not given the opportunity to weigh in on this amendment until now. At the eleventh hour, various cosponsors of this amendment performed a sly bait-and-switch, changing what was voted on by the Armed Services Committee and inserting an organization solely within the House Intelligence's jurisdiction. To say am I disappointed with that is an understatement. This amendment is irresponsible and reflects a disregard for the House Intelligence Committee's equities in this debate. It failed to navigate the proper jurisdiction process and takes time and resources away from critical national security missions. So, I understand the desire of this type of well-meaning legislation; however, committees of jurisdiction exist for a reason, and I am surprised that various members of the House Intelligence Committee would flagrantly disregard the implications of ceding our jurisdiction on this matter. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and thank a member of my staff, who is also a constituent from Ohio's Second District, Annie Cummins. Annie and her stepmother, Linda, have worked alongside me for much of my careers both in Congress and in private medical practice. Linda devoted 20 years as a medical assistant in my practice, and 2019 marks Annie's 20th year working for me in my medical practice and then in my Congressional office. Annie Cummins is a hard worker, a caring mother, and a loyal friend to all who know her. I am honored to have worked with Annie for two decades now. She has selflessly dedicated her life to the people of Southern and Southwestern Ohio, and her influence has made my offices and our community a better place. I thank Annie for her dedication and hard work throughout the years. I look forward to working with her for many more.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Mr. WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, on roll call no. 381, I mistakenly voted NAY when I intended to vote AYE.