Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for yielding.
On Monday, Mr. 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; the last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.
We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by close of business on Friday.
The House will consider H.R. 823, the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act; H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act; and H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act. These three bills all recognize the need to protect some of America's most iconic and important public lands.
The House, Mr. Speaker, will also consider H.R. 4695, the Protect Against Conflict by Turkey Act. This bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, provides a strong, targeted response to the crisis caused by Turkey's invasion of Northern Syria.
It sanctions senior Turkish officials involved in the decision and those committing human rights abuses, and penalizes Turkish financial institutions involved in perpetuating President Erdogan's practices.
Lastly, the House will consider H.Res 296 affirming the United States' record on the Armenian Genocide.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to that at this point in time. We haven't made that decision to move ahead. The committees, as the gentleman knows, are considering it, and if they decide that the House should move forward, then we will make that decision.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will respond as I responded last week. We are doing our constitutional duty of oversight of the administration and the actions of the President of the United States to determine whether or not there had been violations of law, whether the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. And when those hearings are concluded, obviously, they will make some determination and make recommendations to the House, as they do with other matters that the committees consider.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the gentleman from Louisiana, the Republican whip, says that these are unfair hearings, or that they are secret hearings, or that Republicans can't participate, no matter how many times he says that, it will not be true.
He talks about secret hearings. I will show you the front page of The Washington Post about the hearing yesterday. It is on the front page.
Now, I know your Members can read. There are over 105 Members, 40 or so of your Members, who are authorized to sit in the committee.
The President, Mr. Speaker, called the Republicans, and he has tweeted about how they need to be tougher.
What I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, is: When are they going to focus on defending the Constitution of the United States?
I ask the gentleman: Does he believe that the President is above the law?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as usual, the whip did not answer my question. I said, is the President above the law?
But he wants to pound on the table, Mr. Speaker, because neither the facts nor the law is on his side.
The process is consistent with the rules put in place by the current Secretary of State, Mr. Pompeo, and Mr. Trey Gowdy, who was a Member of this body.
Let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker: Does he believe it appropriate that the Congress appropriates $391 million to help an ally confront Russia--which I understand Mr. Putin probably wasn't for--but does he believe that the President should have withheld that money from Ukraine to defend itself on its eastern front?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. He has no evidence of that. If the gentleman will yield, he has no evidence of that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. He makes a bald-faced assertion that he has no way to back up.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. It is not true, in my opinion, but he has no way to back up that statement, and I think the gentleman must know that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman like to know the reason for that?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a wonderful poster.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. We passed over 250 bills. The Senate won't take them up, particularly one bill that says what 90 percent of the American people want done: Pass a comprehensive background check to make their communities safer.
They won't bring it up. No wonder it can't be signed, because they won't bring up any of our bills.
The Republican leadership in the Senate stops our bills from going to the Senate. They are not even being considered.
Then they have a poster that says you haven't passed any bills? Oh, no, we passed them, and the American people support them.
Yes, we had an election in 2018, and the people spoke, which is why I am the majority leader and you are the minority whip.
So, yes, we honor those elections. And when you were in the majority, you passed bills you wanted to pass.
So, I tell my friend, it is an interesting poster, but it is a reflection of the refusal of the Republicans in the United States Senate to consider legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. How sad.
But, let me ask you again: Are you saying it was right to keep the $391 million, to refuse to have a meeting with Mr. Zelensky at the White House until he agreed to conduct a political investigation that would advantage the President of the United States? Do you believe that was right?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Of course, the Acting Chief of Staff, who is, I think, also the acting head of OMB--not technically but actually, in my view--he said there was a quid pro quo. Now, he tried to clean it up. I get that. I get that.
But he said, yes, there was a quid pro quo.
And you read the transcript--which is not a transcript but a report of the substance of the conversation--in which he brings up a number of things, including Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
And, yes, we now have testimony that says there was a quid pro quo. There was going to be no meeting at the White House. There was going to be no sending of the $391 million that we thought was essential for our Ukrainian friends defending democracy in Ukraine from Putin.
Now, we have had a more recent action where a telephone conversation with Erdogan led to another headline on that same page: Russia and Turkey reach deal on Syria. America in retreat. America no longer a factor in trying to bring peace.
Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. Is the President above the law?
I asked another question: Is it right to keep the $391 million that we appropriated because we thought Ukraine was at great risk? And again, the question wasn't answered. It was answered with a question and with an assertion that the President had the authority to make sure that there wasn't corruption in Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned whether there is corruption in the United States of America. That concerns us, and that is why these hearings are proceeding, consistent with our constitutional duty.
And all the Republicans can do is--not defend the actions, because they are indefensible. All they can do is talk about process.
One thousand subpoenas issued by Dan Burton when he was the Republican chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. One hundred subpoenas, unilaterally, under the Gowdy rule, under the Pompeo rule, under the Republican rules, unilaterally.
Trey Gowdy, himself, as chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee, three dozen subpoenas, without any input, under the Gowdy-Pompeo rules.
So I ask the gentleman, do you think it is consistent with our Constitution that the President of the United States suggest to a foreign leader that they become involved in our elections?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. We are in that process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What he didn't mention was the Benghazi Gowdy commission was the eighth Republican-led investigation of that matter. They all reached the same conclusion and found no evidence of wrongdoing; eight Republican-led, and they kept after it, over and over and over again.
Why? As the minority leader said, on television, well, no, we got something out of it. We got some dirt on Hillary Clinton.
I don't think it was dirt. It was the use of a computer which, by the way, some of the Trump family is doing the same thing--somewhat irrelevant.
What is relevant is not all this stuff about fairness and this, that, and the other. We are following the Constitution. We are following the rules of this House. We are following the law, and every legal scholar that I have read asserts that. The only people who don't assert that are the people who are afraid of the facts, afraid of what has been done.
I asked the gentleman questions: Do you think this is right? Do you think the President is above the law? He mentions the Mueller report.
What he fails to mention and he just ignores is the Mueller report said there was evidence to suggest that there was the failure to follow the law and cooperate with the law, in other words, obstruction of justice. But he said Justice Department rules, of which he was an employee, do not provide for the ability to indict a President of the United States. That did not mean that there wasn't obstruction of justice.
But what he said was this is the body to deal with this matter. So we are following our constitutional duty, and we are going to continue to do so, and there are going to be public hearings. There is going to be debate. There is going to be a vote on the rule if something is brought to the floor and full opportunity to debate on both sides of the aisle.
Right now, of course, there are members of the committee--you would think this was somehow Mr. Schiff and the Democrats meeting in some secret room. They are meeting with the Republican members of the committee.
And, by the way, I asked the gentleman the question about Mr. Nunes. But Mr. Nunes, apparently, comes sometimes and he doesn't come sometimes. And Mr. Meadows is apparently always there, so he can always tell you what is going on. This is an endless debate.
If the Republicans think we are violating the law, of course they can go to court, as we have been forced to do by this President who has instructed people not to cooperate with Congress, not to testify before the Congress because he feels aggrieved.
He will have his day in court. That is how we run these kinds of events in America: under our Constitution, under our laws. And, yes, he will have due process.
But right now we are trying to find out whether there is probable cause to believe the President of the United States committed high crimes and misdemeanors and abused the power of his office, as Hamilton said the purpose of the impeachment provision was designed to address. Hamilton said that in two of the Federalist Papers.
But we are going to endlessly talk about fairness, with Republicans sitting in the committee. He asserts, with no knowledge, that somehow the Democratic members of the committee released this information.
I am not sure how the paper got this information. I know they get almost all the information on all these networks. But this was the testimony that was prepared by the witness who was there--who was there.
He talks about the whistleblower and hearsay, but what he doesn't talk about: Does he believe the President is above the law? Does he believe it is appropriate?
And the transcript--I could read it again. I keep saying ``transcript.'' It is not a transcript. A report of the phone call that the President thought was okay, that is why he released it. He thought it was perfect.
In addition, he said: The other thing, there is a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecutor, and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General--he wants his lawyer. It should be the Justice Department's lawyer, but Mr. Barr to participate. And, of course, he wanted Mr. Giuliani to participate as well.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude, we are going down this rat hole too long. We are going to have hearings. We are going to find out the truth, and we are finding out the truth every day, and every day our Republican colleagues get more nervous.
Every day there is some Republican who says: I don't know how long I can defend President Trump. Every day that is happening now, because the facts are coming out.
When you don't have the facts, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, you attack the process. Republicans know the facts aren't on their side. They can't answer the fundamental question: Is it acceptable for a President to seek foreign interference in elections?
They will say: Oh, there is no proof of that. And the problem they have is almost every day there is proof of that, not hearsay.
Yes, the whistleblower did the right thing. The whistleblower heard something that he felt was dangerous to our national security, to our men and women in uniform, and to the democracy that we hold so dear, and so he said something. You have seen the signs: You see something, say something. He heard this.
One could say, well, he didn't hear it, but then the President admitted it. Then the Chief of Staff, Acting Chief of Staff, Mr. Mulvaney, said, yes, that is what we did. And he instructed, don't get that money to the Ukrainians.
Those are facts. We know those are facts.
So I tell my friend, we really ought to conclude this. We believe we are following the law. If you don't feel we are following the law, go to court, just as we had to go to court with the President refusing to cooperate with the Congress of the United States in its constitutional duty.
And we are going to be fair, and I am sure the Senate will be fair if we take action here. And I don't know that we are going to take action. That hasn't been decided. But we are going to continue to try to find the truth, to try to get to the bottom of what has happened.
I, frankly, think what we did in Turkey in that Erdogan phone call is as damaging to the interests of the United States of America. And the President talks about the public. The public ought to know.
I want any Member of the Congress I will yield to to tell me what the deal was between Putin and Trump when they met in private and refused to tell anybody.
Mr. Trump is great at disclosure. He says, I have nothing to hide in my tax returns. I will show my tax returns. That was 3 years ago. We have, by law, requested those returns. It has been denied. It has been denied.
No openness. No, Mr. and Mrs. America, this is what my interests are. I am acting in your interests, not in mine. Doral. He decided that was too much, and Republicans criticized him.
And, Mr. Speaker, on Turkey we had a vote in this House. He was really angry about that vote. 354 people of this House said this is wrong, Mr. President, this is harmful to our allies. You are exposing allies that we asked to participate to confront terrorists. You are letting them out perhaps to be murdered and slaughtered. 354-to-60. We voted on that.
We need to deal with the facts. And we are going to find out the facts no matter how hard the Republicans want to pound on the table and talk about process and ignore any discussion on the substance of what is being disclosed.
So, Mr. Speaker, we can conclude this colloquy because it is not going to come to any end. I understand the gentleman's perception. I think he is misrepresenting each time he says that this is not a fair procedure or that this is not a procedure consistent with the rules that the Republicans adopted in their rules package when they were in the majority.
So I hope that we can move on, decide what the facts are, have a committee recommendation as is the process of this House and then have a vote on the floor of the House, if such is required, and the committees decide that moving forward is appropriate under the facts adduced by those committees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Scalise, watch your words. Watch your words, Mr. Scalise. You and I both know it has no analogy to what you have just said. You ought to know that. If you don't know it, you ought to sit down with your counsel and find out about it. That is an allegation that is absolutely untrue and very offensive.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. It is very offensive.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Scalise, I know you are not a lawyer. Do you have any idea what a grand jury is?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Of course it is.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hesitate to respond because this is a circular discussion.
Mr. Scalise and the Republican party, at the behest of Mr. Trump, need to get tougher. They can't mention the facts. The facts are known by the transcript the President sent down here. Again, not a transcript, a report of a telephone call, the statement of the ambassador, I think, a former U.S. marine.
They don't want to talk about the facts. I get that. So we can go around and around in circles.
And I will tell you, to have eight hearings on Benghazi? Don't give me this Trey Gowdy allowed this to happen and that to happen. It was the eighth hearing you Republicans had on that one subject, eight, and you never got the result you wanted, so you just kept doing it over and over and over. Getting the same result. We all know that quote.
There are going to be public hearings, Mr. Speaker, but they are going to be public hearings when the witnesses can't check one another, can't give one story and then parrot the other story that was said.
And Ambassador Sondland, of course. I don't know that he was our friend. He was the President's friend, big contributor, special envoy to the European Union, but apparently doing part-time work in Ukraine along with Mr. Giuliani.
The facts are going to come out, Mr. Speaker. And they are going to try to say, oh, the process. You are going to have public hearings, Mr. Schiff has said so. He said so in his letter.
And you are going to have to answer the question: Do I believe that the conduct that has been pursued by the President of the United States, if he were a Democrat, would I believe that was right? That is the question you're going to have to answer. It is going to be a tough question for your side because the facts almost every day are mounting up.
So I want to urge my friend, let's conclude this discussion, because I am not going to agree with you, and you are not going to agree with me.
But ultimately the American people--and those 236 million people you talk about, there is not going to be any indictment, there is not going to be any impeachment, unless 218 of us in this body vote. And we are all going to vote. It is not going to be any Star Chamber. Everybody is going to have to vote.
And then they are going to have to answer to their constituents, did I vote my conscience, or did I vote my politics?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't say that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps misstating the facts and the law and the process.
Every Member is going to have access to all the documents, all the testimony before they are asked to vote on it, period.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. When they have concluded their private sessions, which are trying to get at the facts and not having been tainted by some circus. Everybody is going to have the right to see what evidence is adduced.
That is the fear, of course, and I again suggest the gentleman think of this: If he saw these headlines and it was a Democratic President and Turkey and Russia were deciding what is happening in the Middle East and deciding whether they are going to go after ISIS, our ally, and then this other headline replete with the aid to Ukraine was conditioned on a quid pro quo or they weren't going to be in the White House, they may not get the $391 million, he would be outraged. He would be on this ceiling.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, do I still have my time?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman wasn't here during the Clinton impeachment with Starr. Starr might as well----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source