Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source