[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 195 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9334-H9337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of 
the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my colleague and friend.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask--I know there are a 
lot of good-faith negotiations that continue on the United States-
Mexico-Canada trade agreement, USMCA. We have been having productive 
conversations, meetings, some potential changes that I know we are 
negotiating with the other countries involved, as well. Does the 
gentleman have any idea if we may be close to bringing USMCA to the 
floor for a vote?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I share the gentleman's interest in 
getting this passed as soon as possible. Clearly, the job benefits to 
our country, over 160,000 new jobs will come, and better trading 
relationships with Mexico and Canada when we pass USMCA, as well as the 
message it sends to our friends around the world.
  There are other countries, Japan, United Kingdom and others who would 
love to negotiate better trade deals with us, but this has to come 
first for us to prove that we can get trade deals done.
  I appreciate that the gentleman and your side have been working with 
Ambassador Lighthizer. I don't think there is anybody who has worked 
harder and in more good faith than Ambassador Lighthizer. And I am glad 
that those talks continue with the Mexican Government, and, hopefully, 
we can get a final agreement that we can then bring to this floor. And 
we stand ready to help deliver the votes to pass that legislation, 
hopefully, as soon as possible, so our country can get those benefits.
  I do want to shift gears to talk about where we are with impeachment, 
but specifically, something that came to light just the other day when 
the report from Chairman Schiff came out. There were, of course, 
multiple hearings, public hearings, some in secret, but at no time did 
it come up that the chairman was spying on people, using phone records 
and subpoenaing phone records, that wasn't discussed in those 
conversations in the hearings, and yet, in the final report, it seemed 
like there was very selective targeting of certain people by the 
chairman in this listing of phone records that he had been subpoenaing.

  From what I have heard, Chairman Schiff has over 3,500 pages of 
surveillance on people, whether it is members of the press--which he 
did spy on members of the press--Members of Congress, and who knows who 
else? It is a real concern. It is a real concern that we don't know 
what he is doing with this, why he is doing this. Is it being used for 
political retribution? Which is a serious concern.
  But my question to the gentlemen is--I am not sure if you are aware 
of how much data there is out there. I have heard reports of 3,500 
pages of phone records. How many members of the press are being spied 
on by Chairman Schiff? How many other Members of Congress are being 
spied on? And

[[Page H9335]]

why is this going on? Is this something that the majority party 
condones or encouraged or was it a surprise to you as it was to us?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would just ask--because we have 
expressed a deep concern about this when we found out about it. It 
wasn't something that was discussed in the hearings, and yet, it shows 
up in the report. And it seemed to be designed in a way to seek 
political retribution on people that the chairman might have had 
disagreements with, which is an abuse of power, if that is what 
happened.
  So the questions are, number one: With the press, that is a serious 
concern, that the chairman of a committee is using Federal subpoena 
powers to spy on or seek phone records of members of the press who have 
a job to do. We might not always agree or like some of the articles 
they write, but they play an important role in our democracy, and many 
times they talk to people in candid discussions where they have 
anonymous sources.

                              {time}  1300

  Is the chairman trying to go after anonymous sources of members of 
the press? How many other Members of Congress is the chairman spying 
on?
  This is unprecedented. I have never seen a chairman of a committee 
abuse their subpoena power to go after other Members of Congress that 
they have political disagreements with or members of the press that 
they have political disagreements with. That is over the line. It is an 
abuse of power if it is going on.
  Whether or not the gentleman is aware of all the details, if there 
are 3,500 pages, why would there be a necessity for the chairman to 
secretly be holding 3,500 pages of phone records of people that he is 
going to then selectively leak out to try to punish his political 
enemies in a retributive way? That is something we all ought to be 
concerned about.
  We don't know a lot because we haven't been told a lot about it, but 
if there are 3,500 pages of phone records, I think we ought to know 
that.
  What the chairman's objectives are, I think we ought to know that. 
How many more members of the press the chairman is spying on, I think 
we ought to know that, and how many other American citizens. It is a 
concern.
  I would hope the gentleman would work with us, number one, to stop 
this, to not allow a chairman to abuse his power to go and seek 
retribution after people he has political disagreements with, whether 
they are members of the press, Members of Congress, or the legal 
counsel of people across this country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman would 
work with us to get to the bottom of this. As the gentleman pointed 
out, he is not aware of what the chairman is really doing. Neither am 
I, but I am very concerned about what the chairman has done.
  He selectively put in a report the names of members of the press, of 
Members of Congress whom he has had political disagreements with. He 
didn't put the names of everybody else in there.
  If he has 3,500 pages of reports of phone records of people he has 
been spying on, he won't share all of those people that he is spying 
on, but he is selectively going to leak out names of members of the 
press who have written articles maybe that he disagrees with? That is 
frightening.
  That would be an abuse of power, but we don't know because the 
chairman won't share the details of what he is up to. But he did 
selectively put some of that in a report that wasn't even discussed in 
the hearings.
  So, yes, it raises alarms. It raises concerns, and I would hope we 
get to the bottom of it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, we are beyond the process arguments 
because we are into the details now. The facts have been very clear 
that the President did not abuse power, that the President did not 
commit impeachable offenses.
  The Mueller report confirmed that, first of all, and then even the 
witnesses that the Democrats brought forward time and time again were 
asked, ``Can you name an impeachable offense?'' Not one. ``Can you name 
bribery?'' which was the new term after the majority party focus-
grouped ``quid pro quo'' and realized that wasn't getting them where 
they wanted to go.
  Bribery, they were asked, ``Can you name any cases of bribery?'' Not 
one. Even the witnesses earlier this week, none of whom had any 
firsthand knowledge of anything. Why they were there, who knows. But 
not one of them could name any firsthand account of wrongdoing. So 
those are facts.
  What we do know is that over 100 Democrats in this Chamber voted for 
impeachment prior to the phone call with President Zelensky, voted for 
impeachment without any facts because

[[Page H9336]]

the objective of many in the majority was to impeach the President just 
because they didn't agree with the results of the 2016 election, not 
because there were high crimes and misdemeanors. They still haven't 
been able to lay out any.
  They have innuendo, hopes, and dreams, none of which have come to 
fruition when the witnesses have come forward.
  Basically, the two people who really are most pertinent to this are 
President Trump and President Zelensky because they were the two who 
participated in the phone call. Both of them said there was nothing 
wrong done. In fact, President Zelensky appreciated the phone call from 
President Trump, thanked him for the help he has given that President 
Obama didn't give to help them stand up to Russia, and ultimately said 
there was no pressure. And he got the money for additional aid that he 
requested. Those are the facts.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if there is anything else 
that he had.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I guess the gentleman is acknowledging it 
is a foregone conclusion that they are going to pass impeachment of the 
President by saying it is going to go to the Senate.
  But let's keep in mind, when you talk about three out of the four 
witnesses from this week, all four of them, first of all, acknowledged 
that they had absolutely no firsthand knowledge of anything that 
happened, so they were giving their opinions.
  All four of them acknowledged not one of them voted for President 
Trump, which is their prerogative, but some of them actually testified 
under oath that they have given money to Democratic candidates for 
President who were running against President Trump.
  They are actively engaged in defeating President Trump, and then we 
are supposed to expect that they are giving some impartial scholarly 
assessment of evidence that they have seen, acknowledging they have no 
firsthand knowledge themselves.
  They are incredibly biased because they are campaigning against the 
President, but you brought them in to try to make it look like they are 
objective witnesses. I think that came out very clearly, their 
political bias. I am glad that, at least under oath, they acknowledged 
that they had a political bias. But even one of the witnesses, all of 
whom said they voted against the President, said it would be abuse of 
power of this committee, of your majority, to impeach a President based 
on him exercising his rights and, frankly, following the law. Part of 
the law, which the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the 
committee, and even the Speaker of the House voted for, requires a 
President of the United States, prior to sending hard-earned taxpayer 
money to a foreign country, to ensure that they are rooting out 
corruption, the platform on which President Zelensky ran.
  But the old Reagan doctrine of ``trust but verify'' was in process, 
where they were verifying that President Zelensky was, in fact, the 
real deal. We determined that, and we have high confidence that 
President Zelensky is following through on rooting out corruption.
  The money was released prior to the deadline for the money being 
released. There was no investigation, no announcements, and all these 
other things.
  Let's keep in mind the bias of those witnesses. Ultimately, the 
people of this country, I think, are deciding this already. But the 
people of the country are the ones next year who should select the 
President of the United States, not some people who have said since 
2016 that they didn't like that election so they are going to try to 
impeach the President regardless of facts.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he had anything else.
  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.

                              {time}  1315

  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.

[[Page H9337]]

  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, hopefully, we will get to the bottom of 
whatever Chairman Schiff has done with these phone records.
  I do want to correct the Record. Ambassador Sondland was asked, under 
oath, in committee: Has anyone on the planet shown any direction 
between, a link between financial aid and investigations? Anyone on the 
planet. And under oath, he said no. That is clear. That was on the 
record. I just want to make that clear.
  We are going to litigate this. We are going to debate this for hours 
and hours.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, when asked under oath whether or not he 
had any evidence of any link between investigations and money, he said 
no.
  And the bottom line is President Zelensky got the money. The quid pro 
quo that was being alleged didn't happen. President Zelensky got the 
money. There were no investigations.
  But this will continue anyway, and, clearly, over 100 Members had 
made up their mind prior to the phone call.
  I know we are going to continue this debate over the next weeks. 
Hopefully, we get beyond it and deal with other issues.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________