The chair on this vote, the yeas are 201 and the nays are 223. He amendment is not adopted. The Unfinished Business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in 116334 house report by the gentleman from arizona on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by a voice vote. The clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 5 printed in house report of 116334 offered by mr. Ohalleran of arizona. The chair a recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a twominute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair the yeas are 351 and the nays are 73, the amendment is adopted. The Unfinished Business is the request for a recorded vote on on amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 116334 by the gentleman from new jersey on which further proceedings were postponed and the yeas prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 116334 offered by mr. Gottheimer of new jersey. The chair a recorded vote has been requested. A sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a twominute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair on this vote the yeas are 380. The nays are 45. Amendment is adopted. Adopted. Endment is the Unfinished Business is the request for a recorded vote on 10 printed in r part b of house report 116334 by the gentlewoman from luria, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 10 of house part b report 116334 offered by mrs. Luria of virginia. A recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This will be a twominute vote. Again, it will be a twominute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair on this vote the yeas are 231. The nays are 192. Adopted. Ment is the Unfinished Business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in 116334 house report the gentleman from south carolina, mr. Cunningham, on which further proceedings were on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 11 house in part b of report 116334 offered by mr. Cunningham of south carolina. Vote has a recorded been requested. Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. Twominute vote. A twominute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair on this vote the yeas are 230. On this vote the yeas are 234. The nays are 192. The amendment is adopted. There being no further amendments, under the rule the committee rises. Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of has had under consideration h. R. 3 and resolution 758se i report the bill, as amended, to the esolution back house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. The speaker pro tempore the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the that the committee has had under consideration the bill h. R. 3 and pursuant to reports thetion 758 bill, as amended, by that resolution back to the house ith sundry further amendments adopted by the committee of the whole. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. S a separate vote demanded on is a separate voe demanded n any amendment reported separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole. Is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. Have it. Third reading. Clerk to establish a fair price negotiation program, protect the Medicare Program from excessive price increases, and establish an outofpocket maximum for Medicare Part d enrollees, and for other purposes the speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The house will be in order. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise . Mr. Upton mr. Speaker, i might order and i have a motion to recommit at the desk. The speaker pro tempore the motion. Ill report the the clerk mr. Upton of michigan moves to move will be in the house order. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will suspend. The house will be in order. Members are asked to take their conversations in the cloakroom. Clerk will continue. The clerk mr. Upton of michigan oves to recommit the bill h. R. 3 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to eport the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment at the nd of title 8, insert the following new section and update the table of sections ccordingly section, effectedive date conditioned on certification. Notwithstanding any other of this act, none of the provisions of this act shall go into effect unless the of health and Human Services certifies that the implementation of such projected to not result in fewer new drug applications with respect to needs and al lifesaving cures. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Upton heres the beef, tomorrow marks may i ask for rder, mr. Speaker. Heres the beef, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the enactment of 21st century cures a bill that passed this house. In looking back at this legislation, we have made wonderful strides in medical research on a host of cures for the diseases the speaker pro tempore the house is not in order. The gentleman deserves to be heard. Mr. Upton we have made wonderful strides in finding the cures for the diseases that impact every family. Alzheimers pancreatic cancer. And just last week, a number of us met with a young girl who had been in a trial for s. M. A. At is a fatal disease spinal muscular at trophy. She was in a wheelchair but after 15 days she could move her head and neck for the first time in more than a decade all because of what we did on 21st century cures. B. A. , the pricec. Control approach, this price control approach would increase uncertainty and returns from biotech investment, raising the cost of capital for these invaluable endeavors. We are on the cusp gene therapy for deadly inherited diseases like m. S. Finding cures to solve blindness. But lets not stop. Lets build on what we did. And the language in this motion to commit assures that cures will not be slowed down because we have the requirement that unless the secretary of h. H. S. Certifies the implementation of such provisions are not projected to result in fewer new drug applications. Thats what this bill is about what this amendment is about. We want to make sure we have the resources to develop the cures that all of us want for the thousands of diseases where we dont have a cure. And i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas to talk about his personal story that many of us did not know until this bill came up in the last couple of days. I yield to the gentleman from texas. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. I thank the gentleman. I rise today in strong opposition to h. R. 3. The speaker pro tempore the ouse will be in order. Write yite i can add with statistics but i would like to offer my personal experience. I was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer and told that the average Life Expectancy was 16 months. That was 16 months ago. By the grace of almighty god and biotech ingenuity and im still here and get to spend another christmas with my family. Thank you. I hope that doesnt count off my time. We have a rigorous of chemotherapy and a wonder drug which had only been approved in may of 2017. This was as a result of significant investment by the private sector, not the government. Today i feel great. My ct scan and the tumor shrunk to the size of a racin. Thank you. Now five years ago, my diagnosis would have been a death sentence. Today im beating it. Millions of americans are diagnosed with lifethreatening illnesses every year and thanks to medical innovation in the United States, outcomes like mine are not uncommon. H. R. 3 becomes law, stories like mine will be rare. If the socialist policies would have been imelemented earlier i probably would not be here. This has become part of their political agenda. But for me and millions of americans, this is a matter of life or death. H. R. 3 bill not save american lives, it will end them. I urge my colleagues to think of their loved ones who will face deadly diseases in the future. Many cures are on the horizon. We cannot stop. We cannot slow down. We cannot stifle research and development of new cures by onerous government control. Too many lives hang in the balance. I beg you to support this motion to recommit and lets take action that will actually save lives. Thank you and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the entlemans time has expired. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition . Gentlewoman is recognized for ive minutes. I am so glad that you are well and i am so glad that you could afford the treatment that you needed. But we have people suffering from the cost of Prescription Drugs now and intentionally holding up this bill hurts them. We absolutely must remain the leader in the world in innovation. But the thing is, we can reduce drug prices and still have money for research. The money u. S. Based Drug Companies made in 2015 by charging americans high prices was nearly double to fund their global r d. And h. R. 3 uses the sayings to invest in research and Clinical Trials needed to get cures faster. I am so excited about h. R. 3, the elijah e. Cummings lower drug costs now act. And first pediatrician and only its my time, im a type one diabetic. The high cost of Prescription Drugs. I have driven 7,000 miles talking to people in my district what matters to them. The cost of prescription dugs because it doesnt matter if you are a democrat or republican if you cannot afford your medication. I understand this issue as a doctor and patient because it is not theoretical for me or my parets. When we talk about the cost of insulin. I have seen it go from 40 a ottle to 300. Before being elected to congress i worked 20 years in the suburbs of seattle as a pediatrician three hours from the canadian border. When patients ask for a paper one, i knew they were going to canada to fill it. Epi pens are 50. Right now we pay three to four times what our colleagues overseas pay and that is why we must need the negotiating power of medicare to bring prices down. Our districts are alike and we need to take on this out of control pricing sm the people asked us to do it. Lets deliver it today. Vote know on this m. T. R. And yes on h. R. 3 and i yield to my lisa ue from delaware blunt rochester. Ms. Blunt rochester i respect my energy and commerce colleague, but i cannot support this motion to recommit. What we have today is an opportunity to live up to our promise. Democrats promised and republicans promised and even the president promised to lower Prescription Drug costs. So lets not get this confused or mixed up. Colleagues, i just want to make e. Cummingse elijah lower drug cost now act is about three things, fairness, hope and legacy. Is it fair that the United States pays two, three or 60 times more for the same drug as other countries . Is it fair in a capitalist country our government cant negotiate we can negotiate for planes but cant negotiate for insulin . H. R. 3 will lower out of pocket costs and premiums for those on medicare and will reduce premiums for 180 million americans who have private insurance. American households will save 120 billion. The same americans will see their cash wages increase by 116 billion. Its about fairness. R. 3 is about hope. Aarp has shared, it gives seniors hope that with savings from this bill, we will modernize and expand medicare and cap part d out of pocket costs. The 2,000 cap could be the difference between a lifesaving pill and somebodys rent. Hope. With the savings generated from this bill we could expand Medicare Coverage to include hearing, vision and dental. We can accelerate the Great American tradition of Innovative Research for scientific breakthroughs and cures at the National Institutes of health. And with h. R. 3 we will provide patients like David Mitchell with personal experience on cancer. And what he said, is it taught him something. In other words, if you cant afford, you cant have it. Lastly, this will provide us a legacy. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. Without objection, the previous is ordered on the motion to recommit. The question is on the motion to recommit. Hose in favor say aye. The house will be in order. The question is on the motion to recommit. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it. I ask for the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce the minimum tile of any electronic vote on the question of passage. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote the yeas are 196. The nays are 226. Motion is not adopted. The question is on passage of bill. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. Have it. The bill is the gentleman from oregon. Mr. Walden the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the requested. Ays are those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes device. Ronic this will be a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote the yeas are 230 and the 192. Are the bill is passed. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. Members, take your conversations off the floor. The house will be in order. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . I seek unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Im joined here with members of florida, georgia, and alabama delegations because on hours er 6 in the early of the day, our nation learned of a terrorist attack unfolding air station pensacola. The attack took the lives of watson of coffey, alabama. Of ron Scott Walters richmond hill, florida. We congregate here today to honor the memory of those who those who lives and were wounded in the course of attack. Egious mr. Gaetz those who wear the uniform inspire the best within truly the they are best among us. They are our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers. Them were , three of taken from us, and we shall not orget their names or those or those who have been impacted by this terrible attack. I request all present, both on in the gallery, to rise for a moment of silence, and i am proud and honored to be by my colleagues. Mr. Gaetz thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Askscalise mr. Speaker, i unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of from the majority leader the schedule for next week. The speaker pro tempore without objection, mr. Scalise and i ask unanimous consent to revise and remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Scalise thank you. With that, mr. Speaker, i would friend, the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of asking what the schedule will next week. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. R. Speaker, on monday mr. Hoyer the house will meet monday at 12 00 p. M. For morning hour debate, 2 00 p. M. For legislative business. No votes are expected in the house on monday. Again, no votes on monday. But we will do legislative business. We will be debating suspension bills. And the votes will be rolled to the following day. On tuesday, wednesday, thursday, and friday, the house will meet at 9 00 a. M. For legislative business. Let me stress that so that every member understands. We normally go in at 12 00 noon on for a schedule like this on tuesday, weps, and thursday. But we will be going in at 9 00 a. M. On those days as well as friday. Members are advised that the first votes of the week on tuesday are expected between 9 00 and 10 00. Again, i want to emphasize that although we do not have any votes on monday night, we expect tuesday to be a full work day so that members really ought to come into town on monday itself. We will consider several bills, mr. Speaker, under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Members know, the current continuing resolution expires on december 20. The house will consider some appropriation measures. Hopefully, and my expectation is, they are making progress in the Appropriations Committee on coming to a resolution on the 12 appropriation bills. It is my hope and its my hope. I dont know if its my expectation. It is my expectation, but its my hope that we will consider those appropriation bills on the loor on tuesday. Perhaps a series of mini bus packages to fund all of government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to do everything they can in the next 24 hours, frankly, to bring this matter to close and agreement so staff will have an opportunity to put the bills together for consideration next week. This week, negotiators were able to reach an agreement on a new trade agreement. The republican whip has been asking me about that agreement, ive assured him we wanted to get to yes, and we have got ton yes. We are pleased at that. This trade agreement with canada and mexico. It is possible that usmca trade agreement could be brought to the floor next week. The only reason its possible and not assured is the administration is working on submitting implementing legislation to the congress my presumption is theyll have that to us in the relatively near term and it will be available for consideration next wednesday. Excuse me. Next week. This week, the House Judiciary Committee began markup, as the house knows and the country knows, of two articles of impeachment. Following Committee Action on these articles, judiciary will make a recommendation to the full house of representatives and we will determine a path forward on the floor following that recommendation. Lastly, mr. Speaker, as is always the case in the last week, at least the last scheduled week of a session, there may well be other pieces of legislation that will ripen for consideration and that may well be considered next week. We will announce those as soon as we know which, if any, bills qualify for that treatment. I yield back to my friend. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Were encouraged by the progress were seeing and involved in on the Appropriations Bills to properly fund the government. As we both discussed for some time now, the important job of congress exercising its power of the purse is critical and the willingness for all sides to work together, house, senate, republican, democrat, along with the white house, to get to a place where we can reach an agreement on how to properly fund our troops, not for a month or two at a time but for the entire year. The value that it gives those men and women in uniform the ability for our generals to acquire the tools that are necessary so that they can train safely, defend our country, effectively, is well served when we reach this agreement. So im encouraged by the progress the gentleman reflected and hopefully we can get to that point where early next week, those bills are agreed upon, finalized, passed, with large bipartisan majorities which i have no doubt we will produce and then get those signed by the president. Then go move to usmca as the gentleman talks about. Mr. Hoyer i appreciate the gentleman making the comment with respect to the Defense Department and the importance of funding them and i agree with that. I just want to point out that the same challenge applies to all the other agencies of overnment. The more quickly they can be funded, the more well know about the time between december 20 and september 30, the more able they are to plan and run their agencies. I appreciate his observations about the Defense Department. It applies to all of government. So we are hopeful that we can fund and our intention is to fund all of government with fullyear or at least the balance of the year appropriation bills and i yield back. Mr. Scalise i share full agreement with the gentleman talked about in regard to all the agencies as we have had these negotiations and look forward to seeing them come to fruition early next week get that approved. Then of course the United Statesmexicocanada trade agreement. Critical step to show the world that we can come together, build better trade relationships with our neighbors, create over 160,000 new jobs for hardworking family, get our economy moving even stronger, allow us to sell products to countries like canada and mexico that ke we cant sell today and send a message to our friends around the world like japan and Great Britain that want better trade deals with us as well. It tells them that we are fully able to not only negotiate those better deals but pass those deals through congress and then as we all know and we all agree, i would imagine, we will focus our effort ops china to get china to play by the rules everybody plays with a stronger agreement that allow ours country to be even more secure and our economy to thrive even more. So all of that is critical to getting additional economic growth. I would ask, does the gentleman know a time frame . We are as you mentioned trying to get the final details worked out with the administration and hopefully those final pieces get put in place today, tomorrow so that it can get sent down to congress. But if that does happen, is there a time frame as you look at the calendar for wednesday or thursday or friday . Is there a place where the majority is looking at putting it on the calendar more than other places so we can prepare as we look to that bill and produce the votes to pass it . I yield. Mr. Hoyer we dont know of a specific day but it is our intention, assuming the committee gets the legislation to us in a timely fashion the administration gets the legislation to us in a timely fashion, it is our intention to consider that next week. Which day next week has not been decided. We do want to consider it next week, we want to pass it before we leave here. Mr. Scalise i appreciate that we stand ready to continue this good faith, which it has been from the beginning. President trump negotiated this deal from the beginning. His ambassador, ambassador yeomans , has done work on this. A trade deal is complicated, its always got pieces this some like more than others but when its better for the country than the current deal were in, in nafta, theres broad agreement that we finally got there hopefully we get ha completed next week and star yielding the economic benefits. If the gentleman has Something Else . Mr. Hoyer if my friend will yield. Ambassador lighthizer, as i have said all along, we have per perceived as an honest broker. I think hes dealt with us fairly and openly. Frankly, we believe the agreement thats now been finalized is substantially stronger and better than it was to us was first given for consideration. I say that in the sense that we took the position and ive take then position on the floor, the gentleman knows, that enforcement was critical. The chamber of commerce said if you have a trade agreement without enforcement, you dont have a real agreement. What we were able to achieve was, we think, real enforcement which protects workers, which protects the environment which protects other aspects of the agreement. We also are pleased at some of the things that were in the bill that we thought were harmful to consumers were dropped in the bill. But it was an honest as they as the pointed out. It was a hard negotiation not so much between mr. Lighthizer and ourselves, but between mr. Lighthizer and other people, especially mexico. Hopefully we can pass this next week. Our friends in labor have endorsed this agreement. D. C. Affect coy have endorsed this because they have confidence because unlike nafta, for which i voted, mr. Speaker, unlike nafta in which there was no successful enforcement action over the last two decades, that this will have the opportunity for successful enforcement for economic reasons, for other reasons, and i hope that this will move forward. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman. Any time we can make an agreement better for the hardworking families of this country, it will be a Christmas Gift wellreceived by families across the nationism look forward to getting this done and like i said getting others done with other countries and we definitely have that opportunity and well seek it. I do want to shift gears and talk about impeachment, where we are, where the committee is right now. There are a number of items that i wanted to discuss but one that has been an issue raised in the Judiciary Committee last night and today, continues to be a concern, is that you should the rules, the minority was promised an actual day of hearings. And that has yet to happen. Multiple requests have been made, letters sent to the chairman, and for whatever reason, the chairman has rejected and in appearance, it violated the rules by not allowing what has historically been granted as a minority day of hearing. Id like to ask the gentleman if he was aware of this. Its been raised in the committee multiple times, and why that not only tradition but why that rule is not being followed . Mr. Hoyer let me tell the gentleman candidly, i have not discussed with mr. Nadler or others on the Judiciary Committee that issue. I really cant give you the rationale that was articulated by the chair or by others. I will tell you, however, that the president has indicated he wants to move with dispatch on this issue. We are doing that. Andwe have little time left ry frankly, there were other forum for witnesses to come forward and frankly there were a lot of witnesses precluded from coming forward that we thought would amplify, frankly, people who work for and with the president. Who may have had information to give. But i cant specifically articulate the rationale, but we can get that for you. Mr. Scalise i appreciate that. It just seems an odd break from the rule that is designed to ensure that both sides are heard and thats why there is a an opportunity for minority day of hearing, the opportunity was requested, the opportunity was denied and then the committee today is going to be voting. The committee is acting as a jury to remove a president of the United States. And clearly there were witnesses that we sought to bring forward that we were not allowed to bring forward, breaking from the custom and tradition of all the other impeachments that weve had. Clearly the nixon rules were repeated with clinton so both sides were treated fair for whatever reason this majority chose not to follow that custom and tradition, so the minority was not allowed to bring all the witnesses we requested. So the minority day of hearing was the only opportunity to present additional evidence that was sought. If a jury, in essence, today is going to give a verdict, which they are, i would expect that the committee is going to pass the articles of impeachment. You had over 70 of this committee, the Judiciary Committee, over 70 of the members of this have already voted to impeach the president on various votes taken on this house floor. So if the jury doesnt want to hear the other sides argument, it begs the question, was the your rigged . Mr. Hoyer would the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise i would yield because out of fairness but also the actual rules of the house that opportunity is in the rules for the minority to have a day of hearings and it was denied. And that means that the evidence that was going to be submitted to the jury, who is voting to remove a president , was also denied, and why both sides werent able to be heard, why did the chairman not want both sides to be heard, i think begs a lot of questions, but i would be happy to yield to the gentleman on this. Mr. Hoyer first of all, of course, this is not the jury. In the sense of a your who is going to decide guilt and innocence. It is from a lawyers standpoint a great more analogous to a grand jury which decides whether or not theres probable cause to believe the president abused his power in the exercise of his authority and secondly, in the second article, refused to cooperate with the congress exercising its constitutional responsibility of oversight. Secondly, as the gentleman knows, the president was given the opportunity to appear with and to call such witnesses as he wanted to call. Thats correct. To appear and defend against the allegations that are incorporated in the articles of president , and the chose not to appear. To have dent chose not counsel present. In sel to the white house, fact, responded to the offer to appear and said, we have chosen do so. Respondent in the this case i wont call him a respondent but the of the case, the president of the United States, chose not to appear, chose not to chose not to produce evidence in his defense. One could conclude perhaps they any. Ed they didnt have i wont conclude that. That could be one conclusion to be drawn. I will tell the gentleman, first all, this is not a jury innocence. Uilt or its deciding probable cause whether or not there is cause to believe. Extensive hearings which many witnesses testified. Some of whom worked for the administration, with the administration in the white the who testified to facts, which most constitutional believed lieve, if power. Uted an abuse of gain, i say to the gentleman, the Central Reality is the appear. T refused to i yield. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. The president , like any other person who was requested provide information did comply. When you look at articles of impeachment, at the beginning of all of this, of course, there was the Mueller Investigation for 22 months, which alleged ultimately the results turned out that there were no crimes committed by the president. We had looked into when we were in the majority and knew that years ago, but for whatever wanted to hers continue making assertions. Those assertions turned out to be false. So instead of dropping it there, then you had the complaint. Er and the allegations of all of these things that happened on a phone call. Is, the president eleased the transcript of the phone call. Not only did those things not get reflected in the transcript, but the two people who actually articipated, who should be listened to the most, both said there was nothing wrong with the call. Zelensky was asked, was there any pressure applied . He said, no. The money. He got the money, and he also missiles. Velin he thanked President Trump on the phone call for the aid that push back russia. As ill point out, president 360 javelin missiles to ukraine so they could defend pushing back against russia. President obama and vice zero ent joe biden sold javelin missiles to ukraine to help them push back from russia. So all of this assertion that one president s not allowing they need get the aid to stand up to russia turned out to be true. The one who mas didnt allow ukraine to have the tools they need. Sold them zero. They asked, please sell us the javelin missiles so we can ourselves against russian obama sion and President Trump and Vice President biden said no. Why . An e may need to be investigation into that. President trump said, yes, he javelins. Old them 360 president zelensky on the call thanked him. Was there pressure applied . Were thanks involved, president zelensky thanking resident trump for giving him the tools to stand up to russia. No quid pro quo. Investigations. They asked for help and President Trump said absolutely. To ill help you stand up russia. And the facts are there. Nd then you look at the catchall articles of impeachment. It wasnt the bribery and the were alleged hat for months, because there was none. So thats not in the articles of impeachment. So you see these catchall phrases like abuse of power, congress, and then you read what they alleged congress. Ruction of its the president exercising his rights. Agencies ent federal that were asked for information, his is the obstruction of congress. These federal agencies all responded. Committee. Ded to the said, here, lets have a conversation about how to get you want ation that without violating the executive privileges that every president s been afforded. These are letters right here. White house, december 1, 2019. 6, 2019. Ctober 15, 2019, office of the president. Including invoking privileges by the president in no way manifests evidence of bstruction otherwise warrants offered to negotiate about what information you want. Secretary of the state 1, etary of state, october 2019, sent a response to the committee. Of energy, october the2019, sent a response to committee. Never heard back from the committee, so clearly the withttee must have been ok the response. The office of the secretary of secretary of defense on october 15, 2019, the department prepared to engage in the process consistent with long practice and provide the responsive information should there be resolution of matter. Department secretary of said, here, what do you need . Lets talk and work through it, and they didnt get a response the committee. The committee didnt say, no, we want more. Committee didnt say, we means, e with you, which by the way, the third branch of government, the judicial branch, the two branches disagree, historically in all these impeachments, by the way, to wonder about it. You can look back at history. Nixon, clinton. To andrew johnson. The white house and the egislative branch negotiated what kind of information they wanted, and if there was disagreement, and sometimes to the courts go and you say, lets resolve it. That the some People Committee asked to come and testify before the committee. Subpoenas. In some cases they withdrew hose subpoenas so that person wasnt out of compliance. They werent even asked to come. In some cases they went to the ourts and the courts are actually still working to resolve that difference. The courts havent worked it out. Thats an obstruction of congress to actually send a a question, the legislative branch asked the executive branch a question, the executive branch in letter after responds. Er letter the committee didnt go back and say, no, you didnt give me what i wanted. Were all responses. You might not have gotten the goter you wanted, about you an answer. If you dont agree with the answer, the gentleman from historically how that works, you ask again. Maybe you ask for something different. It. E you narrow maybe you say you know what, you have to give that to me, and if to dont, im going to go the courts and make it happen. They didnt do any of that. They didnt do any of that. Just find articles of impeachment. Impeach the president. We dont like the answer. They gave us answers. Answer, after answer and instead we disagree ll, with your answer, this is what you need to send, they just said, lets impeach the because that was the objective all along as we know in this whole sham. Been about impeachment, not about facts. And so when you have a process, to follow the nt process, you dont want to actually go and try to get just s to questions, you want to end at a conclusion of impeachment, thats where we are. Two s why you see these articles. That dont list crimes. Crimes were ed debunked. They arent in articles of impeachment. And so we end up with abuse of obstruction of congress, and then you look at the things alleged and there are actual answers from the different federal agencies to the questions that were asked. The Committee Never went back and followed up. They just said were going to mpeach the president because thats what were going to do from the beginning. 70 of the members from the ommittee had voted to impeach the president bfrp the call with president before the call with president zelensky. Why didnt the majority go through the normal process . Why didnt the majority allow minority, our own day of hearings to counter some of these false allegations . The American People have figured it out because it was never about getting to the facts. Case, they the would have worked with the executive branch to get those answers to those questions. They didnt. They would have worked with us to allow us to have the minority day of hearing that the rules of house allow us, but they didnt. Are. O this is where we and i would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the yielding. For mr. Speaker, my friend many things that fact. O basis in believes if he says enough imes that people will believe them. To that extent, i think he mirrors the president of the nited states who does the same thing. First of all, the rules have followed. The evidence that has been adduced is overwhelming and not been controe controvoted. John bolten, when talking about this deal, which we believe was power, said that his was the equivalent of a drug deal. Bolton. Ohn my friend has talked for many mueller ut how the nothing. S found irst, let me read from the Mueller Report, something that an article but the inly informs us as to intent and the feelings of the states. T of the united the Mueller Report said this, quote, our investigation found acts by the president exerting capable of undo influence over Law Enforcement investigations, interference ian obstructing on investigations. The incidents were often carried ut through oneonone meetings in which the president sought to outside fficial power of usable channels. Mueller ions, the report said, ranged from their efforts to remove the special reverse the o effect of the attorney generals use of to the attempted official power to limit the investigation, to direct and indirect contacts potentialsses and the influence of their testimony. Did not al counsel reach conclusions because and is critical, and the whip ignores this when he says the Mueller Report found nothing. Counsel, it says, conclusions because department of justice a delines prohibit indicting sitting president. Therefore, the Mueller Report it does ar, however, not exonerate the president by aying this, if we had confidence the whip may want to hear this. Quote, ler report said, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the that the president clearly of not commit obstruction so state, but ld based upon the facts and the applicable legal standards, we unable to reach that that the president did not in fact participate in of justice. But because d. O. J. , for whom the worked, not special counsel, special counsel demeasured, essential demurred, essentially, but he that they could not find that the president did not obstruct justice. Me Say Something that a of people who thought the Mueller Report and Mueller Investigation had great effect. Paul manafort pled guilty to lying. Roger stone, convicted. Michael cohen. The president s counsel. Convicted. In jail. Michael flynn. Convicted of lying. The National Security advisor appointed by President Trump. Convicted. Rick gates, the Deputy Campaign manager for President Trump, convicted. George papadopoulos, who the president claimed was his Foreign Policy advisor, or one of his Foreign Policy advisors, convicted. Pled guilty. Served a short period of time and now is running for congress on the republican ticket in the state of california. They all think that the Mueller Report had some consequences. Thats the context in which we see this proud, no wond sore many of them didnt want to testify. And when mr. Sondland testified the first time and then after that he saw some of these convictions, he amended his testimony. Came in, said, oh, yes, there may have been some discussion about a socalled quid pro quo or bribery or extortion, he didnt say those words, those are my words. He talks about obstruction of congress and how there was no back and forth and he says well could have gone to court. As a matter of fact weve gone to court time after time after time. And guess what, mr. Speaker . The court has said that congress is entite told that discovery. They keep appealing it. Mr. Speaker, that is the president s modus operandi. Which he has pursued all of his adult life. When people say he owed them money, when people said he didnt fulfill a contract, when people said he should do this, that, or the other, he almost invariably took them to court. And delayed and delayed and delayed. Theres an editorial in the usa this trump ys has met the impeachment investigation with outright and unprecedented defiance. We share that few. No president we share that view. No president in history has refused to cooperate with the congress of the United States in the exercising of its constitutional responsibility of oversight than this president. Those are the facts. That editorial went on to say, allowing this obstruction this is not the Washington Post or new york times. Allowing this obstruction to stand unchallenged would put the president above the law and permanently damage congress ability to investigate misconduct by president s of either party. Mr. Speaker, i would again of ct that articles impeachment under the constitution of the United States are what mr. Mueller said was the appropriate option if the congress believed that this congress that this president ought to be held accountable for abuse of power because he said he couldnt do it, the Justice Department policy said he ouldnt do it. Weve had hearings. Those hearings were participated in by the republican side of the aisle and the democratic side of the aisle. Time was divided equally between the sides for questioning of witnesses. The witnesses were an ambassador hired by pompeo, secretary pompeo, appointed by the president to represent us. By mr. Sondland. A close friend of the president s aparently, or at least a big contributeor to the president. Appointed by the president who , certainlynd said no i believe there was a quid pro quo, that if you didnt start an investigation, you didnt announce that in public, then there wouldnt be the 391 million that you kneed to defend your country and defend freedom in ukraine, which this congress had in a bipartisan way sent to the president of the United States. And that the Defense Department and others had certified reforms contemplated by that legislation. Had that been effected and they recommended payment of that money. And in addition, you could now have a meeting with the white house if this didnt happen you could not have a meeting with the white house if this didnt happen. So my friend continues to say, no wrongdoing, no crimes, thats not the case, mr. Speaker. And no matter how many time he is says it, whether its an editorial in usa today or an editorial in some other paper or articles in other papers or i will tell my friend people with whom i talk on your side of the aisle, i will not name their names. They, like zelensky, would be afraid of retribution, just as mr. Sanford found autothat disagreeing would incur the wrath of the president of the United States. And get a response. A tweet or some other way. Mr. Zelensky is in a very difficult position. His freedom as a country, the security of his people, he believes are contingent upon whether President Trump will treat him fairly and as consistently as the congress would want them treated. So i say to my friend, were going to move ahead. Well all have a chance to vote on this, on these articles, and well have a chance to debate them and then the senate will have a trial. If in fact articles pass this house. And that trial will be where the president will be able to offer witnesses. But i find it interesting, mr. Speaker, that republican senators are quoted frequently saying, we ought to have no witnesses. Republican senators. Are saying we ought to have no witnesses. Perhaps they just want to pass it so quickly. I think, as well, because they dont know of any witnesses who will absolve the president from the actions that have been testified to without effective opposition to those premises. So mr. Speaker, we can debate this, were going to debate it, im sure, next week. It will be debated in the United States senate, we can continue to debate it here today but the evidence, the perception of many, is overwhelming and uncontradicted. I yield to my friend. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. If he says the evidence is overwhelm, the gentleman cites the Mueller Report. The whole investigation that went on for 22 months with thousands of subpoenas. Witnesses. Innuendos. And at the end of the day, with the full authority, by the way, mr. Mueller had, to file any criminal charges, if there were any laws broken that he saw, not one charge was broken and you know whats most interesting, maybe the most telling, is that in your articles of impeachment, eight pages that you filed, not one time did you mention the Mueller Report. Because theres nothing criminal in the Mueller Report. If there was, youd have put it in the articles of impeachment. You try to remove a president of the United States from office and the constitution says the standard should be treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, which you would think would mean youd list high crimes and misdemeanor. Like treason or bribery. Theres no a word of that listed in this. Not one time is the Mueller Report mentioned. So if theres all that rich data, it would be here and its not because there wasnt anything that came out of the Mueller Report. The gentleman mentions the department of justice. The gentleman made a lot of assertions that are not accurate and i think its important to go through them. Because the department of justice did not say that a president cant be removed. The attorney general made that clear that the president can be indicted. But what the attorney general said was through the department of justice he said there was no obstruction. There was no obstruction. Thats what the department of justice said. And again, if there was, you would have put those findings from the Mueller Report in this document and theres nothing in there. No mention of the Mueller Report. Then the gentleman opened up by saying, the rules have been followed. The rules have been followed. So the gentleman from maryland said. The only problem is, just today, yet another rule has been broken. House rule clause 2j1 of rule 11 provides that once the demand is made for a minority day of hearing, minority members shall be entitled, shall means it has to happen, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to the measure or matter during at least one day of hearings thereon. Well guess what . That didnt happen. We requested it multiple times. And the rules that the gentleman said the rules have been followed, the only problem is, the rules have been broken. Shall be entwiteled entite told a hearing and its been denied. The chairman denied it again today. In committee. So you cant say the rules have been followed when just today, that very committee broke the rules of the house, allowing us to have the opportunity to present the alternative case. You want to talk about abuse of power, whats going on in that Judiciary Committee right now is an abuse of power. Denying the minority the ability to even present the other side. Of an argument. Youve got two sides of any argument. Maybe you think youve made a strong case if you only present yours, you look at whats gone on across the country when only one side has been presented, the country still thinks this is a waste of time. Not going after a president because he broke the law but going after a president because you dornlte like him. Youre unhappy he got elected in 2016 and youre afraid hell get elected again in 2020. I trust the people of this country to make that decision next year. And they will. Not members of congress who have expressed that they wanted him impeached before he took the oath of office. Members of congress on your side who said, impeachable offenses arent required to impeach a president. So when we talk of abuse of power, absolutely, thats an abuse of power. The gentleman expresses concern for the people of ukraine. Maybe expresses that the president of ukraine himself might be afraid to speak candidly. I have more confidence in the president of ukraine that if he said something, i believe it. Weve worked with him on a number of things. Cleaning up corruption. Hes delivering on his promise. Like this president has been delivering on his promise. But lets talk about all the disdain, the concern for the people of ukraine not having the tools to defend themselves. Im curious, where was that disdain when president obama and joe biden were in office and not one single time did they heed ukraines request to sell them javelin missiles . Not one of them. They didnt sell one. Ukraine asked multiple times, please allow us to defend ourselves against russia. President obama and Vice President biden said no. I never heard anybody on that side expressing concern about the people of ukraine to defend themselves then. Good thing when President Trump was asked that same question, he said yes. No quid pro quo but yes. Heres 360 javelin missiles sold so they can push back russia. And im glad theyre doing it. Im glad theyre able to defend themselves. But then you look at something equally alarming. Thats come out. That deserves real attention in this congress. And thats the horowitz report. 17 list aid buses of the fisa process. Gentleman knows and i supported the fisa. Process. To allow us to combat terrorists. Its a controversial program. A program thats got a very narrow scope to allow the United States to protect our National Security but it also has a very strict requirement from our intelligence agency. The f. B. I. , the c. I. A. , have the ability to go unfettered and ask the judge for the ability to surveil people. And the judge trusts that theyre giving him the full information. And we saw abuses listed in that
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.