That. And what the chairmans objectivesr we ought to know that. How many members of the press the chairman is spying on and how many other american citizens. Its a concern and i would hope the gentleman would work with us to stop this and not allow the chairman to use his power whether its members of the press, members of congress or legal people across this country. And i would yield. Mr. Hoyer the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise i yield. Mr. Hoyer we do know by the fact that the president has abused his power and the gentleman does not want to speak about that. The facts were testified to in the committee. The gentleman, like the president , seeks to distract i reject out of hand that either mr. Schiff or the committee spied on anybody. Did they pursue discovery so they could get the facts and the truth . They did. I dont know im not a member of the committee, not a member of the Intelligence Committee and im 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. Now, the gentleman has been a member of this body for some period of time and im sure he watched what went on in benghazi, thousands and thousands and thousands of pages received by subpoenas. Cooperated by the administration, the Obama Administration, or mr. Burton who was chairman of the government oversight committee. Thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of subpoenaed evidence or information. But i will frankly, madam speaker, look look at this information and because i believe it is a very serious and egregious accusation that mr. Schiff or the committee spied on anybody. And they may not like the discovery process or the information that was accomplished 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 and no evidence has been offered just a bald face assertion that somehow, madam speaker, mr. Schiff spied on people. I reject that and believe that to be totally without merit. And i yield back. Mr. Scalise i would hope the gentleman would work with us to get to the bottom of this. The gentleman said he is not aware of what the chairman is doing, neither am i. But im concerned with what the chairman has done. And i will yield in a moment. But he selectively put in a report the names of members of the press, of members of congress who he has had political disagreements with. He didnt 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 wont share all of those people that he is spying on but selectively leak out members of the press who have written articles that maybe he has zeed with. That is frightening. That is an abuse of power, but we dont know because the chairman wont share the details of what he is up to, but he did selectively put it in a report that wasnt discussed in the hearings. It raises alarps and concerns and i would hope we would get to the bottom of it. Mr. Hoyer he said he was in my position of not having a lot of information, yet he makes conclusions and assertions and accusations that 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. So that i would hope we could move on. Well see whether there are any facts to sustain what the republican whip has asserted. I believe there are not. But im 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 of 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 of the i yield. Mr. Scalise we are beyond the process arguments because we are into the details and the facts have been clear that the president did not abuse his power and the president did not commit Impeachable Offenses. The Mueller Report confirmed that and even the witnesses. The witnesses that the democrats were brought forward, can you name an Impeachable Offense . Not one. Can you name bribery, after quid pro quo wasnt getting them to where they were going. Can you name bribery. Even the witnesses this week. Why they were there, who knows, but not one of them could name any wrongdoing. But what we do know is over 100 democrats in this chamber voted for impeachment prior to the phone call with president zellens ki, voted for impeachment without any facts because that was the objective was to impeach the president because they didnt agree with the results of the 2016 election. Havent laid hopes or dreams, none of which have come to fruition and the two people that are really most pertinent are President Trump and president zellens ki because they participated in the phone call and both of them said nothing wrong was done. The president thanked President Trump that president obama didnt give him and he said there was no pressure and got the money for additional aid that he requested. Those are the facts. And i would yield. Mr. Hoyer 391 million to say he wasnt intimidated. And the witnesses to which the republican whip referred, 75 of those witnesses, three out of four said they believed that the offenses that were testified to by some members of the white house and the National Security, by an ambassador, by a Deputy Assistant to mr. Pompeo, that 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 dont know what hearings the gentleman was listening to, madam speaker, but the hearings 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 be tried here but in the United States senate, all we do in this body under the constitution is to see whether or not effectively if there is probable cause to believe that, in fact, an abuse of power occurred. The three experts who testified yesterday said it was and one expert said it was not. 75 of the experts that testified and frankly, literally, hundreds and thousands of editorial writers, op ed writers and citizens of this country have said this is an abuse of power. The senate will make that conclusion and will decide whether or not in the trial phase of this matter to indicate that the evidence is not overwhelming that was alist ted in the hearings by the Intelligence Committee, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I yield. Mr. Scalise the gentleman is acknowledging that they are going to pass impeachment of the president because he is saying it is going to the senate. All four witnesses this week said they had no firsthand knowledge of anything that happened and they were giving their opinions and not one of them voted for President Trump but some testified that they have given money to democrat candidates for president who were running against President Trump. Hey were actively engaged in defeating President Trump and they are giving evidence that they have seen acknowledging they have no firsthand knowledge themselves and they are biased because they are campaigning against the president but you brought them in to show they are objective witnesses. At least under oath they acknowledged they have a political bias. All of the witnesses said they voted against the president said it was abuse of this committee to impeach a president based on him exercising his rights and following the law, which part of the law says that the gentleman from from maryland and the speaker of the house voted for that require a president of the United States prior to sending hardearned taxpayer money to a foreign country to ensure they re rooting out corruption. The old rain reagan doctrine trust but verify and we determined that. And we have high confidence that the president is following through on rooting out corruption and the money was released prior to the money deadline and there was no investigation or announcement. Lets keep in mind the bias of those witnesses, but ultimately the people of this country i think are deciding this already, but the people of the country are the ones next year should select the president of the United States, not some people who have said since 2016 that they didnt like that election and are going to try to impeach the president. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the facets of this conversation always is that i believe the republican whip adopts premiseses 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 Trump and sent to represent the United States abroad, testified and in fact, he heard believed that there was a relationship between releasing visit91 million, having a at the white house to confirm the United States continuing support for ukraine, our ally nd friend assaulted by russia, which, of course, putin is , ambassador sondland made it very clear that those were the conditions for that money being released. This is not hear say. This is not democrats, this is somebody who is a substantial supporter and apparently the whip believes that if you are a supporter of somebody else, you must have a bias. Apparently now ambassador sondland had a bias for or maybe against, because his testimony is firsthand, not hear say and that, in fact, his testimony is there was a relationship between that. Now what i said, madam speaker is not what the whip republican whip attributed to me. What i said was, the process, not that we have made a conclusion but the process is this house under the constitution has the responsibility, if it believes and well see if the Judiciary Committee concludes that, if it believes that theres probable cause to think that either bribery was committed, an abuse of power was committed, a solicitation of a Foreign Government to participate in americas elections, if it concludes that, then the process is not that we make the decision, yes, those are the facts, it is to be tried in the United States senate under our constitution. And 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. So, i just want to make sure the gentleman characterizes what i said. A conclusion has not been made. What i said was, the facts seem to be pretty clear, however. There does not seem to be much difference, and the president of the United States himself gave to us and the public a notes of the conversation he had. By the way, i would like you to do us a by the way, id like yo to do us a favor. That was under the context of the president withholding money. Mr. Mulvaney says, it happens all the time. Get over it. I dont know whether the American Public will get over it or whether the house or senate will get over it or not. But that was the attitude of mr. Mulvaney. Of course we did this. Its always done. Get over it. Well see what is concluded. Let me one more point i want to make. Says over 100 democrats voted. 2018 times, in 2017, in 25 2019, prior to that july phone call, articles of impeachment were filed. Three times the democrats, the majority of democrats voted not to proceed and moved to table those resolutions. Three times the 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 transmitted to here. A re that point, there was Democratic Party who was saying, whatever our personal feelings may be about the election, or about this president s operations in office, was that there was not sufficient evidence on which to move forward. And 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. So there was no rush to judgment. 2017, 2018 and 2019. Rejected. A rush to judgment. Majority of democrats. I made a couple of the motions. To table. So, madam speaker, motions to table. So, madam speaker, were now proceeding as our constitutional responsibility dictates that we do. And we will see what happens. But all this talk about process, all this talk about and i reject any assertions with respect to mr. Schiff and or the committee, is to distract. Well focus on the facts, well focus on the evidence, well focus on what the reasonable conclusions, bationed upon that evidence, will be based upon that evidence, will be at some point in the future, if the Judiciary Committee makes that determination that they want to recommend the house considering such action. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Hopefully we get to the bottom of whatever chairman schiff has done with these phone records. Do want to correct the record. Ambassador sonland 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. Thats clear, that was on the record. So i just wanted to make that clear. Look, were going to litigate this. Were going to debate this for hours and hours. Mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise briefly ill be happy to yield. Mr. Hoyer he said he thought there was a prid pro kyo. As the gentleman quid pro quo. As the gentleman pointed out, he had a substantial bias. Appointed by mr. Trump as ambassador to the european union. His response was, to that question, i would suggest if there was a bias from these witnesses that testified yesterday, simply because they supported him, the same would apply to mr. Sondland. When asked whether or not there was a quid pro quo, his answer was yes. I yield back. Mr. Scalise 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, the president , president zelensky, got the money. The quid pro quo that was being alleged didnt happen. President zelensky got the money. There were no investigations. But this will continue anyway. Clearly over 100 members had made up their mind prior to the phone call. I know were going to continue this debate over the next weeks. Hopefully we get beyond it. Deal with other issues. But with that, madam chair, i would yield back. Madam speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Hoyer madam speaker. Madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition . Mr. Hoyer madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate, at 2 00 p. M. For legislative business. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The chair will remind members from engaging in personalities oward the president. The chair will now entertain requests for oneminute peeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition . Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. Ms. Omar madam speaker, i rise today to remind our constituents of the work that we have been doing on their behalf. The house of representatives has passed nearly 400 bills this congress for the people. For dreamers, we passed an Immigration Reform bill, the dream and promise act. For our workers, we passed the raise the minimum wage act, to increase the federal minimum wage to 15 an hour. And the butchlewis act, to protect the pension for more than 1 million workers one million workers and retirees. For the personal and Financial Securities of the american women, we passed a strong reauthorization of the violence against women act. For our elections we passed h. R. 1, which we saw as transparentssy and accountability to our elections, which included my own legislation to restrict foreign lobbying. To strengthen our defenses against foreign attacks, we also passed the safe act and the shield act. And for our lgbtq communities, we passed the equality act. For all of these all of these bills have been ignored. Mitch mcconnell brags about being the grim reaper and that is exactly what he has been for the hopes and the dreams of the american people. Id like to call for us to remind every single american of the work that we have been doing. Thank you, madam speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for within for ne minute. Mr. Olson madam speaker, today i rise to honor the life of joe marie bankston. The First Woman Police officer to serve the people of houston, texas. The year was 1955. Seven years before i was born. When jo marie, or fina as she was called by her friends and family, graduated in the first Houston PoliceDepartment Class to include women. At that time, the mere idea of a Woman Police Officer was something very few could imagine , much less pursue. Fina pav