Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives U.S. Hou

Process. Even more, mr. Durham, is initiating and conducting his own criminal investigation. And with the attorney general talked about this week is that they know that there are people in those intelligence agencies who were spying on the trump campaign. Imagine federal agencies, f. B. I. , c. I. A. , spying on the campaign of a candidate for president. Republican or democrat, we should equally be alarmed that that happened. I hope it gets rooted out. I hope whoever did that, abused their power, gos to jail. But it happened. Its being investigated in a criminal way. But horowitz himself pointed out where there were abuses of the fisa process. And you know what . Thats coming back up to this Congress Early next year for renewal. Parts of that program will come back up again. Important tools to combat terrorism but tools that now have been identified to have been abused. We need to Work Together to clean that up so that that doesnt happen again. But that happened and it was used against the trump campaign. I havent heard the disdain and outrage from both sides, im surely outraged, our side is surely outraged, i would hope were all outraged that that happened. But when we talk about those reports, again, if there were all of those things that the gentleman asserts in the Mueller Investigation and ultimately report, curious that not one of those things, not any mention of the Mueller Report in these articles of impeachment that well be facing on the house familiar next week. I yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. Speaking english. Let me repeat what the Mueller Report said the department of policy was they could not indict a sitting president of the United States. Went on to say, as i quoted, that did not mean they could no rt that there was obstruction of justice. And if they thought they could would have they asserted it. Ttorney general barr then characteriz characterized mischaracterized the mueller released. Ore it was o put, in my opinion, the mueller s spin on the report which, by the way, your side has continued to spin all the time. Mentioned the six people who ere convicted of lying to the investigation. Close associates to the president of the United States waiting to be sentenced. Mr. Stone falls into that category. Mr. Barr said there was no obstruction. He was wrong. Mischaracterized, misstated, and misled the American People. And mueller said in his report found. S not what he had collusion is not a crime. But there is a crime, were, in addition to the six 10 le i talked about, indicted for participating in trying to undermine the integrity of the our country on trump. Of mr. The gentleman indicates Mueller Report has not mentioned. The ueller report is not central the central tenant central, the central tenant here. To,ding up to and succeeding the president of the united wayes involved himself in a terms of himself in the election that was coming up, not the 2016 election, 2020 election. Rebutted. Were not people close to the president of it. United states confirmed say, theree articles was an abuse of power, which is what almost every constitutional scholar says was the central concern of our Founding Fathers they included the mpeachment provision in the constitution of the United States, to be a check on authoritarian power, serving its people, not the peoples interests. Thats what the claim is. With respect to the other article of impeachment, it does not mention the Mueller Report, ecause what it was focused on, although mueller focused on the obstruction of justice evidence, charge, but the evidence, what we are focusing is the biggest attempt to the congress of the United States, in the exercise constitutionalte responsibility of oversight from getting information, either in or in documents, and scholar of past, resent, including president nixon, and including president clinton and the extraordinary exercised hat was against president obama on a regular basis that this stonewalled more than any other president and less justification than any other president , because most executive referred to privilege. This president went much more who dealt n those ith him personally, but simply wanted to preclude information getting to the congress so that decisions based upon that evidence. And, of course, the other suit we have is the president , who said he was going to release is Tax Information to the American People, has fought in forum to prevent that from happening, notwithstanding the legislation, which was not by us. Its very old legislation which says the Tax Writing Committee can get that information. And i would suggest, the American People ought to have that information. O they could determine for themselves whether this president is acting for his their benefit, hich is his constitutional responsibility. So i will yield back. The calise i thank gentleman for yielding. When the gentleman talks about stonewalling, acting as if the only trump is president in history to seek alternatives to a question thats asked by congress say that. I didnt dont misguide what i said. I did not say that. Mr. Scalise this president has more than any other president , those were roughly the words you said. Mr. Hoyer that is accurate. Mr. Scalise lets keep in mind, president obama, it took to get to the bottom of the fast and Furious Scandal and we still didnt get information we wanted. Six years president obama fought in the courts. Mr. Hoyer did you think that was wrong . Mr. Scalise was that impeachable . Of course we didnt try to impeach the president. Sure, president , im including george washington, had differences with congress. We have multiple branches of government. So the legislative branch has powers. When we exercise those powers in executive branch, the executive branch also has have a portunity to discussion. First of all, to see if we can agreement. And, again, you go back to the clinton impeachment, the nixon impeachment, both sides reached agreement. Your majority never tried to go reach an agreement with the get access on how to to whatever you wanted to get access to. Process . Fair allowing the president have his ounsel in the room to ask questions. That was denied. It did happen in nixon. It did happen in clinton. Of ou had a fair process back and forth where ultimately they agreed on rules of the game during an impeachment. Didnt happen here. And so when your majority asked committees for information to the white house, the ability se has to exercise other rights. Letter. Etter after the gentleman used the term stonewalling. To respondonewalling to the committee. Ok, these are the things we can get you. Here, look, d. O. D. , well work you. You never tried to work with d. O. D. , but they said, lets call us. Them. Call agency after agency, secretary of state responded. Letters agencies sent in response. Thats not stonewalling. Thats complying with the law. The ight not have liked answer. Again, if you didnt like the answer, i think we all know when you pull out the constitution, just two branches of government. You could have gone to the third branch of government and said, make them comply because theyre not. You didnt do that. You just rushed to impeach the president because you didnt like the answer. You go to the Mueller Investigation. The gentleman lists those six people that were convicted. One of them had anything to do with the accusations made against the president. Theyre not listed. Theyre not listed in the articles of impeachment. Talked about russia. Es, we know russia tried to meddle in our election in 2016. I think people on your side think President Trump was president back then. Barack obama was president. Biden was Vice President when russia tried to interfere in our election. Stop dnt they do more to it . Thats a good question to ask, but go ask president obama and Vice President biden. Dont go impeach President Trump because russia tried to interfere with the trouks election. With the 2016 election. And there were things going on in ukraine that raised some concerns. Ambassador, ukraine the ukraine writing an oped. Didnt see any attempt to be concerned about that by your side. Again, just go impeach donald trump because so many on our side didnt like the fact that he won in 2016 and are again hes going to win in 2020. Again, thats not why you go a president. He other side, sondland, testified under oath. He asked the president , is there anything you want . Responded to him, he said this under oath, the nothing. Said, i want no quid pro quo. That was sondlands testimony. Again, as these people were up, lets look at the whole context. When the rules are being brought response nt heard a to the gentleman when i read him a house rule. Thats today. Violated in g committee. Hey took a vote to violate house rules. The house has that exercise. House a rule of the thats being broken today, not allowing the minority to have a day of hearing. From to hide the facts the American People. If they were so serious about impeaching the president , because you have this evidence, then let both sides present their case. Rule, today, is being violated. And there are many examples of that. Yield. Ould mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The reason we got in the nixon case and in the clinton case is ecause those administrations cooperated. Administration has absolutely not cooperated. Letters and you ut them down as if they mean something. Hey are further evidence of delay. The committee requested legitimately. Didnt say, leman he said, we ought to go to court. Wonder if the gentleman knows whats happened when we went to court, because or six ne to court five times. Yet. Vent lost a case we have not lost a case yet. The court has said the congress information. O that these letters are fine, but delay as we put them on they mean as if something. E says the russians interfered in our election. They did. The irony is one of the reasons he Obama Administration didnt is more involved in that because there was some knowledge by some they were interfering on suspicion of mr. Trump because of some of the evidence we heard. Stones case. The ates testified about president had the about wikileaks and about the nvitation for wikileaks to release information. Sondland changed his testimony. Weve gone to court. The administration has refused cooperate. The gentleman ignores those facts. Theyre facts. That are re facts generally accepted across the land. Supportersse who are of the president. To have this discussion. They are going to have this senate. On in the but the president chose not to to defend the se allegation against the allegations. They werent id going to participate. They had the opportunity. They did not take it. What happens from there. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the yielding, and i would not discount things like secretary from the of defense who, on october 7 of 2019 october 7 of received a subpoena, and on 2019 responded. Thats not delay. Obfuscation. A week later they responded and said, the department is prepared the process consistent with long standing ractice and provide the responsive information should there be a resolution to this matter. Later. A week that doesnt sound like somebody rying to run away from a request for a subpoena. A week later you got a response. Ou might not have liked the response, but there was not a then followup, were going to you, department of defense. The secretary of defense sent this a week after your question, and youre going to impeach a because you didnt like this answer and say, oh, hes obstructing . Gain, i go back to fast and furious. One example. President obama, six years we get the information, six years. We didnt try to impeach him for that. Mean he was breaking the law or committing high crimes and misdemeanors. He delayed a lot longer than we would have liked. Six years is a lot longer than get ould have taken to answers to real questions about people who died. And or six years we waited worked and went and got those answers. Thats the Legal Process. Maybe we should Work Together if we think thats too long to speed it up. But that was six years. This was one week. One week after the subpoena, the secretary of defense himself sent you this letter. Call us and work with us to get you this information you didnt follow up, you said no, we dont like it. Thats too late. Its delaying. A week later you got an answer, and you didnt like the answer so you said, lets impeach the president of the United States. Theres letter after letter like this from other agencies. But this wasnt three years later. You got an answer. Maybe you could raise questions then. Go to the courts. But you didnt. You got an answer a week later. Thats delaying . To the point where youd impeach a president of the United States . And you dont think those conversations happened during nixon . You dont think those conversations with the white house happened during clinton where there were things they didnt feel they had to give that were subpoenaed and they went back and forth but they came to an agreement. Means you got to sit down and work with people you might not like. Its been clear on the other side that there are some on your side that hate this president , that dont want him to be president. We can understand, we have elections for that. We had an election in 2016 and he was duly elected. Then you allege head conspired with russia. But he didnt. Russia tried to interfere on barack obama and joe bidens watch. It was their watch that it happened. President trump didnt have any involvement in that. And the Mueller Report made that clear. But then you kept going on making assertion after assertion just like in these two articles of impeach. And you come up with abuse of power and coquote professor turley, one of the witnesses from last week, the only abuse of power is by this majority trying to remove a president from office for exercising his rights under the law. A week after your request. Your subpoena. A week after. You got a letter from the secretary of defense himself. And thats enough to impeach a president. I yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. We could go on, all day on this. But the fact is, that letter, it says one week. The fact of the matter is this president has been defying congress for years in terms of giving it information it constitutionally had the right to have. Hes not responded to the fact, weve gone to court. Weve won every case. Its not like the court said oh, they have the right to do this, ey can go back and forth for days and years and months. The court said no, theyre entitled to the information. Dont send me a letter, send me the information that i request. For you to pretend that that was just one weeks delay, its been years of delay to responding to information requested legitimately by the congress of the United States. And after months of going to the court, the courts have come to a conclusion over and over and over again that congress is entitled to that information. Two courts have now decided that were entitled to his Tax Information and to his financial information. We havent gotten it. Why . Because he appeals again. Why . Because thats his modus operandi, as i said. He did it in private sector, hes doing it in the public sector. And what surprises me is im not wishing it but you may be in charge someday again. And youre going to be very upset with the precedent youre arguing for at this point in time in terms of not cooperating with the congress of the United States in cubblingting its constitutional duties. As i said, we could go on and on on this, well have additional hearings, i would repeat again, usa today editorial, trump has met the impeachment investigation outright and unprecedented defiance. Which is one of the reasons i suppose they didnt appear. He instructed people who have information like john bolton, like secretary pompeo, like so many others, dont appear. Dont testify. Dont provide information. Obfuscation. Nd refusal to cooperate. But we will have an opportunity in the future and i hope that at this point in time we might cease and desist so our friends can have an opportunity to say what they want to say. Ut im prepared to proceed and to yield back if youre so disposed. Mr. Scalise i appreciate the gentleman yielding back. I hope the gentleman isnt asserting that the president of the United States, like any other american, shouldnt have the right to appeal the decision. Ultimately the courts at some level will resolve any issue before them. The courts do that. Its the legal right of every american. Mr. Hoyer of course it is. Mr. Scalise if the gentleman is victorious in the court, would the gentleman recognize he lost that case or would the gentleman say thats obfuscation, following the Legal Process . President obama for six years on fast and cure fures you, just one case. The gentleman hasnt been in the majority for a year yet, but somehow thats so long, a week later is so long you should impeach a president when just on fast and furious we didnt get answers from the white house and in some cases it took six years. It went through the courts. We won many of those cases, we didnt win all of them but we won against them. But when we won against the president we didnt impeach him for it. We got the information eventually. Took a lot longer than we would have liked. But the president , just like president obama, had the legal right to appeal decision he is might not have agreed with in courts like the ninth circuit who have one of the highestover turn rates of any circuit in the country. So if a circuit got it wrong and ultimately somewhere up higher they get it right is that somehow something you should impeach a president of the United States for because they exercised their article 3 powers to go to the Congress Early<\/a> next year for renewal. Parts of that program will come back up again. Important tools to combat terrorism but tools that now have been identified to have been abused. We need to Work Together<\/a> to clean that up so that that doesnt happen again. But that happened and it was used against the trump campaign. I havent heard the disdain and outrage from both sides, im surely outraged, our side is surely outraged, i would hope were all outraged that that happened. But when we talk about those reports, again, if there were all of those things that the gentleman asserts in the Mueller Investigation<\/a> and ultimately report, curious that not one of those things, not any mention of the Mueller Report<\/a> in these articles of impeachment that well be facing on the house familiar next week. I yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. Speaking english. Let me repeat what the Mueller Report<\/a> said the department of policy was they could not indict a sitting president of the United States<\/a>. Went on to say, as i quoted, that did not mean they could no rt that there was obstruction of justice. And if they thought they could would have they asserted it. Ttorney general barr then characteriz characterized mischaracterized the mueller released. Ore it was o put, in my opinion, the mueller s spin on the report which, by the way, your side has continued to spin all the time. Mentioned the six people who ere convicted of lying to the investigation. Close associates to the president of the United States<\/a> waiting to be sentenced. Mr. Stone falls into that category. Mr. Barr said there was no obstruction. He was wrong. Mischaracterized, misstated, and misled the American People<\/a>. And mueller said in his report found. S not what he had collusion is not a crime. But there is a crime, were, in addition to the six 10 le i talked about, indicted for participating in trying to undermine the integrity of the our country on trump. Of mr. The gentleman indicates Mueller Report<\/a> has not mentioned. The ueller report is not central the central tenant central, the central tenant here. To,ding up to and succeeding the president of the united wayes involved himself in a terms of himself in the election that was coming up, not the 2016 election, 2020 election. Rebutted. Were not people close to the president of it. United states confirmed say, theree articles was an abuse of power, which is what almost every constitutional scholar says was the central concern of our Founding Fathers<\/a> they included the mpeachment provision in the constitution of the United States<\/a>, to be a check on authoritarian power, serving its people, not the peoples interests. Thats what the claim is. With respect to the other article of impeachment, it does not mention the Mueller Report<\/a>, ecause what it was focused on, although mueller focused on the obstruction of justice evidence, charge, but the evidence, what we are focusing is the biggest attempt to the congress of the United States<\/a>, in the exercise constitutionalte responsibility of oversight from getting information, either in or in documents, and scholar of past, resent, including president nixon, and including president clinton and the extraordinary exercised hat was against president obama on a regular basis that this stonewalled more than any other president and less justification than any other president , because most executive referred to privilege. This president went much more who dealt n those ith him personally, but simply wanted to preclude information getting to the congress so that decisions based upon that evidence. And, of course, the other suit we have is the president , who said he was going to release is Tax Information<\/a> to the American People<\/a>, has fought in forum to prevent that from happening, notwithstanding the legislation, which was not by us. Its very old legislation which says the Tax Writing Committee<\/a> can get that information. And i would suggest, the American People<\/a> ought to have that information. O they could determine for themselves whether this president is acting for his their benefit, hich is his constitutional responsibility. So i will yield back. The calise i thank gentleman for yielding. When the gentleman talks about stonewalling, acting as if the only trump is president in history to seek alternatives to a question thats asked by congress say that. I didnt dont misguide what i said. I did not say that. Mr. Scalise this president has more than any other president , those were roughly the words you said. Mr. Hoyer that is accurate. Mr. Scalise lets keep in mind, president obama, it took to get to the bottom of the fast and Furious Scandal<\/a> and we still didnt get information we wanted. Six years president obama fought in the courts. Mr. Hoyer did you think that was wrong . Mr. Scalise was that impeachable . Of course we didnt try to impeach the president. Sure, president , im including george washington, had differences with congress. We have multiple branches of government. So the legislative branch has powers. When we exercise those powers in executive branch, the executive branch also has have a portunity to discussion. First of all, to see if we can agreement. And, again, you go back to the clinton impeachment, the nixon impeachment, both sides reached agreement. Your majority never tried to go reach an agreement with the get access on how to to whatever you wanted to get access to. Process . Fair allowing the president have his ounsel in the room to ask questions. That was denied. It did happen in nixon. It did happen in clinton. Of ou had a fair process back and forth where ultimately they agreed on rules of the game during an impeachment. Didnt happen here. And so when your majority asked committees for information to the white house, the ability se has to exercise other rights. Letter. Etter after the gentleman used the term stonewalling. To respondonewalling to the committee. Ok, these are the things we can get you. Here, look, d. O. D. , well work you. You never tried to work with d. O. D. , but they said, lets call us. Them. Call agency after agency, secretary of state responded. Letters agencies sent in response. Thats not stonewalling. Thats complying with the law. The ight not have liked answer. Again, if you didnt like the answer, i think we all know when you pull out the constitution, just two branches of government. You could have gone to the third branch of government and said, make them comply because theyre not. You didnt do that. You just rushed to impeach the president because you didnt like the answer. You go to the Mueller Investigation<\/a>. The gentleman lists those six people that were convicted. One of them had anything to do with the accusations made against the president. Theyre not listed. Theyre not listed in the articles of impeachment. Talked about russia. Es, we know russia tried to meddle in our election in 2016. I think people on your side think President Trump<\/a> was president back then. Barack obama was president. Biden was Vice President<\/a> when russia tried to interfere in our election. Stop dnt they do more to it . Thats a good question to ask, but go ask president obama and Vice President<\/a> biden. Dont go impeach President Trump<\/a> because russia tried to interfere with the trouks election. With the 2016 election. And there were things going on in ukraine that raised some concerns. Ambassador, ukraine the ukraine writing an oped. Didnt see any attempt to be concerned about that by your side. Again, just go impeach donald trump because so many on our side didnt like the fact that he won in 2016 and are again hes going to win in 2020. Again, thats not why you go a president. He other side, sondland, testified under oath. He asked the president , is there anything you want . Responded to him, he said this under oath, the nothing. Said, i want no quid pro quo. That was sondlands testimony. Again, as these people were up, lets look at the whole context. When the rules are being brought response nt heard a to the gentleman when i read him a house rule. Thats today. Violated in g committee. Hey took a vote to violate house rules. The house has that exercise. House a rule of the thats being broken today, not allowing the minority to have a day of hearing. From to hide the facts the American People<\/a>. If they were so serious about impeaching the president , because you have this evidence, then let both sides present their case. Rule, today, is being violated. And there are many examples of that. Yield. Ould mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The reason we got in the nixon case and in the clinton case is ecause those administrations cooperated. Administration has absolutely not cooperated. Letters and you ut them down as if they mean something. Hey are further evidence of delay. The committee requested legitimately. Didnt say, leman he said, we ought to go to court. Wonder if the gentleman knows whats happened when we went to court, because or six ne to court five times. Yet. Vent lost a case we have not lost a case yet. The court has said the congress information. O that these letters are fine, but delay as we put them on they mean as if something. E says the russians interfered in our election. They did. The irony is one of the reasons he Obama Administration<\/a> didnt is more involved in that because there was some knowledge by some they were interfering on suspicion of mr. Trump because of some of the evidence we heard. Stones case. The ates testified about president had the about wikileaks and about the nvitation for wikileaks to release information. Sondland changed his testimony. Weve gone to court. The administration has refused cooperate. The gentleman ignores those facts. Theyre facts. That are re facts generally accepted across the land. Supportersse who are of the president. To have this discussion. They are going to have this senate. On in the but the president chose not to to defend the se allegation against the allegations. They werent id going to participate. They had the opportunity. They did not take it. What happens from there. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the yielding, and i would not discount things like secretary from the of defense who, on october 7 of 2019 october 7 of received a subpoena, and on 2019 responded. Thats not delay. Obfuscation. A week later they responded and said, the department is prepared the process consistent with long standing ractice and provide the responsive information should there be a resolution to this matter. Later. A week that doesnt sound like somebody rying to run away from a request for a subpoena. A week later you got a response. Ou might not have liked the response, but there was not a then followup, were going to you, department of defense. The secretary of defense sent this a week after your question, and youre going to impeach a because you didnt like this answer and say, oh, hes obstructing . Gain, i go back to fast and furious. One example. President obama, six years we get the information, six years. We didnt try to impeach him for that. Mean he was breaking the law or committing high crimes and misdemeanors. He delayed a lot longer than we would have liked. Six years is a lot longer than get ould have taken to answers to real questions about people who died. And or six years we waited worked and went and got those answers. Thats the Legal Process<\/a>. Maybe we should Work Together<\/a> if we think thats too long to speed it up. But that was six years. This was one week. One week after the subpoena, the secretary of defense himself sent you this letter. Call us and work with us to get you this information you didnt follow up, you said no, we dont like it. Thats too late. Its delaying. A week later you got an answer, and you didnt like the answer so you said, lets impeach the president of the United States<\/a>. Theres letter after letter like this from other agencies. But this wasnt three years later. You got an answer. Maybe you could raise questions then. Go to the courts. But you didnt. You got an answer a week later. Thats delaying . To the point where youd impeach a president of the United States<\/a> . And you dont think those conversations happened during nixon . You dont think those conversations with the white house happened during clinton where there were things they didnt feel they had to give that were subpoenaed and they went back and forth but they came to an agreement. Means you got to sit down and work with people you might not like. Its been clear on the other side that there are some on your side that hate this president , that dont want him to be president. We can understand, we have elections for that. We had an election in 2016 and he was duly elected. Then you allege head conspired with russia. But he didnt. Russia tried to interfere on barack obama and joe bidens watch. It was their watch that it happened. President trump didnt have any involvement in that. And the Mueller Report<\/a> made that clear. But then you kept going on making assertion after assertion just like in these two articles of impeach. And you come up with abuse of power and coquote professor turley, one of the witnesses from last week, the only abuse of power is by this majority trying to remove a president from office for exercising his rights under the law. A week after your request. Your subpoena. A week after. You got a letter from the secretary of defense himself. And thats enough to impeach a president. I yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. We could go on, all day on this. But the fact is, that letter, it says one week. The fact of the matter is this president has been defying congress for years in terms of giving it information it constitutionally had the right to have. Hes not responded to the fact, weve gone to court. Weve won every case. Its not like the court said oh, they have the right to do this, ey can go back and forth for days and years and months. The court said no, theyre entitled to the information. Dont send me a letter, send me the information that i request. For you to pretend that that was just one weeks delay, its been years of delay to responding to information requested legitimately by the congress of the United States<\/a>. And after months of going to the court, the courts have come to a conclusion over and over and over again that congress is entitled to that information. Two courts have now decided that were entitled to his Tax Information<\/a> and to his financial information. We havent gotten it. Why . Because he appeals again. Why . Because thats his modus operandi, as i said. He did it in private sector, hes doing it in the public sector. And what surprises me is im not wishing it but you may be in charge someday again. And youre going to be very upset with the precedent youre arguing for at this point in time in terms of not cooperating with the congress of the United States<\/a> in cubblingting its constitutional duties. As i said, we could go on and on on this, well have additional hearings, i would repeat again, usa today editorial, trump has met the impeachment investigation outright and unprecedented defiance. Which is one of the reasons i suppose they didnt appear. He instructed people who have information like john bolton, like secretary pompeo, like so many others, dont appear. Dont testify. Dont provide information. Obfuscation. Nd refusal to cooperate. But we will have an opportunity in the future and i hope that at this point in time we might cease and desist so our friends can have an opportunity to say what they want to say. Ut im prepared to proceed and to yield back if youre so disposed. Mr. Scalise i appreciate the gentleman yielding back. I hope the gentleman isnt asserting that the president of the United States<\/a>, like any other american, shouldnt have the right to appeal the decision. Ultimately the courts at some level will resolve any issue before them. The courts do that. Its the legal right of every american. Mr. Hoyer of course it is. Mr. Scalise if the gentleman is victorious in the court, would the gentleman recognize he lost that case or would the gentleman say thats obfuscation, following the Legal Process<\/a> . President obama for six years on fast and cure fures you, just one case. The gentleman hasnt been in the majority for a year yet, but somehow thats so long, a week later is so long you should impeach a president when just on fast and furious we didnt get answers from the white house and in some cases it took six years. It went through the courts. We won many of those cases, we didnt win all of them but we won against them. But when we won against the president we didnt impeach him for it. We got the information eventually. Took a lot longer than we would have liked. But the president , just like president obama, had the legal right to appeal decision he is might not have agreed with in courts like the ninth circuit who have one of the highestover turn rates of any circuit in the country. So if a circuit got it wrong and ultimately somewhere up higher they get it right is that somehow something you should impeach a president of the United States<\/a> for because they exercised their article 3 powers to go to the Judicial Branch<\/a> to get an answer to a question . I yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding, this could go on forever. Of course not. I didnt make that assertion, dont put it in my mouth. You have every right, not only the president but every citizen has a right to repair to the courts of the United States<\/a> for redress of grievances and pretsing of their case. Period. The president has that right. I never asserted that the president ought to be impeached on that basis nor do i assert it now. Nor do we assert it in our articles. Which have yet to be voted on so well see what they do on that vote. But let me remind the gentleman. Let me remind, mr. Speaker, the house. We had a vote in 2017, we had a vote in 2018. And we had a vote in 2019. Those votes were on whether or not we ought to move articles of impeachment forward to impeach the president of the United States<\/a>. I voted no on each one of those votes. Over 60 of the democrats voted no on each one some higher, on each one of those votes in 2017, 2018, and 2019. So when you assert, mr. Speaker, that somehow the democrats were just frothing at the bit to impeach this president , ypt to impeach this president. Wish this would pass from us. No one ran for congress to impeach a president of the United States<\/a>. But no one ought to shirk their responsibility and i will tell you, my belief, theres not a single republican in this house, these confronted with facts against president obama who wouldnt have voted to impeach president owahama. Not one of you. President obama. Not one of you. I am convinced to my bones and i have been here a long time an served with a lot of people. Not one of them would have voted against either one of these articles if president obama had done the same fact pattern with the same evidence. Not one of you would have voted against one of these articles. Thats my view, mr. Speaker. But well see. I said this morning according to the papers that were not whipping this, this is not about whipping some partisan vote. This is about each member having o decide with themselves, with their conscience, with their moral values, with their oath of office to defend and protect the constitution of the united tates. Whether or not, and you quote one witness, one constitutional three constitutional experts said if you do not move forward on impeachment, effectively the executive power will be unchecked and you will create a king, not a president. Three times this Congress Said<\/a> were not going forward. But then on july 25, a phone call occurred. In which this president clearly said to an ally to which we wanted to give 391 million to defend himself and his people , but with held because id like you to do me a favor. And that favor was not to help america. That favor was not to clean up corruption. Because hed already had certified by his departments that they had met that criteria. It was as the evidence is almost uncontroverted to help him in the coming election and to undermine somebody he perceived o be one of his, if not the, rincipal opponent. This is a heavy decision that this congress, house, will have to make. And each one of us will have to make it. Let us hope that each one of us makes it honestly, unrelated to politics or party. But related to patriotism and oath of office. And i yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to keep the record clear. When the president made that phone call, this misrepeated quote was this. I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine, they say crowdstrike, i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say, ukraine has it, there are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation, i think youre surrounding yourself with some of the same people. The president expressed concern with what happened in 2016, concern about what happened to our country. I would like you to do us a favor. Then he said our country. No mention of joe biden in there. No mention of him. Its about getting to the bottom of the corruption that we all know happened. We might not have all the answers we want, sure would like to get those answers, but it happened. It happened under barack obama and joe bidens watch, for whatever reason they didnt do enough to stop it, but when the gentleman asks if not one of us would vote against articles of impeachment if it was president obama, not one of us would have because we would have never brought these articles of impeachment. We didnt bring these kinds of articles of impeachment. Again, i just listed one case. Six years for fast and furious where people died. Benghazi where people died. Where we didnt get the answers we wanned. Where the administration rebuffed over and over again, but in the one time did we bring articles of impeach. Because they were not impeachable offenses, just like there are no impeach. Offenses here. So were whipping against it because this is not the way to Abuse Congress<\/a> power of impeachment like one of those witnesses last week said. In the call, some of the other witnesses constitutional scholars, when one of them tried to make fun of the son of the president of the United States<\/a>, tried to bully and make fun of his name, shameless, shameless, it happened, call that person a president ial scholar or impartial, when some of those witnesses gave money to candidates running for president against President Trump<\/a>, if thats the definition of impartial president ial scholars, i think we all take their perception of whether or not this president should be removed from office a little bit differently than somebody who truly is impartial. Even professor turley, who acknowledge head didnt vote for President Trump<\/a>, but said it would be abuse of Congress Power<\/a> to move forward with impeachment because there are no impeachable offenses. I would yield. News is, the good they didnt bring impeachment because he did nothing to warrant it. Of that i am of that. I yield. Mr. Scalise i yield back, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the yields back. The peaker pro tempore chair will entertain requests for oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute nd to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to of three navy sailo sailors whose lives were cut air station naval in pensacola, florida. Kaleb watson was 23 years old an pilot. Ires was an allstar athlete. His 20th birthday would have week. Ext cameron walters. According to camerons father, him prouder than to wear the uniform of the United States<\/a> sailor. When confronted with mortal an active shooter, these sailors charged the gunman, an action thats saving countless lives. Mr. Speaker, naval station great is in my district. Each year more than 40,000 pass through great lakes to become in the United States<\/a> navy. Ameron walters and mo haitham were two such sailors. The men and women who volunteered to wear the cloth of role models for all of us. Take us take this time to recognize their commitment and as a nation to ensure the heroic sacrifices of walters, on, cameron not ohammed haitham will every forgotten. Thank you. Back. Ld the speaker pro tempore the chair will receive a message. The messenger mr. Speaker, a senate. From the the secretary mr. Speaker. I have been directed by the senate to inform the house that has passed h. R. 233 an act to direct the comptroller to conduct an assessment of the responsibilities, workload and rate at the department of veterans, Suicide Prevention<\/a> oordinators and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute thank you, mr. Speaker. To recognize the monument f National Official<\/a> designation. I am proud of the monument and the uniquely american story of in the it played westward migration. Mr. Smith one of the highest it stood as raska, an mistakable part of the oregon trail. Hen i look at the monument, i cant help but think of the brave pioneers of the oregon trail. Oregon trail s, loaned mark, such as scottsbluff have al monument, must been a sight of awe. It must have served as keep going and to let them know they are well on their name. A ttsbluff was named by trader who died nearby. Just as the monuments name from early Economic Opportunity<\/a> in our region, the monument is still important to economy, drawing 150,000 people from across america and around the world each and every year. To thank the great folks who dedicate their time and hard work to keep the park so others maytion enjoy it for generations to come. It is with great pleasure i join with all nebraskans to celebrate the centennial of this oregon trail icon. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Today, i want to recognize a Nonprofit Organization<\/a> in my district providing a home for horses who have experienced abuse and neglect. Drew star fish equine rehabilitate and ultimately adopt unwanted, abused, and neglected horses. 2012, this organization has been rescuing horses from he most deplorable conditions and giving them a Second Chance<\/a> at life. Equine rescue works hard to bring these horses back identify caring and supportive homes in south jersey and in surrounded states. Addition to rescuing horses from abuse and neglect, star rescue horses are that were slated for slaughter are saved. This is a practice that ive joined with representatives other house d colleagues in opposing under hope someday h i will be the law of the land. The volunteers at star fish and adoptive homes of these once vulnerable horses have provided to south jersey into the future. We are proud of them. Back. Od bless, and i yield the speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina<\/a> seek recognition . I seek to unanimous to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my, are a. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Today, im proud to recognize my biggs, of bo umberton, North Carolina<\/a>, on his ascension to the chairmanship of the Golden Leaf Foundation<\/a> and in doing so to the significance to North Carolina<\/a> of the leads. Ation he now bo is a servant to his community nd state in business, professional and civic leadership. Os life of Service Includes<\/a> antioch cting bap baptist church, the chamber of the North Carolina<\/a> association of certified public merchantts, the Retail Association<\/a> and others. Time and again, bo has invested himself in the state of north its citizens and thats why im honored to recognize his new role with an committed tothats the same. Mr. Bishop ive seen firsthand in impact of golden leaf North Carolina<\/a>. It promotes cutting edge agriculture, creates new jobs, scholarships for future leaders. The Golden Leaf Foundation<\/a> has a 20year history of investing in north carolinians with over created, 624 million of new payroll economically the speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Bishop thank you, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition . For one ress the house minute and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, mr. Speaker. On behalf of the people of 12th lvanias congressional district, i rise to offer our condolences on the assage of former state representative jay doil korman. E represented the Jay Doyle Corman<\/a>. E represented areas in pennsylvanias 12th congressional district. Keller he championed lower taxes, transportation issues, local government, and reforming system. Tes welfare more importantly, senator corman man who proud himself on titles other than senator. Titles like public servant, husband, father, grandfather, greatgrandfather. Hese titles are senator cormans lasting achievements. An more so fitting as example for his son, jake, who ran for and won his senate seat fathers his retirement and has served as the Pennsylvania State<\/a> senate for the last r three legislative sessions. Man, community servant, and friend, that is the legacy doyle corman. On behalf of the people of pennsylvanias 12th congressional district, i send our heartfelt condolences to such a ly for loss of great figure and public servant. I yield back, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition . Mr. Thompson mr. Speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. Withoutker pro tempore objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Thompson thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to onor the life and legacy of former state senator Jay Doyle Corman<\/a> who passed away at the 87. Of doyle leaves behind his wife, becky. To 12 randfather randchildren and nine great grandchildren. State senator 20 years and 10 years prior to that of commissioner. Principle. N of deeply committed to service and the betterment of his community. Harrisburg mark on by championing critical transportation legislation, elping make pennsylvania a safer, more connected commonwealth. I can attribute doyles i am today when e convinced me in 2002 to follow in his footsteps as chairman. Pennsylvanians, its clear doyle will be sorely missed but his legacy not soon forgotten. Id like to offer my prayers and deepest condolences to becky and the entire family. You, mr. Speaker. And i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, sir. Through december 15, First Baptist<\/a> church of present carols by candlelight, a muchlove music tradition in mississippi that good news of the birth of our savior, jesus christ, through a man anyway sent christmas concert. Its year they celebrate 50th anniversary. With more than 325 choir 60 orchestra members and hundreds of volunteers, they present five Live Performances<\/a> before more than 16,000 excuse me people while many more will watch online. Guest mr. Speaker, id like baptist tulate first milestone. To god alone be the glory. Thank you and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy 2019, the 3, gentleman from nebraska, mr. For then berry, is recognized is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the minority leader. Mr. Fortenberry thank you, mr. Peaker, for the time, the recognition. Mr. Speaker, i went to the recently for a common ailment and he prescribed an i said, well, doc, lets check the price on that before we go any further. Worry about. Dont its commonly used throughout the world. Its about 6. What, it was 6 in the year 2011. Now the list price is about 430. Now, i have insurance provided by the house of representatives, which im thankful for. Even with that, its still close to 200. And then you have to start coupon to try to bring it down a little bit more. So why does an antibiotic just a years ago that cost 6 now 400 if 0 over someone has to pay cash . Why . Why . This is the question one of the premiere questions before debated this we today in a Prescription Drug<\/a> debate it was a robust and good debate and as i said earlier, i want to commend my raising colleagues for the issue and putting something on the table. Were substantive policy disagreements with that bill. There is a realistic fear if law, which the president said he will not sign, that we would undermine leading role and trugs lifesaving inventing lifesaving drugs. But there are real concerns how to contain costs, and we should focused on negotiations and government programs. I also commended my republican for having coalessing answer by all of the coalescing all of the Bipartisan Solutions<\/a> and it together in one package that presented an alternative. Either. Didnt pass so were stuck. Were right back to where we are. But i only tell my own personal story, not because this is about me. Simple issue. The little problem that i had. Americans are uffering grievously from this everescalating skyrocketing Prescription Drug<\/a> problem. In one case, lets just take, for instance, the case of insulin. About 30 million americans suffer diabetes and need insulin. Heres an important chart. It starts down here in the year 2011. Basically this is a chart that hows the price of insulin. 2011, or 2001, about 35. Here we are today approaching 300. What is happening . Ts about a 1,000 increase. Theres been modifications and improvements. Justifying a 1,000 increase . O. The price of insulin has gone up dramatically and there has to be a reason for it. Ig pharmaceutical companies. Responding to bad government policy responding to bad government policy, have created a huge mess in this space. Not just this problem with insulin but the average annual cost after brand name drug has more than tripled in the past decade. Families with diabetic children, seniors on medicare and others face prohibitively high costs for these lifesaving drugs and they deserve better. So i want to show you Something Else<\/a> right quick if i could. So this is a chart of the last five years. Going back to the issue of insulin. Again, 30 million americans are o or so need this drug. This is a difference between whats called the average net price and the average list price. So again weve got about 400 here, five years ago, now were up to almost 600. But look at this net price. So what does that mean . The net price is the price basically that the manufacturer is getting. The middle sector here, the marketing sector here is getting a much higher price. So whats a solution . We didnt come up with a good solution today on the house floor. So whats a real solution . Because we cant seem to solve the overall problem with one large piece of legislation, why dont we start with something very small. But its not small to people affected by diabetes. Why dont we just take this particular drug and allow the manufacturer to sell it directly to the patient. Again, we have an average price of about 600. And a net price of 135. That huge cost savings that could be obtained by a person in need by simply being able to pay this price is what im talking about here. So i dropped a piece of legislation. Im hopeful that it rallies republicans an democrats away from the big construct that we cant necessarily agree on but should continue to work toward, which involves major structural change. Why dont we do something that is very, very specific. One grup of americans who is suffering from exorbitantly high prices. Basically now under this oneline bill, manufacturers would be allowed to sell insulin directly to a patient. Its just one line. Many people write to me, im from nebraska. Many people rite writhe to me and say why does legislation have to be so complicated . Why dont you make it a single page . Ive made this one line. What we do when we do this is we cut out layers upon layers of management and bureaucracy that have driven the price upward while being fair to the manufacturer without undermining americas system of innovation that leads the world in producing lifesaving drugs. But nonetheless we aed this problem, this middle management if you will, with the way in which we dispense drug prices and thats part of the problem of why theyve gone up so fast. Especially around drugs like this. Again, not necessarily a brand new formulary. No no extraordinary innovation has happened over the last number of decades. Some changes, some modifications, improvements. But no way to justify these price increases. I think this would be a good dea that could unite us. To get us away from the large philosophical differences when we discuss how we move forward in ensuring that we both find fair prices and better cures without undermining the good, innovative leading industry in the United States<\/a>. But an industry that has a real problem, that really ought to be rallying around solutions that i am suggesting here. Its just one idea. Im hopeful its a start. This idea actually pulls a thread. Its specific enough to affect so many tens of millions of americans. And it would be so beneficial so lower costs without ini think ifing upon the dynamics of a good market system that we have. I think this is an answer. Perhaps this could be a good start. Besides this one line solution, mr. Speaker, another obvious solution here should be the acceleration of generic drugs. Drug companies, however, have a long history of slowwalking generic drug approval through legal maneuvers an anticompetitive prices and patent extensions. Ive been given a unique responsibility in helping to lead the house agricultural subcommittee, the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture, which has oversight responsibility of the food and drug administration. And through our focused efforts, the f. D. A. Is reforming the generic approval process. Cracking down harder on pharmaceutical companies who are exploiting loopholes to modify patents for not so unique drugs is one way to grow generics. Currently even a small modification in a drug can be enough to get it approved by the patent and trademark office. In 2018, an analysis found that patent protection for 70 of the 100 bestselling drugs was extended at least once and this is a significant cost struggle. According to the f. D. A. , the food and drug administration, when generic competition exists, prices are often 80 to 85 less than brand name drugs. With 90 of generic prescriptions available for less than 20 for patients with insurance, that translates into very real savings for families across this country. The Government Accounting Office<\/a> says generics can save the United States<\/a> health care system, get this, well over trillion in the 10year window. We could spend another hour speaking about the Financial Difficulties<\/a> that were having. Weve got a good, strong, growing economy. Many people are finally finally, thankfully, finding access to meaningful work and there is an appropriate upward pressure on wages in this country. But what erodes that, the escalating cost of health care. For people who are in need of lifesaving drugs, this is fundamentally unfair. Again, our efforts at trying to move generics faster to market, to identify abuse and stop it, can result in savings like this. Huge. This is good Public Policy<\/a> and were working on it. Another important piece of legislation allows pharmacists to tell a patient about therapeutically equivalent but less costly drugs as an alternative method that is less expensive. For a small number of lifesaving but rarely used, what we call ar fanned drugs, we need to prevent single corporations from exploiting a small market nearby of desperate patients who sometimes find thems in a life or death struggle. Further, mr. Speaker, i would suggest this, getting at another root cost driver of Prescription Drug<\/a>s, we do need to change how we procure drugs in large public programs. Our government, through medicare and medicaid and tricare and other programs is the largest purchaser of Prescription Drug<\/a>s in the world. The department of health and human services, however, is prohibited by law from negotiating what it pays with manufacturers. But not the veterans administration, by the way. So there is broad bipartisan consensus in congress as well as with the white house that this policy needs to change. We should be negotiating. I should note that that was part of the earlier bill submitted to the floor. Again, substantive policy disagreements that could potentially undermine americas leading role. But that aspect of this and the Democrat Bill<\/a> that was submitted is an important Public Policy<\/a> initiative. Again, i want to commend my colleagues in that regard. Mr. Speaker, a Prescription Drug<\/a> should really do two simple things. It should cure disease but at a fair price. And as we have seen today there were two very large bills debated but unfortunately, in this political environment, one is a Democrat Bill<\/a>, one is a republican bill, and no consensus exists. But after the smoke clears, i hope that reasonable people will ke a pathway for the right solutions and not political anger. This system is sick. Our people deserve better cures at fairer prices. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. Green is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. The gentleman has the floor. Mr. Green thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, and still i rise with love of country at heart and my notes in hand. I rise today, mr. Speaker remembering something from my childhood. My grandfather was a minister. And he reminded the grandchildren that there is no one so blind as he who chooses not to see. 0 20 vision but the person who chooses not to see is the blindest of all. No one so blind as those who choose not to see. Ofring this to the attention those who are listening for specific reason. I cannot impose understanding, i cannot cause people to say that they understand that which they already understand but choose not to acknowledge, but what i can do is this. I can encourage us to open our eyes and see what is happening to our country, the country that i assume we all love. I can encourage us to see whats happening to Public Discourse<\/a>, to Pay Attention<\/a> to things that are happening in the public arena that are greatly different than the things we have been acclimated to. Different dear friends, i dont believe that we should have in our Public Discourse<\/a> the chief executive officer saying things that we dont want our children to repeat. The chief executive officer is to be a leader in many ways. We tell our children, one day you can grow up and be the chief executive officer. You can be the head of state. And we want people to look up to the chief executive officer, the head of state. I dont think most of us would have our children go to a public rally and engage in some of the discourse that weve seen. Some of the scatology, the profanity, that seems to be part of this discourse thats almost commn place now from the chief executive officer. My dear friend, there is something happening to us. And while it may not all occur in one day, over a period of time, it can become commonplace. Have you not noticed how have you not noticed on the various talk shows, people are using a level of discourse that we would find unacceptable that i find unacceptable that was not commonplace from years ago, not so long ago. Im hearing more profanity being used. Im not a perfect servant but a public servant. Im not a perfect person. I dont claim to be perfect. But i can say to you i want to be i want to be like that person who happens to be the chief executive officer. At some point, something has to say to us that something is going on here that is unacceptable. When you weaponize hate so that you can have an advantage, theres something wrong. We ought not weapon nies hate and bigotry to gain an advantage. We ought not try to with intention atlanta create ashes on the dreams of others, turn them into ashes so we can fulfill from desire. We ought not with intention say things that we know are not true that could be harmful to others. Im not a perfect servant, but i see something happening to my country. And i beg that we open our eyes and look at this for what it is, the level of hate is increasing. The level of harm being done to people by others that they dont know that will traverse great distances to hurt them because they happen to be of a certain ancestry or go into a certain neighborhood to hurt someone because they are of a certain religion, we are seeing more of this level of hate. I say to you we must open our eyes and see what is happening to our country. Theres a desire to believe that this is just something that we can laugh at. Its just amusing. This discourse that we see when the chief executive officer has throngs of people around him making light of things that at one time we would not tolerate. There is something wrong when you start to tolerate this. Those who tolerate hate perpetuate hate. We are going to be a part of the ason why this continues to grow, to propagate, to infect our society. We can do something about this. We should not allow this level of discourse to continue. And by the way, there is something we can do about it is not allow it to be something that we accept. We dont have to do anything re for some of us then maybe change the channel or not attend the deaths where these things are taking place. We dont have to make this as acceptable to any one of us. I mention all of these things because i know that this level of ugly discourse is going to be something that we are going to have to live with a lot longer than we choose unless we choose to do something about it. So i just ask of you, just Pay Attention<\/a> to whats happening to our society. Pay attention to the words that are being said and the way people are being demeaned by the chief executive officer, who sets the standard, who is the standard bearer. Pay attention to whats going on. Beg that you would please, lets open our eyes and see how a Single Person<\/a>, a Single Person<\/a> is corrupting the discourse. Not only by the way at rallies and among those who are on talk shows, but also here in the congress of the United States<\/a> of america. I arrived here in 2005 and since then the discourse in congress has changed to the expense that people are saying things that i thought we would never hear in e congress in terms of profanity, demeaning commentary. Now im not saying dont speak truth. Speak truth. But what i am saying is, what were saying to hurt people just to be harmful, to let people somehow be demeaned, just to demean people, i find that unacceptable. And i just beg that we would not be so blind as those who choose not to see. I think that society is not lost overnight, but the general cyst f the law is discourse, Public Discourse<\/a> that degenerates to the extent that the humanity of every person is lessened. Where people at some point conclude those people, they dont belong. Those people, they dont count. Every human being means something and counts. And we ought not allow ourselves to allow things to happen that happened to babies in cages. We ought not to aloursh allow that certain religions isnt acceptable. What can happen to one religion can happen to every religion. Every child is sacred and accord a certain amount of dees sensey to all deesens si to all people. I cant believe things that we are tolerating. There was a time in this country we would not tolerate having a person acknowledge that among racists and bigots, there was some very fine people or nice people. There was a time we wouldnt tolerate that. But we do now. There was a time when certain olks that are being used and propagated, we wouldnt tolerate. But we do now. So my comment to america and to our country and to the people who care is at some point, this level of hate is going to become a bigger problem than we care to deal with unless we deal with it now. We should. We should deal with it. Cannot allow it to become something that future generations will have to contend with. Its easy to believe that this is a temporary condition until its no longer a temporary condition. Irreparable harm is a term we use in law. At some point it becomes irreparable harm. At some point, there will be people who will suffer where they cant recover. I know of people in the Latino Community<\/a> who live with a great degree of apprehension, born in this country, american, live with a great degree of apprehension because of what happened in el paso. I know of people who are of a certain faith, citizens of this country, who live with apprehension because of what happened in charlottesville. We ought not allow the discourse , this incited discourse to create circumstances where people are harmed and we are seeing it happen, but i think that some of us choose not to see the harmful impact that it is having on our society. My message is very simple today. I beg, lets take a look, just open our eyes and lets look at what is happening to our country if we can do this, we can change this. This ought not be the case in the greatest country in the world. There is no one so blind as he who chooses not to see. I hope understanding will prevail and that we will decide that we will not tolerate the level of hateful discourse that we are suffering and that many people suffer from because there are other persons who hurt them after being exposed to this incited discourse, this insend area language, this weapon weapon nizzation of hate. I dont say these things because i want to make sure im personally protected. I bring these words because i know of the suffering in various communities, those who are suffering from antisemitism, i know about it. Those suffering from racism, i know. The variousing from related forms of hate to who you happen to be, i know about it. Xenophobia, i know, i have constituents and i ow that they expect me to do this. They expect someone to say that people are quietly suffering. They expect us to do this. They send us to congress to do this. We ought not tolerate this level of hate because we perpetrate it and we ought to do something about it. In the beginning, this is the word, this is the word. Im talking about it now. And i pray we will become each of us a committee of one to do something about the hate that is being perpetrated among people in this country that is causing harm to other people in this country. I thank you for the time, mr. Speaker. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Members are reminded to refrain in engaging in personalities directed towards the president. Does the gentleman have a otion . Mr. Green i now move that the house adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed it. The ayes have it and minimum evidence. When mr. Yarmak says there is no pressure, that is evidence. This there is no evidence of","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803107.us.archive.org\/27\/items\/CSPAN_20191212_195900_U.S._House_of_Representatives_U.S._House_of_Representatives\/CSPAN_20191212_195900_U.S._House_of_Representatives_U.S._House_of_Representatives.thumbs\/CSPAN_20191212_195900_U.S._House_of_Representatives_U.S._House_of_Representatives_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}