March 28, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 54 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H2900-H2906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for two important reasons. One is to inquire of the majority 
leader the schedule for the coming week, and also to inquire of the 
majority leader the score of the LSU-Maryland basketball game from last 
week.
  I yield to my good friend from Maryland.

[[Page H2901]]

  

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I anticipated this was going to be an 
extraordinarily hostile colloquy.
  Louisiana was so incredibly lucky. However, it cost me, I admit to 
the world, I guess. I hope I don't get in legal trouble. But the 
Republican whip and I had a little sort of side bet, so I owe the 
Republican whip a crab dinner for four people. That is the bad news.
  The good news is the minority whip will now be eating the best crab 
in America, not Louisiana crab. It will be Maryland crab that I will be 
giving him for dinner.
  Mr. Speaker, if my friend would like to ask some questions about the 
schedule--or he did ask me, I am told. But I knew that game was coming.
  Mr. SCALISE. I will be happy to ask both questions again.
  I look forward to the Maryland crab dinner. I think, as the gentleman 
from Maryland knows, a lot of times when you go to places and they say 
it is Maryland crab, it is really Gulf of Mexico crab, because they 
want the best quality to offer the patrons.
  We were excited to see the buzzer beater. I know both of us were 
waiting in those last 12 seconds to see which team would walk away with 
the Sweet 16 banner. I am proud that my mighty Fighting Tigers of LSU 
were in that number. But we will come to D.C., and, hopefully, the 
gentleman will now be rooting for us so that he can say he rooted for 
the eventual national champion, LSU Tigers, to win the Final Four.
  I yield to the gentleman to hear about the schedule for the coming 
week in Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think it keeps getting worse. In any event, 
we will move on to the schedule.
  I congratulate LSU. They played an excellent game, as did Maryland. 
It was a really good game. There has to be one winner and one loser, 
and we lost.
  We have the fourth youngest team in the NCAA, so we will be back next 
year. Maybe we will be able to play LSU again, if they make it.
  On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 
p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate 
and noon for legislative business.
  On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 9 a.m. and recess 
immediately. The House will reconvene at 11 a.m. for the purpose of 
receiving a joint meeting with the Senate. His Excellency Jens 
Stoltenberg, the Secretary General for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, will address us. Members are advised to be on the House 
floor and seated no later than 10:30 a.m. for the joint meeting.
  Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for 
legislative business, with last votes no later than 3 p.m. We will 
consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list 
of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider a major piece of 
legislation, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act 
of 2019. Frankly, that bill should have been reauthorized prior to 
September 30 of last year in the last Congress. We extended it until 
February 15 of this year, at which time it lapsed. We are very hopeful 
and expect that this will pass this next week.
  It is sponsored by Representative Karen Bass. I am pleased to bring 
this bipartisan bill to the floor, in response to our Nation's crisis 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  The Violence Against Women Act officially expired on September 30. As 
I said, it was extended. It is way overdue that we consider a long-term 
authorization of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is possible that we will bring to the floor 
legislation regarding the crisis that is occurring in Yemen. There are 
22 million people at risk of starvation--22 million people at risk of 
starvation--noncombatants, women, and children.
  We also may consider other legislation, if it comes from the Senate.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule 
update.
  I would like to inquire, we know that there are only 7 legislative 
days left for Congress to meet its required deadline to provide a 
budget, the April 15 deadline. What troubles me is that there has been 
no budget brought through the House Budget Committee. In fact, there 
have been reports that your majority doesn't plan to bring a budget at 
all.
  Obviously, the budgets are very important to show the priorities of 
our Congress, to show the priorities of each of our majorities, as we 
did in 7 of the 8 years we were in the majority, not only doing a 
budget, but then, this last year, we were able to reach a 2-year budget 
agreement, so we were able to know with certainty what the budget 
numbers were that we would actually be working on to draft our 
appropriations bills. Again, the bills carry out the priorities of 
Congress, to show the country how we are going to properly fund 
government at the levels that we, as a Congress, set, which is what the 
budget does.
  As I have seen, there is no current budget agreement negotiation 
going on that is yielding anything. So, without a budget agreement, 
does the gentleman plan to at least provide and bring a budget to the 
House floor?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. It is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker, that the 
minority whip asked me.
  I would ask, in response, a question: Does the minority whip remember 
when last year, when you were in charge, you brought the budget to the 
floor?

  Mr. SCALISE. I will be happy to walk through the last 8 years.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman a simple question. He 
asked me about when the budget was coming, and I asked him when did he 
bring the budget to the floor last year.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, last year, as the gentleman knows, we were 
working under a 2-year budget agreement. Typically, we don't have a 2-
year budget agreement. You bring one budget, and that is the budget for 
that year.
  For fiscal year 2012, the House passed a budget. In our majority, we 
passed a budget to establish those numbers to then start the 
appropriations process.
  In 2013, we passed through the House a budget to establish the 2013 
budget numbers to work off of.
  In 2014, we passed a budget through the House to establish the budget 
for that fiscal year.
  In 2015, we passed a budget through the House to establish a budget 
for that year.
  In 2016, we actually got an agreement, both between the House and the 
Senate, and passed the budget, of course, through the House and the 
Senate.
  In fiscal year 2017, we passed a budget through the House and the 
Senate and got a full agreement to do an appropriations process.
  In fiscal year 2018, as the gentleman knows, we actually agreed to a 
2-year budget agreement to not only set the fiscal year numbers for 1 
year, but for 2 years, which was tremendously helpful in making sure 
that our Nation's defense, which many times had been used as bargaining 
chips for other budget negotiations, we took that off the table. We 
made sure our men and women in uniform had the certainty of a 2-year 
budget agreement, which doesn't happen often. Frankly, it should happen 
more often, and we should strive toward that, so we achieved that.
  In 2019, as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget out of the House 
Budget Committee, but we already had a budget agreement to work through 
the appropriations process because we had done a 2-year budget the 
prior year.

                              {time}  1115

  We don't have even a 1-year budget agreement right now. And as the 
gentleman knows, there are no fruitful negotiations to get a 1- or 2-
year budget agreement, so there is no budget number to work off of, 
which is why you produce a budget.
  Last year, we did bring a bill out of committee, but we didn't need 
to pass a budget because we already had the budget number agreed to 
from the 2-year deal prior.
  And so with that, is the gentleman willing to engage in or come to an 
agreement on at least a 1- or 2-year budget agreement so that we can 
actually have an appropriations process that works for the country and 
shows the priorities of this Nation?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

[[Page H2902]]

  

  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, a lot of words of the minority 
whip.
  He didn't pass the budget last year. There was no fiscal year 2019 
budget. He is correct that we had reached a caps deal. That is not the 
budget, Mr. Speaker.
  A budget is a plan that is reported out and brought to the floor and 
passed and sent to the Senate, and the Senate passes it and we have a 
budget that is in the same position on each side of the aisle. That is 
a budget. That has rarely been done in the last 8 years.
  A caps deal has been reached. I would like to see a caps deal 
reached.
  I have been talking to Mr. McConnell, who wants a caps deal reached; 
I have talked to Mr. Shelby--both of those, Republican leaders. I have 
talked to the White House about a caps deal.
  Unfortunately, I don't think Mr. Mulvaney wants to reach a caps deal. 
He wants to use it as leverage as opposed to allowing us to proceed in 
the regular order.
  But a budget is a different kettle of fish, I will tell my friend, 
than a caps deal. A caps deal does, in fact, set the 302 level of 
discretionary funding for both defense and nondefense spending.
  Yes, we reached the 2-year cap deal. I have been trying for the last 
2 months to get meaningful negotiations underway to do the same. I have 
not been successful, largely because the President, apparently, and Mr. 
Mulvaney are not interested in reaching such a deal. I regret that.
  But the Budget Committee is meeting this week--it is going to meet 
next week, and we are going to be reporting out what will be what the 
minority whip refers to as a budget. It will certainly speak to the 
levels of funding that we need to spend.
  I want to pass the appropriation bills by June 30. That has never 
been done, but I want to do it. I think we can do it, Mr. Speaker, and 
I am going to work towards that objective. It will require reaching 
what numbers are going to be for discretionary spending.
  Unfortunately, the budget that the President of the United States 
sent down to Congress is totally unreasonable and irrational, and there 
is not a single person, I think, on this floor who will support his 
budget.
  I will tell the minority whip that I will be glad to give his party 
the opportunity to vote on the President's budget. If he asks me, I 
will have it put on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not able to get to a 
budget caps deal. We passed and began, in my view, an irrational--and I 
voted for it, and I am sorry that I voted for it--Budget Control Act, 
creating the sequester.
  ``Sequester'' is a complicated word which starts with S, which I tell 
my people in my district and town, many, stands for ``stupid.'' It was 
an irrational document that took numbers out of the air without regard 
to our responsibilities and our opportunities.
  But I am hopeful, and I tell the Republican whip, my friend, that we 
are going to try to--hopefully, working with his party--establish some 
reasonable, rational numbers for defense and nondefense discretionary 
funding so that we can move ahead with doing what really makes the 
difference, and that is the adoption of appropriation bills on this 
floor; send them to the Senate; have the Senate consider them; and we 
will have a conference, and we will pass those bills and send them to 
the President of the United States.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am hopeful that we are able to 
start an appropriations process and, ideally, to complete it by 
summer--well in advance of the September 30 government funding 
deadline--because we shouldn't be operating under deadline after 
deadline, where we go until the midnight hour.
  But as the gentleman knows, you can't start an appropriations process 
until you actually set what are known as the 302 numbers, the 302(a) 
and (b) numbers, so that we know what each appropriations bill can 
target in terms of its overall spending number, to have that caps 
limit.
  Ideally, it would be done through a budget with the April 15 
deadline, but maybe the gentleman is going to be able to work with the 
committee to get a budget passed out of committee before the deadline 
and, if not, as the gentleman urges, a hopeful desire to get a caps 
deal. I would like to get a caps deal as well.
  I supported the last caps deal because it gave us 2 years of 
certainty. It was bipartisan. It was an agreement that, while we may 
disagree on top-line numbers--and we want more money for defense, and 
some on your side might want more for nondefense discretionary--we 
finally came to an agreement. That did give tremendous certainty to our 
men and women in uniform. So over 70 percent of this Federal Government 
was fully funded for the fiscal year.
  Clearly, we had a difference on border security, and that remaining 
area of our budget wasn't funded. But at least the 70-plus percent of 
the people of this country who rely on those services and want a strong 
defense were able to see us achieve that. Hopefully, we can do 
something like that again well before the deadline. That is the 
objective.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield simply for clarification?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield.

  Mr. HOYER. I want the public, Mr. Speaker, to understand that a caps 
deal is not a budget. They are two separate items:
  A budget is a plan for expenditure on defense and nondefense 
objectives. A caps deal is to simply set not necessarily those 
priorities per se, but to set a top level of discretionary spending. 
That is why it is called a cap.
  It has been about $1.1 trillion or $1.2 trillion--now, it is going to 
be a little over that this year, I presume--for discretionary spending. 
Most of the budget, of course, is not discretionary spending. Two-
thirds of the budget is either mandatory spending or debt payment.
  I just want to clarify that we are talking about two separate items. 
One is a budget, which is a budget plan which can, in fact, include 
caps within it, but a caps deal is a separate deal.
  As the gentleman has pointed out, we have usually made them now for 2 
years since the sequester would otherwise have gone into effect. The 
reason we made that deal is both sides--both sides--are unwilling to 
follow the sequester because we think the sequester does not make 
rational sense for the security of our country and for the investments 
our country needs to make.
  The President doesn't want to do that either. The difference is, he 
wants to borrow an additional $180 billion-plus to fund defense and 
leave domestic discretionary spending largely at 2010 or 2009 levels. 
We think that doesn't make sense.
  But I will clarify for the gentleman again that the Budget Committee 
is, in fact, considering what legislation they should bring to the 
floor in order to facilitate us, as the caps deals did, to facilitate 
us achieving the ability to mark up our appropriation bills, send them 
to the Senate, and try to reach agreement between the Senate and the 
House prior to September 30, and certainly to avoid the historic and 
very harmful shutdown that occurred at the end of the last Congress and 
continued into this Congress.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, you have two 
methods within which to set those caps: You can do it through the 
budget--which 7 of the 8 years we were in the minority we did--or you 
can do it through a separate caps deal, which 2 years ago we were able 
to do for a 2-year period, which is why we didn't do a budget last 
year. We passed it out of committee and at least showed what our 
priorities are, but we didn't need to pass a budget to get a caps deal 
because we had a caps deal in place from the prior year.
  The other 7 years there was no caps deal, so the budget laid out that 
number, and the gentleman's majority has done neither. You don't have a 
caps deal or a budget, and so at some point you are going to have to 
produce the number to show what we are going to start the 
appropriations process using.
  The other part of the budget, which isn't talked about as much but is 
equally important, is the establishment of the priorities for that 
majority. How do we get back to a balanced Federal budget, for example? 
We laid that out in our budget multiple times.
  We have programs like Medicare. Medicare is going bankrupt if we do 
nothing. It would be irresponsible for us to let Medicare go to 
bankruptcy. Actual reports show it could go bankrupt in the next 8 
years, which we

[[Page H2903]]

think is irresponsible. That is why we put, in our budget, a plan to 
save Medicare from bankruptcy.
  Whatever the gentleman's plan would be to save Medicare from 
bankruptcy, I would urge him to show it. Show the American people what 
the priorities are. But they haven't done that.
  And why? Why haven't they done that? Because they have spent the last 
2 years trying to impeach the President, trying to lay out this 
foundation that there was collusion.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman will yield in a moment.
  But let's be clear, for the last 2 years we heard this clarion call 
that there was some collusion between the President or his family and 
Russia. We heard all this talk about impeachment and everything on down 
from the highest levels, including, now, the chairman of the House 
Intelligence Committee, who went multiple times on national TV and said 
there was more than credible evidence of collusion.
  Finally, everybody was waiting on the Mueller report. Many were 
hanging their hat, saying it is going to show all these things. There 
is going to be a list of indictments. Go look at all the tapes from 
every national TV show you can imagine of some of the most outlandish 
claims that were made. And now the Mueller report comes out, and it is 
clear those claims are baseless. There was no collusion.
  Mr. HOYER. The Mueller report is not out, Mr. Whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. There was no collusion.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  The Mueller report is not out. The only report that is out is the 
Barr four-page letter report.
  Mr. SCALISE. We will see the full Mueller report.
  Mr. HOYER. I hope you are right, Mr. Whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Clearly, we have seen assessments of it. If the 
gentleman thinks it is going to show something differently, then please 
share it, but they made it clear there was no collusion and there will 
be no further indictments.
  In fact, the Attorney General of the United States said this: ``But 
as noted above, the special counsel did not find that the Trump 
campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with 
the Russian Government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from 
Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.''
  So multiple times they were offered, they never even came close. 
There was no collusion.
  These conspiracy theories, the witch hunts, it is time for it to end. 
There was no collusion.
  If you or any of your colleagues have proof of collusion, as your 
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee claims, they need to show 
that to the Attorney General of the United States, because it 
completely contradicts what the Attorney General has now said based on 
the findings of the Mueller report.

  There was no collusion.
  And so when Chairman Schiff says, ``more than circumstantial 
evidence''--that he has seen--``that associates of President Trump 
colluded with Russia''--in August, ``I think there is plenty of 
evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.''
  And even now that the Attorney General makes it very clear there was 
no collusion, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee will not 
recant his previous statements that have been discounted.
  Today, as the gentleman knows, this morning, every member of the 
minority party on the House Intelligence Committee called for the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee to step down, every member.
  So I would ask the gentleman: Will you call for the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee to step down as chairman after losing so much 
credibility in the wild and vicious claims that he has made that have 
been disputed by the Attorney General of the United States based on 
this Mueller report after 22 months and over $20 million of taxpayer 
money that found no collusion?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, what it found is six of the President's 
closest associates--his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, 
his foreign policy adviser, his national security adviser, his lawyer 
and counsel for over a decade--all committed crimes. All were either 
convicted or pled to crimes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Crimes of collusion?
  Mr. HOYER. You had a lot to say. I have something in response.
  There is not a person on our side of the aisle who doesn't believe 
the letter that you issued regarding Mr. Schiff isn't totally a 
partisan distraction from what you hope is not found. There has been no 
Mueller report yet that we have received.
  The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, voted to have the Mueller report, as did 
every other member on his side of the aisle and every member on our 
side of the aisle, to be disclosed. Hopefully, it will be.

                              {time}  1130

  Hopefully, it will not be just a four-page letter from the Attorney 
General of the United States appointed by Mr. Trump. Hopefully, we will 
get Mr. Mueller's full report. That is what the Congress voted to get. 
That is what we expect to get, and that is what we hope to get.
  Let me assure the gentleman that there is not a person on my side of 
the aisle that believes that Mr. Schiff has done anything but act in 
the highest interest of our government, of the Intelligence Committee, 
and of full knowledge for the American people, unlike his predecessor 
who worked hand-in-glove with the White House, not as an independent 
coequal branch of government, but as an advocate for the White House's 
position, who clearly should have been removed and was not.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the minority whip that Mr. Schiff is a member 
of the highest integrity, highest intellect, and has great 
responsibility. I expect him to pursue his responsibilities as chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee to assure that neither Russia nor any 
other country will in the future be able to interfere in the elections 
of the United States, as Mr. Mueller concluded the Russians have.
  Now, the President hasn't concluded that, but almost every American 
understands that the Russians tried to, on behalf of the President of 
the United States, affect the elections. So I tell my friend, I hope 
that we can have the debate. Let's look at the Mueller report.
  Very frankly, there are other investigations that are going on, as 
the gentleman knows, in the Southern District of New York, as well as 
in the Government Operations Subcommittee, as well as in the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, as well as in the Financial Services Committee, as 
well as in the Intelligence Committee.
  We still pale in insignificance in the number of investigations that 
we have had or oversight hearings that we have had when compared to the 
oversight hearings the Republicans had of the Obama administration and 
Mrs. Clinton in trying to undermine their credibility, an 
administration that, by the way, I don't think anybody was put in legal 
jeopardy and there were no scandals in the Obama administration.
  There were disagreements, but I would think the gentleman ought to be 
very reserved, very frankly, in terms of making conclusions based upon 
a four-page letter before we have seen the Mueller report, before we 
have seen the actions of the Southern District of New York, and before 
we have seen the results of the oversight hearings that are continuing.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there are a number of 
items that need to be addressed in what the gentleman just said.
  First of all, to claim that there was any collusion as you said, ``on 
behalf of the President of the United States with Russia'' goes in 
complete contradiction to the findings that were delivered to us by the 
Attorney General of the United States, and I am going to read it one 
more time.

       As we noted above, the special counsel did not find that 
     the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or 
     coordinated with the Russian Government.

  Anyone who would make a claim to the contrary is either being 
irresponsible or ought to show the evidence. If there is evidence that 
the chairman of the Intelligence Committee has, and

[[Page H2904]]

let's be clear, he has tweeted things out, here is what we know. This 
is from Chairman Schiff. In 2017, here is what we know: The Russians 
offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help. The 
President made full use of that help. He has claimed, again, that he 
has more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion.
  Yet, the Attorney General of the United States, after reviewing the 
entire Mueller report, which we hope we all see, obviously, within the 
confines of the law--the law makes it clear how something like that 
gets reported--I hope the gentleman understands and wouldn't suggest 
that classified information should be disclosed--but the report ought 
to be disclosed and show the American people what they have found. But 
we have seen the summary of it, and, of course, we are going to look at 
the entire thing.
  And maybe then after reviewing the entire thing, if the gentleman 
does see, as the report summary shows, that there was no collusion with 
the President of the United States, then maybe this gentleman and all 
of the other people who have made outrageous claims that the President 
was in collusion, will maybe acknowledge they were wrong, will maybe 
offer an apology. Who knows. We can hold out hope for that.
  But let's be clear about the statements that were made and the things 
that were alluded to that aren't true, that weren't the case. Maybe it 
was wishful thinking and it shouldn't have been. No one should hope 
that the President of the United States, any President, conspired with 
a foreign government.
  But to suggest it over and over again for 2 years, and then for all 
of this 22 months of investigation, thorough investigation, multiple 
countries visited, over $20 million of taxpayer money, more than our 
committees have to run all of their oversight operations to thoroughly 
investigate, they found there was no collusion.
  Sure, the Russians tried to meddle with elections and they have done 
it before, and we ought to make sure that it doesn't happen again, and 
we can work together on that. But to suggest that the President of the 
United States colluded when he didn't, is irresponsible. And it has 
happened over and over, and it continues to this day. It has got to 
stop.
  This idea that maybe some other attempt to go and harass the 
President and his family is going to find something else, it gives 
credence to the claims it was a witch hunt. It is time for us to focus 
on the real problems of this country.
  It is also time for us to hold people in our intelligence agencies 
accountable, those who showed up at their job with a partisan agenda.
  The FBI, CIA, or any intelligence agency is no place for you to bring 
your political agenda. We all have political views. But if someone puts 
that badge on and accepts that responsibility, and then uses that 
position to abuse power, we all ought to call on it to be rooted out, 
and I hope it is rooted out.

  If there were abuses of the FISA process, which is a very important 
court that has a very narrow focus to protect the national security of 
this country, if the FISA court was abused by people in positions of 
power because they wanted to carry out a political agenda because they 
didn't like the results of the 2016 Presidential election, that is not 
the place for it.
  The ballot box next year is the place to go carry it out, not wearing 
the badge and being a member of law enforcement in this country. So I 
hope that is rooted out, because we want to see the integrity of those 
institutions like the FBI restored. I want the country to have full 
faith and confidence that the people working there are carrying out the 
national security interests of the country, not their own political 
interests.
  There are a lot of questions raised over whether or not that 
happened. But in the end, when we review the report--we have seen the 
summary. If people are still hoping that there is some mystery 
indictment out there--they said there are no further indictments. They 
said there was no collusion with the Presidential campaign.
  So at what time is the gentleman's side going to acknowledge it 
didn't happen? If you want to change the results of the Presidential 
election, the results are changed at the ballot box. That is how we 
resolve it in America. We don't try to go find something on a President 
that doesn't exist.
  We have done oversight. You have done oversight. The Mueller 
investigation was the ultimate oversight for 22 months and it rooted 
out and found there was no collusion between the President and the 
Russians. Maybe some people are disappointed to hear it.
  We should all celebrate that as a country, but we all ought to be 
concerned that no President of the United States is targeted by an 
intelligence agency, or by a Congress, or a majority, or a minority 
because they don't like the results of the election, so they are going 
to abuse power to go and try to take them down. That is not the way we 
do it.
  I hope we can finally focus on the real problems of this country and 
not continue to use these committees even after they didn't find what 
they were looking for to keep finding something that is not there.
  The former chairman that was alluded to, Mr. Nunes, did a very 
impeccable job of carrying out his duties to find the facts. It was 
always about the facts. And if you go and look at how he carried 
himself and managed his committee, the entire time it was about finding 
the facts. They looked and we looked. There was no conclusion that we 
found.
  If someone has proof of that conclusion that they keep alluding to, 
it is time for them to show it. Show the American people what you have. 
Don't run around hiding saying you have something when the Attorney 
General says it is not there.
  If someone knows about collusion, they owe it to the country to show 
it. But if it is not there, stop saying it. It is irresponsible, and, 
hopefully, everybody heeds those words and we get back to focusing on 
what is important for this country. Express our political differences.
  Obviously, if there is a political difference that we have with each 
other, with the President, with a Cabinet Secretary, we have all kinds 
of forums to express that opposition to correct it, to bring 
legislation to the floor.
  But if we just don't like somebody personally, that is not what we 
are here to do. And I hope we can get beyond that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I will respond to all of that, 
time being of the essence, I suppose.
  The gentleman represents a party who held eight hearings, all headed 
by Republicans, on Mrs. Clinton. All eight reached the same conclusion, 
but the first one wasn't enough. The second one wasn't enough. The 
third one wasn't enough. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh weren't 
enough. So the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) was appointed 
to do one more because it was pretty close to the election then, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The majority leader, now the minority leader of this House, said: Oh, 
no, they accomplished something. They accomplished the political 
objective. He said that on television, roundly criticized by his party. 
Why did you say that? Why did you admit that?
  But for the minority whip to say that the Mueller report instigated X 
millions of dollars spent for political purposes, Mueller was appointed 
by a Republican, not by a Democrat, and the Attorney General recused 
himself so the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein, was the one 
that appointed him.
  Why did he recuse himself? Because he had been involved, contrary to 
what he testified to in his nomination hearing, with the Russian 
Ambassador. I don't know if there was anything of substance in this 
conversation because we don't fully know what that conversation was.
  But the fact of the matter is, for the minority whip to be talking 
about political hearings or oversight, and then to say he has had an 
opportunity to review the Mueller report, the gentleman has had more 
than I have had.
  He reviewed the four pages of the Barr letter, appointed by Mr. 
Trump, and what we know is Barr's reading and his conclusion. But, 
frankly, we knew that before, because he sent a 19-page letter months 
ago that he thought

[[Page H2905]]

this investigation would not reach any conclusion, and that it should 
not, and that the President could not be held accountable, in any 
event. That was Justice Department policy.
  So I listened to a long discussion, in my view, with all due respect, 
I tell my friend, the whip, at odds with the performance of their 
administration and the eight hearings they had in trying to bring Mrs. 
Clinton down and never finding--never, eight hearings, all led by 
Republicans--a conclusion that led to anything.

  So we will see what the Mueller report says, I hope. And I am pleased 
that the whip and his party voted to have the Mueller report fully 
disclosed. He is correct. There are some national security interests 
that will properly restrict some of that, so we don't out sources or 
ways and means of discovering information.
  But having said that, I say to the whip that we will have a time to 
debate this. We will have a time to debate it when we have the 
information. We will have a time to debate it, perhaps months from now, 
when all of these investigations are through.
  But I wouldn't take too much solace in what the Mueller report did. 
It led to, as I said, the indictment and conviction of the President's 
campaign manager. It led to the indictment and conviction, either 
through plea or trial, of five other individuals to date.
  That is not something to be very proud of in terms of the President 
of the United States being so close to and so involved--Mr. Cohen, in 
particular, brings that information forth to a hearing, and he was 
apparently his closest legal adviser for over a decade. We will see. 
But I don't think now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to debate it. Because 
the time to debate it will be to see when we see, and the American 
people see the Mueller report.
  I want to say to my friend, so he understands, I am pleased that we 
don't have a finding that the President of the United States colluded, 
as he said he did not do. Colluded, of course, is not a legal term. 
Conspiracy is the gravamen or the essence of a criminal activity, a 
conspiracy to commit something that is illegal.
  But we have a time to debate that and discuss it. And the American 
people, hopefully, are going to have an opportunity to reach their own 
conclusion, which, obviously, in the final analysis, will be the most 
important conclusion.
  But the good news is, we are continuing to do the substantive 
business of the people of the United States. We are continuing to focus 
on jobs. We had numerous hearings this week on jobs, on wages.
  We had numerous hearings on healthcare, and the costs of healthcare, 
and the costs of prescription drugs. We passed one of the most far-
reaching reform bills that we have seen on the floor of this House, 
H.R. 1. Every Democrat voted for it. Almost every Republican voted 
against it.

                              {time}  1145

  We have passed some rational and reasonable controls on people with 
criminal records who are on the no-fly list or with mental health 
problems from not getting weapons to hurt a lot of people quickly. We 
have seen the tragedy here and around the world.
  So we have done a lot of very substantive legislation in a relatively 
short time, and, very frankly, we would have done more if the 
Republicans hadn't let the government shut down and repeatedly voted 
against opening it up for the first month of our session.
  Mr. Speaker, this is obviously about scheduling, and we are going to 
continue to bring substantive bills to the floor to respond to the 
needs of the American people. Yes, we can do oversight as well, but 
that will not preclude us from pursuing, as the majority, the agenda 
that we think the American people sent us here to Washington and made 
us the majority to do.
  I hope that my Republican friends will join us in that effort and 
offer substantive amendments when they think there are differences that 
they have with that legislation, consider those, and send them to the 
Senate, because that is really what the people want us to do.
  To the gentleman's observation about impeachment, I know he has been 
here. I know he has voted on efforts by some to move ahead on 
impeachment, and surely I know that he knows the overwhelming majority 
of Democrats voted ``no.'' I know that he must have heard Speaker 
Pelosi say that we are not pursuing impeachment and that we want to 
focus on the needs of the American people. I am sure he heard that, Mr. 
Speaker, but he tends to reference otherwise on that. I think that is 
not accurate.
  The American people ought to understand that we are pursuing their 
agenda: their jobs, their healthcare, and the welfare of their 
families. That is what our duty is, that is what our responsibility is, 
and that is what we are doing.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is an ultimate move 
towards something like impeachment, which I hope wouldn't come, and 
with all the things we know--there are no high crimes or misdemeanors 
and there is not even collusion--there are still committee chairmen in 
the gentleman's own party who are talking about impeachment. It is not 
something made up. There are leaders in the gentleman's party talking 
about it.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee issued more than 80 
subpoenas. Again, the majority can keep looking. Look at the summary of 
the Mueller report--2,800 subpoenas, more than 500 search warrants, and 
interviews of approximately 500 witnesses. So the gentleman can talk 
about people who were indicted who have nothing to do with the 
collusion and nothing to do with any ties to the President. Maybe 
somebody had filed a false tax return, then go throw the book at him.
  Mr. Cohen came and lied to Congress, and he deserves to go to jail 
for it. What did the majority do? They brought him back as their star 
witness, a man who was already guilty of lying to Congress. He came, 
swore himself in, and likely lied to Congress again. So, again, throw 
the book at him.
  But in terms of what the basis of the investigation was, it was to 
find collusion, and they found none: no further indictments; no 
evidence of collusion; in fact, saw the Trump campaign pushing back and 
even offers for help.
  Foreign governments like Russia trying to interfere with our 
elections clearly happened--not just Russia, other countries too--and 
we all ought to be concerned about it. We all want to make sure that 
our defenses are as high as we can make them so that they are not able 
to collude.
  We have seen companies in America that were taken advantage of during 
that campaign season, and they have taken corrective actions, too, so 
that Russia can't use social media companies in this Nation to try to 
take advantage of our electoral system.
  But in terms of collusion with the President of the United States and 
a foreign government, it didn't happen. If anybody has evidence to the 
contrary, then show it to the American people. Stop alluding behind 
some cloak-and-dagger conspiracy theory that it happened still to this 
day when the Mueller investigation concluded it didn't happen.
  We will get the full report. I look forward to reviewing it just as 
the gentleman from Maryland is looking forward to reviewing it, and 
maybe we will continue this conversation.
  But if all of the findings that the Attorney General gave us in his 
summary are accurate, which I don't discount they will be--I think they 
will be at the highest level of confidence that the Attorney General's 
summary is accurate. If it is not, then clearly we will take that up 
separately. But if it turns out to be accurate, then I think we all 
ought to celebrate, number one, the fact that there was no collusion, 
but then move on.
  The people who made accusations that turned out to be baseless ought 
to apologize and recognize there are people's personal lives and 
integrity that were being questioned. If it turned out they were wrong 
in making those accusations, then they ought to hold themselves 
accountable and to a higher standard. Those are the points that I was 
making.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend: Is he at all concerned 
that somebody that he didn't mention, Mr. Flynn, was, in fact, indicted 
and convicted of lying about his relationship with the Russians and his 
having clients in Europe, in Ukraine, which he failed to disclose?
  He was appointed to one of the highest offices, the National Security 
Advisor to the President, and he lied about

[[Page H2906]]

his relations with the Russians to law enforcement, which is a crime, 
and was convicted and, in fact, pled.
  I understand what Mr. Barr has said in a 4-page letter after some 48 
hours of review of all of the documents, all of the evidence, that was 
adduced. None of us really knows. I am not going to make a conclusion 
until I have an opportunity to review the report. I hope we will have a 
full debate on that.
  All of us are concerned, Republicans and Democrats, about the 
extraordinary number of people very close to the President--and, most 
importantly, Flynn, who was the National Security Advisor to the 
President--who were convicted of lying to law enforcement, some not 
paying their taxes and cheating the American people and all of us by 
not paying their fair share of what was due. I think that ought to be 
of concern to all of us.
  These weren't just some people. They were the President's campaign 
chairman. They were one of the President's foreign policy advisers, Mr. 
Papadopoulos. It was his personal attorney for 10 years, a so-called 
fixer, did anything he was told or implied to do. We all ought to have 
concern about that.
  But we ought to also be happy that, hopefully, correctly, Mr. Mueller 
found that we were not in a conspiracy with--I don't know about that, 
but colluding with--I don't really know what that exactly means; I have 
a sense, but it is not a legal issue--that the President did not, 
because any President who did collude with a foreign government that 
was clearly not our friend and, indeed, for the most part, our 
competitor and, yes, enemy, that would be something, I think, of which 
all of us would be extraordinarily concerned. I am glad that Mr. 
Mueller didn't find that.
  But to think that, as the President says, this was a whitewash and no 
problems when five or six of your closest allies and friends have been 
or are about to be sent to jail, that is not something to be happy 
about.
  It wasn't that Mueller didn't find wrongdoing. What Mueller didn't 
find was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, there was criminal behavior on 
which he believed he could act. That is what Barr said. And, in fact, 
Mr. Mueller, in Barr's letter, concluded that the President could not 
be exonerated or indicted on the basis of obstruction of justice. He 
made a conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence.
  We don't know the answer to that question, but Mr. Mueller says that 
he could not find beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, made no 
assessment as to whether he did or did not.
  In any event, we need to move on, as I said, Mr. Speaker, with the 
people's business: jobs, healthcare, integrity in government, safety in 
our neighborhoods, education of our children, and the health of our 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the whip that I look forward to working 
with him on such an agenda for the people.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's concern about 
addressing those important issues.
  I will say, for the five people whom the gentleman referenced, 
anybody who broke the law ought to be held accountable. But after 500 
witnesses are interviewed and over 2,800 subpoenas, all looking to find 
collusion with the Russian Government, not one of the people the 
gentleman mentioned had anything to do with colluding with the Russian 
Government.
  If they made misstatements or if they didn't pay their taxes, after 
2,800 subpoenas, then make sure that they are held accountable for the 
things they did, but don't suggest that it had anything to do with 
collusion with Russia, because it didn't.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, go pull 500 names out of the phonebook, and if 
you put the full weight of the United States Government and 2,800 
subpoenas into looking into 500 random people, I am sure not one of 
them will have done anything wrong--and hopefully not. But if they did 
and it had nothing to do with what you were initially looking for, 
let's not try to suggest it had anything to do with collusion, because 
it didn't.
  We will see the full report. We look forward to seeing that. Again, 
hopefully, if the full report shows what we have already seen in the 
summary, that there was no collusion, then people who have been 
claiming there was collusion will also hold themselves accountable and 
maybe apologize, maybe recant, but surely stop continuing any kind of 
witch hunt and then focus on these important issues like getting our 
economy even stronger; working with this President to solve big 
problems which we have the opportunity to do to get a real trade 
agreement with our neighbors Mexico and Canada, all of whom want to 
have better trade relationships with us and help benefit our economy, 
create more jobs, and have fairer labor standards; something we have in 
front of us, an opportunity to do in a bipartisan way, maybe get a 
budget agreement so that we can have, certainly well before the 
September 30 deadline, how we are going to fund our government in a 
responsible way, make sure our men and women in uniform don't have to 
wonder whether or not they are going to get paid while they are 
deployed in a foreign country; make sure we can focus on lowering 
healthcare costs; and immigration reform that can solve some of the big 
problems on border security and some of the other areas.
  So, hopefully, we can find agreement on that, and I am sure, in the 
coming weeks, we will on some, if not all, those issues. I look forward 
to working with the gentleman to do that.
  I appreciate, while we go back and forth sometimes, we can have a 
little fun with our hobbies, but we also have big, important tasks; and 
I know that the gentleman carries out his role in the most responsible 
way to promote the agenda that he thinks is best for this country, as 
do I, and, ideally, we can find a lot of intersection where we can work 
together to get really good things done for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________