url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1376,Grothman Statement on Hanukkah,2019-12-30,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Glenn Grothman,G000576,grothman.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah) released the following statement in observance of the final day of Hanukkah: As Hanukkah ends tonight, I want to, one more time, say Chag Sameach! Happy Hanukkah! Said Grothman. Hanukkah is a joyous occasion that celebrates an important part of Jewish history. I am thankful for all of my Jewish friends and hope they have enjoyed a happy and safe holiday season. While many are celebrating and spending time with family, let us not forget that anti-Semitism is still far too prevalent throughout the United States and the world. Earlier this month we saw an anti-Semitic shooting at a grocery store in New Jersey and just this past weekend a man broke into a New York Rabbi's home and stabbed five people. These heinous acts have no place in our society. I will continue to use my position in Congress to promote pro-Jewish policies and sentiments. -30- U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman is serving his third term representing Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=BEE68DD0-9A1B-4A66-AAAC-B269ECB3D2CF,Johnson: House Impeachment Charges Pretty Thin Gruel,2019-12-22,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"OSHKOSH U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) appeared on ABC's This Week to discuss the Democrats' effort to impeach the president. Excerpts of the interview are below. The full interview can be found here. (0:35) The case is pretty thin that the House is sending over to us, if they ever send it over to us pretty thin gruel from my standpoint.So, we'll let both sides have a fair chance of making their case, then we should take a vote. (1:24) I just think it's kind of bizarre. They had to rush to this impeachment vote and then, all of a sudden, [Speaker Pelosi's] sitting on it. I don't think the Senate should be making the case that the House should have made in their presentation. My guess is they weren't able to make the case. (6:55) After 2016 we're doing Putin's work for him. Democrats and the media, carrying the water for this false Russia hoax. Look at the disruption. Look at how distracted we all are based on a completely false narrative of Trump's campaign's collusion with Russia. There are some real serious questions of what happened during the FBI's investigation into that. There are serious questions about some actors with the DNC working with people in Ukraine. There are many unanswered questions. They are legitimate questions. I'm trying to get to the bottom of those things so the American public knows. If there was wrongdoing they need to know that. If there was no wrongdoing we need to know that as well so we can move beyond. We have serious issues facing this nation. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-statement-house-passage-usmca,Gallagher Statement on House Passage of USMCA,2019-12-20,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today issued the following statement after the House passed the USMCA in overwhelming bipartisan fashion by a vote of 385 to 41. In an increasingly global economy, strong trade agreements are vital to Wisconsin farms and businesses. This agreement will be a substantial improvement over the status quo, and stands to support thousands of Wisconsin jobs, expand market access to Canadian and Mexican markets, particularly for our dairy farmers, and provide another jolt to an already strong economy. For more than a year, Speaker Pelosi played political games with this agreement at the expense of hardworking Americans. This vote is long overdue, but I'm glad to see my colleagues come together to bring the USMCA one step closer to a reality. Click here to watch Rep. Gallagher discuss one of the key victories negotiated in the USMCA. Background: In 2017, Wisconsin exported approximately $10.9 billion in goods and services to Canada and Mexico. Trade between the three countries supports over 230,000 jobs in Wisconsin.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/why-i-voted-against-the-trump-impeachment,Why I Voted Against the Trump Impeachment,2019-12-20,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By this time, Congress had already established that grand jury perjury was an impeachable offense: In 1989 we had removed a federal judge Walter L. Nixon Jr. for that very crime. When I delivered the opening argument in the Senate trial, I noted that we ought not to hold the president to a lower standard than we do a federal judge. Fast forward to the present day, and things are drastically different. Just moments after President Trump took the oath of office, The Washington Post ran a headline, The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun. Chairman Nadler latercampaignedfor the Judiciary gavel with the promise that he was best fit to lead an impeachment. Worse, 103 current members of the House Democratic Caucus voted to move forward with impeachment even before President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vitriol and blind hatred aside, President Trump has been robbed of his constitutionally protected due process rights. There was no independent investigation. Instead, Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, conducted a few weeks of closed-door hearings in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. This is the same man who infamously stated on cable television that he had overwhelming evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election. The special counsel Robert Mueller found nothing of the sort. The closed-door hearings led to a railroad job in the House Judiciary Committee, where a majority denied those of us in the minority our rights. When we finally considered the articles of impeachment, they were so broad and flimsy that almost any other president could most likely have been accused of them. Article II, the obstruction of Congress charge, is particularly bad, as Democrats failed even to give a court the proper arbiter of these disagreements the chance to weigh in on the matter. Further, none of the articles allege that the president committed a crime a drastic departure from the Nixon and Clinton cases. Nevertheless, Democrats prioritized haste as they jammed through their impeachment vote. Again and again, Democrats told us that Congress could not wait to impeach the president. Yet Speaker Pelosi's decision to withhold the articles from the Senate shows us that we can apparently wait. This whole exercise has been completely bunk. Earlier this year, I wrote inThe Wall Street Journalthat an unfair process cannot lead us to true justice. The House impeachment inquiry and process was unfair, and therefore unjust. Amajority of my constituentsin Wisconsin a key battleground state do not support the impeachment charade against the president. Rather, they ask why we don't wait a few months and let the voters decide whether President Trump should remain in office. One fear, proffered by Al Green, a Democratic representative from Texas, is that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. Apparently, the voters cannot be trusted. They might just choose President Trump. Again. The real damage done by all of this is the precedent it sets. President Trump if ever tried in the Senate will most likely be acquitted. However, by lowering the bar of what is an impeachable offense and by failing to meet the Pelosi/Nadler criteria, we will all but ensure that all future divided governments will lead to impeachments. Mere policy disagreements will become charges of abuse of power. The founders feared that impeachment might someday be used for solely partisan reasons. For 230 years, Congress had fought off that temptation. Unfortunately, in 2019, some let their disdain for President Trump lead us down this path. I never thought I'd experience another presidential impeachment. As I walked out of the House chamber following my second, I felt saddened, not just for President Trump and the 63 million people who elected him, but also for future generations. If Democrats thought impeaching a president was difficult, just wait until they have to clean up their mess. Jim Sensenbrenner (@JimPressOffice), a Republican, represents Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District. He has served as a House impeachment manager for four Senate trials, more than anyone in history. He also served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 2001 to 2007.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1368,Grothman’s Letter to Sec. DeVos,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Glenn Grothman,G000576,grothman.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah) today, along with Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Ron Wright (R-TX), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Chris Stewart (R-UT), Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Randy Weber (R-TX), sent a letter to Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos expressing compliance concerns with Title VI-funded Middle East Studies National Resource Centers (NRCs), given that many directors and faculty members of these centers have endorsed academic boycotts of Israel, which defy the purpose of the grant program. The letter also requests the Secretary to continue the Department of Education's oversight efforts to ensure NRCs are compliant with the statutory purposes and requirements of Title VI and for the Secretary to take proactive actions to ensure future NRC grantees make verifiable assurances that they will comply with the purposes of Title VI, including the enhancement of grant application requirements to include that applicants provide assurances that they will not implement an academic boycott of a country within their program or center's purview. To view the letter, please click here. -30- U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman is serving his third term representing Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1369,Grothman Statement on USMCA and Impeachment,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Glenn Grothman,G000576,grothman.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, the U.S. House of Representatives was finally given a vote on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah) released the following statement after the vote: The USMCA is the 21st century solution we need to promote free trade, economic growth and continued cooperation between the United States, Mexico and Canada. This trade agreement should have been taken up by Congress a year ago, said Grothman. Wisconsin's world-famous dairy industry, and our entire agriculture sector, will benefit from the USMCA trade agreement. Additionally, the 231,000 Wisconsin jobs and nearly $11 billion worth of Wisconsin exports supported by trade with Canada and Mexico will be provided a better playing field. The USMCA also repairs glaring holes in NAFTA that have, for too long, allowed China to penetrate North American markets. While it was disappointing to see 38 Democrats vote against this improved trade deal, I applaud President Trump for his leadership on the USMCA and am glad that we have a President who is willing to tackle issues that his predecessors, of both parties, refused to address. The impeachment inquiry, which had bipartisan opposition, took the lion's share of the focus this week. Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leadership spent far too much time and taxpayer money on an unfair, unfounded investigation. I am glad that Congress was able to quickly move past that distraction and deliver a win for the American economy and our workers. Background In November of 2018, President Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and former President Nieto of Mexico signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) at the G20 summit in Argentina. Leaders of each country, along with hundreds of businesses and trade associations, agree that the USMCA updates the outdated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and will be beneficial to workers in all countries, particularly to U.S. agricultural and manufacturing industries. More than a year has passed and the trade agreement has just now been brought to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This deal represents a huge upgrade from NAFTA and benefits virtually every industry in our economy from agriculture and manufacturing to digital trade and e-commerce. This is great news for Wisconsin, where our local economy is fueled by agriculture and manufacturing. In particular, dairy farmers in Wisconsin will see significant relief from this trade agreement. Under the USMCA, U.S. dairy farmers will be able to export the equivalent of 3.6% of Canada's dairy market, more than tripling the existing level of approximately 1%. Canada and Mexico represent two of our top three trading partners and account for one quarter of all U.S. exports. Nearly $11 billion in goods and services from Wisconsin were exported to Mexico and Canada in 2017. -30- U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman is serving his third term representing Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/ron-kind-votes-to-impeach-donald-trump-fellow-house-members-also-vote-along-party-lines,Ron Kind votes to impeach Donald Trump; fellow House members also vote along party lines,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By; Mitchell Schmidt of the Wisconsin State Journal Wisconsin's House members hewed to party lines Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, with U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, whose district is the most narrowly divided among the state's congressional districts, finally breaking his silence during the historic vote. Reps. Mark Pocan, D-Black Earth, Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and Kind voted in favor of the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Reps. Bryan Steil, R-Janesville, Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah, and Mike Gallagher, R-Green Bay, voted against both articles of impeachment. Kind, D-La Crosse, was the only Wisconsin congressman to not indicate how he intended to vote ahead of Wednesday's impeachment. That also made him the only Democrat representing a district Trump won in 2016 who didn't reveal his position ahead of time, according to a tally by The Washington Post. I've reviewed the evidence and followed the hearings. It's clear the President's actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security, Kind said in a statement. Some have argued to let the voters in the next election decide. But how can we trust an election that the President is trying to corrupt? With Trump winning Kind's district in western Wisconsin by four points in 2016, breaking a streak of Democratic presidential candidate victories, the congressman's Wednesday vote could serve to reinforce his strength among Democratic voters, while also alienating some of Trump's supporters in Kind's more rural district. Four of Wisconsin's House members spoke on the floor during the six-hour debate. Kind, Gallagher and Steil did not. Districts represented by Pocan and Moore have strong Democratic majorities. This is a vote for our Constitution, setting the precedent for all future presidents, Democrat or Republican, Pocan said during the House floor debate Wednesday. Donald Trump must be held accountable for his actions. Today we send a clear signal for this president and all future presidents. No one is above the law. Sensenbrenner, who is retiring after this term and serves on the House Judiciary Committee that forwarded the articles of impeachment last week to the House, spoke Wednesday against what he called phony articles of impeachment. We are here because the majority caucus, the Democratic caucus, has been hijacked by the radical left, he said. They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election. Grothman accused Democratic lawmakers of embarking on impeachment proceedings the moment Trump was elected. This impeachment is not about anything that happened on a phone call, this impeachment is about what President Trump has done, Grothman said. President Trump is keeping his campaign promises and you hate him for that. Moore challenged the argument that Democratic lawmakers are using the impeachment to overturn the 2016 election. I agree, elections are the appropriate venue for public policy disputes, however we're not talking about a public policy dispute, we're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our election, Moore said. The exact thing our Founding Fathers feared. Northern Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District, formerly held by vocal Trump supporter and Republican Sean Duffy until his September resignation due to the birth of his ninth child, will remain vacant until a May special election. Kind district split Kind has won his House seat by comfortable margins. He didn't face a general election opponent in 2016, when Trump won his district. In 2018, he won by nearly 20 points. However, Marquette Law School polls from 2017 to 2019 have found an even partisan split in Kind's district. Respondents over the last three years including those who lean to a party in the district have been 44% Democrat, 44% Republican and 10% independent. Kind's district also included the narrowest divide among respondents on whether or not they felt Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Polls conducted in October, November and December with a sample of 287 total respondents found 45% of respondents approved of impeachment and removal from office, while 50% were against. Kind's is the only one that is sort of in the middle, Marquette poll director Charles Franklin said. The risk that he kind of runs is if there is a super mobilization of Trump voters in 2020 In a close district like Kind's, that might be a risky thing for him. On the other hand, Democrats are awfully riled up about this. Anthony Chergosky, a UW-La Crosse assistant professor of political science, said an impeachment vote forces Kind, who has trended more moderate than other congressional Democrats, to weigh in on what has become an intensely partisan issue. It puts him in a tough spot, Chergosky said. About half the district is going to be mad at him regardless of what he chooses. However, Joe Heim, emeritus professor of political science with UW-La Crosse, said voters in the 3rd Congressional District are not dyed-in-the-wool members of their party. People here are a little more willing to split their tickets than other parts of the state, Heim said. Chergosky added that Kind's status as an incumbent and a lack of a high-profile GOP challenger should benefit him in 2020. If a Republican is going to win an election over Ron Kind, they're going to have to win over voters who have supported him in the past and that is no easy task, Chergosky said. I think Ron Kind is pretty safe. Currently, Republicans Brandon Cook and Shannon Moats are vying for Kind's seat. Republican Party of Wisconsin executive director Mark Jefferson singled out Kind's vote in a statement Wednesday night. Democrats like Rep. Ron Kind have tried to conceal their stance on the issue when they knew how they would vote weeks, if not months, Jefferson said. Today's vote displays the sad state of politics where Rep. Ron Kind and other Democrats want to see President Trump fail at the expense of the American people. Michael Smuksta, chairman of the La Crosse County Democratic Party, still likes Kind's chances of winning a 13th term next November. Even some conservatives, who may not be Trump conservatives, like what he does, Smuksta said. If he's the nominee coming out of the primary facing a Republican, my bet is the voters in this district are not going to replace a Democrat with a Republican.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-criticizes-pelosi-over-impeachment-delay,SENSENBRENNER CRITICIZES PELOSI OVER IMPEACHMENT DELAY,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: James Wigdergson of Right Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI5) sharply criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over the possibility that she would delay transmittal of the articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump to the U.S. Senate. The Democrats repeatedly said that President Trump had to be impeached now. This can't wait' was the common refrain, Sensenbrenner said in a statement released Thursday. Well, apparently, it can wait. Speaker Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate because her case cannot win over there. While Democrats were able to railroad the first strictly-partisan impeachment through the House, their power has limits and cannot guarantee their desired verdict in the Senate. The House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Normally this would result in the transmission of the articles to the Senate for a trial. However, some Democrats have seized on an idea by Bulwark Online Editor Charlie Sykes to delay sending the articles of impeachment until Republicans in the Senate agree to rules proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), including the calling of new witnesses to testify. Schumer's proposal was rejected by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who responded that it was up to the House of Representatives to do the investigative work of impeachment. The House chose this road, McConnell said. It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. It is unclear how House Democrats could force the Senate to accept the Democrats' proposal for the trial format when Senate Republicans are already disinclined to consider removing Trump from office. Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was one of the House Managers of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He criticized Pelosi for attempting to control the format of the Senate trial. The Constitution clearly gives the Senate, not Speaker Pelosi, the sole Power to try all Impeachments.' While the Speaker was able to manage the process meticulously in the House, she does not get to dictate the terms of the Senate trial, Sensenbrenner said. If impeachment really were as urgent as the Democrats said, then let the Senate consider these Articles. Sensenbrenner added that the trial in the Senate will expose the flaws of the impeachment process. The criticism all along has been that this impeachment was weak, hurried, and partisan, Sensenbrenner said. Now it appears that Democrats are worried the flaws of their rush-job will be exposed when they no longer control the process.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-democrats-hypocrisy-exposed-as-urgent-impeachment-can-now-wait,Sensenbrenner: Democrats Hypocrisy Exposed as Urgent Impeachment Can Now Wait,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI05) has served as a House manager in more Senate trials than any other member in history, including the 1998-99 impeachment of President Clinton. He offered the following statement in response to Speaker Pelosi's decision to withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate: The Democrats repeatedly said that President Trump had to be impeached now. This can't wait' was the common refrain. Well, apparently, it can wait. Speaker Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate because her case cannot win over there. While Democrats were able to railroad the first strictly-partisan impeachment through the House, their power has limits and cannot guarantee their desired verdict in the Senate. The Constitution clearly gives the Senate, not Speaker Pelosi, 'the sole Power to try all Impeachments.' While the Speaker was able to manage the process meticulously in the House, she does not get to dictate the terms of the Senate trial. If impeachment really were as urgent as the Democrats said, then let the Senate consider these Articles. The criticism all along has been that this impeachment was weak, hurried, and partisan. Now it appears that Democrats are worried the flaws of their rush-job will be exposed when they no longer control the process.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-votes-to-send-usmca-to-senate,Sensenbrenner Votes to Send USMCA to Senate,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) offered the following statement after voting for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA):The House passage of the USMCA is a welcome Christmas present for Wisconsin's hard working families, especially our dairy farmers. This vote has been long overdue, and I urge the Senate to approve the trade deal as soon as possible.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/veteran-house-gop-impeachment-manager-warns-democrats-huge-mistake-to-hold-articles-as-leverage,Veteran House GOP impeachment manager warns Democrats: 'Huge mistake' to hold articles as leverage,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner A House Republican who has presented several impeachment cases in the Senate is warning Democrats their threat to withhold the articles passed against President Trump to gain political leverage may backfire. If they are trying to use that as leverage to get the Senate to call witnesses, that will be a huge mistake on their part, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, told the Washington Examiner. Sensenbrenner, 76, has managed four House impeachments, one of them against President Bill Clinton in 1998 and three involving the removal of federal judges. He is the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. From my experience with previous impeachments, not just the Clinton one, but also the judicial ones, the Senate really dislikes House members telling the Senate what to do and how to do it,"" Sensenbrenner said. ""They do that at their great peril. Sensenbrenner, along with a dozen other GOP lawmakers, served as a manager in Clinton's 1999 Senate trial. He was appointed in a House vote that took place right after lawmakers voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice charges. The House voted to impeach Trump late Wednesday on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But Democrats did not bring up a resolution to appoint impeachment managers. Instead, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she is waiting to see the terms of the trial Senate Democrats and Republicans negotiate. Democrats want the Senate to call current and former Trump administration officials as witnesses and to subpoena documents the Trump administration has refused to turn over by asserting executive privilege. McConnell has rejected the request. McConnell plans to meet Thursday with minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, to try to work out an agreement for holding a trial. Until then, the impeachment process remains in limbo. Senate lawmakers had planned to hold a trial in January, but it all hinges on Pelosi delivering the articles. Without the articles, the Senate can't hold the trial, Sensenbrenner told the Washington Examiner. And if the idea is to remove Trump from office, which we all know isn't going to happen, rather than just make a political statement for what we have done here for the past two-and-a-half years, then they have to deliver the articles to the Senate. Sensenbrenner is retiring from the House after the 2020 elections, ending what will be a 42-year House career.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-delegation-follows-partisan-pattern-in-impeachment-vote-ron-kind-votes-yes,Wisconsin delegation follows partisan pattern in impeachment vote; Ron Kind votes yes,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel WASHINGTON -In the end, the members of Congress from Wisconsin mirrored the almost perfect partisan divide in the House of Representatives in the impeachment of President Donald Trump Wednesday. Democrat Ron Kind, the only lawmaker from the state who kept his vote under wraps until the end, voted for both articles of impeachment against Trump abuse of power and obstruction of Congress joining all but threemembers of his party on one count and all but fouron another. Every House Republican voted against impeachment. One independent (and former Republican) supported impeachment. Kind, a centrist Democrat from a western Wisconsin district that Trump narrowly carried in the 2016 presidential race, was one of justa handful of lawmakers who refused to declare their position in the days and hours leading up to the vote. Of the 31 House Democrats in Trump districts, 29voted for impeachment Wednesday, including Kind.The La Crosse Democrat had previously voted to endorse the impeachment inquiry and had sharply criticized the president's conduct in the Ukraine scandal. But the very competitive makeup of his heavily rural district set him apart from his two Democratic colleagues from Wisconsin (Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore) and from most Democrats in the House who holdmore one-sided seats. The voters in Kind'svery purple district voted for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 by 11 points but for Trump by 4 points in 2016. ""It's clear the President's actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security,"" Kind said in a statement.My vote today was not about the President himselfmore importantly, it was about defending the rule of law, our Constitution, and what signal we send future presidents of what is acceptable behavior."" Before and during the House debate Wednesday, Democrats blamed the extremely partisan nature of the Trump impeachment fight on spineless Republicans circling the wagons around Trump while ignoring clear presidential misconduct. Republicans blamed the partisan nature of the debate on Democratic hatershellbenton takingTrump down. Democrats said failing to impeach Trump would dangerously lower the bar for future presidential conduct and green-light gross abuses of executive power. Republicans said impeaching Trump would dangerously lower the bar for impeachment and make impeachment a casualpolitical weapon. Democrats warned of Congress enabling an overbearing, anything-goes presidency. Republicans warned of a brazen congressional coup against the president. Democrats said they approached impeachment reluctantly and solemnly. Republicans accused them of approaching impeachment zealously and happily. It was a debate that crystallized both the GOP's full-throated, whole-hearted embrace of Trump and the Democratic Party's utter dismay,disdain and alarm over his presidency. Wisconsin Republicans Jim Sensenbrenner, Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher and Bryan Steil all voted no. Kind, Moore and Pocan voted yes. The statedelegation would normally cast eight votes in the House, but northern Wisconsin's 7th District is one of four across the country that has no representation at the moment, due to the resignation of Republican Sean Duffy. Sensenbrenner was one of the first Republicans to speak during the final House debate. Why are we here? We're here because ... the Democratic caucus has been hijacked by the radical left. They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald Trump won that election, said Sensenbrenner, who was a central figure among House Republicans in the 1998 impeachment of Democrat Bill Clinton. Stop this charade, Sensenbrenner said. Moore said from the floor: We're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our elections the exact thing our founding fathers feared and the exact circumstance for which they fashioned the impeachment clause. Our democracy, our Constitution deserves standing up for. Steil said on Twitter Wednesday: Today, I will be voting against impeachment. There is an election in less than a year. The American people should decide if a president should remain in office, not a handful of partisan politicians in Washington. Grothman told Democrats from the House floor: President Trump is keeping his campaign promises and you hate him for that. Pocan said from the floor: This is not about a single call or a single transcript. This is about a perfect storm, months of activity directly ordered by the president an orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy. President Trump betrayed his oath of office Today we send a clear signal to this president and all future presidents no one is above the law. Moore said in an interview before the vote, I keep trying to read and find some exculpatory evidence to support the president. I keep trying to find something that would say, 'Well, maybe, (he's not guilty),' and I just can't. Sensenbrenner said in his floor remarks a key failing of the case for impeachment was that there are no allegations the president has committed a crime. We've had almost threeyears of nonstop investigations at no time is there any evidence that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statutes of the United States. In an interview before the vote, Sensenbrenner was asked whether he thought Trump did nothing wrong, or whether he believed the president did something inappropriate but his conduct wasn't impeachable. ""Well, I think we're splitting hairs there. I would say probably both,"" Sensenbrenner said. ""If I were in his shoes I would have dealt with the Ukrainians differently thanhe did, (but) I don't think the phone call in question is an impeachable offense."" Gallagher said in a TV interview that ""I worry this opens up a Pandora's box where we're mired in a state of perpetual impeachment."" The party-linepattern in the Trump impeachment vote was considerably starker than the votes in 1998 over Democrat Clinton's impeachment, which were themselves quite partisan. In the Trump impeachment, only threelawmakers broke with their party majorities on one article and only fouron another. All were Democrats opposing impeachment, and one was in the process of switching parties. A fourth Democrat, presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, voted ""present"" on botharticles.One former Republican, now an independent (Justin Amash of Michigan), voted for impeachment. In the Clinton impeachment, five Democrats broke with their party to support impeachment on three articles and one Democrat crossed over on a fourth article. Meanwhile, 81 Republicans broke with their party to oppose one article, 28 voted against another article, 12 voted against a third article and five voted against a fourth article. Two of the four articles against a Democratic president failed in the GOP-controlled House in 1998. Kind was in the House during that impeachment fight as well, breaking with his party to support an impeachment inquiry against Clinton but voting with his party against impeachment. The political consequences of hisvotes this time, if any, remain to be seen. The Trump campaign declared after Wednesday night's vote, ""This evening Ron Kind officially chose his party over his own constituents, securing his place in the most partisan caucus in history."" It's not clear how serious a GOPopponent Kind will draw in 2020. Polling over the course of 2019 shows Trump has a negative approval rating among Kind's constituents (42% approve, 55% disapprove). It also shows his district is almost evenly divided over impeachment, with slightly more people opposing it than supporting it.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-lawmakers-weigh-in-on-house-impeachment-vote-of-president-trump,Wisconsin lawmakers weigh-in on House impeachment vote of President Trump,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Suzanne Spencer of FOX6 WASHINGTON -- Official votes are still coming in, but most were expected to vote along party lines -- except for one, who wasn't making his stance known initially -- on a night that will be remembered. Wisconsin lawmakers weighed-in on a historic vote. ""We're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our election,"" said Gwen Moore, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 4th congressional district. ""The exact thing our founding fathers feared, and the exact circumstance for which they drafted the impeachment clause."" ""So why are we here? We're here because the majority caucus, the Democratic caucus, has been hijacked by the radical left,"" said Jim Sensenbrenner, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 5th congressional district. ""They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election."" President Donald Trump is the third such leader in U.S. History to be impeached. A process that Mordecai Lee, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor emeritus, says shouldn't be taken lightly or turn political. ""What I'm afraid of, is that politics has gotten so bad in America, that this moment on -- every time the U.S. Congress has a majority party that's other than the party of the president -- they're going to impeach him or her,"" Lee says. Democratic Representative Ron Kind, of Wisconsin's 3rd congressional district, garnered a lot of national attention after not declaring which way he'd vote. In the end, he voted along party lines. The Republican Party of Wisconsin was quick to call that out, saying he and other Democrats: ""Tried to conceal their stance on the issue when they knew how they would vote (for) weeks, if not for months."" Wednesday night's hours-long hearing is a night many will remember.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-celebrates-passage-of-usmca,Steil Celebrates Passage of USMCA,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil released a statement after the House overwhelmingly voted to pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). ""USMCA is a win for Wisconsin farmers, workers, and families. USMCA is an improved trade deal with Canada and Mexico. It allows Wisconsin workers to sell our products to our allies. Throughout my first year in office, I have pushed for USMCA to be brought to the floor. I am proud to support Wisconsin's agriculture and manufacturing industries."" On background:",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-celebrates-passage-usmca,Steil Celebrates Passage of USMCA,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil released a statement after the House overwhelmingly voted to pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). ""USMCA is a win for Wisconsin farmers, workers, and families. USMCA is an improved trade deal with Canada and Mexico. It allows Wisconsin workers to sell our products to our allies. Throughout my first year in office, I have pushed for USMCA to be brought to the floor. I am proud to support Wisconsin's agriculture and manufacturing industries."" On background:",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-votes-against-impeaching-president-trump,Steil Votes Against Impeaching President Trump,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Bryan Steil released a statement after voting against the articles of impeachment against President Trump. ""Today, I voted against impeaching President Trump. From the start, I have been opposed to impeachment. Although the Senate is now tied up with the impeachment trial, the House should get to work on issues impacting Americans: tackling the rising costs of health care, securing our border, and addressing our national debt.""",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=744178AE-F020-4F72-A8EF-656CBA625C07,Johnson Statement on Appropriations Deal,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said the following Thursday regarding his votes on a two-bill appropriations deal: Instead of passing 12 individual appropriations, on time, in an open and transparent legislative process, Congress just passed a massive spending deal 80 days into the new fiscal year. Whenever Congress spends $1.4 trillion, many good and worthy programs are funded, which is why I voted for the spending bill covering defense and homeland security. But the price for funding necessary programs was simply too high to obtain my overall support for both bills. There are virtually no cuts to any significant program and the tax extender package was not paid for, nor did it include a fix to the retail glitch caused by sloppy drafting of the 2017 tax reform bill all in all, a pretty ugly display of Washington, D.C.'s dysfunction. Passing my committee's Prevent Government Shutdowns Act would go a long way toward providing a fiscal discipline that could help prevent this kind of legislative abuse. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=E44569C7-01FE-41A1-9BAA-4AD0E0C4EC83,Johnson Highlights IG Testimony of Bias at FBI,2019-12-19,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON During an appearance on Fox News' Fox and Friends' Thursday, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) spoke about the testimony Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz gave to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee yesterday. Excerpts of the interview are below and video can be found here. When you combine basically the underscoring of the 17 inaccuracies and omissions, how serious that was, combined with the stunning rebuke by the presiding judge of the FISA court Steve, one mistake or omission, that's a mistake. Two, maybe it's a coincidence. Three, you are starting to develop a pattern. Seventeen? It's a legitimate question: is that a plot? And we still don't have the answers to that. [The IG] admitted there was bias. There was political motivation. He just doesn't have evidence where he can conclusively say it caused and influenced their decisions. But, again, it's up to the American public to infer what all that bias, how that could have affected things. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-statement-articles-impeachment,Gallagher Statement on Articles of Impeachment,2019-12-18,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) todayissued the following statement after the House voted on two articles of impeachment against the President. Speaker Pelosi has acknowledged that something as divisive as impeachment should be compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan.' Yet from day one, she rushed this process, moved the goal posts, and failed to live up to her own words about the gravity of impeachment. What we are seeing here is unprecedented: it's the first time articles of impeachment have failed to make any criminal accusation, and it's the firsttime a president has been impeached without bipartisan support. The fact that the bipartisan vote was actually against impeachment should come as no surprise given this flawed process and lack of clear evidence. Common sense Wisconsinites justwant their representativesto come together to fix the many problems our country faces, and I hope we can do that in the new year.A state of perpetual impeachment must notbecome the new normal. Click here to watch Rep. Gallagher discuss the first article of impeachment. Click here to watch Rep. Gallagher discuss the second article of impeachment.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-s-delegation-divided-as-us-house-votes-to-impeach-trump,Wisconsin's Delegation Divided As US House Votes To Impeach Trump,2019-12-18,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Shawn Johnson La Crosse Democratic U.S. Rep. Ron Kind joined other Democrats invoting to impeach President Donald Trumpon Wednesday, marking just the third time a president has been impeached in U.S. history. The vote followed a day of debate in the U.S. House of Representatives that saw members of Wisconsin's congressional delegation sharply divided, with Democrats saying Trump had given them no choice and Republicans attacking the process as an effort to undo the 2016 election. All of Wisconsin's Democratic representatives voted for impeachment while all of the state's Republicans voted against it. Most of Wisconsin's delegation had already announced their plans ahead of Wednesday's vote with the exception of Kind, whose western Wisconsin district voted for Trump three years ago. Kindissued a written statementafter his vote, saying it was clear to him he viewed his vote as a signal to future presidents of what is acceptable behavior. ""Until now, I have reserved judgment, waiting for all the facts to come out,"" Kind said. ""I've reviewed the evidence and followed the hearings. It's clear the President's actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security."" Other Democrats, like U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan of Dane County,had been sayingfor monthsthat impeachment was the only course left for Congress. Pocan said the evidence was clear Trump had used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. ""This is about a perfect storm,"" Pocan said from the House floor. ""Months of activity directly ordered by the president to his senior cabinet and political appointees. An orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy."" Republicans, like southeast Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, said the impeachment articles were ""phony"" because Trump hadn'tcommitted any crimes. ""We're here because the majority caucus the Democratic caucus has been hijacked by the radical left,"" Sensenbrenner said Wednesday. ""They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election."" Wisconsin has eight U.S. House districts, with four represented by Republicans, three represented by Democrats and one district vacant. Two Republicans,U.S. Rep. Mike GallagherandU.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, announced their intentions to vote against impeachment on social media. U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, an outspoken Trump supporter, joined Sensenbrenner in speaking out against impeachment Wednesday, saying Democrats were pushing it because they didn't like Trump's policies on issues ranging from immigration to food stamps. ""President Trump is keeping his campaign promises, and you hate him for that,"" Grothman said. But Milwaukee Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore said the effort to impeach Trump was bigger than a policy dispute. ""We're not talking about a public policy dispute,"" Moore said from the House floor. ""We're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our elections. The exact thing our founding fathers feared."" The House passed two articles of impeachment, one on ""abuse of power"" and another on ""obstruction of Congress."" It's now up to the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to decide what kind of impeachment trial to conduct. GOP leaders there have made it clear they have no plans to remove Trump from office.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-no-one-has-read-these-bills,Gallagher: No One Has Read These Bills,2019-12-17,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today issued the following statement after the House passed two major appropriations bills that direct more than $1.3 trillion in spending over the course of FY2020. Last night we received 2,313 pages of appropriations bills that not only direct more than $1.3 trillion in spending, but are also filled with a whole host of special interest provisions that have no place in a traditional appropriations package. In less than 24 hours, the House not only amended', but debated' and passed these bills. I hate to break it to you, but no one has read these bills. While there are surely good things included such as increased GLRI funding and the repeal of crippling healthcare taxes it doesn't make up for the fact that last-second omnibus bills like these are exactly what's wrong with Congress. We have to find a way to stop governing from crisis to crisis and fix this mess. Click here to watch a video of Rep. Gallagher discuss the spending bill.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1363,"2,371 Pages in 20 Hours",2019-12-17,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Glenn Grothman,G000576,grothman.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah) today released the following statement following the rushed passage of the U.S. House of Representatives fiscal year 2020 spending bills: Today, Congress voted on two appropriations bills that, as a practical matter, is the budget for the fiscal year ending in September 2020. A week ago, most felt that a budget deal would not be reached this year and that Congress would pass a two-month continuing resolution that held spending at last year's levels. Five days ago, we were told that a deal was reached on a, roughly, $1.4 trillion discretionary spending package. The actual language was made available at 4:44 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, December 16, when most members of Congress were either boarding flights back to Washington or getting ready to travel in the morning. We were initially told that this 2,371 page package would be brought to a vote in two parts. The first Tuesday afternoon and the second as late as Thursday morning. When I woke up this morning, another 58 pages were added and we were told that all 2,300 pages would be brought to a vote at 1:30 p.m. the same day. Even members of leadership that I spoke with at 10 a.m. weren't certain of key provisions going into the bills. Of course, there were good and bad provisions. President Trump's involvement meant that border wall spending would increase and that we would have increased access to generic drugs and biosimilars, particularly insulin. Going through the budget, I saw line after line of increased spending to both old and new programs. This comes at a time where we are just shy of $24 trillion in debt. It's apparent that this budget was meant to be passed by the type of politician that comes to Washington looking to spend more money everywhere they can. Rather than creating a responsible budget, we spent more on virtually every program, including an expensive bailout for mine workers. The total increase in spending was north of 4 percent at a time where inflation is around 2 percent. This package, however, only addressed discretionary spending, which means that, when including mandatory spending, total spending will increase by much more than 4 percent. This is obviously unsustainable and irresponsible. I think the American public would embrace a responsible budget. Even individuals and organizations benefitting from government spending would understand a responsible, small, across the board cut. I do not wish to cut vital programs like Medicare and Social Security. This means that discretionary spending bills like the ones we saw today, as well as other forms of mandatory spending, must be addressed. It was irresponsible for Congress to call a vote on a bill that no one could have possibly read in time to develop an informed opinion. During my time in politics, I've never been asked to take a vote on something with so little information. I'm sure that that any town board, city council or school board in my district would have revolted if they were put in such a position with their annual budget. -30- U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman is serving his third term representing Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-drug-pricing-legislation-advances-in-spending-bill,Sensenbrenner Drug Pricing Legislation Advances in Spending Bill,2019-12-17,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Today,Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner(WI-05) issued the following statement after Congress passed fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills:Our national debt recently passed $23 trillion, and Washington didn't even blink. These appropriations bills fail to address our spending problem, and I could not in good conscience vote for either. However, one of the few positive provisions included in them is my bipartisan legislation to lower prescription drug prices the CREATES Act. While I'm disappointed that Congress has passed up another opportunity to get our fiscal house in order, I am glad that Americans will have better access to more affordable medications. Background on the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act: In order for a generic or biosimilar prescription to have FDA approval, the generic manufacturer must be able to compare its product to the brand-name product. Simply put, if the product is as safe and effective as the label, then the FDA can approve the generic. Some generic manufacturers, however, have difficulty obtaining samples of medication from the brand-name company. This is because brand-name companies have an incentive to make it difficult for generic producers to obtain their brand-name products. The CREATES Act gives generic manufacturers the ability to bring actions in federal court against brand-name companies that refuse to provide samples of their products for purchase and use in the generic approval process. In so doing, the CREATES Act helps to increase the likelihood of a generic product coming to the market so consumers have more affordable options. The CREATES Act also gives the FDA more discretion for approving alternative safety protocols that meet the statutory standards already in place. This helps the FDA more efficiently process generic applications. In the end, this helps consumers, who will have more choices when selecting their medications. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, the CREATES Act will save the federal government $3.9 billion on prescription spending. More than 90 organizations representing consumers, physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, insurers, antitrust experts, and others support the CREATES Act. Supporters include AARP, Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, Consumer Reports, Public Citizen, American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, Patients for Affordable Drugs, and the Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-gallego-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-help-disabled-veterans-overcome-mobility-challenges,"Sensenbrenner, Gallego Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Help Disabled Veterans Overcome Mobility Challenges",2019-12-17,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Today, Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced legislation that would help disable veterans regain their independence. Rep. Sensenbrenner: This is a no-brainer. Veterans who sacrifice so much for our country, especially those who must overcome serious injuries, should not have trouble getting the equipment they need to adjust back to civilian life. This legislation simply clarifies that the VA is permitted to cover these necessary items. I'm grateful for Congressman Gallego for joining me in sponsoring this bipartisan bill. Rep. Gallego: Veterans with serious injuries deserve all of the support we can give them to ensure they are able to live a full and independent life. I'm proud to sponsor this bill with Congressman Sensenbrenner to allow veterans to access the equipment they need to overcome mobility challenges. Background: Currently, the Department of Veterans Administration does not cover trailers for mobility equipment for disabled veterans. Items currently covered, such as mechanical lifts, only fit in large vehicles and leave many veterans without a viable option. H.R. 5447 would clarify that the VA does have the authority to cover non-articulating trailers for veterans who may need to transport their mobility devices.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/this-hartland-native-commands-forces-across-11-time-zones-and-an-astronaut-aboard-the-international-space-station,This Hartland native commands forces across 11 time zones and an astronaut aboard the International Space Station,2019-12-17,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Evan Frank of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel As Lt. Gen. Daniel Karblerassumed command of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defenseduring a change of command ceremony on Dec. 6 in Alabama, he was joined by people who made an impact on his life years ago when he lived in Hartland. Karbler said he was touched to see familiar faces likeJim and Sharon Cull, Dave Morris, Curt and Heather Gundrum, Rick and Barb Delsman andTom and Sue Sorenson. ""In Hartland, we don't have a lot of military touch points,"" Karbler said. ""We don't have a base nearby or anything like that. For many of them, it was their first opportunity to see any kind of Army ceremony. (For) themto be a part of that, for me, it was huge. So many of them had so much to do with help bringing me up."" Karbler attendedBark River Elementary School and graduated from Arrowhead High School in 1983. He went on to graduate in1987 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Defense Artillery branch. Looking back at his time at Arrowhead, Karbler remembered the impact of people such as baseball coachTim O'Driscoll, basketball coach Greg Smith and choir teacher Dennis Brooks. ""Part of what all those three gentlemen taught was the value of hard work and practice,"" Karbler said. ""But you still had to execute that. Whether you're up on stage singing or whether you're on the field playing baseball or basketball, you still had to execute, and you had to perform. Putting those two things together, those teachersreally helped me learnhow to do that."" Karbler also took part in musicals, swing choir, marching band, band, student senate and more when he was at Arrowhead. When he applied to West Point, Karbler received anomination from Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. ""There was no application fee, so that was pretty cool,"" Karbler said. ""I never had a job in high school because I was always playing sports, band, choir, all of those things. I knew I was going to get a good education and guaranteed a job when I graduated. Those were really the motivators up front."" At first,Karbler thought he wouldleave the Army after his five-year commitment, but his mind was changed afterhetraveled to Israel during Desert Storm. ""I got to see how thePatriot missile (defense) system worked,"" Karbler said. ""It was phenomenal. I was like, 'Holy cow, this is great.' I loved what I was doing;it was combat. That had me hooked. I decided to stay in as long as the Army would keep me. My five-year plan now is 32-plus years."" Military service In his current position with Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Karbler oversees a command that provides the Army and joint services with space, missile defense, and high-altitude capabilities and forces. It is a global command with forces in 23 locations across 11 time zones, witheven one soldier/astronautcurrently aboard the International Space Station. Karbler most recently served as the chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command at theOffutt Air Force Base inNebraska. He was the principal adviser to the USSTRATCOM commander and deputy commander, and directed the activities of the command staff by developing and implementing policies and procedures in support of the command's missions. He chaired numerous boards, oversaw the command's corporate process and served as the director of the commander's staff. Karbler also served as the commanding general of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. Before that, he served as the director, Joint and Integration, Army G-8 at the Pentagon. His awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Israeli Air Force Combat Operations Badge. ""The Army has done wonders for taking care of me and my family,"" Karbler said. ""I love serving the Army.I loveworking with soldiers and the missions that we do. I think Hartland did a big part of putting in a work ethic, putting in humility as part of my foundation that has helped me come as far as I've come from the Army.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-s-house-members-prepare-for-historic-impeachment-vote,Wisconsin's House members prepare for historic impeachment vote,2019-12-15,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"No one is talking about the urgency of this issue, though, because of the impeachment circus, he said at the time, though since then many of those issues appear to have been resolved. Nearly one year removed from replacing former House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District, Steil joined the three other Republican House members to vote against the House resolution that set the ground rules for the investigation. Today's resolution does not provide the president with due process protections that were afforded to both President Clinton and President Nixon, Steil wrote in a tweet immediately before the House voted on the resolution. Later that day, the House passed the resolution 232-196, with all Republicans and two Democrats opposed. Earlier in October, Steil put out an online survey asking constituents if they supported articles of impeachment against Trump. He did not release the results. Steil, a lawyer who spent more than a decade working in the manufacturing sector in southeastern Wisconsin, was one of almost 90 new members sworn into the House in January. There are no political parties on the shop floor, Steil said in an email. You work with your co-workers to complete a job on time, within budget, and to achieve the goal at hand. It is frustrating to see House Democrats' inaction on the real issues facing our communities. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah, offered similar criticism of impeachment in an interview. The hearings took away from issues like welfare proposals, the president's new trade agreement and immigration that is still at crisis level, Grothman said. People who are focusing on the impeachment are trying to take our eye off of those more important issues, Grothman said. I'm looking to get back on the border in January or February when this is over to further equate myself with that situation. Pocan disputed their characterization. Despite juggling meetings and following the proceedings, he said it has been an especially productive time for the House. So far, the House has passed more than 400 bills, according toGovTrack.us, on pace to pass the 758 bills passed between January 2017 and January 2019. We can walk and chew gum, Pocan said. Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Green Bay, challenged the grounds for impeachment in a recent TV interview. He noted that Wisconsin polls have showed the majority of Wisconsin voters oppose impeachment. I think it's not going anywhere, it's losing support in Wisconsin, Gallagher said. Among common-sense Wisconsinites, I think most people want us to just do our jobs and stop the endless partisan political warfare.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/five-things-you-missed-because-impeachment,Five Things You Missed Because of Impeachment,2019-12-14,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Contrary to what you may have seen on the news, impeachment wasn't the only thing happening in DC this week. Here are a few things you may have missed due to the impeachment craziness here in Washington. 1. Booming Jobs Numbers It's been almost two years since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted, and guess what? The economy just keeps booming. The most recent jobs report showed that our economy created 266,000 jobs in November, bringing the unemployment rate to 3.5% -- a 50 year low. Wages are rising and unemployment is falling, which is great news for Northeast Wisconsin. 2.A Deal on USMCA President Trump signed the USMCA more than a year ago. And after months of Speaker Pelosi playing political games, she finally decided it was important and came to an agreement with the Trump Administration. This is big news for Wisconsin and big news for America. And as Rep. Gallagher said, ""It's about damn time."" 3. Action on Cartels In light of recent cartel-related violence in Mexico, Rep. Gallagher introduced two bills that support Mexico's anti-corruption campaign and ensure thugs in Mexican cartels are met with the full force of the law. Criminal organizations like these are tearing our communities and families apart. It's time we get serious about dealing with them. 4. A Win for our Troops Congress' most important role is to provide for the common defense, and the National Defense Authorization Act that passed the House this week takes important steps to do that. It continues bipartisan work to build a 355 ship Navy, gets tough on China, and most importantly, gives our troops a well-deserved pay raise. And it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. 5. No Budget, No Pay There are four working days left in the year for Congress, yet we still don't have a bill put together to fund the government. As Rep. Gallagher has said time and again, this is insane. That's why he sent a letter to House and Senate leadership urging them to pass a bill that makes sure Congress",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-colleagues-introduce-bill-impose-sanctions-drug-cartels,"Gallagher, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Impose Sanctions on Drug Cartels",2019-12-13,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), alongside Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL), today introduced the Significant Transnational Criminal Organization Designation Act. This bill would create a new designation, Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), which has more stringent sanctions than the current transnational criminal organization designation. The penalties for Significant TCOs would mirror many of the penalties for entities designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), including sanctions on organization members and their families, travel restrictions, and increased penalties for US citizens who grant them material assistance. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. Click here for bill text. Recent cartel-related violence in Mexico has demonstrated that whatever we're doing to combat these thugs isn't working, said Rep. Gallagher. Enough is enough. This bill gives the administration the tools it needs to go after significant transnational criminal organizations and ensure they face maximum pressure under the law. The Significant Transnational Criminal Organization Designation Act: Enables the federal government to impose sanctions on designated Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), including: Barring organization members and their immediate families from admission into the United States, Freezing assets, and Seeking civil and criminal penalties against individuals providing material assistance or resources to the organization. Requires the President to submit a report to Congress detailing the government's findings from the November 4, 2019 attack on U.S. cities in northern Mexico, including whether the organization responsible should be designated as a Significant TCO Co-sponsors of this bill include: Mark Walker (R-NC) Matt Gaetz (R-FL) Doug Lamborn (R-CO) Lance Gooden (R-TX) Bob Gibbs (R-OH) Randy Webber (R-TX) Michael Cloud (R-TX) Denver Riggleman (R-VA) Ron Wright (R-TX) John Rutherford (R-FL) Rick Crawford (R-AR) French Hill (R-AR) ICYMI: Earlier this week, Rep. Gallagher introduced H.R. 5369, the Supporting Mexico Against Corruption (SMAC) Act, which would combat corruption by requiring the President to impose Magnitsky Sanctions on individuals in the Mexican government that the U.S. Treasury Department has credible evidence engaged in corrupt activities outlined by the Global Magnitsky Act.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-urges-congressional-leadership-pass-no-budget-no-pay,"Gallagher Urges Congressional Leadership to Pass No Budget, No Pay",2019-12-13,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today joined a bipartisan group of his colleagues in sending a letter to House and Senate leadership urging them to pass No Budget, No Pay legislation as part of any year-end spending package. This would prevent Members of Congress from getting paid if they fail to do their most basic job: passing a budget. The letter states: Withholding paychecks from Members of Congress who fail to pass appropriations is an important step to prevent government shutdowns, which hurt the economy and millions of everyday AmericansWe are elected to represent the citizens of our states and districts. When they don't do their job, there are consequences, and that same standard should apply to Congress."" Click here to watch a video of Rep. Gallagher discussing the letter. Click here to read the letter. The full text is found below: Dear Congressional Leadership: As we wrap up the year and finalize the negotiations on Fiscal Year 2020 appropriations, we urge you to include No Budget, No Pay as part of any end-of-year spending package. Appropriating funds is the most basic duty of Congress, but for the past 40 years, Congress has cut corners by passing short-term spending bills Continuing Resolutions that just keep government funded at existing levels. When Congress fails to pass appropriations, American people are hurt. Just this year, American families suffered under the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Air traffic controllers, members of the Coast Guard, and fire safety officials worked without pay, while Members of Congress continued to receive their paychecks. That is wrong, and we're urging you to move forward with No Budget, No Pay before the end of the year. The concept is simple: Members of Congress should not be paid if they don't pass appropriations. If Congress can't do its most basic task, then Members of Congress shouldn't get a paycheck. This proposal has bipartisan support and is already moving through Congress. It was approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June, and is included as part of the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act (S. 1877). Withholding paychecks from Members of Congress who fail to pass appropriations is an important step to prevent government shutdowns, which hurt the economy and millions of everyday Americans. But it's also an important step to promote fiscal responsibility. We are elected to represent the citizens of our states and districts. When they don't do their job, there are consequences, and that same standard should apply to Congress. We look forward to continuing to work with you to make important reforms so Washington works better for all Americans.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-votes-against-weak-impeachment-articles-after-partisan-committee-markup,Sensenbrenner Votes Against Weak Impeachment Articles after Partisan Committee Markup,2019-12-13,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner(WI-05) issued the following statement after voting no on two articles of impeachment against President Trump during today's House Judiciary Committee markup: These articles of impeachment are the weakest in history. The Democrats will stop at nothing to remove a duly-elected President over a policy disagreementnot for bribery, treason, or any high crime and misdemeanor. They have set dangerous precedent today, which undoubtedly weakens the fabric of our government. The Democrats continue to make outlandish charges that the President will steal the 2020 election if he is not impeached, but what they're really doing is trying to steal back the 2016 election from the 63 million people who elected Donald Trump.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-statement-articles-impeachment,Steil Statement on Articles of Impeachment,2019-12-13,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, Bryan Steil released a statement following the House Judiciary Committee's vote to bring articles of impeachment against President Trump to the House floor. After reviewing the articles of impeachment against President Trump, my position remains unchanged. I will be voting against the articles when they come to the House floor. This impeachment inquiry has divided the country and jeopardized Congress' ability to focus on the real issues impacting Americans.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-statement-on-articles-of-impeachment,Steil Statement on Articles of Impeachment,2019-12-13,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil released a statement following the House Judiciary Committee's vote to bring articles of impeachment against President Trump to the House floor. ""After reviewing the articles of impeachment against President Trump, my position remains unchanged. I will be voting against the articles when they come to the House floor. This impeachment inquiry has divided the country and jeopardized Congress' ability to focus on the real issues impacting Americans.""",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=8D805315-A59B-4F2E-A830-9DB336A79711,Wisconsin Senators Provide Recommendations to White House for District Court Vacancy,2019-12-13,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON U.S. Senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin announced on Friday their agreement to recommend to the White House four Wisconsinites for consideration to fill the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin created by the retirement of the late Judge Rudolph Randa. The candidates, Joseph Bugni, Samuel Hall, Jr., Brett Ludwig and Daniel Vaccaro, were recommended by a bipartisan federal nominating commission that the Wisconsin senators established in April 2013 to move federal nominations forward, including nominations to vacant federal judgeships in Wisconsin. The full text of the Wisconsin senators' letter of recommendation to the White House is here and below. December 13, 2019 The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We are pleased to recommend the following individuals to fill the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin created by the retirement of Judge Rudolph Randa: Joseph Aragorn Bugni Samuel Craig Hall, Jr. Brett H. Ludwig Daniel Jay Vaccaro These candidates were recommended by our Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission that we established to screen applicants. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ron Johnson Tammy Baldwin United States Senator United States Senator ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-speaker-pelosi-wasted-opportunity-lower-prescription-drug-costs,Gallagher: Speaker Pelosi Wasted Opportunity to Lower Prescription Drug Costs,2019-12-12,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today issued the following statement after Speaker Pelosi's partisan drug pricing proposal, H.R. 3, passed the House on a near party-line vote of 230-192. As House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Ranking Member Kevin Brady said yesterday, Health care policy only works when both parties work together. By that standard, Speaker Pelosi's partisan proposal misses the mark. If we truly want to lower the cost of prescription drugs, we need to work together to bring transparency into our complex prescription drug pricing system. Bills I've introduced, such as the Prescription Drug Rebate Reform Act and the Transparency in All Health Care Pricing Act, will hold key players in the industry such as Pharmacy Benefit Managers, drug insurers, and insurance companies -- accountable, ensure consumers have the information they need to pay fair costs, and pull back the curtain on the industry's complex pricing methods. If Speaker Pelosi were serious about addressing the rising costs of prescription drugs, she would have included these critical bipartisan proposals. Instead she chose to play politics and waste an opportunity to actually lower costs for the American people. Background: In Congress, Rep. Gallagher has been a strong advocate for finding bipartisan ways to increase transparency in the health care industry. Earlier this year he introduced H.R. 1409, the bipartisan Transparency in all Healthcare Pricing Act, and H.R. 3805, the Prescription Drug Rebate Reform Act of 2019, both of which would make drug prices more fair and transparent.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/lawmakers-clash-on-trump-clinton-impeachment-comparisons,"Lawmakers clash on Trump, Clinton impeachment comparisons",2019-12-12,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Zack Budryk of the Hill Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday clashed over comparisons between the impeachment case againstPresident Trumpand the one decades ago against President Clinton. The disagreement was led by two members of the panel who were both in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton era. Rep.Zoe Lofgren(D-Calif.), who was also a congressional staffer during the Nixon impeachment drama, said most Democrats in the Clinton era did not see sex as an impeachable offense. She contrasted that position with the crimes that Democrats are accusing Trump of having committed: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Republicans in the Clinton era said the president had lied to Congress, but Lofgren argued he had just lied about an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. I would just like to note that the argument that somehow lying about a sexual affair is an abuse of presidential power, but the misuse of presidential power to get a benefit somehow doesn't matter, Lofgren said. Lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels's case in front of us. We don't believe that's a high crime and misdemeanor, she added. And it is not before us, and it should not [be] before us, because it is not an abuse of presidential power. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said Lofgren was missing the point of Clinton's impeachment. The important thing is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury, responded Sensenbrenner, who was a key figure in the Clinton impeachment fight. That is a crime. The article of impeachment that passed the House accused Bill Clinton of lying to a grand jury, a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to the truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference. The Judiciary panel is expected to vote on articles of impeachment against Trump later on Thursday.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-urges-colleagues-take-action-anti-human-trafficking-legislation,Steil Urges Colleagues to Take Action on Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation,2019-12-12,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, Bryan Steil testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about his bill, the Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act. Steil urged his colleagues to take action on his legislation as part of the committee's efforts to combat human trafficking. Click here to watch Steil's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I want to thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. I look forward to working with you on this important issue and doing everything we can to stop [human trafficking], said House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul to Steil during today's hearing. The Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act has 47 cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) is the lead cosponsor. The U.S. currently uses the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report issued by the Department of State to engage foreign governments to combat human trafficking. The TIP report places countries into one of three tiers based on the extent of their government's efforts to comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. A country's tier designation is then used to condition aid. The TIP report looks at several criteria, but it does not currently cover efforts to disrupt illicit finance. The Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act requires the existing Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report to evaluate foreign countries' efforts to investigate, prevent, and prosecute financial criminal activities associated with the facilitation of human trafficking. Steil's testimony as prepared: Thank you to Chairman Eliot Engel and Ranking Member Michael McCaul for your commitment to the issue of human trafficking. I am here today to shine a light on an issue that affects every corner of this nation and every country in the worldhuman trafficking. Human trafficking is a horrendous crime that presents a real threat to people in Southeast Wisconsin and around the globe. This isn't just a faraway problemhuman trafficking has been reported in every Wisconsin county. Girls, boys, men, and women of all ages, nationalities, and backgrounds are victims of human trafficking. More than 500,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. More than 14,000 women, children, and men are trafficked into the United States. This is a global epidemic. Criminals have become organized and sophisticated in their ways, making human trafficking a lucrative industry. The International Labor Organization estimates more than $150 billion in illegal profit is made from forced labor each year. If there is a profit to be made, these criminals will take advantage of it. That is where a nonpartisan solution comes into play to deter these crimes from occurring. Currently, the United States uses the Trafficking in Persons Report to engage foreign governments to combat human trafficking. Governments will report their efforts to stop human trafficking within their own country. Foreign aid is then given to these countries based on their action to prevent these crimes. However, while the Trafficking in Persons Report evaluates several criteria, there is no requirement to showcase a country's efforts to disrupt the illicit financing of human trafficking. In April, I introduced my first bill, the Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act. This nonpartisan bill holds countries accountable for their involvement in human trafficking. The Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act requires countries to report their efforts to investigate, prevent, and prosecute financial crimes associated with human trafficking. Right now, countries that receive U.S. aid have no responsibility to report their efforts to prevent money laundering from human trafficking. We must follow the money. And while this bill may be a simple change, it will have a global impact on how countries combat human trafficking. 47 of my colleagues have joined me in this effortmany of whom are members of this committee. Not only does this bill strengthen our efforts to combat human traffickers' use of our domestic financial system, it also encourages other countries to cut off traffickers from the global financial system. This effort is just one piece of the puzzle. Fighting human trafficking requires a multifaceted approach. That's why awareness campaigns, school counselors and teachers, and law enforcement are a vital part of this effort. I'm thankful to Southeast Wisconsin's law enforcement community. Many of our county sheriffs and police officers have brought human trafficking issues to my attention. We have to work togetherall of usRepublicans and Democratslocal, state, federal, and international partnerto take this crisis head-on. I continue working with our community in Southeast Wisconsin to address this problem. And I will continue fighting for this issue here in Congress. Bringing attention to human trafficking is a necessary first step. And passing this legislation and other anti-human trafficking bills is the next step. Our work isn't done. So today, I ask the committee to mark-up the Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act. I am confident this would pass with broad support from both sides of the aisle. Thank you again to Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for the opportunity to speak here today.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-urges-colleagues-to-take-action-on-anti-human-trafficking-legislation,Steil Urges Colleagues to Take Action on Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation,2019-12-12,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about his bill, the Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act. Steil urged his colleagues to take action on his legislation as part of the committee's efforts to combat human trafficking. Click here to watch Steil's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. ""I want to thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. I look forward to working with you on this important issue and doing everything we can to stop [human trafficking],"" said House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul to Steil during today's hearing. The Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act has 47 cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) is the lead cosponsor. The U.S. currently uses the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report issued by the Department of State to engage foreign governments to combat human trafficking. The TIP report places countries into one of three tiers based on the extent of their government's efforts to comply with the ""minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking."" A country's tier designation is then used to condition aid. The TIP report looks at several criteria, but it does not currently cover efforts to disrupt illicit finance. The Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act requires the existing Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report to evaluate foreign countries' efforts to investigate, prevent, and prosecute financial criminal activities associated with the facilitation of human trafficking. Steil's testimony as prepared: Thank you to Chairman Eliot Engel and Ranking Member Michael McCaul for your commitment to the issue of human trafficking. I am here today to shine a light on an issue that affects every corner of this nation and every country in the world—human trafficking. Human trafficking is a horrendous crime that presents a real threat to people in Southeast Wisconsin and around the globe. This isn't just a faraway problem—human trafficking has been reported in every Wisconsin county. Girls, boys, men, and women of all ages, nationalities, and backgrounds are victims of human trafficking. More than 500,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. More than 14,000 women, children, and men are trafficked into the United States. This is a global epidemic. Criminals have become organized and sophisticated in their ways, making human trafficking a lucrative industry. The International Labor Organization estimates more than $150 billion in illegal profit is made from forced labor each year. If there is a profit to be made, these criminals will take advantage of it. That is where a nonpartisan solution comes into play to deter these crimes from occurring. Currently, the United States uses the Trafficking in Persons Report to engage foreign governments to combat human trafficking. Governments will report their efforts to stop human trafficking within their own country. Foreign aid is then given to these countries based on their action to prevent these crimes. However, while the Trafficking in Persons Report evaluates several criteria, there is no requirement to showcase a country's efforts to disrupt the illicit financing of human trafficking. In April, I introduced my first bill, the Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act. This nonpartisan bill holds countries accountable for their involvement in human trafficking. The Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act requires countries to report their efforts to investigate, prevent, and prosecute financial crimes associated with human trafficking. Right now, countries that receive U.S. aid have no responsibility to report their efforts to prevent money laundering from human trafficking. We must follow the money. And while this bill may be a simple change, it will have a global impact on how countries combat human trafficking. 47 of my colleagues have joined me in this effort—many of whom are members of this committee. Not only does this bill strengthen our efforts to combat human traffickers' use of our domestic financial system, it also encourages other countries to cut off traffickers from the global financial system. This effort is just one piece of the puzzle. Fighting human trafficking requires a multifaceted approach. That's why awareness campaigns, school counselors and teachers, and law enforcement are a vital part of this effort. I'm thankful to Southeast Wisconsin's law enforcement community. Many of our county sheriffs and police officers have brought human trafficking issues to my attention. We have to work together—all of us—Republicans and Democrats—local, state, federal, and international partner—to take this crisis head-on. I continue working with our community in Southeast Wisconsin to address this problem. And I will continue fighting for this issue here in Congress. Bringing attention to human trafficking is a necessary first step. And passing this legislation and other anti-human trafficking bills is the next step. Our work isn't done. So today, I ask the committee to mark-up the Exposing the Financing of Human Trafficking Act. I am confident this would pass with broad support from both sides of the aisle. Thank you again to Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for the opportunity to speak here today.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-statement-house-passage-ndaa,Gallagher Statement on House Passage of NDAA,2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today issued the following statement after the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 by a vote of 377-48. Rep. Gallagher serves on the House Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for drafting the NDAA. This NDAA marks a key step towards implementing the National Defense Strategy and doing right by our men and women in uniform. It continues our bipartisan work to build a 355 ship Navy, codifies the Trump administration's actions on Huawei, ensures ZTE is complying with its settlement with the U.S. government, provides for critical independent reviews of National Defense Strategy implementation, and gives our troops a well-deserved pay increase. For 58 years, Congress has put aside partisan politics to uphold its most important responsibility to provide for the common defense. While we hit some road bumps along the way, I'm glad we were able to uphold this tradition.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/democrats-and-republicans-trade-barbs-and-defend-decisions-in-nighttime-impeachment-hearing,DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TRADE BARBS AND DEFEND DECISIONS IN NIGHTTIME IMPEACHMENT HEARING,2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Jeffrey Martin of Newsweek Impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump continued Wednesday night as the House Judiciary Committee began a debate about the articles of impeachment by allowing every member of the committee, Republicans and Democrats by turn, to make an opening statement. Hoping to push the impeachment articles through to a full House vote before the upcoming Christmas holiday, the debate is expected to continue Thursday evening. Final language is expected to be agreed upon for the articles of impeachment, which are based on charges of abuse of presidential power and obstruction of justice. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler began the meeting by saying Trump's avoidance of the impeachment hearings was unprecedented. ""Other presidents have resisted congressional oversight,"" Nadler said. ""But President Trump's stonewall was complete, absolute and without precedent in American history."" Republicans answered Democrat responses by saying the impeachment proceedings were being rushed because of the upcoming holiday. Republican Representative Doug Collins claimed that the only obstruction apparent in the hearings was perpetrated by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for his closed-door depositions and alleged hesitancy to release information. Collins also placed doubt on Democrats' claim of abuse of power on the president's part. ""The only abuse of power here is the majority racing the fastest they ever have, the clock and the calendar determining what impeachment looks like,"" Collins said. Representative James Sensenbrenner agreed with Collins concerning the timing of the hearings. ""What we're debating here, in my opinion, is the weakest case in history,"" Sensenbrenner said. ""And yet the Democrats have decided to go full speed ahead, again because of the clock and the calendar, with an incomplete record simply by using hearsay evidence and trashing the rules of the house every time they can in order to speed things up to a preordained conclusion and that is a partisan vote for impeachment."" ""For all the radical left's attacks on the president's honesty,"" said Republican Representative Matt Gaetz, ""it's their lies that continue to fuel this scorched-earth strategy of impeachment."" Gaetz also referred to the impeachment as ""hot garbage."" ""This is nothing more than the sloppy straight-to-DVD Ukranian sequel to the failed Russia hoax,"" he added. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee denied that impeachment had anything to do with personal feelings towards the president, but simply that Trump had committed ""constitutional crimes."" ""Truth matters, and where truth rests, trust builds,"" she said. ""Impeachment cannot be warped by equivocation wrapped in doubt."" Most Democrats stated they were involved in the impeachment process because of their love for the country. ""Tonight, I ask all Americans to put their personal affections and political affiliations aside,"" said Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, ""and consider the long term health of our democracy. The issue we face now as a country as a result of this president is bigger than party, and the Constitution has no partisan allegiance.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/house-panel-debates-impeachment-articles-in-bid-to-complete-charges-against-trump,House Panel Debates Impeachment Articles in Bid to Complete Charges Against Trump,2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Seated at the wood-carved dais of the Ways and Means Committee room, the grandest meeting chamber in the House, lawmakers appeared to feel the weight of the occasion, refraining from some of the more raucous tactics that have marked the impeachment process so far in favor of passionate statements of principle. Even as the outcome in the committee appeared clear, Mr. Nadler used his statement to appeal to Republicans to reconsider their position before it was too late. You still have a choice, Mr. Nadler told the Republicans, adding, President Trump will not be president forever. When his time has passed, when his grip on our politics is gone, when our country returns as surely it will to calmer times and stronger leadership, history will look back on our actions here today, he said. How would you be remembered? Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin and one of the managers of the impeachment case against Mr. Clinton, had an appeal of his own to Democrats: Put aside your partisan politics and don't listen to what Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are telling you, because the future of our country and the viability of our Constitution as the framers decided it are at stake. Along with the committee chairman, he was referring to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has kept remarkably tight control over the impeachment inquiry, and Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who led the investigation into the president's pressure campaign on Ukraine. Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, who wasparticipating in her third impeachment inquiry, offered an explanation about this one. It seems, she said, like we live in an alternate reality. Others warned of the political risks of the moment. Representative Ken Buck of Colorado predicted that voters would punish Democrats, particularly those whose victories in conservative districts in 2016 handed them control of the chamber. Say goodbye to your majority, Mr. Buck said. And please join us in January of 2021 when President Trump is inaugurated again. Democrats drew heavily on their own experiences and backgrounds as they sought to frame their views on impeachment for the history books. Some reached for the words of the founders or the annals of the law. Others quoted from scripture or spoke about loved ones. Many harked back to their unique biographies as immigrants and the legacy of painful periods in American history. I'm a black man representing Georgia, born when Jim Crow was alive and well, said Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia. To me, the idea that elections can be undermined is not theoretical. I have constituents who remember what it is like to live in a democracy in name only. Representative Lucy McBath of Georgia, one of the panel's only Democrats representing a swing district, spoke of losing her only son to gun violence the cause that sent her to Congress. This is not why I came to Washington, she said, but she confirmed she would vote to impeach. I must vote my conscience, and I do so with a heavy heart and a grieving soul, she said. Mr. Nadler called a recess after the opening statements late Wednesday. He planned to reconvene the panel on Thursday to begin the protracted process of allowing members to propose edits and amendments tothe two articles. The first article accuses Mr. Trump of ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests by carrying out a scheme to corruptly solicit election assistance from Ukraine through investigations to smear his Democratic political rivals. The second article charges that the president obstructed Congress by engaging in unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of House subpoenas. No lawmaker is expected to cross party lines, and House Democratic leaders are eyeing a final vote to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors as early as Tuesday. Democrats are confident they have the votes to pass both articles even if a handful of Democrats defect. With the outcome in the Judiciary Committee all but certain, lawmakers have begun privately appealing to the speaker to win appointments as impeachment managers when the charges are put before the Senate for trial. In the Senate, the prospect of hosting an impeachment trial when they return from the year-end break was weighing heavily on their thinking. Some Senate Republicans appeared to be eager for a streamlined trial without testimony by witnesses, ensuring that the spectacle of deciding on Mr. Trump's impeachment would be over quickly so that the chamber could move on to other issues in an election year. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, hinted at that preference in comments to reporters on Tuesday, saying that a majority of senators could decide after hearing arguments for both sides that they've heard enough and end the trial quickly. On Wednesday, Mr. McConnell chastised the House for what he called the least thorough and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history. Over lunch on Wednesday, Republican senators invited Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, who has played a leading role in Mr. Trump's defense in the House, and his lawyer, Stephen R. Castor, to privately offer their theory of the case for Mr. Trump's defense. At the White House, Mr. Trump's legal team has been discussing the possibility of hiring Alan Dershowitz, the veteran lawyer who has defended the president, to represent him in the impeachment trial, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Mr. Dershowitz would join the president's outside legal team, withPat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel,taking the lead in arguing the case in the Senate. Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, mentioned Mr. Dershowitz as a possibility on the House Freedom Caucus podcast, adding: I have advocated that there needs to be one other attorney that's added to the mix. The articles of impeachment, which run for nine pages, include two counts against Mr. Trump. Thursday's session will begin with a committee clerk reading the articles aloud. The first article, abuse of power, accused Mr. Trump of withholding $391 million in military aid and a coveted White House meeting for Ukraine's president as leverage for extracting public announcements of investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, as well as an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine conspired with Democrats to swing the 2016 election against Mr. Trump. The second article, obstruction of Congress, charges that Mr. Trump sought to cover up his own wrongdoing.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-democrat-impeachment-weakest-case-in-history,Sensenbrenner: Democrat Impeachment Weakest Case in History,2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Breitbart Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) delivered a stirring address during the markup of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday evening, calling the Democrats' case the weakest in American history. His full speech: Mr. Chairman, I agree witheverybody that tonight is a verysolemn night. This is the third time in thelast 40 years, 45 years, thatthis committee has sat to readarticles of impeachment againstthe President of the United States. What we are debating here, in myopinion, is the weakest case inhistory. And yet the Democrats have decided to go full speed ahead, again because ofthe clock and the calendar, withan incomplete record, simply byusing hearsay evidence andtrashing the rules of the Houseevery time they can in order tospeed things up for the preordainedconclusion. And that is: apartisan vote for impeachment, something that both the Speakerand the chairman of thiscommitteete rejected earlier onwhen they thought they couldmake this bipartisan. If they could've made itbipartisan, they blew theiropportunity very early on withtheir trashing of the rules andthe trashing of what is thehistory of what is in the history this committee. Now, let's look at these twoarticles. Unlike the Nixon and Clintonimpeachment, there is no crimethat is alleged to have been committed by the President of the United States. There are policy differences, but I would submit that giventhe definition of treason, andbribery, and other high crimesand misdemeanors, that does notmean that the policy differencesshould be enough to remove apresident from office. There is no allegation ofbribery in these articles. There is no allegation ofextortion. They have defined for themselveswhat a high crime andmisdemeanor will be. This bar is so low that what ishappening is that a futurepresident can be impeached forany disagreement when thepresidency and the House of Representatives are controlledby different parties. And that goes back toestablishing a parliamentarysystem, which the Framersexplicitly rejected at the time of the Constitutional Convention. In the United Kingdom, or Canada, or other parliamentarydemocracies, if the governmentloses the confidence of themajority of the lower house, the government is out, and there is either a newgovernment or a new electionthat happens. The Framers did not want that. We had an independentpresidency. The president was independentlyelected. He did not serve at thesufferance of Congress. No he served for a fixed term andwas only, if he really obstructedthe functions of government orwas treasonous, he could beimpeached. Now let's look at obstruction of Congress. You know, again, in the past, whenever theexecutive and legislativebranches in the United Stateshave had a disagreement, they'vegone to court. And the third branch decides this difference. This committee and this majorityare so hide-bound to their clock and their calendar that they willnot allow the judicialprocess to work out. What brought Richard Nixon down,honestly, was the Supreme Courtsaying that he had to turn overcertain documents. And within two or three weeksafter that, the president knewhis time was up. There were Republicans that convinced him of that, and he resigned, rulingout the impeachment. So, yes the constitution is atstake. The Framers of our Constitution's enlightened decisions are at stake. We are about to go on a road tobecoming a parliamentarydemocracy like England and Canada are. We need an independent presidentwho does not have to suffer toanything a congressional majority might throw at him. That's what the courts are for, to figure it out. And I would to appeal to mychairman, [and] the majority membersof this committee, to listen towhat Madison and Hamilton had tosay during the ratification ofthe Constitution and during thedebates of the convention: put aside your partisan politicsand don't listen to what Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are tellingyou because the future of ourcountry and the viability of our Constitution as the Framersdecided are at stake. The committee will vote Thursday, and an impeachment vote is possible by Friday.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-leaders-groups-all-say-usmca-trade-deal-is-a-win,"Wisconsin leaders, groups all say USMCA trade deal is a win",2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Benjamin Yount of the Center Square The verdict in Wisconsin about the new trade deal with Canada and Mexico is nearly unanimous. Business groups and elected leaders all say the United States/Mexico/Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a win for Wisconsin. Our farmers have been waiting in uncertainty for more than a year for USMCA to get done. So, it's certainly good news to see the deal take this significant step forward. There are more steps to be taken, however, so we are not breathing a full sigh of relief,""Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative PresidentBrody Stapel said Tuesday. The Edge isone of the largest dairy co-ops in the country. USMCA is critical to the long-term success of the U.S. dairy community,"" Stapel said. ""Mexico is our number one dairy foods export market and Canada is third. Combined,"" he said. ""They account for more than $2 billion each year. This agreement would protect those longtime trading relationships and allow for growth in market share. That means economic certainty for businesses, families, employees and rural communities."" Wisconsin's longest serving congressman, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Milwaukee, also said that access to Canadian and Mexican markets is a big win for dairy farmers in Wisconsin. ""It is a boon for our state's dairy farmers who will have more access to Canadian markets,"" Sensenbrenner said. ""After enduring months of needless delay, I am eager to vote for the deal and am grateful to the Trump administration for their tireless work reaching an agreement. The deal is coming together after a few tweaks and some concessions to labor unions. U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-LaCrosse, said those changes are key, not just in moving the deal forward but for making it workable. ""Raising standards in trade agreements to level the playing field for workers, farmers, and businesses is vital so we are not trying to compete in a race to the bottom,"" Kind said in a statement. Both Canada and Mexico must ratify the new trade agreement. There is hope Congress can finalize it by perhaps the end of the year. U.S. Mike Gallagher, R-Green Bay, provided the simpleststatement of the day.Gallaghersummed up the impatiencethat many here in Wisconsin have felt for the past year-plus. It's about damn time,"" Gallagher said.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-supports-critical-bill-for-service-members,Steil Supports Critical Bill for Service Members,2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil released a statement after voting in favor of the national defense bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). ""We have the strongest military in the world. It is important we properly prepare for emerging threats facing our country. We must also ensure our men and women in uniform have the training, resources, and equipment needed to protect our nation here at home and abroad. The NDAA enhances our military's capabilities while supporting our service members and their families.""",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-supports-critical-bill-service-members,Steil Supports Critical Bill for Service Members,2019-12-11,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, Bryan Steil released a statement after voting in favor of the national defense bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We have the strongest military in the world. It is important we properly prepare for emerging threats facing our country. We must also ensure our men and women in uniform have the training, resources, and equipment needed to protect our nation here at home and abroad. The NDAA enhances our military's capabilities while supporting our service members and their families. On background: Funding for the military runs out on December 20, 2019. Last month, Steil delivered a floor speech on the consequences of passing short-term funding bills for the military. You can watch the floor speech here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-announces-freedom-high-school-student-winner-2019-congressional-app,Gallagher Announces Freedom High School Student as Winner of 2019 Congressional App Challenge,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today announced that Alex Scheibe from Freedom High School won the 2019 Congressional App Challenge for Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District. Alex created the Automatic Game Helper Artificial Intelligence app, an adventure game where Artificial Intelligence helps the player navigate a fantasy world. He created this app to counter negative connotations surrounding Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence will shape the economy of tomorrow and have a tremendous impact on industries across Northeast Wisconsin, said Rep. Gallagher. This change will be disruptive, but Alex's work is proof that students right here in our community can play a leading role in understanding Artificial Intelligence and the benefits that come with it. I'm proud that such a bright student hails from Northeast Wisconsin, and look forward to seeing what the future has in store for this young innovator. Click here to watch a video of Alex explaining the app. Click here to watch a video of Rep. Gallagher discussing the competition. Background: The annual Congressional App Challenge is a nation-wide effort to spur interest in coding, STEM, and computer-science education among middle and high school students. Congressional App Challenge winners will be invited to Washington, D.C. in the Spring of 2020 to showcase their apps at the #HouseofCode event in the U.S. Capitol.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-introduces-bill-support-mexico-s-anti-corruption-campaign,Gallagher Introduces Bill to Support Mexicos Anti-Corruption Campaign,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) yesterday introduced H.R. 5369, the Supporting Mexico Against Corruption (SMAC) Act. This bill would combat corruption by requiring the President to impose Magnitsky Sanctions on individuals in the Mexican government that the U.S. Treasury Department has credible evidence engaged in corrupt activities outlined by the Global Magnitsky Act. Under the SMAC Act, the President would have 120 days to implement these sanctions. Click here for bill text. In light of recent cartel-related violence in Mexico, it is time for a maximum pressure campaign against the corruption that gives these criminal organizations safe harbor, said Rep. Gallagher. We must support those in the Mexican government who are committed to rooting out corruption. Background: Since the enactment of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2017, the U.S. Department of Treasury has sanctioned four Mexican nationals, including a former Mexican government official, under the Act.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-statement-announcement-usmca-agreement,Gallagher Statement on Announcement of USMCA Agreement,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today issued the following statement after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Democrats had reached a deal with the Trump Administration on the USMCA more than a year after President Trump signed the pledge. It's about damn time.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1356,Grothman Statement of Partisan Voting Rights Bill,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Glenn Grothman,G000576,grothman.house.gov,,,legacy,"Last Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought H.R. 4 to the House floor, which passed with a nearly party-line vote. The so-called Voting Rights Advancement Act is another example of a cleverly-named bill that sounds nice, but whose goal is to strip states of their right to administer their own elections and whose consequences will result in further incentives to commit voter fraud. Wisconsin law currently requires one form of government-issued identification, including a driver's license, student I.D. and six others, to let election administrators know that the person seeking to cast a vote is indeed a resident of the state and voting in the correct election. Congressional, state Senate, state Assembly and Mayoral districts (among others) all have different constituencies depending on where district lines are drawn. Voter I.D. laws not only protect the integrity of our elections, but allow poll workers, who often volunteer for their position, to ensure that when somebody votes, they are voting in the correct election. Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah) today released the following statement about H.R. 4: It's been well-documented that far too much time and energy have been put toward the phony impeachment hearings, said Grothman. That is why it is so shocking that the little time leftover has been allocated to passing a bill that will strip away states' rights to administer their own elections. Democrats have been very clever this Congress when naming their bills. The name of the bill will often be an idea that everyone agrees with, such as voting rights, but when you dig into the text, you see a very different story. The so-called Voting Rights Advancement Act is nothing more than a federal government takeover of elections, taking power away from citizens and states and instead giving it to politicians and bureaucrats. It was disappointing to see every Democrat vote for this bill. Furthermore, this bill goes against the will of Wisconsinites by overturning state photo I.D. laws. When I speak with poll workers and town clerks around Wisconsin, I get an overwhelmingly positive response on our state's photo I.D. laws. These laws are intended to protect the integrity of our elections by ensuring votes are cast properly and in the correct elections. Photo I.D. laws are not unique to Wisconsin or America. Mexico, Germany, France, Israel, among others, all require identification in order to vote. Why is it that other countries realize this important piece in maintaining election integrity while some of my colleagues do not? -30- U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman is serving his third term representing Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-compares-impeachment-to-mccarthyism,Sensenbrenner compares impeachment to McCarthyism,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: WSAU WASHINGTON, DC (Wisconsin Radio Network) -- As Democrats continue to make their case for an impeachment of the President, Republicans say the process is corrupt. Speaking at the House Judiciary Hearing on Monday, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, along with other Republicans, took exception to California Congressman Devin Nunes being named in a report as having made phone calls to suspected co-conspirators in the investigation. He said, ""Folks, you have made Joe McCarthy look like a piker, with what you've done with the electronic surveillance involved."" Sensenbrenner added that releasing phone records of members of congress and their staff members was inappropriate. ""It is something that has to be put a stop to now. It is something that has to be fessed up to now, whether it's you Mr. Goldman that authorized the matching and the publication, or whether it was Chairman Schiff."" Democrats laid out their claims that the President willfully broke the law, that others knew about it, and that he continues to attempt to subvert the elections.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-statement-on-articles-of-impeachment,Sensenbrenner Statement on Articles of Impeachment,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner(WI-05) issued the following statement after Speaker Pelosi today annouced articles of impeachment against President Trump: Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since January 20, 2017 and realized their dream would come true last November. Despite the fact that they could find no bipartisan supporta criterion once set by both Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Nadlerthey are pushing forward with this exercise that will further tear the country apart. Just as the Founders feared, divided governments will now almost certainly lead to partisan impeachments. The Democrats' obsession with ousting the President made today an inevitability, but it is nevertheless a sad day for the Republic.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-usmca-is-a-huge-win-for-wisconsin,Sensenbrenner: USMCA is a Huge Win for Wisconsin,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Today,Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner(WI-05) issued the following statement after negotiators announced they reached a final deal on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA):This is a huge win for America and for Wisconsin. It is a boon for our state's dairy farmers who will have more access to Canadian markets. After enduring months of needless delay, I am eager to vote for the deal and am grateful to the Trump administration for their tireless work reaching an agreement.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-dairy-business-interests-weigh-in-on-new-north-american-trade-agreement,"Wisconsin dairy, business interests weigh in on new North American trade agreement",2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Briana Reilly of the Cap Times Wisconsin congressional Republicans are pushing for quick passage of a new trade deal announced Tuesday that dairy and business interests say would help bring certainty to the state. But Wisconsin Democrats said they're keen to review the measure before publicizing whether it would get their support. House Democrats Tuesday morning announced they had come to a deal with President Donald Trump's administration over the renegotiated trade pact, withnational media outlets reportingthe party was able to secure changes to provisions on prescription drug pricing, the environment, labor and more. Overall, Wisconsin congressional lawmakers lauded the news, with U.S. Rep. Ron Kind touting his efforts to ""ensure a level playing field for Wisconsin workers and farmers,"" maintain U.S. jobs and more. ""The bipartisan efforts, changes to labor standards, increases in enforceability measures, and the solidifying of agricultural access should all serve as a baseline for how future trade agreements will be drafted,"" the La Crosse Democrat said in astatement, though he didn't guarantee he'd support it on the floor as he first wants to review the language. U.S. Reps. Gwen Moore and Mark Pocan, both Democrats, hadn't yet weighed in on the deal Tuesday afternoon, with a Pocan spokesman saying the Madison rep hadn't seen the bill text and therefore declined to comment. It's about damn time,"" U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Green Bay Republican, wrote in atweet. ""USMCA is a win for Wisconsin and a win for America. It should have been brought up for a vote months ago."" State Republicans,including U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, have called on Congress to sign off on the update to the North American Free Trade Agreement for months, though Democrats have expressed reservations about the plan. Trump andVice President Mike Pencein visits to the state have also urgedpassage of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The agreement to update NAFTA, which first took effect in 1994, has received approval from the three countries' leaders after negotiations were finalized last year, but it has stalled in Congress where it needs members' approval. Trumphas slammed House Democratsfor failing to act on the deal. In Wisconsin,Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative whose president, BrodyStapel, is a dairy farmer in the eastern part of the state -- praised Tuesday's announcement as ""a significant step forward"" and demanded House leaders pass it swiftly. USMCA is critical to the long-term success of the U.S. dairy community,""Stapel said, adding: ""This agreement would protect those longtime trading relationships and allow for growth in market share. That means economic certainty for businesses, families, employees and rural communities."" Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce head Kurt Bauer said in a statement the group is ""confident this renegotiated trade deal will benefit the state's economy."" Wisconsin manufacturers, farmers and other employers need certainty when it comes to trade, and it is encouraging to see Congress finally moving the USMCA forward,"" he said. ""We make and grow things in Wisconsin, but we need to be able to sell those product to our top trading partners in Canada and Mexico."" A spokeswoman for the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO didn't immediately return a request for comment Tuesday afternoon. The deal has won the endorsement of the national group,according to media reports, which helped secure the support of House Democrats.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-statement-on-usmca-progress,Steil Statement on USMCA Progress,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil released a statement following the announcement of an official agreement on the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). ""USMCA is a win for Wisconsin, for our dairy and manufacturing industries, and for middle class families. After months of delay, we are finally moving ahead with USMCA. This is an improved trade deal with two of Wisconsin's top trading partners, Mexico and Canada. USMCA gives Wisconsin farmers critical access to Canada's dairy market. It also creates jobs in the USA. From day one, I've supported this agreement and I am happy to see we are nearing the finish line. Wisconsin farmers and workers depend on strong trade agreements with our allies."" On background:",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-statement-usmca-progress,Steil Statement on USMCA Progress,2019-12-10,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, Bryan Steil released a statement following the announcement of an official agreement on the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). USMCA is a win for Wisconsin, for our dairy and manufacturing industries, and for middle class families. After months of delay, we are finally moving ahead with USMCA. This is an improved trade deal with two of Wisconsin's top trading partners, Mexico and Canada. USMCA gives Wisconsin farmers critical access to Canada's dairy market. It also creates jobs in the USA. From day one, I've supported this agreement and I am happy to see we are nearing the finish line. Wisconsin farmers and workers depend on strong trade agreements with our allies. On background: Throughout Steil's first term in office, Steil has been an outspoken supporter of USMCA. In April, Steil held an Agriculture and Trade Roundtable in Burlington, Wisconsin to discuss impacts of USMCA on our dairy and agriculture industry. In October, Steil joined Vice President Mike Pence in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin to highlight the importance of USMCA for Wisconsin manufacturing and workers.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-statement-on-doj-ig-report,Sensenbrenner Statement on DOJ IG Report,2019-12-09,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) offered the following statement today after Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his report:The Intelligence Community is given powerful tools to protect the security of the American people, including conducting surveillance operations. These tools require vigorous oversight to make sure the rights of Americans are protected. The OIG Report released today highlights multiple missteps, errors, and omissions by the FBI in conducting FISA Surveillance of an American citizen. Congress must fully examine these findings and take corrective actions to prevent similar issues in the future. Sensenbrenner Statement on DOJ IG Report Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) offered the following statement today after Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his report: The Intelligence Community is given powerful tools to protect the security of the American people, including conducting surveillance operations. These tools require vigorous oversight to make sure the rights of Americans are protected. The OIG Report released today highlights multiple missteps, errors, and omissions by the FBI in conducting FISA Surveillance of an American citizen. Congress must fully examine these findings and take corrective actions to prevent similar issues in the future.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/democrats-voting-rights-legislation-doomed-after-partisan-house-vote,Democrats voting rights legislation doomed after partisan House vote,2019-12-06,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Emma Dumain of McClatchy The Democrats' campaign to regain control of the House in 2018 includeda pledgeto restore a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. But a vote on Friday signals their legislation is headed nowhere. Their bill passed along party lines, 228-187, with only one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting yes. It was the first time that a rewrite or reauthorization of the original Voting Rights Act of 1965 has had a partisan vote. The White House issued a veto threat of the Democrats' Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore a provision requiring certain states to get federal government permission before changing local election laws. House Republicans rebranded the bill as The Federal Control of Elections Act. And even without strong opposition from the White House, there was little appetite to take up the bill in the GOP-controlled Senate. Republicans said Democrats were to blame for crafting a bill that could not get GOP or White House support. If Democrats want an issue, they can continue down this path. If they want a law, they know my number. My record speaks for itself, said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Sensenbrenner was the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2006, the last time Congress passed a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, 390-33. The Senate passed the same bill 98-0 and Republican President George W. Bush signed it into law. Democrats resented the characterization that they had not worked with Republicans in good faith, blaming political polarization for the lack of GOP support. If it were just a messaging bill, I will have wasted ten months' worth of time, said Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the chairwoman of a House subcommittee on elections, who held nine hearings around the country on voter access that culminated in a 144-page report to justify an updated Voting Rights Act. When the original Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, it required certain states with histories of voter discrimination and disenfranchisement to be precleared before changing voting laws. A formula was established to determine which states would be subject to this requirement. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined the formula was out of date for determining which states ought to be penalized and threw it out, challenging Congress to come up with a new one Sensenbrenner worked with Democrats in the Republican-controlled House to come up with bipartisan compromises in the years following that court ruling, but GOP leaders never allowed a vote. Many congressional Republicans didn't want to restore the preclearance formula, satisfied their states would no longer be punished for Jim Crow-era offenses. On Friday, Republicans accused the Voting Rights Advancement Act of doing more than just reinstating the preclearance formula, contending the bill constituted broad federal overreach of states' rights. GOP lawmakers also complained the bill prohibited states from implementing voter ID laws and would require states to get permission before putting in place very specific election procedures that have a history of being used for discriminatory practices even if the procedures weren't intended to be discriminatory. Democrats said the need for reforms on top of a new preclearance formula were critical, arguing that many of the 14 states and jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance have taken advantage of their freedom from federal oversight to pass new laws that suppress voter access at the polls. Fudge said her review also found that voter disenfranchisement was now rampant in states that weren't originally under the preclearance formula, for instance Ohio and North Dakota. Though the Voting Rights Advancement Act is unlikely to move in the current Congress, Democrats will still seek to score political points off House passage. Supporters held a press conference in the Capitol on Friday, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it a happy day. Seeking to draw on the emotions of the issue, Democrats had Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights icon, preside over the bill's final passage. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also left open a possibility that Democrats could use Fudge's report as the basis of a formal legal challenge at some future date to force the Supreme Court to reinstate the formula. But on the floor on Friday, the debate laid bare deep political differences in starkly personal terms. Today, a partisan bill comes to the floor to prevent states from running their own state and local elections when we are dealing with this very issue of impeachment and discussing elections at the same time, said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, which also held hearings on the state of voting rights in preparation for the drafting of the Voting Rights Advancement Act. The Republican Party used to support the unfettered right to vote, countered House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries of New York. The party of Lincoln is gone. The party of Reagan is gone. The party of McCain is gone.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/dhillon-disrespecting-out-president-will-backfire-on-foreign-leaders-democrats,"Dhillon: Disrespecting out president will backfire on foreign leaders, Democrats",2019-12-05,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"This is a rush transcript from ""The Ingraham Angle,"" December 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. Laura Ingraham: All right, I'm Laura Ingraham. This is The Ingraham Angle from Washington, tonight. The Democrats thought that this spectacle was going to help? Well, our legal eagles will be here in moments to break it all down, just how damaging it was for the Democrats today. And, Henry, he has new reporting about potential cracks forming in Pelosi's caucus. Also, tonight, he is only -- I think is one of only two sitting congressmen who was front and center in the last impeachment of a president, James Sensenbrenner, is here to sound the alarm over the current sham proceedings. Plus, Raymond Arroyo reveals how the style of today's witnesses could actually hurt their arguments. And the media attacks Melania's holiday wardrobe. All of that in scene and unseen. But, first, ""you know it's over when,"" that's the focus of tonight's angle. Okay, as I was just saying to Hannity, if you or anyone you love is thinking of applying to law school, you must be having major second thoughts today. Three professors prattled on about how Trump must be impeached 11 months before an election. Their delivery was alternatively angry, dismissive, and tedious. Despite the wall-to-wall coverage and relentless hype by the Democrats, today's soporific symposium cratered any hope that they're going to coax Americans into supporting impeachment. Here are the top five reasons you know it's over. First, today's legal experts tried to pass of as facts flimsy theories and unsupported inferences. And they used those theories and inferences to conclude that the President should be basically removed from office. [begin video clip] Male Speaker: The phone call, itself, of July 25th if extraordinarily clear to my mind, in that we hear the President asking for a favor that's clearly of personal benefit, rather than acting on behalf of the interests of the nation. Male Speaker: And acting on his -- for his own personal benefit, and not for the benefit of the country. Pamela Karlan: He invited the Russians who are long-time adversaries into the process the last time around, because he has invited the Ukrainians into the process, and because he suggested he would like the Chinese to come into the process. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: [laughs] ""Into the process."" Well, Stanford law grads should demand refunds for any class taught by Karlan without corroborating evidence. Well, she's presuming malign motives on the part of President Trump, when an equally plausible motive could be that President Trump, as the nation's chief executive, has every right to want to know whether Ukraine meddled in the last election, and it's for that theory that the President somehow was trying to personally benefit from his dealings with Zelensky? Joe Biden wasn't and still isn't Trump's political opponent in the next election. He's one of several. So how can they so definitively claim that this was President Trump's guiding sole motivation? Answer, ""They cannot."" Second, you know it's over when three out of four legal eagles were Trump-hating partisans. Pam Karlan, she was basically Elizabeth Warren's supporter, gave $1,000 to her last summer, and Trump's rapid response team dug this up when Karlan admitted she was triggered by the mere site of the Trump Hotel building in Washington. [begin video clip] Pamela Karlan: I got off the bus from Dallas down at Lan Fan Plaza [spelled phonetically], and I walked up to the hotel. And, as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now the Trump Hotel, the -- which I had to cross the street of course. But The Press: Are you staying there? Pamela Karlan: God, no. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Triggered, and she was in the Obama DOJ as well. Michael Gerhart, formed from UNC law school, he once ran media efforts for Al Gore. He also worked for the Bill Clinton presidential transition team in the 1990s. Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, has been arguing for impeaching Trump for years. He even once speculated that Trump could be impeached over a Tweet that he said, ""Claiming Obama, you know, had wiretapped his campaign."" But, beyond their bias, there was a nasty, bitter undercurrent that bubbled to the surface, again, from Professor Karlan. [begin video clip] Pamela Karlan: While the President can name his son, ""Barron,"" he can't make him a baron. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: She later apologized, but still couldn't resist taking a jab in her apology at the president. Now, contrast those partisans with the GOP witness, Professor Jonathan Turley. He's not a Trump supporter; he voted for Clinton and Obama. But that made his methodical takedown of the impeachment sham all the more convincing. [begin video clip] Jonathan Turley: The record does not establish obstruction in this case. If you accept all of their presumptions, it would be obstruction. To impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment. If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Third, you know it's over when even the Democrats' press fawners are admitting this thing is a hard sell. [begin video clip] Female Speaker: The notion of having four academics in the broader goal that Democrats have to pull the public along on the idea of impeachment -- I can't see it changing. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Fourth, you know it's over when the Democrats are straining to invoke the Founders. [begin video clip] Sheila Jackson Lee: The Founding Father George Mason asked, Shall any man be above justice? And Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors mean the abuse or violation of some public trust. Jerry Nadler: Adams wrote to Jefferson Hakeem Jefferies: John Adams once wrote to Thomas Jefferson David Cicilline: James Madison said that impeachment was needed Pamela Karlan: Hamilton got a whole musical, and William Davie is just going to get this committee hearing. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Aren't you just devastated that Obama didn't put her on the Supreme Court? You've heard of the School of Rock, right? Well, she, Feldman, and Gerhardt were starring in Law School of Crock. [begin video clip] Doug Collins: I think we just put in the jury pool the Founding Fathers. I don't think we have any idea what they would think. Jonathan Turley: If you were going to make a case to George Washington that you could impeach over a conversation he had with another head of state, I expect his hair -- his powdered hair would catch on fire. It's a form of necromancy that academics do all the time. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Nice use of the word necromancy. Fifth, you know it's over when Democrats, after all of their outlandish claims, still won't say how or even if they'll vote. [begin video clip] Male Speaker: I'm going to reserve any kind of a public judgment -- Male Speaker: I think that it's important that we reserve judgment. Male Speaker: No decision has been made as to whether or not we go forward with impeachment [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: [laughs] Maybe they're even -- they're lying. I don't know. But a better explanation is that they want to give themselves an out, or at least some wiggle room, perhaps. Got to see what those latest polls are looking like. They say, The Founders, but what they're really relying on are focus groups. This thing has gone south, and they all know it. But this has been a great 24 hours for Trump. Now, yesterday he was dominating the agenda over at the NATO summit, pushing for more member nations to pay their fair share. We all love that. Last night, he was mocked by foreign elites in London. Today, he was mocked by academic elites on Capitol Hill. Chalk up another win for the White House. Is there any way, by the way, we can get that lady from Stanford to come back and lecture us some more tomorrow? And that's the angle. [sound effect] All right, joining me now, our legal power panel, Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater deputy independent counsel; Harmeet Dhillon, former student of Pam Karlan; and Trump 2020 advisory board member and attorney John Eastman, constitutional scholar and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. Sol, they're all very palsy walsy up there on that panel. The three Democrat lawyers are all friends -- the law professors are all friends; they were kind of citing each other. You know, I agree with Pam. I agree with Noah. Did the Democrats help themselves today? Sol Wisenberg: No, I don't think so. I thin it was a really bad mistake, first of all, to have three against one, because Turley is very good. He's been doing this a long time, and he's -- Laura Ingraham: He's a liberal. That's why he's really good. A liberal is actually standing up for the Constitution. Sol Wisenberg: An old-fashioned liberal. And he's very -- Laura Ingraham: Yeah, a real liberal. Sol Wisenberg: And he's very quotable. And you know, the fact that there was only one -- they only let the Republicans have one person -- particularly at the beginning when they were being questioned, the scholars, for 45 minutes, the other three were kind of -- even aside from the substance of what they were saying, they were getting broken up. They each had to have a certain amount of time, whereas Turley, who was very articulate, was just allowed to talk on and on and on, and he made a tremendous amount of sense. So, I think he definitely got the better of them. Laura Ingraham: I mean, Harmeet, being mocked by Trudeau, or kind of chided -- poked by Trudeau and Macron yesterday in London, most of all, that's great for Trump. They've been trashing American presidents since I worked for Reagan, that's for sure, over in Europe. And then today he's being mocked by the the academic elites. How does that play in flyover-state America and all these battleground states? How is that going to play? Harmeet Dhillon: Well, I think the president thrives on it, first of all, and that's sort of his superpower. And I think that you're absolutely right. Middle America -- normal people do not kowtow and just love what these foreign leaders are saying, or disrespecting our president is really going to backfire on them. And I -- you know, I and many Americans love the fact that he's demanding accountability from these foreign -- the wealthy foreign powers who are refusing to pay their fair share, which is [unintelligible] all along. Laura Ingraham: And that's what he was doing in the beginning -- Harmeet Dhillon: Exactly right. Laura Ingraham: In the beginning of that phone call with Zelensky, which gets overlooked, they were talking about the missiles and the Javelin missiles, and he said, Well, and I've got to get those European countries -- they've got to be ponying up some more money, the proximity of Ukraine to Europe obviously much closer than the proximity of the United States. John, one Democrat witness today compared Trump to a king, that tired old analogy, and -- can you imagine -- it wasn't in a complimentary way. Watch. [begin video clip] Pamela Karlan: When the president said, Do us a favor, he was using the royal we there. It wasn't a favor for the United States. He should have said, Do me a favor, because only kings say us when they mean me. [end video clip] John Eastman: You know -- Laura Ingraham: John, was Trump acting like a monarch on the July -- by the way, she seems extremely angry all the time, okay? John Eastman: Probably because, you know, she -- Laura Ingraham: Angry, angry, bitter, bitter, angry, angry, bitter. That's what she sounds like. John Eastman: Because if Hillary had won the election she might have been on the Supreme Court. Who knows? But, look, this was almost as bad as her ridiculous comment about Barron Trump. The president's statement was, Do us a favor because our country has been through a lot lately, and Ukraine knows something about it. We'd like to get to the bottom of that. That has nothing to do with royal we or anything else. Maybe she didn't read the whole transcript; it's short [laughs]. But what they're coming in there with is such a bias and an animosity and a venom against the president that they can't even think straight. I was invited to be a witness by the Republicans several weeks ago, and it got blocked, and I'm glad that they went with Jonathan Turley because he's been opposite me on -- he's been the Democrat go-to guy for decades on -- I testified with him at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing back in the Bush administration. He was on the opposite side to me. He did a tremendous job just kind of analyzing the legal analysis without the political bias in this thing. Kudos to him. Laura Ingraham: I want to play something now -- this is also from Karlan, and we're going to skip forward. Excuse me, to my producers, because we're going to go to something they're not expecting. She was asked about the timing of all this all, Sol, and if indeed it's so important, why the rush? Why are they rushing this forward? Didn't have fact witnesses today; you had academic witnesses today. And she basically waved off any concern about rushing because of next year's election. Watch. [begin video clip] Pamela Karlan: I think the evidence to this point shows that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election. You need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election like the one we had in the past. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: It's urgent; must act, because apparently Ukraine and Russia and China are all now helping Trump. Harmeet Dhillon: Yeah. Sol Wisenberg: This is a real -- one of the real problems they have, which I thought Turley did a very good job with, is the rush. You know, they don't even know -- they haven't even written the articles of impeachment yet. The Intelligence Committee report that all of these three professors had read was not even prepared until 24 hours before the testimony. That's just unheard of, and I just think it hurts them, and they don't have a good explanation for it. Laura Ingraham: AP reporting tonight that, though no date has been set, the Democrats are charging toward a Christmastime vote on removing the 45th president. That's going to go over well as people are stuffing stockings; coal for them, by the way. It's a starkly partisan undertaking, a situation Pelosi had hoped to avoid, Harmeet, but now seems inevitable. And by the way, they're throwing in Mueller. They might go back and throw Mueller into the mix as well. They must have watched my impeachment stew angle last night. Harmeet Dhillon: Well, these are the wages of desperation, Laura. They don't have enough of any one theory, and even put together, they don't have enough. Laura Ingraham: It's a grab bag. This is a grab-bag impeachment. Harmeet Dhillon: It's absolutely a grab bag, and the desperation shows. Look, as a trial lawyer, I could say in a real court these people would not be allowed to testify even as expert witnesses. They had no knowledge; we don't know what the facts are. They are unable to get beyond their bias; they are unable to cite the law that supports their positions, and it really shows. And Turley took the right approach, which is stepping back from their myopic vision and pointing out what harm these people are doing to the Constitution and to future Democratic presidents, by the way, because if these are the new rules, this is going to happen to every future president. Sol Wisenberg: And I think, importantly, Turley says -- and I agree with him, by the way -- this was not a perfect phone call to him; he's disturbed by the phone call, as I am too. But guess what? Laura Ingraham: I'm not at all disturbed by it. Harmeet Dhillon: I'm not disturbed by it in this light. Sol Wisenberg: I know -- I know you're not. Laura Ingraham: In this light. Sol Wisenberg: -- you're not. But -- but I am. And people -- the point is, people can disagree about that and still realize that this is not -- that you can't impeach a President of the United States a year before the election based on this event. Laura Ingraham: [unintelligible] Harmeet Dhillon: Well, they can vote him out if they don't like it, but there's still 11 -- Laura Ingraham: Yeah, 11 -- 11 months from now. Harmeet Dhillon: Yeah. Laura Ingraham: As I mentioned just a few moments ago, John, Nadler laid the groundwork -- you listen closely -- for resurrecting -- and people are going to think I'm -- this is ridiculous, like a fantasy -- the Mueller report from the grave. Watch. [begin video clip] [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: John, Adam Schiff said this investigation is ongoing, by the way, over in the House Intel. So, this may be [unintelligible] rolling investigation. Maybe they'll get -- you know, keep it rolling until maybe not Christmastime. I'd kick it over to the new year and see how that works out for them. John Eastman: Maybe we ought to look into Adam Schiff's actually digging out the phone records of ranking member Nunes and reporter John Solomon. I mean, this is an extraordinary violation of Constitutional rights that Adam Schiff has now admitted to. Look, Nadler and also Professor Carlin made this point, and it's a laughingstock point, that Trump invited Russia hacking when he said, ""Hillary's destroyed the emails on her private server. Maybe we should ask the Russians for them."" The notion that that -- they're making this into the big lie that he somehow invited the Russian hacking, which is just utter nonsense. He was making a laughable joke about Hillary keeping emails on a private server that every foreign government in the world had access to because it was unsecured. I mean, this is -- it's such -- it's -- it would be laughable if it wasn't so deadly serious. And what they're doing undermining this country. The president is over at a NATO meeting, and they're pulling this crap. I mean, this is -- this is stunning to me. Laura Ingraham: But I think -- I will state again, anytime the president of the United States can be mocked the way he was by academic elites, one who looks he's right out of Nicholas Nickelby from like 1947, other who just seems really angry, and the other one is kind of flat and boring. I think most people watch this going, ""Wait, how are the patriots doing?"" Harmeet Dhillon: That's right. Laura Ingraham: What's going on with -- what's going on with that Saints game. Harmeet Dhillon: Just the appearance of this, they did themselves no favors politically. Setting aside the content, who wants to hear professors prattle on with their -- Laura Ingraham: I mean, and, Sol, what I love is they're always undermining the framers or the founders, ""a bunch of old dead white guys."" And then like today, ""Well, as George Washington --"" Harmeet Dhillon: It was a seance. Laura Ingraham: "" -- said in his farewell address."" Sol Wisenberg: Well, they're all originalists today. Laura Ingraham: Yeah. Harmeet Dhillon: Yeah. Sol Wisenberg: And so, I thought that was -- that was refreshing. But, look, politics aside, ideology aside, just the utter stupidity of the bringing Baron Trump in is just mind-boggling to me. I -- Laura Ingraham: Let me tell you, that's who she is. Harmeet Dhillon: Yep, that's how she -- Laura Ingraham: That's who she is. That was a planned and choreographed line. Harmeet Dhillon: That's right. Laura Ingraham: That was a setup question. She knew she was going to say it. That was -- Harmeet Dhillon: She got lost, too. There were -- Laura Ingraham: She got applause on that. Harmeet Dhillon: -- a lot of Democrats who thought it was a good idea. Laura Ingraham: Absolutely. Harmeet Dhillon: Of course, she did. Sol Wisenberg: She rehearsed it at the -- Harmeet Dhillon: Of course, she did. Sol Wisenberg: -- Stanford Law faculty room. Laura Ingraham: Yeah, exactly. Counselors -- Harmeet Dhillon: [unintelligible] back home. Laura Ingraham: Thank you very much. Real legal eagles. Up next, two key moments from today's testimony that could have hurt the Democrats. A member of the Judiciary Committee and a manager during the Clinton impeachment will be here to respond. And cracks are forming in Pelosi's party over impeachment, and Henry says yes. He's here with exclusive reporting next. [commercial break] Laura Ingraham: Democrats are preparing to take the plunge. Sources telling Fox that Pelosi asked her caucus, ""Are you ready? If you have a problem with impeachment, now is the time to speak up."" Well, The Washington Post is reporting her caucus -- this is before the hearing today -- erupted with shouts of, ""Yay, approval,"" when she said this. But are moderate Democrats really onboard? Joining me now with exclusive insight, Fox News chief national correspondent Ed Henry. He's also host of America's News Headquarters with Ed Henry. All right, Ed. Ed Henry: Laura, good to see you. Laura Ingraham: What are you -- what are you hearing from your sources tonight? Ed Henry: Well, I talked to several senior Republicans tonight, and they told me they think this hearing went so poorly for the majority. The GOP leaders are now hopeful they're going to get even more Democrats voting no on actual articles of impeachment beyond the two Democrats who voted no on opening this inquiry last month. The only two Democrats to break with their party and vote no on opening the inquiry, remember, Colin Peterson of Minnesota, Jeff Andrew of New Jersey. Now, Peterson told Minnesota Public Radio at that time, ""What I've said all along is that you can't do this with one party. It's not smart, it's not going to work. I think if this is handled incorrectly, it will re-elect Trump. That's what I think."" Well, Republicans tonight, including Jim Jordan, who I spoke to a few moments ago, think even more moderate Democrats from Trump-leaning districts will agree with that sentiment from Peterson and vote against articles because chairman Jerry Nadler today opened the door to drafting at least one article of impeachment based on the Mueller report. That article would be based on obstruction of justice charges that were never proven. Remember, Mueller decided to not even make a recommendation one way or the other. Jonathan Turley today also raised questions about the legitimacy of the impeachment probe by noting how quickly Democrats are rushing through it. He's called it ""the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing ever."" Peter Baker of the New York Times noted today that the House impeached President Bill Clinton 101 days after receiving the Starr report. We are now just 71 days after Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened up the inquiry. So, it's likely to go faster than the Clinton inquiry. Interesting that even some in the mainstream media are raising questions today about the fairness of this. Major Garrett of CBS News said the image of three of the four witnesses being so strongly anti-Trump and then the Democrats largely skipping over Jonathan Turley, the fourth witness, because he didn't agree with their narrative, Garrett said it's something that may stick with independent voters, wondering why Democrats decided to stack the witness table. That if they're so sure of their narrative, they're so sure that they have the president on impeachment, they would be willing to test it before dissenting voices. Instead, it seems like Democrats are sticking to their narrative, Laura. Laura Ingraham: Ed, fascinating. It did look like a bit of a pig pile and it was three against one. And I think people always like the underdog there. But he came across as very credible, I thought. Thanks so much, Ed. Male Speaker: Good to see you. Laura Ingraham: All right. There was an important moment involving GOP witness Jonathan Turley that did expose how impeachment norms recognized during past inquiries have been just completely abandoned. Turley made a distinction between this impeachment effort and those involving Nixon and Clinton. [begin video clip] Jonathan Turley: Those were not just proven crimes. They were accepted crimes. That is even the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee agreed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury. In the case of Nixon, the crimes were established. No one seriously disagreed with those crimes. [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Joining me now is Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee. He also served as a House impeachment manager. I remember this well because I was interviewing him then when I was on another network during all that -- all those shenanigans back then. Congressman, now, you're one of the few sitting members of Congress who can speak to the last two impeachment efforts. What are your thoughts on what we saw today? Jim Sensenbrenner: It was a farce and a sham. The Democrats keep on re-defining what a high crime and misdemeanor is. Remember, this all started out with the president asking President Zelensky, Will you do me a favor? Now, that, now, has become abuse of power, asking somebody to do them a favor. Now, you compare that with the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment where there are actual crimes that were alleged. And both Kenneth Starr and the independent counsel in the Nixon impeachment outlined what crimes there were. Donald Trump has committed no crime. And they want to impeach him because he asked Zelensky to do him a favor. What a joke. Laura Ingraham: Pam Karlan, professor at Stanford University Law School, one of the top law schools in the United States, made this comment about abuse of power. Watch. [begin video clip] Pam Karlan: Drawing a foreign government into our elections is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. [end video clip] Jim Sensenbrenner: Undoing an election a year before the next election undoes democracy. Sixty-three million people voted for Donald Trump. He was duly elected. And this cabal, which includes Nadler and Schiff, right from the time took his hand off the Bible and started his speech saying, The impeachment starts now. And the lawyer for the so-called whistleblower called it a coup. Well, democracies don't have coups. And I think we're protecting democracy by saying, Hey, a high crime and misdemeanor has got to mean something rather than this moving target based on focus groups that the Democrats are using. Laura Ingraham: But she keeps saying, as you heard in the sound bite, that the president was drawing foreign powers into the U.S. election. At one point, as I played in the angle, she's referencing the Chinese, the Russians, and the Ukrainians. So, to draw foreign interference into an American election, that's a classic definition of abuse of power. Jim Sensenbrenner: Well, I don't think the president was doing that. With Ukraine, we have a mutual legal assistance treaty. And Joseph Biden -- and he was bragging about the fact that he held up a billion dollars of aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor within six hours. You know, he was doing something that was more abusive when he was vice president than Donald Trump has ever been alleged to. Now, we have this MLAT with Ukraine, which means that if Ukraine has evidence of any violation of law by a U.S. citizen, they are to cooperate with us and vice versa. Now, it's not just, again, the prosecutor fired. You know, there are questions about Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations and Frauds Act -- Laura Ingraham: Well, apparently, the Democrats want to throw all that out the window now. That we're supposed to just write checks to foreign governments of foreign countries regardless of corruption, despite the fact that Fiona Hill is supposed to be the be all and end all of stopping corruption in any foreign country. So, that's the thing that's amazing. If you're running for office in a future presidential election, and you do something that is perhaps not kosher when you were vice president, then you can never be investigated. Apparently, you can never have questions asked about you. It's full immunity. That's what's amazing to me. Jim Sensenbrenner: Well, it is amazing. And if Joe Biden were not running for vice president, he better lawyer up because he'd be in big trouble. Laura Ingraham: Noah Feldman from Harvard Law School had clerked for Justice Souter. I clerked for Thomas, my little -- in my view, a better justice. But he was up there saying that the fact that the White House would not turn over a single document, or email, or text message, or appear demonstrates obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice that is very, very serious. Let's watch. [begin video clip] Noah Feldman: A president who says, as this president did say, I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with your process, robs a coordinate branch of government; he robs the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment. [end video clip] Jim Sensenbrenner: Why should anybody turn over documents to a group of people that have wanted from day one to kick you out of office and to reverse what the voters decided in the 2016 election? You know, there's lots of occurring prior [spelled phonetically] privilege. There is lots of executive privilege involved in that. Laura Ingraham: But did you hear that he says it robs you in the House of your constitutional prerogative? Jim Sensenbrenner: Well, the president has constitutional prerogatives, too. But Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff really don't care about them. Laura Ingraham: When I watched this today, it reminded me of why law school should have been, like, one year, okay [laughs]? Because -- Jim Sensenbrenner: [laughs] Laura Ingraham: -- you had to sit there and be lectured by people. What was it like in the room? Jim Sensenbrenner: Well, what it was like in the room? Laura Ingraham: Nadler was dozing off at one point. We caught him. We caught him on camera. Jim Sensenbrenner: Well, this was, like, an eight-and-a-half-hour law school lecture. Now, I graduated from law school over 50 years ago and was admitted to the Wisconsin bar. I didn't expect going to Congress would send me back to law school. I went to law school today and the, at least, the three Democrat witnesses, you know, simplified everything on major constitutional issues. Laura Ingraham: Do you think there's buyer's remorse from some of the moderate Democrats? You probably speak across party, you know, across a partisan aisle every now and then with them. What's your sense? Jim Sensenbrenner: Oh, there sure is buyer's remorse. Because the 31 Democrats who represent districts that Trump carried in the '16 election think that because Nancy Pelosi is leading the lemmings off the cliff, you know, they're going to be ones that are not going to be re-elected. Because I think that the defining issue in the 2020 election is the overreach that Pelosi, and Schiff, and Nadler have done on impeachments. We need to have Adam Schiff appear. You know, he wrote the report that the Democrats are using. Nadler had Robert Mueller appear to present his report. If Mueller can do that, why can't Schiff? Laura Ingraham: Congressman, have a good holiday if I don't see you and -- Jim Sensenbrenner: And Merry Christmas to you. Laura Ingraham: All right. Merry Christmas. All right, coming up, a revealing analysis of how the witnesses' style might have impacted their arguments today. And the First Lady under fire yet again for her wardrobe. I kid you not. Raymond Arroyo joins me next with all the details, seen and unseen. [commercial break] Laura Ingraham: It's time for our Seen and Unseen segment, where we expose the big cultural stories of the day; the style of the impeachment witnesses; and it must be Christmas, because the media -- they're hitting the First Lady again. Joining us with all the details, unsavory as they are, Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor. Raymond, you notice the style of today's impeachment witnesses? Raymond Arroyo: I did. Laura Ingraham: Why is that so important with all the Founders being cited? Raymond Arroyo: Because this impeachment is basically a political exercise, Laura. Laura Ingraham: It's a performance. Raymond Arroyo: It is, and the Democrats are trying to win over the American people, the viewers, and they will never get to your substance if they can't get past your style. Look at Harvard professor Noah Feldman, who adopted what I like to call the Charles Dickens fop approach. [begin video clip] Noah Feldman: My job is to study and to teach the Constitution from its origins until the present. The words high crimes and misdemeanors referred to abuse of the office of the presidency. Again, the words abuse of office are not mystical or magical. They are very clear. Shall any man be above justice? [end video clip] Raymond Arroyo: He desperately needs to reach out to Masterpiece Theater. There -- somewhere there's a Jane Austen villain just waiting for him to essay the role. Laura Ingraham: Like Nicholas Nickleby from -- Raymond Arroyo: [laughs] Laura Ingraham: -- [unintelligible] -- Raymond Arroyo: From the '40s. Laura Ingraham: Yeah. It's -- Raymond Arroyo: But he does favor that actor, Laura. But you can't be that imperious and win people over sitting home, getting home from work in the afternoon. Laura Ingraham: I've never liked -- Raymond Arroyo: That doesn't work. Laura Ingraham: -- a spread collar. What are those called? Raymond Arroyo: Well, he just had a little -- Laura Ingraham: A little bit. Raymond Arroyo: -- kind of odd demeanor. Then Stanford professor and liberal legal icon Pamela Karlan got indignant when Doug Collins questioned whether she read the 30-page Schiff report. She tried the Can you hear me? I'm talking approach. Pamela Karlan: I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts. I've been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all the poor people in the United States. I spent all of Thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts. I don't think -- Matt Gaetz: Show of hands? Pamela Karlan: -- we're obligated to say anything about how we cast -- Matt Gaetz: No, just show of hands. Pamela Karlan: -- our ballots. [end video clip] Raymond Arroyo: You know, pleading yaps never work. That is a man's idea of an audio nightmare watching that. I thought that today. Nobody likes to be yelled at -- Laura Ingraham: Hectored at. Raymond Arroyo: -- and she kind of yelled and yapped through the whole proceeding. Laura Ingraham: She was just very -- she's unhappy. Raymond Arroyo: But, Laura, this is not a fact-based inquiry. This is speculative legal reasoning. You'd better have a damn compelling style [unintelligible]. Laura Ingraham: You said 30-page Schiff report. Raymond Arroyo: I meant 300. Laura Ingraham: If only it were 30 pages. Raymond Arroyo: Right? Laura Ingraham: But, oh, she was -- How dare you question me? Raymond Arroyo: Okay, we've got to get to Professor Michael Gerhardt of North Carolina Law. He perfected the tired insurance salesman pitch [snoring]. [begin video clip] Michael Gerhardt: Our Framers' generation pledged their lives and fortunes to rebel against a monarch whom they saw as corrupt, tyrannical, and entitled to do no wrong. The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, who resigned a few days later. [end video clip] Raymond Arroyo: Okay. Laura Ingraham: What do you have? Oh, we're back. Raymond Arroyo: Jack -- Laura Ingraham: Sorry. Raymond Arroyo: Oh, we're back. I'm sorry. Laura Ingraham: Well, it's nearly Christmas, and the First Lady unveiled the White House Christmas decorations this year, and, well, amazingly, the media is not attacking the decorations as they have in the years past, but they are attacking -- Raymond Arroyo: Her jacket. Laura Ingraham: [laughs] Raymond Arroyo: Yeah, the Washington Post fashion critic Robin Givhan called the jacket ridiculous, writing, But more than a silly fashion folly, the coat is a distraction. It's a discomforting affectation taken to a ludicrous extreme. That simple flourish exudes cold, dismissive aloofness. This -- Laura Ingraham: Oh, she's such a hater. She's such a hater, that Robin Givhan. Raymond Arroyo: We are now politicizing a jacket thrown over the First Lady's shoulders. What -- this -- by the way, Laura, the political venom that they hurl at this First Lady -- Laura Ingraham: I know. Barron Trump -- Raymond Arroyo: -- it's unbelievable. Laura Ingraham: Today, it was Barron Trump by Karlan, and I'm sorry, her apology is not accepted. Barron Trump, and then Melania's coat. They've been hating on Melania the whole time. Raymond Arroyo: At least they left the decorations alone. Laura Ingraham: But it's the same writer -- I think we wrote about it in the Obama Diaries. Raymond Arroyo: This is -- Laura Ingraham: What did she say? Raymond Arroyo: -- the same writer, Laura, who praises Michelle Obama. She could show up in a shower curtain; she'd get Karlan's [unintelligible]. Laura Ingraham: Cargo shorts. Raymond Arroyo: During her recent book tour, Obama wore this, and Givham wrote, Michelle Obama can wear whatever she wants now, that what she wants now is sparkly thigh-high boots. It wasn't just an eye-catching ensemble. It was fashion, fashion Multiple Speakers: Fashion. Raymond Arroyo: Okay, I'm not going to comment on this. I'm not going to -- I'm not a fashion expert -- Laura Ingraham: Neither am I -- Raymond Arroyo: -- I'm not a fashion critic. Laura Ingraham: -- Lord knows. Raymond Arroyo: But I'm going to let the audience decide. What looks more fashion to you, and what looks like a silly fashion folly? Go. Laura Ingraham: Well, I'm not a fashion expert, but I'll let the viewers decide. Raymond Arroyo: I just -- I resent the idea, and I think Rachel Campos Duffy had it right earlier this week when she said, Where are the other First Ladies coming out and defending -- Laura Ingraham: Yeah, where's Laura Bush? Raymond Arroyo: -- this sisterhood -- Laura Ingraham: Why isn't Laura Bush speaking out? Raymond Arroyo: Well, Laura Bush; Mrs. Carter. Any of these women should come forward and say, You know what? First Ladies are off limits. This woman spent from July to now decorating the White House. Laura Ingraham: How many magazine covers has Melania been on? Michelle Obama -- Raymond Arroyo: I think one -- Laura Ingraham: -- was on everything. Raymond Arroyo: I think one, and it was -- Laura Ingraham: People. Raymond Arroyo: -- like -- I don't know what it was. It was some -- you know, Melania is leaving Trump was probably on the cover -- Laura Ingraham: No, no, no. Raymond Arroyo: -- because they love to -- Laura Ingraham: No, no, no. Raymond Arroyo: -- you know, pitch that narrative. Laura Ingraham: But that Robin Givhan is such a partisan hater [laughs] on -- she can't stand Trump. Raymond Arroyo: You know, but when you spend that time at the White House, there's a gold -- there's a tree for the Gold Star families. Laura Ingraham: It's beautiful. Raymond Arroyo: It's in the spirit of patriotism. Salute the holidays. Have a laugh. Laura Ingraham: How the liberals have become -- Raymond Arroyo: Leave the First Lady alone. Laura Ingraham: -- the killjoys of all time. Raymond Arroyo: It's -- Laura Ingraham: They are un-fun; they are un-funny. They take themselves so seriously, and all you people who obsess all day long about Trump, G-A-L. Get a life, okay? Raymond, thank you so much. Raymond Arroyo: You're welcome. Laura Ingraham: And up next, the elites versus Trump, both at home and abroad. Dan Bongino and Chris Hahn debate it next. [commercial break] [begin video clip] [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Now, we first played that for you last night. But since then, it's gotten even better. A fantastic 24 hours for this president. First, he infuriated foreign elites for making them late to a cocktail party. That's why they were really mad. And then he was attacked by these unhinged partisan bitter, angry academics who think he should be impeached for a phone call. [begin video clip] [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Mm. I wonder whom the American people will side with. Here to debate, Dan Bongino, former secret service agent, Fox News contributor, author of ""Exonerated,"" and Chris Hahn, former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, host of The Aggressive Progressive podcast. Dan, I think this probably goes down as one of the top three or four best 24-hours for the president in the last six months. Dan Bongino: Yeah, I mean, seriously, if it was legal, the president should cut a check to these three. I mean, they were like central casting characters out of like a movie about snobs like Bonfire of the Vanities really. I mean, Jerry Nadler -- I didn't think anybody could get more incompetent than Adam Schiff. But Jerry Nadler has rapidly proven me wrong. Let me make another point. Let's get away from the three snobby law school professors who thought it was funny to attack the president's teenage child. But, Laura, just on the other front, do you actually believe Democrats out there, that -- that Justin Trudeau and Macron, their dislike of the president is a negative for a mechanic in Pennsylvania or a coal miner in West Virginia? Good luck with that approach. Laura Ingraham: All right. Dan Bongino: You're making the same mistake you made in 2016. Laura Ingraham: Dan, they hated Reagan. They called him Ronnie Ray Gun. They showed up by the hundreds of thousands in Germany when he made his final trip. I mean, these people couldn't stand Reagan. They can't stand most Republican presidents. Chris, looking at that panel today, okay, three against one. Now, that was -- that was cute. But do you really think -- take your -- take your Democrat hat off. Just visually, getting lectured by three liberal law professors is really what was going to tip the balance for the Democrats today? Chris Hahn: Well, this is part of the impeachment process. It happens during Nixon's impeachment, it happened during the Clinton impeachment. In fact, two of these professors were on the panel during the Clinton impeachment to talk about the Constitutionality of impeachment. Laura Ingraham: Yeah, that was after. But that was after Starr. Chris Hahn: And it went so bad -- Laura Ingraham: Yeah, that was after the Starr report came out, though. Chris Hahn: Well, it went -- it went -- well, there is no Starr report. This is after the Schiff report. Laura Ingraham: Right. Chris Hahn: Right? Laura Ingraham: That's the whole point. Chris Hahn: So we're at the same moment in time. So -- so, it went so bad for Doug Collins, the ranking member today that the governor of Georgia appointed a woman whose husband donated to Hillary Clinton to the Senate seat that he wanted and the president wanted. That's how badly -- Laura Ingraham: No one can follow that. Chris Hahn: -- he looked today at that hearing. Laura Ingraham: All right. Nobody -- Chris Hahn: It's amazing. Laura Ingraham: Nobody can follow that. Alright, let me tell you what -- what some of those in the Democrat party are saying about getting back to the -- the look of this spectacle today. Watch. [begin video clip] [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Dan, that's what Al Sharpton was saying about the next Democrat debate. There's going to be no person of color. About the debate, he said that. We played that last night on the show. Now Al Green saying this about the hearing today. Dan Bongino: Well, first let me say Chris' point about Doug Collins was idiotic. I mean, Chris, you're usually smarter. That was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Chris Hahn: Sure. Dan Bongino: But secondly, why -- Chris Hahn: Sure. Dan Bongino: -- warn Democrats -- Chris Hahn: [unintelligible] be there a hearing? Dan Bongino: Now, far be it for me to give advice to Democrats. But, identity politics -- I've warned them a long time ago, my show and elsewhere, is inherently cannibalistic. It eventually eats itself in this endless search for new victims. And you're seeing it now, Laura. You're seeing the implosion in Hollywood. You're seeing Democrats now attack each other because you didn't have either a black or an Asian or a Hispanic law professor who was as snobby as the white law -- I mean, this is just absurd. It's ridiculous. This has been a total disaster for the Democrats. Laura Ingraham: This was Major Garrett CBS talking about what the candidates are finding and what they're finding in going out into middle America asking voters what they care about. [begin video clip] [end video clip] Laura Ingraham: Get back to work, Chris. Any concerns there that this may be one big, huge backfire? Chris Hahn: Well, the House has passed 400 bills, including 250 or so that were bipartisan bills, that are sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk. So, if anybody should get back to work, it's Mitch McConnell and the Senate who are just the graveyard to the legislation that the House of Representatives in a bipartisan fashion has passed. So, I agree. The Senate should get to work right now. Laura Ingraham: Okay. So, you're fine with -- Chris Hahn: Call Mitch McConnell today and get him to work. Laura Ingraham: -- USMCA. You're fine -- okay, you're fine with USMCA being stalled out, right? You're fine with that. Pelosi used to be for that, but you're fine with that. And by the way, the Senate is back to work. They confirmed four new federal judges today. Chris Hahn: Yes. That's it. That's all they do. Laura Ingraham: Yeah. Trump dominates the federal courts. Chris Hahn: All they do is what the Federalist Society wants them to do. Laura Ingraham: Yeah. That's -- well, guess what? Chris Hahn: It's like the Federalist Society of the Senate. Laura Ingraham: We're better -- we're better at it. Our White House -- Dan Bongino: Chris has all the talking points tonight. Laura Ingraham: -- counsel is better at it than your White House counsel was, and so that's why they're dominating on the federal courts. Chris Hahn: Look -- Laura Ingraham: Gentlemen, thank you so much. Chris Hahn: -- I am -- I am not going -- I'm not going to argue with that. Laura Ingraham: Okay, good. Okay. Chalk one up to Cipollone. Alright, don't go away. I'll be answering your emails in tonight's Ingraham Inbox when we return. [commercial break] Laura Ingraham: Don't you love that graphic? So catchy, Ingraham's Inbox. Well, the first email tonight is from Jody. My fear is that the Horowitz Report is going to a Comey/Clinton repeat, mistakes were made but no laws were broken. More deep state mumbo jumbo and no one held accountable. We're really getting tired of this routine. Am I wrong, Laura? I don't know if you're wrong. It probably won't be everything you hoped for, but I bet there will be some choice nuggets within. Remember, he can't prosecute, he can only kind of lay it at the feet of Durham. This from John and Andy. Laura, politics did eventually find their way into our Thanksgiving dinner table and our conversations, as a result, I have fewer names to buy for on my Christmas list. See? It works out for you. And finally, Ken writing, Stop using the word, great.' Every Sean Hannity show is not great,' every guest is not great,' every panel is not great.' I implore you to stop. That is a great idea. That's all the time we have tonight. Send your thoughts to Ingraham Angle at foxnews.com. And Shannon Bream with the Fox News at Night team, take it from here and we'll have a terrific show. Shannon? Shannon Bream: [laughs] Listen, I heard what you said at the top of the show. Every time someone asks me about going to law school, I say, Don't do it. Is that bad? Laura Ingraham: [laughs] Shannon Bream: I'm just trying to save them. Laura Ingraham: Think long and hard about it. Shannon Bream: Yeah. Laura Ingraham: That's what I will tell them.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/doug-collins-calls-for-hearing-of-republican-witnesses-in-impeachment-inquiry,Doug Collins calls for hearing of Republican witnesses in impeachment inquiry,2019-12-05,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Jeff Mordock of the Washington Times The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee Thursday called for ChairmanJerrold L. Nadlerto hold a minority day of hearings, which would allow Republicans to call their own witnesses to testify before the panel. Rep.Doug Collinsof Georgia sent a letter to Mr.Nadler, New York Democrat, saying congressional rules require a hearing with witnesses held by the minority party ahead of drafting articles of impeachment. The requested minority hearing day must take place before articles of impeachment are considered by the committee, Mr.Collinswrote citing a House rule he described as clear and unequivocal. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held its first impeachment hearing. During the hearing Mr.Collinsand Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Republican, both urged the panel to schedule a minority day of hearings. Where is fairness? It was promised. It is not being delivered, Mr.Collinssaid. Mr.Nadler, New York Democrat, tabled the request for a later day. He concluded the hearing Wednesday saying he looked forward to discussing the Republican's request. Mr.Collinsinterrupted and told the chairman there is nothing for you to review. Mr.Nadlerignored the comment and started his closing remarks.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-honors-nick-guilette-congressional-record,Gallagher Honors Nick Guilette in the Congressional Record,2019-12-04,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) this week honored Nick Guilette of Casco, Wisconsin by entering a statement of recognition into the Congressional Record, the document that reflects the official proceedings of Congress. Mr. Guilette received the Certified Crop Adviser Conservationist of the Year award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The full text is found below: Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nick Guilette of Casco, Wisconsin for receiving the Certified Crop Adviser Conservationist of the Year award from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). His leadership in agriculture conservation practices contribute greatly to Wisconsin's agricultural industry and set an excellent example of stewardship to the community and the environment. Nick has a lifelong commitment to agriculture, growing up on his family's farm where they tended over 300 acres of land. He has dedicated his professional career to conservation efforts, excelling in positions such as Advanced Nutrient Management and GPS Technician, Certified Crop Adviser and Agronomist, and Demonstration Farm Project Manager. Utilizing his background in resource management and soil health, Nick provides guidance to local farms as well as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the USDA. Nick partners with NRCS through his role as Demonstration Farm Project Manager. He works with producers through the Door-Kewaunee Watershed Demonstration Farm Network striving to protect the Great Lakes from excess nutrients and sediment leaving the rural landscape. Nick participates as an educator at field days, farm tours, workshops, and demonstration events on crop and nutrient management practices that build soil health and reduce erosion. In addition to his partnership with the USDA, Nick is vital in furthering soil and water conservation efforts throughout Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional district. He actively participates in my Save the Bay initiative by lending his expertise at Door/Kewaunee Watershed workgroup meetings. He also played a key role in planning and leading a Save the Bay Field Day, showcasing new techniques in conservation farming to more than 125 producers and members of the agricultural community. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking Nick for his commitment to land conservation and dedication to Wisconsin's agricultural industry. Northeast Wisconsin is fortunate to have citizens like Nick engaged in promoting sustainable agricultural practices. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I yield back.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://grothman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1351,Grothman on President Trumps SNAP Improvements,2019-12-04,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Glenn Grothman,G000576,grothman.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a final rule that promotes work for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). This rule will encourage these individuals, who are capable of working, to find jobs and the dignity that comes with earning a paycheck. Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah) introduced a bill that would have accomplished the same objective last Congress, and issued the following statement about today's rule: I am glad to see that President Trump and his administration are taking the initiative on welfare reform. I am glad that we have a President who is putting the best interest of the country at the forefront, said Grothman. This is an important step in reforming welfare programs to help free capable individuals from government dependence and empower them to achieve the American Dream. I believe we should provide assistance to those who have fallen on hard times, but these work requirement waivers have been a part of an unfortunate trend of government laws and regulations that create disincentives for individuals to work. Many times the system under previous administrations encouraged recipients not to work, discouraged recipients from marrying and encouraged the sale of food stamps. Making work requirements mandatory will address all of these problems. -30- U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman is serving his third term representing Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/democrats-hedge-on-christmas-impeachment,Democrats hedge on Christmas impeachment,2019-12-04,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner There are only a dozen days left in the 2019 House legislative calendar, and House Democrats are weighing whether to squeeze in an impeachment vote before they leave town for the year. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders who met privately with Democrats Wednesday did not discuss a date for considering articles of impeachment against President Trump, who they accuse of abusing his office and obstructing Congress. There were no dates discussed, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters Wednesday. The speaker has said, I've said, others have said, we want to do this as expeditiously as possible. Behind the scenes, Democrats are weighing a Judiciary Committee vote next week on a handful of impeachment articles pertaining to their allegations that Trump tried to bribe Ukrainian government officials into investigating Joe Biden and the Democrats. The articles would also charge Trump with obstructing Congress for refusing Democratic demands for witnesses and documents. In the closed-door briefing Wednesday, Pelosi cautioned Democrats to give room for their colleagues to reach their own conclusions as the inquiry proceeds, a top aide said. The caucus, however, did not reach any group conclusion on whether to move forward with impeachment, but rather, members overwhelmingly indicated that they want to continue to advance the inquiry on its current deliberative path, one step at a time. Next week, the Intelligence Committee lawyers from both parties will testify before the Judiciary Committee about the 300-page impeachment report Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff released Tuesday. Democrats could take up the articles next week, leaving open the possibility of a floor vote before Dec. 20. Democrats deny they are aiming for a vote this month. We are not focused on any timeline, other than to get this right, keep it fair, and make sure our election is secure, Rep. Eric Swalwell of California said Wednesday. Swalwell and other lawmakers participated in a public Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment featuring constitutional scholars. Democrats said they are still not ready to endorse or reject impeachment, which Schiff has already declared will be a group decision. We need to finish this hearing, see all of that evidence from the report, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday. I'd like to see if the president is going to come and testify. There is a few more things we need to get on the table before we can make that decision. The Judiciary Committee consideration of impeachment articles could take days. The Judiciary Committee took three days to mark up articles impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998 and six days to mark up articles impeaching President Richard Nixon in 1974. Democrats, meanwhile, plan an ambitious legislative agenda over the next few weeks that includes a voting rights bill, a prescription drug measure, and critical spending legislation that must pass before a Dec. 20 deadline. Each of those measures will take considerable floor time. The schedule has left some GOP lawmakers skeptical Democrats can get it all done and impeach the president by the Dec. 20 target adjournment date. They could do it, but I don't think they are going to, Rep. Mark Meadows told theWashington Examinerwhen asked about a pre-Christmas impeachment vote. House Democrats are facing stagnant impeachment poll numbers that may motivate them to move off the matter as quickly as possible. Rep. Donna Shalala of Florida, who flipped a GOP district in 2018, told theWashington ExaminerWednesday not one constituent raised impeachment during a Thanksgiving week town hall. Instead, they wanted to talk about healthcare, infrastructure, and gun safety. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who helped run the Clinton impeachment process, accused Democrats of dragging out the Trump investigation for months and consuming the House agenda. The investigation technically began in the Judiciary Committee in July, when Nadler declared he was holding impeachment proceedings, although Pelosi did not endorse them until the end of September. The American public is getting sick and tired of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, when they know a year from now they will be able to determine whether Donald Trump should remain in office or someone else should be elected, Sensenbrenner said.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/wisconsin-s-jim-sensenbrenner-assails-impeachment-inquiry-at-house-judiciary-hearing,Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner assails impeachment inquiry at House Judiciary hearing,2019-12-04,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel WASHINGTON -It should come as no surprise that the first Republican voice to be heard at Wednesday's House Judiciary hearing on impeachment was that of Wisconsin's 41-year veteran of Congress, Jim Sensenbrenner. Moments after the Judiciary chair, Democrat Jerry Nadler, began the lengthy hearing, Sensenbrenner interjected to demand a separate minority day of hearings for witnesses called by Republicans. Nadler said the request would be considered. Sensenbrenner was the first of many Republicans to register their objections to the impeachment process over the course of the hearing, which featured four constitutional scholars debating the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors and whether President Donald Trump has committed impeachable acts. I'm a veteran of impeachments. I've been named by the House as an impeachment manager in four impeachments:Clinton and three judges. That's more than anybody else in history, the Wisconsin Republican said when his regular five-minute turn to speak at the hearing arrived. Sensenbrenner, a past chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving Republican in the House, has been a vocal critic of how Democrats have pursued the impeachment of Trump. Heco-wrote an op-edin The Wall Street Journal last month complaining that the current inquiry is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. Sensenbrenner was one of the House impeachment managers named by Republicans in the impeachment case against Democrat Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. When his turn came up at Wednesday's hearing, he assailed Democrats for tying the country up for three months and going on four now, wrapping everybody in this town around the axle rod. I think the American public are getting a little bit sick and tired of impeachment, impeachment, impeachmentwhen they know less than year from now they will be able to determine whether Donald Trump stays in office or whether somebody else will get elected. Sensenbrenner suggested Trump's July phone call with the Ukraine president, in which he asked for an investigation of Democrat Joe Biden, constituted less of a quid pro quo than when Biden as vice president held up Ukraine aid until that country's top prosecutor was fired. Sensenbrenner quoted Biden taking credit in a speech for threating to freeze the aid unless the prosecutor was fired within six hoursand then bragging, Well, (bleep), he got fired. Republicans who were in charge of Congress at the time Biden made that commentdidn't launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden, Sensenbrenner said, contrasting that with the Democrats' inquiry into Trump over the Ukraine phone call. But Biden'spublic commentsabout the firing of the Ukraine prosecutor were actually made at a talk in early 2018, when he was no longer vice president. And while Republicans have accused Biden of wanting to fire the Ukraine prosecutor to thwart a corruption investigation into a company tied to his son Hunter, there is little evidence for that. The firing of the prosecutor was widely supported in the international communityand stemmed from concerns the prosecutor was too lax on corruption, not too aggressive,according to U.S. and Ukrainianofficials.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-co-introduces-solution-help-working-families,Steil Co-Introduces Solution to Help Working Families,2019-12-04,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, Bryan Steil joined Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21) and colleagues to introduce The Advancing Support for Working Families Act. Working parents deserve flexibility when dealing with child care costs. The first year of a child's life can be one of the most expensive. Our proposal gives parents the option to receive additional support following the birth or adoption of a child. I am glad to join my colleague, Elise Stefanik, in this effort to address the challenges facing young families, said Steil. The joy of starting a family should not be dampened by the fear of being unable to make ends meet if a parent takes time off work, said Stefanik. This bipartisan effort to support hardworking families in the first year after birth or adoption will prove critical to ensuring families can thrive without the burden of potential bankruptcy or debt. I'm proud to introduce the Advancing Support for Working Families Act with my colleagues, which will bring tangible benefits and enhance paid leave options for the hardworking families. On background: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in the 115th Congress doubled the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Now, parents can claim an annual CTC of up to $2,000 for each child under the age of 17. The Advancing Support for Working Families Act gives parents the option of advancing up to $5,000 from their CTC upon the birth or adoption of a child. If parents choose to take the CTC in advance, parents would then receive an adjusted CTC of up to $1,500 annually over the next 10 years. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced the companion bill in the Senate today.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-co-introduces-solution-to-help-working-families,Steil Co-Introduces Solution to Help Working Families,2019-12-04,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Bryan Steil joined Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21) and colleagues to introduce The Advancing Support for Working Families Act. ""Working parents deserve flexibility when dealing with child care costs. The first year of a child's life can be one of the most expensive. Our proposal gives parents the option to receive additional support following the birth or adoption of a child. I am glad to join my colleague, Elise Stefanik, in this effort to address the challenges facing young families,"" said Steil. ""The joy of starting a family should not be dampened by the fear of being unable to make ends meet if a parent takes time off work,"" said Stefanik. ""This bipartisan effort to support hardworking families in the first year after birth or adoption will prove critical to ensuring families can thrive without the burden of potential bankruptcy or debt. I'm proud to introduce the Advancing Support for Working FamiliesAct with my colleagues, which will bring tangible benefits and enhance paid leave options for the hardworking families."" On background: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in the 115th Congress doubled the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Now, parents can claim an annual CTC of up to $2,000 for each child under the age of 17. The Advancing Support for Working Families Act gives parents the option of advancing up to $5,000 from their CTC upon the birth or adoption of a child. If parents choose to take the CTC in advance, parents would then receive an adjusted CTC of up to $1,500 annually over the next 10 years. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced the companion bill in the Senate today.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:45:33Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/what-to-watch-for-at-wednesday-s-impeachment-hearing,What to watch for at Wednesday's impeachment hearing,2019-12-03,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Benjamin Siegel of ABC News Some of President Donald Trump's fiercest critics and defenders on Capitol Hill return to the spotlight Wednesday as the House Judiciary Committee holds its first hearing in theUkraineimpeachment inquiry. On Wednesday morning, the panel will hear testimony from constitutional scholars just hours after the House Intelligence Committeereleased its reportTuesday evening into whether Trump improperly ordered military aid to Ukraine withheld to pressure the country to launch investigations against a potential 2020 political rival. Led by Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York, the committee is also responsible for drafting and approving any articles of impeachment against Trump, which some Democrats have suggested could include charges focused on bribery, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee is much more contentious Unlike the House Intelligence Committee, a historically buttoned-up panel that has traditionally conducted its oversight of the intelligence community quietly and in a bipartisan fashion, the 41-member Judiciary Committee is one of the oldest and largest in the House, and tends to attract sharp-elbowed lawyers, former prosecutors and passionate advocates because of its sprawling jurisdiction over the justice system, immigration, federal and criminal law. A mix of party leaders, junior lawmakers, and partisans from both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary Committee also includes some of the most prominent defenders and critics of the president on Capitol Hill. Members to watch Trump confidants such as Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who led a Republican protest in the closed-door SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and disrupted the Intelligence Committee's work in October, and Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who has accused Democrats of waging a coup against the president, are both members of the committee, and will take part in questioning of any witnesses moving forward. For the majority, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a constitutional law professor-turned-Trump critic who has helped craft the party's messaging on impeachment, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the chair of the Democratic caucus and potential successor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are among the Democrats to watch. The Judiciary Committee also includes veterans of past impeachment efforts, including GOP Reps. Steve Chabot of Ohio and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who were House mangers in the Senate trial in President Bill Clinton's impeachment, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who was a committee staffer during Watergate. Four members of the committee will be familiar faces to viewers of the Intelligence Committee's hearings: Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Val Demmings of Florida, along with Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and John Ratcliffe of Texas who serve on both panels. Democrats plan keep the hearing focused on the details of the Ukraine impeachment investigation, and whether they meet the constitutional threshold of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. Nadler under pressure to keep hearing under control After Schiff led two weeks of tightly-controlled hearings, many hope Nadler will be able to keep the hearing on track, and prevent the session from resembling the combative hearing with Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager, earlier this year, before the Ukraine matter exploded into public view. Republicans, for their part, have accused Democrats of running an investigation that has denied Trump due process and the ability to question fact witnesses to events at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Using parliamentary inquiries and points of order, they could seek to fluster Democrats and air their concerns about the proceedings. The White House has rejected Democrats' offer to participate in Wednesday's hearing, but has not ruled out taking part in subsequent hearings. We're back, by the way, in rerun season here in the Judiciary Committee. We've already had constitutional scholars in the committee talking about from the Mueller report and others, Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, referring to the committee's earlier hearings on the investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller. This is a complete American waste of time, Collins said, foreshadowing the kind of attacks he and other republicans can be expected to stage when the hearing gets underway. Schiff, meanwhile, says his committee will not let up. Even while Judiciary does its work, we will continue investigating. he said on MSNBC Monday night. He did not tip his hand on the timing of any impeachment vote, but said Democrats believe the matter has some urgency. This is a threat to the integrity of the upcoming election, and we don't feel that it should wait. He also said he believes the evidence of obstruction of Congress is overwhelming. What are the witnesses expected to say? The Judiciary Committee will hear from three constitutional experts called by Democrats and one by Republicans. The GOP's witness, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, recentlywrote in The Hill: House Democrats have done a masterful job of holding hearings with testimony from distinguished diplomatic and national security witnesses on the alleged quid pro quo that President Trump sought from Ukraine. The problem is that the record is incomplete and conflicted on critical points. The question is whether Democrats want a real or a recreational impeachment. A real impeachment case can be made, but to make it, they will have to reschedule, reframe, and repeat their House investigation. As compelling and upsetting as much of the testimony has been, the record still lacks direct evidence of a quid pro quo on American military aid to Ukraine,"" Turley wrote. Testifying for the Democrats, Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, recentlywrote in The New York Times: To be sure, Donald Trump had already created a crisis in the presidency by abusing the power of his office to pressure foreign governments to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. But that act on its own didn't count as a constitutional crisis, because the Constitution prescribes an answer to presidential abuse of office: impeachment. Now that President Trump has announced via a letter signed by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel that he will not cooperate in any way with the impeachment inquiry begun in the House of Representatives, we no longer have just a crisis of the presidency. We also have a breakdown in the fundamental structure of government under the Constitution. That counts as a constitutional crisis, Feldman said, Another Democratic witness, Michael Gerhardt a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law,wrote in The Atlantic: If you add up the nonsense that the president's defenders have proliferated and his protestation that the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants, their proposed result is disturbing: an executive who can shut down an impeachment inquiry and protect from disclosure anything done by anyone in the executive branch, and who is immune to criminal investigation and allowed to defy subpoenas. This is not the president our Constitution established. He would be a king, in spite of the fact that the Founders' generation rebelled against one. They set out to create a presidency that was accountable to Congress if the occupant abused power and breached the public's trust. Donald Trump's efforts to delegitimize the impeachment inquiry destroy their vision, Gerhardt wrote. The third Democratic witness is Pamela Khan, a professor at Stanford Law School.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=1CA13867-0E1C-43E0-B00F-E7549302C26E,Johnson Statement on Wisconsin High School Incidents,2019-12-03,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said the following Tuesday regarding safety at our state's schools: The incidents at Waukesha South and Oshkosh West remind us that we do not possess the capability to completely prevent someone from bringing a weapon to school. We should all be thankful, however, that larger tragedies may well have been averted due to training, and the swift and courageous action of students, teachers, school administrators, and armed school resource officers. This confirms that action can and should be taken to mitigate harm and limit casualties when weapons are brought into schools. A recent report published by the Secret Service that studied 41 school shootings from 2008-2017 demonstrates that in every case, the shooter showed concerning behaviors prior to the attack. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security will soon go live with an internet clearinghouse of school safety best practices that school officials should be aware of and utilize. Let's not let anyone's vision of the perfect' solution prevent us from taking action that will do some good."" ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/17-year-old-with-handgun-shot-by-officer-inside-waukesha-south-hs-terrifying-day,17-year-old with handgun shot by officer inside Waukesha South HS: Terrifying day,2019-12-02,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Amy Dupont of FOX6 WAUKESHA -- An officer shot a 17-year-old male student who was armed on Monday morning, Dec. 2 in a classroom atWaukesha South High School. Waukesha Police Chief Russell Jack spoke with the media and indicated around 10:15 a.m., a student at the school reported that another student brought a handgun to school -- and was in possession of it. A student resource officer (SRO) immediately responded to the classroom where the armed student was located. Police said the SRO made efforts to secure the classroom by getting the other students to safety. Other Waukesha officers also responded to the school. Officers spoke with the student to de-escalate the situation, but Chief Jack said the student would not remove his hands from his pockets -- and ignored officers' commands. At one point, the student removed the handgun from his waistband and pointed it at officers. An officer was forced to discharge his firearm -- striking the student. Life-saving efforts were immediately put into action -- and the remaining students were evacuated from the school. Chief Jack said a firearm was recovered. The 17-year-old was taken to the hospital -- and listed in stable condition. The officer who fired his service weapon is an 11-year veteran of the Waukesha Police Department. Neither he nor any other officers or students were injured in this incident. ""This is clearly a superintendent's worst nightmare,"" said Waukesha Schools Superintendent Todd Gray. ""We are very grateful for the response of the South High School SRO, the Waukesha Police Department, and the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department."" ""For the citizens of Waukesha, I know this was a terrifying day for many students and parents,"" said Waukesha Mayor Shawn Reilly. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner offered the following statement on this matter: ""I commend the students, school personnel, and first responders at Waukesha South for their swift response to today's incident. I will continue monitoring the situation as details are released and encourage anyone with information to contact the Waukesha Police Department."" Governor Tony Evers issued this statement: My heart is with the students, educators, and staff of Waukesha South High School and the entire Waukesha community as they mourn and endure the trauma of today's shooting. I am grateful for our educators and first responders who worked quickly to keep our kids safe and ensure no one else was injured."" ""We are continuing to learn more details about the situation this morning, but what I can say is it's gut-wrenching that our kids wondered whether this was a drill or it was realour kids shouldn't have to fear for their life in our classrooms or at school, and no parent should have to send their kid off to school in the morning worrying about whether or not they'll come home."" ""Wisconsinites believe in helping each other in times of need, so I know we will come together to do everything we can to support the Waukesha community as they begin to heal. Today is a grim reminder that this can happen anywhere, but I do not acceptnor should we acceptthat this is an inevitable reality for our kids, our communities, our state, or our country. Attorney General Josh Kaul issued this statement: No student should have to go through a day like the one that students at Waukesha South went through today. And no parent should have to go through a day like the one those students' parents had today."" My thoughts are with the Waukesha community and the Waukesha School District. Our Office of School Safety has reached out to offer assistance to the school district."" A school resource officer and first responders helped prevent this event from potentially becoming even more tragic than it was. We thank them for their bravery and their service. Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Carolyn Stanford Taylor issued this statement: Ensuring the safety and security of our students and staff is the highest priority. The quick response today by law enforcement and staff at Waukesha South High School protected the school community. As state superintendent, I am committed to working with all our school districts to provide them the resources and supports they need to have safe and supportive environments in all our schools.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/elected-officials-react-to-waukesha-school-shooting,Elected officials react to Waukesha school shooting,2019-12-02,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Victor Jacobo of CBS 58 MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) Democrats expressed disappointment in the lack of action on gun violence following a school shooting in Waukesha South High School. My heart is with the students, educators, and staff of Waukesha South High School and the entire Waukesha community as they mourn and endure the trauma of today's shooting, Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. Evers added gratitude for the action of educators and first responders who worked quickly to keep students safe. Evers continued, Today is a grim reminder that this can happen anywhere, but I do not acceptnor should we acceptthat this is an inevitable reality for our kids, our communities, our state, or our country. The governor hinted at the need to address the issue in the State Capitol, something he has tried to do recently. In November, a Special Session called by Evers ended almost as soon as it began as republican leadership, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald refused to take up a pair of bills on gun safety up for debate or a vote. It's unclear as of now whether or not those bills would have prevented Monday's incident at Waukesha South. Other officials were more explicit in their call for action. Lawmakers have an obligation to do everything possible to ensure people feel safe where they attend school, work, and events in their community, Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz said in a statement. People in every corner of the state have voiced these fears to their elected officials and are looking to their leaders to act. Hintz ended his statement saying, While there are no easy solutions to end gun violence, we cannot continue to sit back and do nothing. We will continue to pursue common sense gun safety measures to lower these incidents of violence moving forward. Republicans expressed gratitude for the work of first responders and educators. I commend the students, school personnel, and first responders at Waukesha South for their swift response to today's incident, said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R WI 5th). GOP Senator Ron Johnson said that he was, Thankful for the swift response at Waukesha South High School this morning. My thoughts are with the entire Waukesha community.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/police-officer-shoots-armed-student-at-waukesha-south-high-school,Police: Officer shoots armed student at Waukesha South High School,2019-12-02,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Brad Evans of WISN12 WAUKESHA, Wis. Police say a police officer shot an armed student at Waukesha South High School. The shooting happened just before 10 a.m. Monday. Students were dismissed after they were placed under a lockdown. School officials told parents the shooting happened after a police officer confronted a 17-year-old boy after receiving information the student was armed with a gun in the school. Police said the student would not remove his hands from his pants pocket. They said the suspect removed a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the officer. The officer ordered the student to drop the gun before the shots were fired, police said. Witnesses told WISN 12 News they heard at least three shots fired. Administrators said the confrontation was isolated to one classroom. Police Chief Russell Jack said multiple officers responded to the classroom. The school resource officer was present but did not fire the shots. Some students reported hiding in closets and under desks. News Chopper 12's Matt Salemme said he saw at least 17 police cruisers at the scene on East Roberta Avenue. Waukesha police called the response a ""critical incident."" ""The building is safe and secure,"" police tweeted. ""The suspect is in custody."" Officers said it was an ""isolated incident"" and they were not seeking any other suspects. ""We are in the investigative stage right now as the scene is stabilized,"" police tweeted. Investigators have not said how many shots were fired. The suspect was taken to a hospital, where he was listed in stable condition. It's not clear how serious his injuries were. No officers were injured. ""The safety and security of all students and staff are a top priority,"" school officials said. Police said the officer was an 11-year veteran of the department. According to the Waukesha South High School website, the school resource officer is Josh Tyndall. The names of the student and officer who fired the shots have not yet been released. Greenfield police will lead the investigation, with the assistance of the Milwaukee police. Superintendent Todd Gray called the shooting his ""worst nightmare."" The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office said it was not called to the school or hospital. U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner commended students, school officials and first responders and said he was monitoring the situation. No other details were immediately available.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-statement-on-waukesha-south-high-school,Sensenbrenner Statement on Waukesha South High School,2019-12-02,2019,2019-12,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Today,Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner(WI-05) offered the following statement after a school resource officer at Waukesha South High School responded to a potential threat:I commend the students, school personnel, and first responders at Waukesha South for their swift response to today's incident. I will continue monitoring the situation as details are released and encourage anyone with information to contact the Waukesha Police Department.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/house-judiciary-sets-first-impeachment-hearing,House Judiciary Sets First Impeachment Hearing,2019-11-26,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service WASHINGTON (CN) The impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump will play out on a new stage next week, as the House Judiciary Committee said Tuesday it will hold its first public hearing in the probe. Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wrote in a two-pageletteraddressed to the president that the Dec. 4 hearing will be consistent with rules used in the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. Nadler also invited the president to attend next week's hearings, in accordance with the House's impeachment inquiry resolution. I write to ask if you and your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel, the letter states. If you would like to participate in the hearing, please provide the Committee with notice as soon as possible, but no later than by 6:00 pm on December 1, 2019. Nadler wrote that he remains committed to ensuring a fair and informative process, but noted invitations for a president to attend impeachment hearings are only a courtesy, not a right. The House Intelligence Committee recently completed two weeks of public hearings into accusations of presidential misconduct by Trump, specifically over a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump pressured Ukraine to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 presidential election. Biden is seen as Trump's likely opponent in the 2020 election. The inquiry began with a whistleblower complaint reported directly to Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Schiff said Monday that lawmakers on his committee will soonissue a reporton evidence gathered so far, working through the Thanksgiving holiday to do so. Fundamentally, the question that Americans who watched the hearings must ask themselves is: Are the president's actions compatible with the office of the presidency? Schiff wrote in his message. All members of the House will have to examine their conscience and their constitutional duty and decide. In a statement Tuesday, Nadler said Trump has a choice to make in the impeachment proceedings. He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process.I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him, he said. Nadler's letter states that the continued refusal to produce documents and preventing witnesses from testifying to the House committees helming the inquiry will have consequences. If the administration continues to stonewall the House, the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies, the letter states. Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University, said he thinks the Judiciary Committee will work on putting all the information dumped on it by the Intelligence Committee into context. Hesaid the committee will try to decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor and hear from both sides, rather than go straight to a committee vote on impeachment. Personally, I think that works out better than having the president rely on his proxies from the committee, although the president might be happy to leave it to those people, Kalt said. Kalt noted that Republican Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Steve Chabot of Ohio both presented evidence against Bill Clinton in his 1998 Senate trial. They were appointed as managers to argue the case in those proceedings. Lawmakers from that impeachment saga will flip-flop, Kalt predicted, noting that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham a staunch defender of Trump argued during Clinton's trial that a crime was not required for impeachment. We're going to have some colorful exchanges here. They tend to appoint less moderate people to Judiciary, more ideological, Kalt said. There are some people we can expect to hear some interesting things from.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/6-photos-vice-president-pences-visit,6 Photos from Vice President Pence's Visit,2019-11-25,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"This week, Rep. Gallagher welcomed Vice President Pence and U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia to Marinette to meet with Northeast Wisconsinites and tour Marinette Marine. See what their busy day entailed in the photos below. At approximately 10:00am, Air Force 2 landed at Austin Straubel International Airport. The Vice President and Rep. Gallagher stopped to greet, a number of Northeast Wisconsinites on the tarmac before heading to Marinette. On the way to Marinette Marine, Vice President Pence stopped the motorcade to greet students at Garfield Elementary. It was a memorable experience for all the students, who joined Rep. Gallagher in thanking the Vice President for the spontaneous stop. Before the tour, Rep. Gallagher addressed employees at Marinette Marine and introduced the Vice President. As he said, ""This town and this shipyard represent the best of Wisconsin values,"" which is something that Vice President Pence surely knows as a fellow Midwesterner. Watch the video above to see his full remarks. The Vice President then laid out a compelling agenda for ways we can continue to create exciting opportunities for workers, particularly by passing USMCA. He also had some nice words for Rep. Gallagher, who is committed to helping get common sense initiatives like the USMCA across the finish line (click the picture above to see what he said). On their visit, they also toured the U.S.S. Cooperstown, a Freedom variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, which gave Vice President Pence and Secretary Scalia the chance to see the Wisconsin work ethic firsthand. And before they left Wisconsin after a busy day in Marinette, they stopped at Mickey-Lu-Bar-B-Q for dinner (cheeseburgers, of course). No better way to end a day",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/wisconsinites-week/recognition-jeffrey-knaus-career-plumbers-and-steamfitters-united,IN RECOGNITION OF Jeffrey Knaus Career with the Plumbers and Steamfitters United Association Local 400,2019-11-25,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jeffrey Knaus of De Pere, Wisconsin on celebrating his retirement from the Plumbers and Steamfitters United Association Local 400. His leadership in Wisconsin's trade industry is an excellent example of dedication to a craft and service to one's community. Jeff began his career with Tweet-Garot Mechanical as a steamfitter in 1984 and joined the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 298 in Green Bay. After completing his apprenticeship, Jeff served on the Steamfitter JAC and as a night school instructor for UA Heritage and Steward Training. Jeff's commitment to bettering his skills and the industry led him to advance in leadership. In 2001, he became full-time Business Representative for the NorthEast WI Building and Construction Trades Council and served until January 2005 when he was elected Business Agent for UA Local 400. When Locals 206, 298, 458 and 786 merged in 1998 to become UA Local 400, Jeff was elected local union president from 2002-2004. Jeff was then appointed Assistant Business Manager in 2008 and elected Business Manager/Financial Secretary-Treasurer in 2012. As Business Manager for UA Local 400, Jeff served as chairman of the Education and Health Funds, President of the Fox River Valley Pipe Trades Education Foundation and as a trustee on UA Local 400's DB pension plan and profit sharing/401(k) plan. He has also been assigned by the UA to serve on the Pipe Fabrication Institute and to represent the UA at the last five Metal Trades Department Conferences. Throughout his career, Jeff has committed his time and energy to serving his community. He has championed opportunities for veterans within Local 400, and has been a strong proponent of the UA's Veterans In Piping Program. This program provides veterans with 18 weeks of accelerated training in the pipe trades, including 6 weeks of classroom instruction combined with 12 weeks of on-the-job training. Local 400, under Jeff's leadership, has also demonstrated a strong commitment to youth education in our community, most recently being recognized with the Heart of the Valley Chamber of Commerce's 2019 Business Partner in Education Award. Jeff has been a tireless advocate on behalf of UA Local 400. He believed that the development and success of Local 400 went hand in hand with that of the community. Jeff worked tirelessly to foster partnerships within the community that have not only advanced the interests of the members of Local 400, but also strengthened the community it serves. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking Jeff for his service and dedication to Wisconsin's 8th District and its trades industry. I wish Jeff well as he marks the conclusion of his proud career. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I yield back.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/wisconsinites-week/recognition-lawrence-university-s-150th-anniversary-federal-depository,IN RECOGNITION OF Lawrence Universitys 150th Anniversary with the Federal Depository Library Program,2019-11-25,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"HON. MIKE GALLAGHER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 30th, 2019 Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of Lawrence University's partnership with the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) administered by the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO). In 1860, Congress established the GPO to provide and preserve information about the federal government to Congress. The GPO's authority was later expanded through legislation in 1895, making the agency responsible for not only printing for all three branches of government, but also distributing government publications to designated libraries to provide information about the federal government to the public. Thus, the Federal Depository Library Program began. Today, the FDLP distributes government documents to nearly 1,159 libraries. The Seeley G. Mudd Library is the oldest FDLP library among all universities and colleges in Wisconsin. Its collections of Congressional records and government documents include historical treasures unique among all FDLP libraries in the state. The Fox Valley and students of Lawrence University are fortunate to have a resource like the Seeley G. Mudd Library in our community. I am grateful to Lawrence University for pioneering Wisconsin's partnership with the FLDP, and to the Seeley G. Mudd Library for preserving treasured government documents for the community. Madam speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Lawrence University as the Seeley G. Mudd Library celebrates this impressive milestone. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield back.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-colleagues-introduce-bill-authorize-motorcyclist-advisory-council,"Gallagher, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Authorize Motorcyclist Advisory Council",2019-11-22,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), alongside Reps. Chris Pappas (D-NH), Troy Balderson (R-OH), and Harley Rouda (D-CA), today introduced the Motorcyclist Advisory Council Reauthorization Act, a bill that would reauthorize the Motorcyclist Advisory Council (MAC) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for six years. The MAC, whose authorization expires along with surface transportation programs in FY2021, provides DOT with critical firsthand knowledge on infrastructure and road safety measures and serves as the only official forum for motorcyclists to discuss motorcycle issues with the federal government. Click here for bill text. Motorcycle registration is at an all-time high, but this increasing popularity has brought with it increasing risks, such as fatal accidents, said Rep. Gallagher. Motorcycles require specific and in some cases different requirements of roads, and we need an open dialogue between the motorcycle community, infrastructure experts, and the federal government to discuss these challenges. Few states know motorcycles better than Wisconsin, and this bill ensures we can find ways to allow more growth in this industry and make Wisconsin roads more safe. Motorcycling is a time-honored part of our way of life in the Granite State and a key driver for our local economy, said Congressman Chris Pappas. This summer's tragic motorcycle crash on Route 2 further underscores the need for us to do all we can to keep riders safe and out of harm's way. I am proud to help introduce legislation that keeps the Motorcyclist Advisory Council at the Department of Transportation and ensures that those with firsthand knowledge about the unique infrastructure and safety needs of motorcyclists continue to have a seat at the table. The Motorcyclist Advisory Council is a crucial asset that informs smart, strategic, and area-specific motorcyclist policy. This legislation is the first step in ensuring roads across the United States are safer for all who use them, and I thank Congressman Gallagher and my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, said Rep. Rouda. The Motorcyclist Advisory Council Reauthorization Act: Reauthorizes the MAC for six years Requires the MAC to submit a biennial recommendations report to Congress Establishes the structure of the MAC to include 12 members, including 5 highway engineering experts from state or local governments, 1 state or local traffic safety engineer who is a motorcyclist, one roadway safety data expert on crash testing and analysis, and 1 representative from each of the following groups: a national association of State transportation officials, a national motorcyclist foundation, a national motorcyclist association, a national motorcycle manufacturing association, and a national safety organization. Background: Nationwide motorcycle usage has increased 25 percent since 2012, with 9 million motorcycles registered in the United States in 2017more than 400,000 of which were registered in Ohio. Simultaneously, the number of fatal motorcycle crashes in the U.S. have increased5.1 percent between 2015 to 2016, from 5,029 to 5,286according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-announces-staff-office-hours-1,Steil Announces Staff Office Hours,2019-11-22,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN—The office of Congressman Bryan Steil will host Staff Office Hours next week to assist constituents with federal casework issues. During the week of November 25, there are six options across the First Congressional District for constituents to receive casework assistance or share their thoughts on federal policy. On Tuesday, December 3, there are four opportunities for constituents to receive help. ""Our office hours provide a great opportunity for folks to stop by who need help with a federal agency or want to share an opinion with me,"" said Steil. As always, constituents unable to attend Staff Office Hours can walk in to one of our three offices or set up an appointment. Office locations and hours can be found below. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2019 Village of Sturtevant 1:00pm-2:00pm Village Hall 2801 89th Street Sturtevant, WI 53177 Village of Mount Pleasant 2:30pm-3:30pm Village Hall 8811 Campus Drive Mount Pleasant, WI 53406 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2019 Village of Caledonia 9:00am-10:00am Village Hall 5043 Chester Lane Racine, WI 53402 Village of Wind Point 10:30am-11:30am Village Hall 215 E. Four Mile Road Racine, WI 53402 City of Oak Creek 1:00pm-2:00pm City Hall 8040 S. 6th Street Oak Creek, WI 53154 City of Franklin 2:30pm-3:30pm City Hall 9229 W. Loomis Road Franklin, WI 53132 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019 Village of Greendale 9:00am-10:00am Village Hall 6500 Northway Greendale, WI 53129 Village of Hales Corners 10:30am-11:30am Village Hall 5635 S. New Berlin Road Hales Corners, WI 53130 Village of Waterford 1:00pm-2:00pm Village Hall 123 N. River Street Waterford, WI 53185 City of Burlington 2:30pm-3:30pm Police Department 224 E. Jefferson Street Burlington, WI 53105 Steil Office Locations and Hours: Janesville Office 20 S. Main St. Suite 10 Janesville, WI 53545 Phone: (608) 752-4050 Hours: Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm and by appointment Kenosha County Office Somers Village/Town Hall 7511 12th Street Somers, WI 53171 Phone: (262) 654-1901 Hours: Mondays, 9am-12pm, Wednesdays, 1pm-4pm, and by appointment Racine Office Racine County Courthouse, Room 101 730 Wisconsin Avenue Racine, WI 53403 Phone: (262) 637-0510 Hours: Tuesdays, 9am-12pm, Thursdays, 1pm-4pm, and by appointment",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:43:09Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-joins-vice-president-pence-secretary-scalia-marinette-marine,"Gallagher Joins Vice President Pence, Secretary Scalia at Marinette Marine",2019-11-21,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today traveled with Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia to Marinette Marine to discuss the USMCA, workforce development, and issues impacting the shipyard. During the visit, they toured a Freedom variant of a Littoral Combat Ship and addressed Marinette Marine employees. Rep. Gallagher issued the following statement after the visit. Marinette represents the best of our Midwestern values, and I'm grateful that Vice President Pence and Secretary Scalia had the opportunity to see Northeast Wisconsin's work ethic firsthand said Rep. Gallagher. As a Midwesterner himself, Vice President Pence understands the value of hard work, and his speech today laid out a compelling agenda for ways we can continue to create exciting opportunities for workers in Northeast Wisconsin. We have to pass USMCA, we have to find innovative ways to strengthen our workforce, and we have to make sure Marinette continues to build U.S. Navy ships for generations to come.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-crow-lead-bipartisan-sunrise-run-national-mall,"Gallagher, Crow Lead Bipartisan Sunrise Run on National Mall",2019-11-20,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), alongside Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), today led a bipartisan sunrise run on the National Mall to raise awareness for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Memorial. Last week, Gallagher and Crow introduced the GWOT Memorial Location Act, which would authorize the establishment of a GWOT memorial in the Reserve section of the National Mall. The run took them past the three sites proposed for the memorial in this bill: Constitution Gardens, West Potomac Park and the JFK Hockey Fields. A picture of the route is below. This morning we ran past monuments honoring some of the greatest individuals in our country's history, from George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, to those who served in the wars of the 20th century, said Rep. Gallagher. Just like the veterans of major wars before them, we must ensure those who served and continue to serve in the Global War on Terror are rightfully honored, and there's no place more fitting to do so than on the National Mall. I'm glad we were able to have such a strong bipartisan showing to examine proposed sites for the Global War on Terror Memorial and raise awareness about this important cause. ""The Global War on Terrorism changed the course of American history and the lives of millions of services members, first responders, and civil servants - including my own. Those of us who have served and who have worked to help our fellow veterans understand the power of place. The transformational power of a sacred location where veterans and their families can come together to reflect, remember, and heal, said Rep. Crow. Today's run was a chance for us to come together as members of Congress, but also veterans, and raise awareness about the bill. We have a sacred duty to honor those who have selflessly served in our nation's longest war and it is charge we do not take lightly. Background: Gallagher and Crow were joined by Reps. Van Taylor (R-TX), Conor Lamb (D-PA), Michael Waltz (R-FL), Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation President Michael Rod Rodriguez, and local GWOT veterans.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-introduces-corporate-governance-reform-and-transparency-act,Steil Introduces the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act,2019-11-20,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, House Financial Services Committee member Bryan Steil (WI-01) introduced H.R. 5116, the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act. H.R. 5116 holds proxy advisory firms accountable by requiring them to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), disclose conflicts of interest, and make their methodologies publicly available. Reps. Andy Barr, Denver Riggleman, and Ann Wagner are cosponsors of H.R. 5116. Proxy advisors have a significant impact on corporate governance and the financial health of American public companies. My bill fosters proper oversight of this industry and increases transparency. This will improve corporate governance, protect investors, and create competition. The SEC has moved in the right direction with its recent proposals. It is time for Congress to act, said Steil. On Background: Proxy advisory firms advise pension plans, mutual funds, and other institutional investors on how they should vote on management and shareholder proposals at annual corporate meetings. These firms wield a significant amount of influence over corporate governance. Though proxy advisors have an important role to play in providing advice to institutional investors, their activities merit scrutiny due to their outsized influence over corporate governance in the United States. Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns about proxy advisory firm transparency, conflicts of interest, and the accuracy of their recommendations. H.R. 5116, the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act improves the proxy advisory industry and corporate governance by requiring proxy advisory firms to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), disclose conflicts of interest and codes of ethics, and make their methodologies publicly available. Steil is a member of the following House Financial Services Committee subcommittees: Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets; Housing, Community Development, and Insurance; and Diversity and Inclusion. Steil is also a member of the Financial Services Committee Task Force on Financial Technology.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-introduces-the-corporate-governance-reform-and-transparency-act,Steil Introduces the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act,2019-11-20,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Financial Services Committee member Bryan Steil (WI-01) introduced H.R. 5116, the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act. H.R. 5116 holds proxy advisory firms accountable by requiring them to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), disclose conflicts of interest, and make their methodologies publicly available. Reps. Andy Barr, Denver Riggleman, and Ann Wagner are cosponsors of H.R. 5116. ""Proxy advisors have a significant impact on corporate governance and the financial health of American public companies. My bill fosters proper oversight of this industry and increases transparency. This will improve corporate governance, protect investors, and create competition. The SEC has moved in the right direction with its recent proposals. It is time for Congress to act,"" said Steil. On Background: Proxy advisory firms advise pension plans, mutual funds, and other institutional investors on how they should vote on management and shareholder proposals at annual corporate meetings. These firms wield a significant amount of influence over corporate governance. Though proxy advisors have an important role to play in providing advice to institutional investors, their activities merit scrutiny due to their outsized influence over corporate governance in the United States. Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns about proxy advisory firm transparency, conflicts of interest, and the accuracy of their recommendations. H.R. 5116, the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act improves the proxy advisory industry and corporate governance by requiring proxy advisory firms to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), disclose conflicts of interest and codes of ethics, and make their methodologies publicly available. Steil is a member of the following House Financial Services Committee subcommittees: Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets; Housing, Community Development, and Insurance; and Diversity and Inclusion. Steil is also a member of the Financial Services Committee Task Force on Financial Technology.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:43:09Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-introduces-bill-support-women-trucking,Gallagher Introduces Bill to Support Women in Trucking,2019-11-19,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) yesterday introduced H.R. 5145, the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act. This bill would direct the administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to establish a Women of Trucking Advisory Board tasked with identifying barriers to entry for women in the trucking industry. The advisory board would also be required to work across organizations and companies to coordinate formal education and training programs and help identify and establish training and mentorship programs for women in the industry. Sens. Moran (R-KS) and Baldwin (D-WI) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. Click here for bill text. Although women make up nearly half of our country's workforce, they represent less than 10% of truck drivers across the country, said Rep. Gallagher. Small businesses across Northeast Wisconsin rely on a healthy trucking industry to ship their goods, and as trucking companies struggle to find and retain workers, it's critical we learn why women have been greatly underrepresented in this industry. I'm proud to introduce this bill which takes steps to examine ways we can address this problem, expand opportunities for women, and strengthen the trucking industry's workforce. Congressman Gallagher has been a true supporter of our efforts to bring more women into transportation careers. He even took the time to better understand the challenges and opportunities for female drivers by going for a ride with one of our members. We look forward to moving this legislation forward to further our mission, said Ellen Voie, President/CEO of Women In Trucking Association. Background: Women currently make up 47 percent of the United States' labor force, yet represent 24 percent of America's trucking workforce and only about 8 percent of drivers. This legislation is supported by the Women in Trucking Association and the American Trucking Association.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/reps-sensenbrenner-and-kelly-introduce-bill-to-assist-law-enforcement-and-reduce-violence,Reps. Sensenbrenner and Kelly Introduce Bill to Assist Law Enforcement and Reduce Violence,2019-11-19,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington D.C. Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) andCongresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL) introduced the Gunfire Detection and Location Technology Act. The legislation would direct the U.S. Attorney General to provide grants to states and localities for gunfire detection and location technology. Specifically, it would authorize $40 million in grants to be distributed in equal parts over the coming four fiscal years. Gunfire detection technology has proven to be successful in many cities across the U.S., including in my home state of Wisconsin. It's time we empower law enforcement officers in other locations to implement this technology so they may better protect their communities, said Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bipartisan bill will help bring modern solutions to some of the longstanding challenges facing violence-plagued areas, and I'm grateful to Congresswoman Kelly for her leadership and cooperation on this effort. As we work to prevent gun violence, we can and must use technology to equip first responders with the resources to respond more quickly in service of victims and investigations. This bipartisan measure will help cities and states adopt this powerful technology that is yielding positive results in our efforts to reduce gun violence and violent crime, said Congresswoman Robin Kelly. I thank Congressman Sensenbrenner for his support of this measure and his long history of working across the aisle to advance the best policies and innovations in serve to our communities. Background: A network of sensors is used to detect gunshots, many of which are unreported to 911 dispatchers. Once a gunshot is detected, the technology triangulates the origin and notifies law enforcement with real-time data. This increase response time allowing for speedier access to victims and rapid securing of the crime scene. Additionally, the data can be used, via a secure database, for predictive intelligence, which further improves response times and resource allocation. This technology is already used by more than 100 cities, including Chicago, Milwaukee and New York City. According to a report, the city of Milwaukee has seen a 38 percent decrease in the amount of gunshots fired in areas where this technology was used from 2017 to 2018 showing that its use can act as a deterrent.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-hold-ninth-telephone-town-hall,Steil to Hold Ninth Telephone Town Hall,2019-11-19,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"Bryan Steil will hold a telephone town hall for constituents on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 2:45pm CT. Steil has held nine in-person town halls, at least one in each county in the First District, and held eight previous telephone town halls. Please note that while the Congressman aims to start the telephone town hall on time, the U.S. House of Representatives' voting schedule is fluid and can often change without advance notice. This may result in a late start time of the telephone town hall. Constituents and members of the media interested in joining the town hall can do so by calling the following number at 2:45pm CT: 877-229-8493 PIN# 118308 WHAT: Telephone Town Hall WHO: Congressman Bryan Steil WHEN: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 2:45pm CT",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-to-hold-ninth-telephone-town-hall,Steil to Hold Ninth Telephone Town Hall,2019-11-19,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"Bryan Steil will hold a telephone town hall for constituents on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 2:45pm CT. Steil has held nine in-person town halls, at least one in each county in the First District, and held eight previous telephone town halls. Please note that while the Congressman aims to start the telephone town hall on time, the U.S. House of Representatives' voting schedule is fluid and can often change without advance notice. This may result in a late start time of the telephone town hall. Constituents and members of the media interested in joining the town hall can do so by calling the following number at 2:45pm CT: 877-229-8493 PIN# 118308 WHAT: Telephone Town Hall WHO: Congressman Bryan Steil WHEN: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 2:45pm CT",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:43:09Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/charts?ContentRecord_id=67D01847-B6BE-4873-8015-A24D5AF384B3,FY19 Minors and Family Apprehension Totals,2019-11-18,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Milwaukee Office 517 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 408 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 276-7282 Fax: (414) 276-7284 Oshkosh Office 219 Washington Avenue Suite 100 Oshkosh, WI 54901 Phone: (920) 230-7250 Fax: (920) 230-7262 Madison Office 5315 Wall Street Suite 110 Madison, WI 53718 Phone: (608) 240-9629 Fax: (608) 240-9646 Washington D.C. Office 328 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-5323 Fax: (202) 228-6965 Mobile Office Mobile Office",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=0A971750-8B01-4C35-AF3B-E6E0133A8C92,Johnson Responds to House Republicans Request for Information on Ukraine,2019-11-18,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) today responded to a request from Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence respectively, to share his firsthand knowledge about the U.S.-Ukraine relationship as part of the House Democrats' impeachment proceedings. Sen. Johnson has worked on Ukraine issues closely during his time in the Senate, and he is currently the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's European Subcommittee. Full text of Sen. Johnson's written response is below and can be found here. The request letter from Reps. Jordan and Nunes can be found here. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes Ranking Member Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Reform Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Nov. 18, 2019 I am writing in response to the request of Ranking Members Nunes and Jordan to provide my first-hand information and resulting perspective on events relevant to the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump. It is being written in the middle of that inquiry after most of the depositions have been given behind closed doors, but before all the public hearings have been held. I view this impeachment inquiry as a continuation of a concerted, and possibly coordinated, effort to sabotage the Trump administration that probably began in earnest the day after the 2016 presidential election. The latest evidence of this comes with the reporting of a Jan. 30, 2017 tweet (10 days after Trump's inauguration) by one of the whistleblower's attorneys, Mark Zaid: #coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. But even prior to the 2016 election, the FBI's investigation and exoneration of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, combined with Fusion GPS' solicitation and dissemination of the Steele dossier and the FBI's counterintelligence investigation based on that dossier laid the groundwork for future sabotage. As a result, my first-hand knowledge and involvement in this saga began with the revelation that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kept a private e-mail server. I have been chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) since January 2015. In addition to its homeland security portfolio, the committee also is charged with general oversight of the federal government. Its legislative jurisdiction includes federal records. So when the full extent of Clinton's use of a private server became apparent in March 2015, HSGAC initiated an oversight investigation. Although many questions remain unanswered from that scandal, investigations resulting from it by a number of committees, reporters and agencies have revealed multiple facts and episodes that are similar to aspects of the latest effort to find grounds for impeachment. In particular, the political bias revealed in the Strzok/Page texts, use of the discredited Steele dossier to initiate and sustain the FBI's counterintelligence investigation and FISA warrants, and leaks to the media that created the false narrative of Trump campaign collusion with Russia all fit a pattern and indicate a game plan that I suspect has been implemented once again. It is from this viewpoint that I report my specific involvement in the events related to Ukraine and the impeachment inquiry. I also am chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have made six separate trips to Ukraine starting in April 2011. Most recently, I led two separate Senate resolutions calling for a strong U.S. and NATO response to Russian military action against Ukraine's navy in the Kerch Strait. I traveled to Ukraine to attend president-elect Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration held on May 20, and again on Sept. 5 with U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy to meet with Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders. Following the Orange Revolution, and even more so after the Maidan protests, the Revolution of Dignity, and Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine, support for the people of Ukraine has been strong within Congress and in both the Obama and Trump administrations. There was also universal recognition and concern regarding the level of corruption that was endemic throughout Ukraine. In 2015, Congress overwhelmingly authorized $300 million of security assistance to Ukraine, of which $50 million was to be available only for lethal defensive weaponry. The Obama administration never supplied the authorized lethal defensive weaponry, but President Trump did. Zelensky won a strong mandate 73% from the Ukrainian public to fight corruption. His inauguration date was set on very short notice, which made attending it a scheduling challenge for members of Congress who wanted to go to show support. As a result, I was the only member of Congress joining the executive branch's inaugural delegation led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, representing the National Security Council. I arrived the evening before the inauguration and, after attending a country briefing provided by U.S. embassy staff the next morning, May 20, went to the inauguration, a luncheon following the inauguration, and a delegation meeting with Zelensky and his advisers. The main purpose of my attendance was to demonstrate and express my support and that of the U.S. Congress for Zelensky and the people of Ukraine. In addition, the delegation repeatedly stressed the importance of fulfilling the election mandate to fight corruption, and also discussed the priority of Ukraine obtaining sufficient inventories of gas prior to winter. Two specific points made during the meetings stand out in my memory as being relevant. The first occurred during the country briefing. I had just finished making the point that supporting Ukraine was essential because it was ground zero in our geopolitical competition with Russia. I was surprised when Vindman responded to my point. He stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, How in the world is that even possible? I do not know if Vindman accurately stated the NSC's position, whether President Trump shared that viewpoint, or whether Vindman was really just expressing his own view. I raise this point because I believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their turf. They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile. Quotes from the transcript of Vindman's opening remarks and his deposition reinforce this point and deserve to be highlighted. Vindman testified that an alternative narrative pushed by the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was inconsistent with the consensus views of the relevant federal agencies and was undermining the consensus policy. Vindman's testimony, together with other witnesses' use of similar terms such as our policy, stated policy, and long-standing policy lend further credence to the point I'm making. Whether you agree with President Trump or not, it should be acknowledged that the Constitution vests the power of conducting foreign policy with the duly elected president. American foreign policy is what the president determines it to be, not what the consensus of unelected foreign policy bureaucrats wants it to be. If any bureaucrats disagree with the president, they should use their powers of persuasion within their legal chain of command to get the president to agree with their viewpoint. In the end, if they are unable to carry out the policy of the president, they should resign. They should not seek to undermine the policy by leaking to people outside their chain of command. The other noteworthy recollection involves how Perry conveyed the delegation concern over rumors that Zelensky was going to appoint Andriy Bohdan, the lawyer for oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, as his chief of staff. The delegation viewed Bohdan's rumored appointment to be contrary to the goal of fighting corruption and maintaining U.S. support. Without naming Bohdan, Secretary Perry made U.S. concerns very clear in his remarks to Zelensky. Shortly thereafter, ignoring U.S. advice, Zelensky did appoint Bohdan as his chief of staff. This was not viewed as good news, but I gave my advice on how to publicly react in a text to Sondland on May 22: Best case scenario on COS: Right now Zelensky needs someone he can trust. I'm not a fan of lawyers, but they do represent all kinds of people. Maybe this guy is a patriot. He certainly understands the corruption of the oligarchs. Could be the perfect guy to advise Zelensky on how to deal with them. Zelensky knows why he got elected. For now, I think we express our concerns, but give Zelensky the benefit of the doubt. Also let him know everyone in the U.S. will be watching VERY closely. At the suggestion of Sondland, the delegation (Perry, Volker, Sondland and me) proposed a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. The purpose of the meeting was to brief the president on what we learned at the inauguration, and convey our impressions of Zelensky and the current political climate in Ukraine. The delegation uniformly was impressed with Zelensky, understood the difficult challenges he faced, and went into the meeting hoping to obtain President Trump's strong support for Zelensky and the people of Ukraine. Our specific goals were to obtain a commitment from President Trump to invite Zelensky to meet in the Oval Office, to appoint a U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who would have strong bipartisan support, and to have President Trump publicly voice his support. Our Oval Office meeting took place on May 23. The four members of the delegation sat lined up in front of President Trump's desk. Because we were all directly facing the president, I do not know who else was in attendance sitting or standing behind us. I can't speak for the others, but I was very surprised by President Trump's reaction to our report and requests. He expressed strong reservations about supporting Ukraine. He made it crystal clear that he viewed Ukraine as a thoroughly corrupt country both generally and, specifically, regarding rumored meddling in the 2016 election. Volker summed up this attitude in his testimony by quoting the president as saying, They are all corrupt. They are all terrible people. I don't want to spend any time with that. I do not recall President Trump ever explicitly mentioning the names Burisma or Biden, but it was obvious he was aware of rumors that corrupt actors in Ukraine might have played a part in helping create the false Russia collusion narrative. Of the four-person delegation, I was the only one who did not work for the president. As a result, I was in a better position to push back on the president's viewpoint and attempt to persuade him to change it. I acknowledged that he was correct regarding endemic corruption. I said that we weren't asking him to support corrupt oligarchs and politicians but to support the Ukrainian people who had given Zelensky a strong mandate to fight corruption. I also made the point that he and Zelensky had much in common. Both were complete outsiders who face strong resistance from entrenched interests both within and outside government. Zelensky would need much help in fulfilling his mandate, and America's support was crucial. It was obvious that his viewpoint and reservations were strongly held, and that we would have a significant sales job ahead of us getting him to change his mind. I specifically asked him to keep his viewpoint and reservations private and not to express them publicly until he had a chance to meet Zelensky. He agreed to do so, but he also added that he wanted Zelensky to know exactly how he felt about the corruption in Ukraine prior to any future meeting. I used that directive in my Sept. 5 meeting with Zelensky in Ukraine. One final point regarding the May 23 meeting: I am aware that Sondland has testified that President Trump also directed the delegation to work with Rudy Giuliani. I have no recollection of the president saying that during the meeting. It is entirely possible he did, but because I do not work for the president, if made, that comment simply did not register with me. I also remember Sondland staying behind to talk to the president as the rest of the delegation left the Oval Office. I continued to meet in my Senate office with representatives from Ukraine: on June 13 with members of the Ukrainian Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee; on July 11 with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S. and secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Oleksandr Danyliuk; and again on July 31 with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly. At no time during those meetings did anyone from Ukraine raise the issue of the withholding of military aid or express concerns regarding pressure being applied by the president or his administration. During Congress' August recess, my staff worked with the State Department and others in the administration to plan a trip to Europe during the week of Sept. 2 with Senator Murphy to include Russia, Serbia, Kosovo and Ukraine. On or around Aug. 26, we were informed that our requests for visas into Russia were denied. On either Aug. 28 or 29, I became aware of the fact that $250 million of military aid was being withheld. This news would obviously impact my trip and discussions with Zelensky. Sondland had texted me on Aug. 26 remarking on the Russian visa denial. I replied on Aug. 30, apologizing for my tardy response and requesting a call to discuss Ukraine. We scheduled a call for sometime between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. that same day. I called Sondland and asked what he knew about the hold on military support. I did not memorialize the conversation in any way, and my memory of exactly what Sondland told me is far from perfect. I was hoping that his testimony before the House would help jog my memory, but he seems to have an even fuzzier recollection of that call than I do. The most salient point of the call involved Sondland describing an arrangement where, if Ukraine did something to demonstrate its serious intention to fight corruption and possibly help determine what involvement operatives in Ukraine might have had during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, then Trump would release the hold on military support. I have stated that I winced when that arrangement was described to me. I felt U.S. support for Ukraine was essential, particularly with Zelensky's new and inexperienced administration facing an aggressive Vladimir Putin. I feared any sign of reduced U.S. support could prompt Putin to demonstrate even more aggression, and because I was convinced Zelensky was sincere in his desire to fight corruption, this was no time to be withholding aid for any reason. It was the time to show maximum strength and resolve. I next put in a call request for National Security Adviser John Bolton, and spoke with him on Aug. 31. I believe he agreed with my position on providing military assistance, and he suggested I speak with both the vice president and president. I requested calls with both, but was not able to schedule a call with Vice President Pence. President Trump called me that same day. The purpose of the call was to inform President Trump of my upcoming trip to Ukraine and to try to persuade him to authorize me to tell Zelensky that the hold would be lifted on military aid. The president was not prepared to lift the hold, and he was consistent in the reasons he cited. He reminded me how thoroughly corrupt Ukraine was and again conveyed his frustration that Europe doesn't do its fair share of providing military aid. He specifically cited the sort of conversation he would have with Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany. To paraphrase President Trump: Ron, I talk to Angela and ask her, Why don't you fund these things,' and she tells me, Because we know you will.' We're schmucks. Ron. We're schmucks. I acknowledged the corruption in Ukraine, and I did not dispute the fact that Europe could and should provide more military support. But I pointed out that Germany was opposed to providing Ukraine lethal defensive weaponry and simply would not do so. As a result, if we wanted to deter Russia from further aggression, it was up to the U.S. to provide it. I had two additional counterarguments. First, I wasn't suggesting we support the oligarchs and other corrupt Ukrainians. Our support would be for the courageous Ukrainians who had overthrown Putin's puppet, Viktor Yanukovich, and delivered a remarkable 73% mandate in electing Zelensky to fight corruption. Second, I argued that withholding the support looked horrible politically in that it could be used to bolster the Trump is soft on Russia mantra. It was only after he reiterated his reasons for not giving me the authority to tell Zelensky the support would be released that I asked him about whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, I quoted the president as saying, (Expletive deleted) No way. I would never do that. Who told you that? I have accurately characterized his reaction as adamant, vehement and angry there was more than one expletive that I have deleted. Based on his reaction, I felt more than a little guilty even asking him the question, much less telling him I heard it from Sondland. He seemed even more annoyed by that, and asked me, Who is that guy? I interpreted that not as a literal question the president did know whom Sondland was but rather as a sign that the president did not know him well. I replied by saying, I thought he was your buddy from the real estate business. The president replied by saying he barely knew him. After discussing Ukraine, we talked about other unrelated matters. Finally, the president said he had to go because he had a hurricane to deal with. He wrapped up the conversation referring back to my request to release the hold on military support for Ukraine by saying something like, Ron, I understand your position. We're reviewing it now, and you'll probably like my final decision. On Tuesday, Sept. 3, I had a short follow up call with Bolton to discuss my upcoming trip to Ukraine, Serbia and Kosovo. I do not recall discussing anything in particular that relates to the current impeachment inquiry on that call. We arrived in Kyiv on Sept. 4, joining Taylor and Murphy for a full day of meetings on Sept. 5 with embassy staff, members of the new Ukrainian administration, and Zelensky, who was accompanied by some of his top advisers. We also attended the opening proceedings of the Ukrainian High Anti-Corruption Court. The meetings reinforced our belief that Zelensky and his team were serious about fulfilling his mandate to paraphrase the way he described it in his speech at the High Anti-Corruption Court to not only fight corruption but to defeat it. The meeting with Zelensky started with him requesting we dispense with the usual diplomatic opening and get right to the issue on everyone's mind, the hold being placed on military support. He asked if any of us knew the current status. Because I had just spoken to President Trump, I fielded his question and conveyed the two reasons the president told me for his hold. I explained that I had tried to persuade the president to authorize me to announce the hold was released but that I was unsuccessful. As much as Zelensky was concerned about losing the military aid, he was even more concerned about the signal that would send. I shared his concern. I suggested that in our public statements we first emphasize the universal support that the U.S. Congress has shown and will continue to show for the Ukrainian people. Second, we should minimize the significance of the hold on military aid as simply a timing issue coming a few weeks before the end of our federal fiscal year. Even if President Trump and the deficit hawks within his administration decided not to obligate funding for the current fiscal year, Congress would make sure he had no option in the next fiscal year which then was only a few weeks away. I also made the point that Murphy was on the Appropriations Committee and could lead the charge on funding. Murphy made the additional point that one of the most valuable assets Ukraine possesses is bipartisan congressional support. He warned Zelensky not to respond to requests from American political actors or he would risk losing Ukraine's bipartisan support. I did not comment on this issue that Murphy raised. Instead, I began discussing a possible meeting with President Trump. I viewed a meeting between the two presidents as crucial for overcoming President Trump's reservations and securing full U.S. support. It was at this point that President Trump's May 23 directive came into play. I prefaced my comment to Zelensky by saying, Let me go out on a limb here. Are you or any of your advisers aware of the inaugural delegation's May 23 meeting in the Oval Office following your inauguration? No one admitted they were, so I pressed on. The reason I bring up that meeting is that I don't want you caught off-guard if President Trump reacts to you the same way he reacted to the delegation's request for support for Ukraine. I told the group that President Trump explicitly told the delegation that he wanted to make sure Zelensky knew exactly how he felt about Ukraine before any meeting took place. To repeat Volker's quote of President Trump: They are all corrupt. They are all terrible people. I don't want to spend any time with that. That was the general attitude toward Ukraine that I felt President Trump directed us to convey. Since I did not have Volker's quote to use at the time, I tried to portray that strongly held attitude and reiterated the reasons President Trump consistently gave me for his reservations regarding Ukraine: endemic corruption and inadequate European support. I also conveyed the counterarguments I used (unsuccessfully) to persuade the president to lift his hold: 1) We would be supporting the people of Ukraine, not corrupt oligarchs, and 2) withholding military support was not politically smart. Although I recognized how this next point would be problematic, I also suggested any public statement Zelensky could make asking for greater support from Europe would probably be viewed favorably by President Trump. Finally, I commented on how excellent Zelensky's English was and encouraged him to use English as much as possible in a future meeting with President Trump. With a smile on his face, he replied, But Senator Johnson, you don't realize how beautiful my Ukrainian is. I jokingly conceded the point by saying I was not able to distinguish his Ukrainian from his Russian. This was a very open, frank, and supportive discussion. There was no reason for anyone on either side not to be completely honest or to withhold any concerns. At no time during this meeting or any other meeting on this trip was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for the military aid, not even after Murphy warned them about getting involved in the 2020 election which would have been the perfect time to discuss any pressure. Following the meeting with Zelensky and his advisers, Murphy and I met with the Ukrainian press outside the presidential office building. Our primary message was that we were in Kyiv to demonstrate our strong bipartisan support for the people of Ukraine. We were very encouraged by our meetings with Zelensky and other members of his new government in their commitment to fulfill their electoral mandate to fight and defeat corruption. When the issue of military support was raised, I provided the response I suggested above: I described it as a timing issue at the end of a fiscal year and said that, regardless of what decision President Trump made on the fiscal year 2019 funding, I was confident Congress would restore the funding in fiscal year 2020. In other words: Don't mistake a budget issue for a change in America's strong support for the people of Ukraine. Congress came back into session on Sept. 9. During a vote early in the week, I approached one of the co-chairs of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin. I briefly described our trip to Ukraine and the concerns Zelensky and his advisers had over the hold on military support. According to press reports, Senator Durbin stated that was the first time he was made aware of the hold. I went on to describe how I tried to minimize the impact of that hold by assuring Ukrainians that Congress could restore the funding in fiscal year 2020. I encouraged Durbin, as I had encouraged Murphy, to use his membership on the Senate Appropriations Committee to restore the funding. Also according to a press report, leading up to a Sept. 12 defense appropriation committee markup, Durbin offered an amendment to restore funding. On Sept. 11, the administration announced that the hold had been lifted. I think it is important to note the hold was lifted only 14 days after its existence became publicly known, and 55 days after the hold apparently had been placed. On Friday, Oct. 4, I saw news reports of text messages that Volker had supplied the House of Representatives as part of his testimony. The texts discussed a possible press release that Zelensky might issue to help persuade President Trump to offer an Oval Office meeting. Up to that point, I had publicly disclosed only the first part of my Aug. 31 phone call with President Trump, where I lobbied him to release the military aid and he provided his consistent reasons for not doing so: corruption and inadequate European support. Earlier in the week, I had given a phone interview with Siobhan Hughes of the Wall Street Journal regarding my involvement with Ukraine. With the disclosure of the Volker texts, I felt it was important to go on the record with the next part of my Aug. 31 call with President Trump: his denial. I had not previously disclosed this because I could not precisely recall what Sondland had told me on Aug. 30, and what I had conveyed to President Trump, regarding action Ukraine would take before military aid would be released. To the best of my recollection, the action described by Sondland on Aug. 30 involved a demonstration that the new Ukrainian government was serious about fighting corruption something like the appointment of a prosecutor general with high integrity. I called Hughes Friday morning, Oct. 4, to update my interview. It was a relatively lengthy interview, almost 30 minutes, as I attempted to put a rather complex set of events into context. Toward the tail end of that interview, Hughes said, It almost sounds like, the way you see it, Gordon was kind of freelancing and he took it upon himself to do something that the president hadn't exactly blessed, as you see it. I replied, That's a possibility, but I don't know that. Let's face it: The president can't have his fingers in everything. He can't be stage-managing everything, so you have members of his administration trying to create good policy. To my knowledge, most members of the administration and Congress dealing with the issues involving Ukraine disagreed with President Trump's attitude and approach toward Ukraine. Many who had the opportunity and ability to influence the president attempted to change his mind. I see nothing wrong with U.S. officials working with Ukrainian officials to demonstrate Ukraine's commitment to reform in order to change President Trump's attitude and gain his support. Nor is it wrong for administration staff to use their powers of persuasion within their chain of command to influence policy. What is wrong is for people who work for, and at the pleasure of, the president to believe they set U.S. foreign policy instead of the duly elected president doing so. It also would be wrong for those individuals to step outside their chain of command or established whistleblower procedures to undermine the president's policy. If those working for the president don't feel they can implement the president's policies in good conscience, they should follow Gen. James Mattis' example and resign. If they choose to do so, they can then take their disagreements to the public. That would be the proper and high-integrity course of action. This impeachment effort has done a great deal of damage to our democracy. The release of transcripts of discussions between the president of the United States and another world leader sets a terrible precedent that will deter and limit candid conversations between the president and world leaders from now on. The weakening of executive privilege will also limit the extent to which presidential advisers will feel comfortable providing out of the box and other frank counsel in the future. In my role as chairman of the Senate's primary oversight committee, I strongly believe in and support whistleblower protections. But in that role, I am also aware that not all whistleblowers are created equal. Not every whistleblower has purely altruistic motives. Some have personal axes to grind against a superior or co-workers. Others might have a political ax to grind. The Intelligence Community Inspector General acknowledges the whistleblower in this instance exhibits some measure of an arguable political bias. The whistleblower's selection of attorney Mark Zaid lends credence to the ICIG's assessment, given Zaid's tweet that mentions coup, rebellion and impeachment only 10 days after Trump's inauguration. If the whistleblower's intention was to improve and solidify the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine, he or she failed miserably. Instead, the result has been to publicize and highlight the president's deeply held reservations toward Ukraine that the whistleblower felt were so damaging to our relationship with Ukraine and to U.S. national security. The dispute over policy was being resolved between the two branches of government before the whistleblower complaint was made public. All the complaint has accomplished is to fuel the House's impeachment desire (which I believe was the real motivation), and damage our democracy as described above. America faces enormous challenges at home and abroad. My oversight efforts have persuaded me there has been a concerted effort, probably beginning the day after the November 2016 election, to sabotage and undermine President Trump and his administration. President Trump, his supporters, and the American public have a legitimate and understandable desire to know if wrongdoing occurred directed toward influencing the 2016 election or sabotaging Trump's administration. The American public also has a right to know if no wrongdoing occurred. The sooner we get answers to the many unanswered questions, the sooner we can attempt to heal our severely divided nation and turn our attention to the many daunting challenges America faces. Ron Johnson U.S. Senator ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/monday-june-11,"Sunday, November 17th",2019-11-17,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"1:00PM GermantownTown Hall Meeting Village Hall, N112W17001 Mequon Road",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6AA696A1-B4BA-46A2-9362-F0CDA5BD1466,Johnson to Share Ukraine Insights with House,2019-11-17,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Ron Johnson,J000293,www.ronjohnson.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to discuss House Democrats' impeachment proceedings. Notably, Sen. Johnson announced that he received a request from Representatives Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes to share his firsthand knowledge about the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. Excerpts from the interview are below, and video can be found here. On impeachment proceedings One thing I want to point out is the damage that is being done to our country through this entire impeachment process. It's going to be very difficult for future presidents to have a candid conversation with a world leader, because now we've set the precedent of leaking transcripts. The weakening of executive privilege is not good. I got a letter last night from Representatives Jordan and Nunes asking for basically my telling of events. I will be working on that today. I will lay out what I know in terms of this, and to a certain extent some of my perspective. On his conversation with President Trump about aid to Ukraine What has not been reported from that phone call [with President Trump] at the very end, he said, Ron, I have a hurricane I have to deal with. But I hear what you are saying. We are reviewing this, and I think you will like my decision.' So he's already leaning toward providing that funding on August 31. My guess is that this never would have been exposed, that funding would have been restored and our relationship with Ukraine would have been far better off than it is today. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/monday-june-18,"Saturday, November 16th",2019-11-16,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's town hall meeting scheduled for Saturday, November 16th at 10:00amat the Jefferson Public Library has been cancelled because of an unforeseen scheduling conflict. We apologize for any inconvenience. Please contact Congressman Sensenbrenner's Brookfield office at (262) 784-1111 if you have any questions or require assistance.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-colleagues-introduce-bipartisan-american-security-drone-act,"Gallagher, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan American Security Drone Act",2019-11-15,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), alongside Reps. Joe Courtney (D-CT), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Mark Green (R-TN), and Jackie Speier (D-CA), today introduced the American Security Drone Act of 2019. This bill would prohibit the federal government from purchasing drones manufactured in countries identified as national security threats, such as China. Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced companion legislation the U.S. Senate. Click here for bill text. Drones manufactured by foreign adversaries should be nowhere near the federal government, said Rep. Gallagher. Purchasing this equipment from countries like China uses taxpayer dollars to support the Chinese Communist Party's near-monopoly on this critical market, while also posing a serious national security threat. It is imperative that Congress pass this bipartisan bill to protect U.S. interests, our communities, and our national security supply-chain. I'm proud to join my colleague Rep. Gallagher in introducing this important legislation, which would reduce our Defense and Homeland Security Departments' reliance on foreign-manufactured drone technology. It's clear that the continued use of this technology by the federal government poses a security risk, as evidenced by the Department of Interior's announcement on October 30 that it was grounding all non-emergency use of drones it purchased from DJI, a Chinese drone manufacturer, until a security review is completed. While the needs of these departments with regard to unmanned surveillance capabilities are clear, we cannot subvert our national security imperatives for the sake of expediency, particularly when American manufacturers have the ability to fill this need, said Rep. Courtney. Drones are an integral part of US military strategy and maintaining US superiority in the drone market is critical. However, China is actively stealing our drone technology and intellectual property in order to undercut the US drone market. Which is why I am proud to support the American Drone Security Act, which bans the federal acquisition of drones from China or other US adversaries. Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to purchase vital military equipment that can be compromised by our adversaries, said Rep. Yoho. We live in an uncertain world where there are serious threats to our country, our data security and our democracy. We must ensure our military, homeland security officials and other government agencies have the tools needed to defend our nation, said Congressman Donald Norcross. This bill ensures that our government is protected against Chinese-developed technologies that pose a risk to data security, undercut American intellectual property and put our national security at risk. The American Security Drone Act: Prohibits federal departments and agencies from procuring any foreign commercial off-the-shelf drone or covered unmanned aircraft system manufactured or assembled in countries identified as national security threats, and provides a timeline to end current use of these drones. Prohibits the use of federal funds awarded through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements to state or local governments from being used to purchase foreign commercial off-the-shelf drones or covered unmanned aircraft systems manufactured or assembled in a country identified as a national security threat. Requires the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress detailing the amount of foreign commercial off-the-shelf drones and covered unmanned aircraft systems procured by federal departments and agencies from countries identified as national security threats.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-announces-additional-staff-office-hours,Steil Announces Additional Staff Office Hours,2019-11-15,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN—The office of Congressman Bryan Steil will host Staff Office Hours next week to assist constituents with federal casework issues. During the week of November 18th, there are 12 options across the First Congressional District for constituents to attend to receive casework assistance or share their thoughts on federal policy. Steil's office has held 37 previous Staff Office Hours. ""Our office hours provide a great opportunity for folks to stop by who need help with a federal agency or want to share an opinion with me,"" said Steil. As always, constituents unable to attend Staff Office Hours can walk in to one of our three offices or set up an appointment. Office locations and hours can be found below. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18 Village of Bristol 1:00pm-2:00pm Bristol Municipal Building 19801 83rd Street Bristol, WI 53104 Village of Paddock Lake 2:30pm-3:30pm Village Hall 6969 236th Avenue Paddock Lack, WI 53168 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19 Village of Wales 9:00am-10:00am Village Hall 129 W. Main Street Wales, WI 53183 Village of North Prairie 1:00pm-2:00pm Village Hall 130 N. Harrison Street North Prairie, WI 53153 Village of Eagle 2:30pm-3:30pm Village Hall 820 E. Main Street Eagle, WI 53119 Village of Dousman 4:00pm-5:00pm Village Hall 118 S. Main Street Dousman, WI 53118 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20 Village of Salem Lakes 9:00am-10:00am Village Hall 9814 Antioch Road Salem, WI 53168 Village of Union Grove 10:30am-11:30am Community State Bank, Social Room 1500 Main Street Union Grove, WI 53182 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 Village of East Troy 9:00am-10:00am Village Hall 2015 Energy Drive Easy Troy, WI 53120 Village of Mukwonago 10:30am-11:30am Village Hall 440 River Crest Court Mukwonago, WI 53149 Village of Big Bend 1:00pm-2:00pm Board Room W230 S9185 Nevins Street Big Bend, WI 53103 City of Muskego 2:30pm-3:30pm City Hall W12 S8200 Racine Avenue Muskego, WI 53150 Steil Office Locations and Hours: Janesville Office 20 S. Main St. Suite 10 Janesville, WI 53545 Phone: (608) 752-4050 Hours: Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm and by appointment Kenosha County Office Somers Village/Town Hall 7511 12th Street Somers, WI 53171 Phone: (262) 654-1901 Hours: Mondays, 9am-12pm, Wednesdays, 1pm-4pm, and by appointment Racine Office Racine County Courthouse, Room 101 730 Wisconsin Avenue Racine, WI 53403 Phone: (262) 637-0510 Hours: Tuesdays, 9am-12pm, Thursdays, 1pm-4pm, and by appointment",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:43:09Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-receives-inaugural-teddy-award-issue-one,Gallagher Receives Inaugural Teddy Award from Issue One,2019-11-14,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) yesterday received the inaugural Teddy Award from Issue One. Gallagher was recognized for his bipartisan efforts to reform Congress and return government to the people. Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), as well as Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-CA) also received Teddy Awards for their work. Congress is broken, and if we don't come together to fix the way this institution works, nothing will ever get done, said Rep. Gallagher. Fordecades, members in both parties gave away Congressional authorities and centralized power at the top. It's time we work together to reverse that trend, take back Congress's Article I powers, and get members of Congress to focus on doing their jobs instead of raising money. There's growing bipartisan support to make Congress work like the Founders intended, and I look forward to continue working with my colleagues to reach that goal. Background: Rep. Gallagher has been a leading advocate for Congressional Reform. He has introduced multiple pieces of legislation to help drain the swamp, and has been a strong voice for changing the Congressional calendar, amending the ways Congress selects committee chairs, and reforming our budget process.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/dr-lisa-arkin-wisconsin-passed-step-therapy-reform-now-we-need-the-federal-government-to-do-the-same,Dr. Lisa Arkin: Wisconsin passed step therapy reform now we need the federal government to do the same,2019-11-14,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Dr. Lisa Arkin in The Cap Times On the first day of medical school, I took a sacred oath to first, do no harm. Above all, our role as physicians is to relieve suffering, carefully assessing in every treatment decision the delicate balance between risks and benefits. This requires clinical experience and medical knowledge of disease pathophysiology. But it is the available evidence that is paramount in our clinical decision-making as physicians. Clinical trials are created explicitly to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments before they are made available to patients. They provide the highest quality evidence to enable physicians to carefully weigh their risks and benefits in any clinical scenario. However, an insurer practice called step therapy has been restraining physicians from carrying out their role by restricting treatment options for patients. Step therapy is when an insurance company forces patients to try and ""fail"" alternative medications decided by the insurer before covering the cost of the prescription that their physician has prescribed. This typically requires patients to fail less expensive medications first. In some cases, step therapy flies in the face of the available medical evidence, potentially endangering patients, frustrating physicians and other health care providers, and in the long run incurring greater costs for the health care system. Thankfully, this year the Wisconsin Legislature passed, and Gov. Tony Evers signed Senate Bill 26 to reform step therapy in Wisconsin. The bill took effect on Nov. 1. I applaud the work of the bill sponsors, Sen. Alberta Darling and Rep, John Nygren, and all of the many advocates who came together to get this passed. But it's not enough. In order to protect all Wisconsin patients, we must pass step therapy reform on the federal level as well. The ""Safe Step Act"" (S.2546/H.R. 2279) would offer common-sense protections to ensure patients have timely access to the medications prescribed to them by their health care providers by putting guardrails around the practice, and would provide patients the same protections that have been enacted in more than two dozen states across the country including Wisconsin. We need both state and federal legislation in order to cover plans that are regulated by varying state and federal agencies. I am grateful to U.S. Reps. Mark Pocan, James Sensenbrenner and Ron Kind for cosponsoring the ""Safe Step Act,"" and I urge the rest of the Wisconsin congressional delegation to likewise support this needed protection. The practice of pediatric dermatology can be complicated and diverse. Although many of my patients have similar skin conditions, the severity of their disease varies widely. Severe cases are rarely just skin limited, and are often accompanied by other medical problems. Symptoms of itch and pain can be debilitating. The stigma of having a highly visible chronic skin disease can be significant. Based on the literature factoring in the patient's age and other complicated medical conditions, I determine a course of care based on the highest quality evidence available for this specific population. But without reform, step therapy means that some of my patients are denied the medications that are safest and most effective, in favor of a less expensive, often riskier drug. Only after failure which can mean different things for different patients depending on the insurance plan are they granted access to the medication I originally prescribed. In the most severe cases, this only delays care and increases costs to the system, since these patients are likely to get there anyway. I believe it's the responsibility of all of us in health care to be economic stewards in the system. Whenever possible, I prescribe the most cost-effective medication when it is also safe and likely to be effective. But not all patients are square pegs that fit into square holes. For the most unique and severely affected patients, the round pegs so to speak, the available evidence, combined with my own clinical experience, should outweigh the insurer's desire to cut costs. I'm thrilled that lawmakers from all sides, along with patients, providers and insurers, worked together to achieve step therapy reform in Wisconsin. I am hopeful that the Wisconsin congressional delegation will continue to put patients first by supporting step therapy reform on the federal level. In spite of the gains in Wisconsin, it's clear that federal step therapy reform is a critical next step to protect our sickest, most vulnerable patients. Dr. Lisa Arkin is a pediatric dermatologist in Madison.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/lawmakers-push-antitrust-regulators-to-do-more-on-big-tech-s-potential-monopolies,Lawmakers push antitrust regulators to do more on Big Tech's potential monopolies,2019-11-14,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Ben Fox Rubin of CNET House lawmakers on Wednesday called for two topantitrustregulators to take more action against major tech companies, saying several of these companies have avoided serious scrutiny for years as they swallowed up competitors and consolidated power. They made the request during a hearing for theHouse Judiciary's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, which has been holding a series of hearings dubbed Online Platforms and Market Power. ""Despite mounting evidence of illegal monopolization activity by some of the dominant platforms and numerous cases brought by international enforcers, US enforcers appear to be paralyzed,"" Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler said in an opening statement. ""It has been decades -- decades -- since the Department of Justice or theFederal Trade Commissionhas brought a significant monopolization case in the tech sector."" Wednesday's hearing included just two witnesses:FTCChairman Joseph Simons and Makan Delrahim, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. The tone was largely collegial, with the subcommittee's antitrust efforts becoming a rare case of bipartisan work in a polarized Capitol. There were also few people in the audience, perhaps owing to the hearing being overshadowed by the highly anticipated House impeachment public hearings kicking off the same day. Delrahim and Simons attended a similar hearingin Septemberheld by theSenate Judiciary Committee, pointing to just how much attention tech antitrust concerns have grown in Washington DC. The hearing came as regulators and lawmakers have been shining a harsher light on many of the biggest US tech companies --Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple-- and theirpotential monopolies. So far,Facebookhas publicly disclosed investigations into the social giant by both the Justice Department and the FTC, andGoogledisclosed a Justice Department investigation. Added to that, the House Judiciary Committee and a group of state attorneys general are investigating these tech titans, too. This work could have huge implications for the future of tech, potentially resulting in the breakup of dominant players like Facebook, the prevention of future tech mergers, or the creation of additional regulatory restrictions on tech giants. Regulators and lawmakers say they are pursuing this work to ensure customers can benefit from the growth of innovative new startups and healthy competition. For their part, many major tech companies say they remain small players in their fields, such asAmazonbeing a fraction of global retail, and point to long lists of competitors in their markets. While several committee members on Wednesday called for more regulatory action, Simons, from the FTC, warned that his agency lacked the authority to pursue more privacy-related enforcement. He said Congress would first need to enact privacy-focused laws, similar to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation or theCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act. ""If you want us to do more on the privacy front, then we need more tools from you,"" he said. Additionally, Republicans Jim Sensenbrenner and Doug Collins on Wednesday both warned of unintended consequences of new regulations and government overreach that could stifle innovation. For instance, Simons mentioned how Europe's GDPR may have ended up reinforcing market leaders there and suppressing new competitors. ""Proposals to break up big companies just because they are big risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater and are simply punishing success,"" Collins said.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/house-continues-deep-dive-into-digital-antitrust-and-big-tech,House Continues Deep Dive into Digital Antitrust and Big Tech,2019-11-13,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By John Eggerton of Multichannel News The House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee heard from two major players in the government's review of Big Tech and whether the antitrust laws have kept up with their exponential growth, but not before the legislators had staked out their own positions. The toughest rhetoric came from Democrats decrying consolidation and what they said was lax enforcement. Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) pulled no punches, he said the extreme concentration of online platforms may have some benefits, but they were clearly using their power to set market terms that enrich themselves and make it impossible to compete. He said the power they wield is in some measures unprecedented, while government regulators have been paralyzed. Full committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) echoed that criticism. He said they were at a critical moment when a handful of dominant companies control ""commerce, content, and communications."" He got specific, pointing out that Google had over 90% of search, Facebook over 80% of social media revenues, and Amazon over half of online commerce. He said that anticompetitive consolidation has had devastating effects on a free and diverse press as well as the survival of startups. Both talked of lax merger enforcement in the U.S. vs. more muscular oversight overseas. Ranking member Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) was concerned but less harsh in his assessment, a view echoed by other Republicans. He said that it was important not to overreach or punish success or suppress innovation or limit consumer power. Witnesses for the hearing were Department of Justice antitrust chief Makan Delrahim and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons in the latest hearing Wednesday (Nov. 13) in a series of hearings, Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 4: Perspectives of the Antitrust Agencies. Delrahim and Simons both talked about their ongoing, separate, investigations into Big Tech and antitrust, but both talked about the actions they had already taken in the digital space, and would take future action if their investigation warrants. On the issue of enforcement, Simons conceded that the FTC was resource-restrained so it focused on cases it had a better likelihood of winning, adding that if it had more money, it could pursue more cases. Simons was asked about Europe's opt-in consent regime and whether the U.S. should take a similar approach to federal privacy legislation. He said he was concerned that could backfire, entrenching the largest players even more at the expense of newer entrants because with consumers faced with a barrage of opt-in decisions on data use, the larger, more familiar, players are the ones most likely to get that consent in part because users may not want to spread their information so widely. Sensenbrenner agreed that the U.S. needed to beware the unintended consequences of efforts at protecting privacy or passing federal legislation.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/how-the-trump-impeachment-inquiry-compares-to-bill-clinton-s,How the Trump impeachment inquiry compares to Bill Clinton's,2019-11-13,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: CBS News Thefirst public hearings of the impeachment inquirythat begin Wednesday mark the fourth time in history that Congress has considered removing a president from office. The last time was 1998 when the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton. Clinton lied under oath about his affair with a White House intern, triggering an impeachment inquiry in the Republican-led House. ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,"" Clinton said on Jan. 26, 1998. Then, like now, the parties were split over whether the president's actions represented what the Constitution refers to as ""high crimes and misdemeanors."" Just like today, the minority argued the opposing party had been looking for a way to take down the president for years. ""He lied about sex, not an admirable thing, but really not an activity that shook the foundations of the Constitution and the democracy,"" Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said. ""The president of the United States should be held to the highest standard of anybody in the country,"" Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said. Both lawmakers sit on the House Judiciary Committee, which handles impeachment. They were there in 1998 too. ""It was a heck of a lot of work,"" Sensenbrenner recounted, adding, ""The Judiciary Committee got all of Starr's evidence dumped on us with a few days notice."" In this case, there is no special prosecutor like Kenneth Starr to gather all that evidence. So the intelligence committee has been investigating instead with a series of closed-door depositions. ""This is not a joyful experience for anyone engaged in it, but it's an obligation that we have given the facts that have been discovered so far,"" Lofgren said. Clinton famously said the process was beyond his control. ""It's not in my hands; it's in the hands of Congress and the people of this country ultimately, in the hands of God. There is nothing I can do,"" he said in 1998. Mr. Trump has mounted a more direct defense. ""We had a totally appropriate I even say perfect conversation with the president of Ukraine,"" Mr. Trump said earlier this month. In the end, the House voted to bring impeachment charges against Clinton on two charges. But he was acquitted by the Senate less than two months later with some Republicans crossing party lines. Sensenbrenner predicts the same outcome for Mr. Trump. ""The president is not going to be removed from office, I think everybody realizes that,"" Sensenbrenner said. The split we're seeing on impeachment in Congress reflects the divide in the country. Themost recent CBS News pollshows 53 percent approve of the inquiry into Mr. Trump and 47 percent disapprove. In 1998, before the House voted to start the impeachment inquiry of Mr. Clinton, a CBS News poll found that 53 percent of Americans would be satisfied if no action were taken against the president and the entire matter were dropped.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/11/trump-impeachment-hearings-are-fourth-in-history-of-american-presidents,Trump impeachment hearings are fourth in history of American presidents,2019-11-13,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,F. Sensenbrenner,S000244,sensenbrenner.house.gov,,,legacy,"By: Yaron Steinbuch of New York Post The first public hearings of the impeachment inquiry that aired on TV screens across the US on Wednesday marked only the fourth time in history that Congress has considered removing a president from office. The last time was in 1998, when Republicans brought charges against then-Democratic President Bill Clinton. They also were also launched against Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 before the House issued its indictment, and Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House in 1868 but acquitted by the Senate by a single vote. Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, triggering the impeachment inquiry in the lower chamber. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, Clinton said on Jan. 26, 1998. Like now, the parties were split at the time over whether the president's actions represented what the Constitution deems to be high crimes and misdemeanors. And just like today, the minority party argued that the opposition had been looking for a way to take down the president for years. He lied about sex, not an admirable thing, but really not an activity that shook the foundations of the Constitution and the democracy, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said,according to CBS News. The president of the United States should be held to the highest standard of anybody in the country, said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Both lawmakers were and still are members of the House Judiciary Committee, which handles impeachment. It was a heck of a lot of work. The Judiciary Committee got all of Starr's evidence dumped on us with a few days' notice, Sensenbrenner said, referring to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. This is not a joyful experience for anyone engaged in it, but it's an obligation that we have given the facts that have been discovered so far, Lofgren said. Clinton famously said the process was beyond his control. It's not in my hands; it's in the hands of Congress and the people of this country ultimately, in the hands of God. There is nothing I can do, Clinton said in 1998. President Trump has called the current process a witch hunt by the Do Nothing Democrats. The House ultimately voted to bring impeachment charges against Clinton on two charges, but he was later acquitted by the Senate with some Republicans crossing party lines. Sensenbrenner predicts the same outcome for Trump. The president is not going to be removed from office, I think everybody realizes that, he said.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-introduces-helping-startups-continue-grow-act,Steil Introduces the Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act,2019-11-13,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, House Financial Services Committee member Bryan Steil introduced H.R. 4918, the Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act. Steil's bill streamlines reporting requirements for new companies so they can invest in growth and innovation. The Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act gives Emerging Growth Companies more time to continue expanding and developing their product under streamlined disclosure and filing procedures. Startup companies deservea fair shot at success. When new businesses succeed, wages rise and the local community thrives. New companies should focus on creating good paying jobs,notregulatory compliance, said Steil. This bill reduces regulations and allows companies to invent new products, increasewages for workers, and investin communities. On background: TheHelping Startups Continue to Grow Actprovides a five-year extension of certain exemptions and reduced disclosure requirements for companies to remain an EGC. Currently, Emerging Growth Companies (EGCs) can maintain their status as an EGC for up to five years after they become a public company. Emerging Growth Companies are young, public companies that are continuing to invest in innovation. However, many of these companies are not generating enough revenue five years after becoming public to support the compliance costs that come with a loss of EGC status. By providing this five-year extension, startup companies do not have to spend their time and money on bureaucratic regulations and burdensome compliance procedures. Instead, these companies can focus on investing in communities, creating good paying jobs, and developing products. H.R. 4918 aims to help all startups, but this especially assists companies developing lifesaving drugs, medical devices, and other products. The Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act has received the support of numerous organizations including: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), and National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Public companies have historically proven [to be] a key driver of growth and job creation. The declining number of public companies also leaves fewer options for Main Street investors and retirees to build and sustain wealth. H.R. 4918 advocates for this commonsense legislative solution to expand on the success of the JOBS Act and would provide regulatory relief for small and newly public companies looking to grow and expand, said Neil Bradley from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You can read the full letter of support here. As the number of public companies declines, policymakers must ensure out public markets remain the envy of the world. Measures such as H.R. 4918 will encourage more companies to go public without compromising investor protection, said Jamie Wall, Executive Vice President of Advocacy for SIFMA. You can read the full letter of support here. This piece of legislation would reduce the significant costs for small capitalization companies to go public and startups to access the public markets, said Bobby Franklin, President and CEO of NVCA. You can read the full letter of support here. The ability to go public as an Emerging Growth Company has been a welcome boon for biotechs, and an extension of the provision will sustain the growth of the biotech industry and support the search for the next generation of medical breakthroughs, said James Greenwood, President and CEO of BIO. You can read the full letter of support here. Steil is a member of the following House Financial Services Committee subcommittees: Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets; Housing, Community Development, and Insurance; and Diversity and Inclusion. Steil is also a member of the Financial Services Committee Task Force on Financial Technology.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases/steil-introduces-the-helping-startups-continue-to-grow-act,Steil Introduces the Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act,2019-11-13,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Bryan Steil,S001213,steil.house.gov,steil,https://steil.house.gov/media/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Financial Services Committee member Bryan Steil introduced H.R. 4918, the Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act. Steil's bill streamlines reporting requirements for new companies so they can invest in growth and innovation. The Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act gives Emerging Growth Companies more time to continue expanding and developing their product under streamlined disclosure and filing procedures. ""Startup companies deserve a fair shot at success. When new businesses succeed, wages rise and the local community thrives. New companies should focus on creating good paying jobs, not regulatory compliance,"" said Steil. ""This bill reduces regulations and allows companies to invent new products, increase wages for workers, and invest in communities."" On background: The Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act provides a five-year extension of certain exemptions and reduced disclosure requirements for companies to remain an EGC. Currently, Emerging Growth Companies (EGCs) can maintain their status as an EGC for up to five years after they become a public company. Emerging Growth Companies are young, public companies that are continuing to invest in innovation. However, many of these companies are not generating enough revenue five years after becoming public to support the compliance costs that come with a loss of EGC status. By providing this five-year extension, startup companies do not have to spend their time and money on bureaucratic regulations and burdensome compliance procedures. Instead, these companies can focus on investing in communities, creating good paying jobs, and developing products. H.R. 4918 aims to help all startups, but this especially assists companies developing lifesaving drugs, medical devices, and other products. The Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act has received the support of numerous organizations including: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), and National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). ""Public companies have historically proven [to be] a key driver of growth and job creation. The declining number of public companies also leaves fewer options for Main Street investors and retirees to build and sustain wealth. H.R. 4918 advocates for this commonsense legislative solution to expand on the success of the JOBS Act and would provide regulatory relief for small and newly public companies looking to grow and expand,"" said Neil Bradley from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You can read the full letter of support here. ""As the number of public companies declines, policymakers must ensure out public markets remain the envy of the world. Measures such as H.R. 4918 will encourage more companies to go public without compromising investor protection,"" said Jamie Wall, Executive Vice President of Advocacy for SIFMA. You can read the full letter of support here. ""This piece of legislation would reduce the significant costs for small capitalization companies to go public and startups to access the public markets,"" said Bobby Franklin, President and CEO of NVCA. You can read the full letter of support here. ""The ability to go public as an Emerging Growth Company has been a welcome boon for biotechs, and an extension of the provision will sustain the growth of the biotech industry and support the search for the next generation of medical breakthroughs,"" said James Greenwood, President and CEO of BIO. You can read the full letter of support here. Steil is a member of the following House Financial Services Committee subcommittees: Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets; Housing, Community Development, and Insurance; and Diversity and Inclusion. Steil is also a member of the Financial Services Committee Task Force on Financial Technology.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-06-27T23:43:09Z https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-crow-introduce-bill-authorize-gwot-memorial-national-mall,"Gallagher, Crow Introduce Bill to Authorize GWOT Memorial on National Mall",2019-11-12,2019,2019-11,Republican,House,WI,Mike Gallagher,G000579,gallagher.house.gov,,,legacy,"Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), alongside Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), today introduced the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act, which would authorize the establishment of a memorial for service members of the Global War on Terrorism in the Reserve section of the National Mall. The proposed locations outlined in the bill include: Constitution Gardens, West Potomac Park and the JFK Hockey Fields. Both Gallagher and Crow are veterans of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) serving in Marines and the Army, respectively. Click here for bill text. A map of the proposed locations can be viewed below. I served alongside many brave men and women in the Marine Corps, some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation, said Gallagher. Honoring their service, as well as the sacrifices of all those who have served in the Global War on Terrorism, is overdue. The National Mall is a fitting place to memorialize these heroes, and I'm proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation with Rep. Crow to ensure the legacies of these great Americans will be remembered for generations to come. The Global War on Terrorism changed the course of American history and the lives of the millions of servicemembers, first responders, and civil servants who stepped up to serve our country. The sacrifices of this generation are all too often forgotten amidst the political debates of our time. said Crow. It is our hope that by honoring the service and sacrifices of this generation in our nation's capital, we give our service men and women the honor they are due. Gallagher, a sophomore member of Congress, served in the United States Marine Corps for seven years as a Counterintelligence/Human Intelligence Officer and Regional Affairs Officer for the Middle East/North Africa, where he earned the rank of Captain. He deployed twice to Al Anbar Province, Iraq as a commander of intelligence teams, and served on General Petraeus's Central Command Assessment Team in the Middle East. Crow, a freshman member of Congress, served with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq where he received a Bronze Star for his leadership during the Battle of As Samawah and later two combat tours in Afghanistan with the 75th Ranger Regiment where he was tasked with fighting the Haqqani Network, an insurgent group on the Afghanistan - Pakistan border. The For Country Caucus, a bipartisan caucus of veterans of which Gallagher and Crow are a part of, also unanimously endorsed the bill, ""As a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism, I am honored to commemorate my brothers and sisters in arms who have served in this conflict. This bipartisan legislation demonstrates our nation's veneration for those who defend our democracy, and the sacrifice endured by their loved ones,"" said Congressman Panetta, founder and chair of the For Country Caucus and veteran of the U.S. Navy. Background: Last Congress, the President signed into law legislation introduced by Rep. Gallagher and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) to exempt the Global War on Terrorism Memorial from restrictive language in the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, which prohibits commemorations from being authorized on federal land until at least ten years after the officially designated end of a conflict. This is the next necessary legislative step to ensure this memorial can be built alongside other major war memorials on the National Mall.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z