[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 199 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H10225-H10233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for next week. I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour 
debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Members are advised that no 
votes are expected in the House on Monday. Again, no votes on Monday, 
but we will do legislative business. We will be debating suspension 
bills, and the votes will be rolled until the following day.
  On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the House will meet at 9 
a.m. for legislative business. Let me stress that so that every Member 
understands. We normally go in at noon for a schedule like this on 
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but we will be going in at 9 a.m. on 
those days, as well as Friday.
  Members are advised that the first votes of the week on Tuesday are 
expected between 9 and 10. Again, I want to emphasize that, although we 
do not have any votes on Monday night, we expect Tuesday to be a full 
workday, so Members really ought to come into town on Monday.
  We will consider several bills, Mr. Speaker, under suspension of the 
rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close 
of business tomorrow.
  As Members know, the current continuing resolution expires on 
December 20. The House will consider some appropriation measures. 
Hopefully, and my expectation is, they are making progress in the 
Appropriations Committee on coming to a resolution on the 12 
appropriation bills.
  It is my hope that we will consider those appropriation bills on the 
floor on Tuesday, perhaps a series of minibus packages to fund all of 
government for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  I would urge all of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to 
do

[[Page H10226]]

everything they can in the next 24 hours, frankly, to bring this matter 
to a close and agreement so that the staff will have an opportunity to 
put the bills together for consideration next week.
  This week, negotiators were able to reach an agreement on a new trade 
agreement. The Republican whip has been asking me about that agreement. 
I have assured him we wanted to get to yes, and we have gotten to yes. 
We are pleased at that, this trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.
  It is possible that the USMCA trade agreement could be brought to the 
floor next week. The only reason it is possible and not assured is the 
administration is working on submitting implementing legislation to the 
Congress. My presumption is they will have that legislation to us in 
the relatively near term. It will be, therefore, available for 
consideration next week.
  This week, the House Judiciary Committee began markup, as the House 
knows and the country knows, of two Articles of Impeachment. Following 
committee action on these articles, the Judiciary Committee will make a 
recommendation to the full House of Representatives. We will determine 
a path forward on the floor following that recommendation.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, as is always the case in the last week, at least 
the last scheduled week of a session, there may well be other pieces of 
legislation that will ripen for consideration and that may well be 
considered next week. We will announce those as soon as we know which, 
if any, bills qualify for that treatment.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we are encouraged by the progress that we 
are seeing and involved in on the appropriations bills to properly fund 
the government.
  As we have both discussed for some time now, the important job of 
Congress exercising its power of the purse is critical. The willingness 
for all sides to work together--House, Senate, Republican, Democrat, 
along with the White House--to get to a place where we can reach an 
agreement on how to properly fund our troops not for a month or two at 
a time but for the entire year, the value that it gives those men and 
women in uniform, the ability for our generals to acquire the tools 
that are necessary so that they can train safely and defend our country 
effectively, it is well served when we reach this agreement.
  I am encouraged by the progress the gentleman reflected. Hopefully, 
we can get to that point where, early next week, those bills are agreed 
upon, finalized, passed with large bipartisan majorities, which I have 
no doubt we will produce, and then get those signed by the President 
and move to USMCA, as the gentleman talked about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman making the comment with respect 
to the Defense Department and the importance of funding them, and I 
agree with that.
  I want to point out that the same challenge applies to all the other 
agencies of government. The more quickly they can be funded, the more 
they know what their funding is for the next 9 months--that is, between 
December 20 and September 30--and the more able they are to plan and 
rationally run their agencies. So I appreciate his observation about 
the Defense Department. It applies to all of government.
  We are hopeful that we can fund, and our intention is to fund, all of 
government with full-year or at least the balance of the year 
appropriation bills.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I share full agreement with what the 
gentleman talked about in regard to all the agencies as we have had 
these negotiations and look forward to seeing them come to fruition 
early next week, to get that approved then.
  Of course, the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is a 
critical step to show the world that we can come together, build better 
trade relationships with our neighbors, create over 160,000 new jobs 
for hardworking families, get our economy moving even stronger, allow 
us to sell products into countries like Canada and Mexico that we can't 
sell today, and also send a message to our friends around the world 
like Japan, Great Britain, and so many others that want to get better 
trade deals with us as well. It tells them that we are fully able to 
not only negotiate those better deals but pass those deals through 
Congress.

  Then, as we all know and all agree, I would imagine, we focus our 
efforts on China to get China to play by the rules that everybody else 
has, with a stronger agreement that allows our country to be even more 
secure and our economy to thrive even more.
  All of that is critical to get additional economic growth.
  I would ask, does the gentleman know the timeframe? We are, as you 
mentioned, trying to get the final details worked out with the 
administration. Hopefully, those final pieces get put in place today or 
tomorrow so that it can get sent down to Congress. If that does happen, 
is there a timeframe, as you look at the calendar for Wednesday, 
Thursday, or Friday? Is there a place where the majority is looking at 
putting it on the calendar more than other places so we can prepare as 
we look to whip that bill and produce, obviously, the votes to pass it?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. We 
don't have a specific day, but I will tell him that it is our 
intention, assuming that the administration gets the enabling 
legislation to us in a timely fashion, which is my expectation they 
will do, to consider that next week. Now, which day next week has not 
been decided, but we do intend to consider it next week. We want to 
pass it before we leave here.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. We stand ready to 
continue this work in good faith, which it has been from the beginning.
  Obviously, President Trump negotiated this deal, but his trade 
representative, Ambassador Lighthizer, has done yeoman's work, working 
tirelessly with all of us in Congress--Republican, Democrat, House, 
Senate--to work through the final details that we all had.
  A trade deal is always complicated. It always has pieces that some 
like more than others. Ultimately, when it is better for the country 
than the current deal we are in with NAFTA, I think there is broad 
agreement that we finally got there, so hopefully we can get that 
completed next week and then start yielding the economic benefits.
  If the gentleman had something else, I will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Ambassador Lighthizer, as I have said all along, we have 
perceived as an honest broker. I think he has dealt with us fairly and 
openly.
  Very frankly, we believe that the agreement that has now been 
finalized is substantially stronger and better than it was when it was 
first given to us for consideration. I say that in the sense that we 
took the position, and I have taken this position on the floor, the 
gentleman knows, that enforcement was critical.
  The Chamber of Commerce has said, if you have a trade agreement 
without effective enforcement, you don't have a real agreement. What we 
were able to achieve was, we think, real enforcement, which protects 
workers, which protects the environment, which protects other aspects 
of the agreement.
  We also are pleased that some of the things that were in the bill 
that we thought were harmful to consumers, in particular, were dropped.
  But it was an honest negotiation, as the whip has pointed out. It was 
a hard negotiation, not so much between Mr. Lighthizer and ourselves, 
but between Mr. Lighthizer and some of the other interest groups, 
including our friends in Mexico.
  We have now reached that agreement. Hopefully, we can pass this next 
week. Our friends in labor have endorsed this agreement. The Maryland/
D.C. AFL-CIO has endorsed this agreement because they have the 
confidence that, unlike NAFTA--for which I voted, Mr. Speaker--in which 
there was no successful enforcement action over the last two decades, 
this will have the opportunity for successful enforcement for economic 
reasons and for other reasons. And I hope that this will move forward.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, anytime we can make an agreement better for 
the hardworking families of this country, it will be a Christmas gift 
well received by families all across the Nation. I look forward to 
getting this done and then hopefully, like I said, getting others done 
with other countries. We definitely have that opportunity and will seek 
it.

[[Page H10227]]

  I want to shift gears and talk about impeachment and where we are, 
where the committee is right now. There are a number of items that I 
wanted to discuss, but one that has been an issue raised in the 
Judiciary Committee last night and today that continues to be a concern 
is that, under the rules, the minority was promised an actual day of 
hearings, and that has yet to happen. Multiple requests have been made, 
letters sent to the chairman. For whatever reason, the chairman has 
rejected and, in appearance, violated the rules by not allowing what 
has historically been granted as a minority day of hearing.

  I would like to ask the gentleman if he was aware of this. It has 
been raised in the committee multiple times, why not only that 
tradition but why that rule is not being followed, and I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the gentleman very candidly, I 
have not discussed with Mr. Nadler or others on the Judiciary Committee 
that issue. So I really can't give you the rationale that was 
articulated by the chair or by others.
  I will say, however, that the President has indicated he wants to 
move with dispatch on this issue. We are doing that, and we have little 
time left. Very frankly, there were other witnesses to come forward, 
and very frankly, there were a lot of witnesses who were precluded from 
coming forward that we thought would amplify, frankly, people who work 
for and with the President who may have had information to give. But I 
can't specifically articulate the rationale, but we can get that for 
you.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that. It just seems an odd break from the 
rule that is designed to ensure that both sides are heard, and that is 
why there is an opportunity for a minority day of hearing.
  The opportunity was requested, and the opportunity was denied, and 
then the committee today is going to be voting. The committee is acting 
as a jury to remove a President of the United States. Clearly, there 
were witnesses that we sought to bring forward that we were not allowed 
to bring forward, breaking from the custom and tradition of all the 
other impeachments that we have had. Clearly, the Nixon rules were 
repeated with Clinton so that both sides were treated fairly.
  For whatever reason, this majority chose not to follow that custom 
and tradition, so the minority was not allowed to bring all the 
witnesses that we requested, and so the minority day of hearing was the 
only opportunity to present additional evidence that was sought.

                              {time}  1430

  And so if the jury, in essence, today is going to give a verdict, 
which they are, I would expect that the committee is going to pass the 
Articles of Impeachment.
  You had over 70 percent of this committee, the Judiciary Committee, 
over 70 percent of the members of this jury already voted to impeach 
the President on various votes that have been taken on this House 
floor. So if the jury doesn't want to hear the other side's argument, 
it begs the question: Was the jury rigged?
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Because, out of fairness, but also out of the actual rules of the 
House, that opportunity is in the rules for the minority to have a day 
of hearings, and it was denied. That means that the evidence that was 
going to be submitted to the jury who is voting to remove a President 
was also denied.
  And why both sides weren't able to be heard, why the chairman did not 
want both sides to be heard, I think begs a lot of questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman on this.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, of course, this is not the jury in the sense of a petit 
jury that is going to decide guilt and innocence. It is, from a 
lawyer's standpoint, more analogous to a grand jury, which simply 
decides whether or not there is probable cause to believe the President 
abused his power in the exercise of his authority and, secondly, in the 
second Article, refused to cooperate with the Congress exercising its 
constitutional responsibility of oversight.
  Secondly, let me say to the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, the 
President was given the opportunity to appear with counsel and to call 
such witnesses as he wanted to call--I believe that is correct--but to 
appear and defend against the allegations that are incorporated in the 
Articles of Impeachment, and the President chose not to appear.
  The President chose not to have counsel present. Mr. Cipollone, 
counsel to the White House, in fact, responded to the offer to appear 
and said: We have chosen not to do so.
  So to say that the respondent in this case--I won't call him a 
defendant. But the respondent in this case, the President of the United 
States, chose not to respond, chose not to appear, chose not to produce 
evidence in his defense. One could conclude that perhaps they decided 
they didn't have any, but I won't conclude that, but that could be one 
conclusion drawn.
  But I will tell the gentleman, first of all, this is not a jury that 
is deciding guilt or innocence; it is a jury deciding probable cause 
whether or not there is cause to believe.
  And, of course, we had extensive hearings at which many witnesses 
testified, some of whom worked for the administration, with the 
administration, in the White House, who testified to the facts, which 
most constitutional experts believe, if believed, constitute an abuse 
of power.
  But, again, I will say to the gentleman, the central reality is the 
President refused to appear.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, the President, like any other person who is 
requested to provide information, did comply.
  When you look at the Articles of Impeachment, at the beginning of all 
of this, of course, there was the Mueller investigation for 22 months, 
which alleged many things. And, ultimately, the results turned out that 
there were no crimes committed by the President, as we had looked into 
when we were in the majority and knew that years ago, but for whatever 
reason, others wanted to continue making assertions. Those assertions 
turned out to be false.
  So, instead of dropping it there, then you had the whistleblower 
complaint and the allegations of all of these things that happened on a 
phone call.
  The only problem is the President then released the transcript of the 
phone call. And not only did those things not get reflected in the 
transcript, but the two people who actually participated, who should be 
listened to the most, both said there was nothing wrong with the call.
  President Zelensky was asked was there any pressure applied. He said 
no. He got the money. He got the money, and he also got the Javelin 
missiles. He thanked President Trump on the phone call for the aid that 
allowed him to push back Russia.
  As I will point out, President Trump sold 360 Javelin missiles to 
Ukraine so they could defend themselves, pushing back against Russia. 
President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden sold zero Javelin missiles 
to Ukraine to help them push back from Russia.
  So all of this assertion of one President not allowing Ukraine to get 
the aid they need to stand up to Russia turned out to be true. 
President Obama is the one who didn't allow Ukraine to have the tools 
they need. He sold them zero.
  They asked: Please sell us the Javelin missiles so we can defend 
ourselves against Russian aggression. And President Obama and Vice 
President Biden said no.
  Why? That is a good question, and maybe somebody needs to open an 
investigation into that.
  But in the meantime, President Trump said yes. He actually sold them 
360 Javelins. President Zelensky, on the call, thanked him.
  Was there pressure applied? Actually, there were thanks involved, 
President Zelensky thanking President Trump for allowing him the tools 
to stand up to Russia. He said: We may buy more. But he thanked him for 
the ones that he sold.
  There was no quid pro quo. There were no investigations. They asked 
for help, and President Trump said: Absolutely. We will help you stand 
up to Russia.
  And the facts are there.
  Then you look at the catchall Articles of Impeachment. It wasn't the 
bribery and the quid pro quo that were alleged for months, because 
there was

[[Page H10228]]

none, and so that is not in the Articles of Impeachment. So you see 
these catchall phrases like ``abuse of power,'' ``obstruction of 
Congress.''

  Then you read what they allege to be obstruction of Congress: it is 
the President exercising his rights.
  The different Federal agencies that were asked for information--this 
is the obstruction of Congress--these Federal agencies all responded. 
They responded to the committee. They said: Here. Let's have a 
conversation about how to get you information that you want without 
violating the executive privileges that every President has been 
afforded.
  These are letters right here: White House, December 1, 2019; December 
6, 2019; October 15, 2019, Office of the President:

       Including invoking privileges that are held by the 
     President in no way manifests evidence of obstruction; 
     otherwise warrants, offered to negotiate about what 
     information you want.

  Secretary of State, October 1, 2019, sent a response to the 
committee.
  Department of Energy, October 18, 2019, sent a response to the 
committee. Never heard back from the committee, so clearly the 
committee must have been okay with the response.
  The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense on 
October 15, 2019:

       The Department is prepared to engage in the process 
     consistent with longstanding practice and provide the 
     responsive information should there be resolution of this 
     matter.

  The Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense said: Here. What do you 
need? Let's talk and work through it.
  They didn't get a response from the committee. The committee didn't 
say: No. We want more. The committee didn't say: We disagree with you--
which means, by the way, there is a third branch of government. That 
is, the judicial branch.
  If the two branches disagree, historically, in all these 
impeachments--by the way, you don't have to wonder about it. You can go 
back and look at history: Nixon, Clinton. Go back to Andrew Johnson.
  The White House and the legislative branch negotiated what kind of 
information they wanted, and if there was a disagreement--and sometimes 
there is--you go to the courts and you say: Let's resolve it.
  There were some people who the committee asked to come and testify 
before the committee. They issued subpoenas. In some cases, they 
withdrew those subpoenas. So that person wasn't out of compliance; they 
weren't asked to come. But in some cases, they went to the courts, and 
the courts are actually still working to resolve that difference. The 
courts haven't worked it out.
  That is an obstruction of Congress, to actually send a response to a 
question?
  The legislative branch asked the executive branch a question. The 
executive branch, in letter after letter after letter, responds. The 
committee didn't then go back and say: No. You didn't give me what I 
wanted.
  These were all responses. They might not have gotten the answer they 
wanted, but they got an answer. And if they didn't agree with the 
answer--the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) knows, historically, 
how that works--you ask again.
  Maybe you ask for something different. Maybe you narrow it. Maybe you 
say: You know what, you have to give that to me, and if you don't, I am 
going to go to the courts and make it happen.
  They didn't do any of that. They didn't do any of that. They just 
filed Articles of Impeachment: Impeach the President. We don't like the 
answer.
  They gave us answers, answer after answer. And instead of saying, 
``Well, we disagree with your answer. This is what you need to send,'' 
they just said, ``Let's impeach the President,'' because that was the 
objective all along, as we know, in this whole sham. It has always been 
about impeachment, not about facts.
  So when you have a process, if you don't want to follow the process, 
you don't want to actually go and try to get answers to questions, you 
just want to end at a conclusion of impeachment, that is where we are.
  And that is why you see these two articles that don't list crimes. 
All the alleged crimes were debunked. They are not in the Articles of 
Impeachment. And so we end up with abuse of power and obstruction of 
Congress.
  Then you look at the things that are alleged, and there are actual 
answers from the different Federal agencies to the questions that were 
asked. The committee never went back and followed up. They just said: 
We are going to impeach the President because that is what we were 
going to do from the beginning.
  Seventy-one percent of the members of the committee had already voted 
to impeach the President before the call with President Zelensky.
  So why didn't the majority go through the normal process? Why didn't 
the majority allow us, the minority, our own day of hearings to counter 
some of these false allegations? I think the American people have 
figured it out. Because it was never about getting to the facts.
  If that was the case, they would have worked with the executive 
branch to get those answers to those questions. They didn't. They would 
have worked with us to allow us to have the minority day of hearing 
that the rules of the House allow us, but they didn't. And so this is 
where we are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend articulates many things that have no basis in 
fact and believes, in my view, that if he says it enough times that 
people will believe them. To that extent, I think he mirrors the 
President of the United States, who does the same thing.
  First of all, the rules have been followed. Secondly, the evidence 
that has been adduced is overwhelming and has not been controverted.
  John Bolton, when talking about this deal, which we believe is an 
abuse of power, said that this was the equivalent of a drug deal. That 
is John Bolton.
  My friend has talked for many weeks about how the Mueller report 
found nothing.
  First, let me read from the Mueller report something that was not 
part of an article but certainly informs us as to the intent and the 
feelings of the President of the United States.
  The Mueller report said this: ``Our investigation found multiple acts 
by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law 
enforcement investigations, including Russian interference and 
obstruction investigations.
  ``The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in 
which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual 
channels.
  ``These actions,'' the Mueller report said, ``ranged from their 
efforts to remove the special counsel and to reverse the effect of the 
Attorney General's recusal, to the attempted use of official power to 
limit the scope of the investigation, to direct and indirect contacts 
with witnesses and the potential influence of their testimony.
  ``The special counsel did not reach conclusions because''--and this 
is critical, and the whip constantly ignores this when he says the 
Mueller report found nothing.
  ``The special counsel,'' it says, ``did not reach conclusions because 
Department of Justice guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting 
President. Therefore, the Mueller report makes clear, however, that it 
does not exonerate the President by saying this. If we had 
confidence''--the whip may want to hear this.
  The Mueller report said: ``If we had confidence after a thorough 
investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit 
obstruction of justice, we would so state. But, based upon the facts 
and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that 
judgment that the President did not, in fact, participate in 
obstruction of justice.''

                              {time}  1445

  But because DOJ, for whom the counsel worked--not a special 
prosecutor, the special counsel--counsel demurred, essentially refused 
to make a judgment that he thought he was unable to make. But he made 
it clear that they could not find that the President did not obstruct 
justice.
  Let me say something else. There are a number of people who thought 
the Mueller report and the Mueller investigation had great effect:

[[Page H10229]]

  Paul Manafort, pled guilty to lying;
  Roger Stone, convicted;
  Michael Cohen, the President's counsel, convicted, in jail;
  Michael Flynn, convicted of lying, the national security adviser 
appointed by President Trump, convicted;
  Rick Gates, the deputy campaign manager for President Trump, 
convicted;
  George Papadopoulos, who the President claimed was his foreign policy 
adviser--or one of his foreign policy advisers--convicted, pled guilty, 
served a short period of time, and now is a candidate for Congress on 
the Republican ticket in the State of California.
  They all think that the Mueller report had some consequences. That is 
the context in which we see this crowd. No wonder so many of them 
didn't want to testify.
  And when Mr. Sondland testified the first time and then, after that, 
he saw some of these convictions, he amended his testimony.
  He came in and said, oh, yes, there may have been some discussion 
about a so-called quid pro quo or a bribery or extortion. He didn't say 
those words. Those are my words. He talks about obstruction of Congress 
and how there was no back and forth, and he says, well, they could have 
gone to court.
  As a matter of fact, we have gone to court time after time after 
time. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, the court has said that Congress is 
entitled to that discovery. Now, they keep appealing it.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the President's modus operandi, which he has 
pursued all of his adult life. When people said he owed them money; 
when people said he didn't fulfill a contract; when people said he 
should do this, that, or the other, he almost invariably took them to 
court and delayed and delayed and delayed.
  There is an editorial in ``USA Today'' which says this: ``Trump has 
met the impeachment investigation with outright and unprecedented 
defiance.'' We share that view.
  No President in history has refused to cooperate with the Congress of 
the United States in the exercising of its constitutional 
responsibility of oversight other than this President. Those are the 
facts.
  This is not ``The Washington Post'' or ``The New York Times.'' That 
editorial went on to say: ``Allowing this obstruction to stand 
unchallenged would put the President above the law and permanently 
damage Congress' ability to investigate misconduct by Presidents of 
either party.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would again reflect that Articles of Impeachment 
under the Constitution of the United States are what Mr. Mueller said 
was the appropriate option if the Congress believed that this President 
ought to be held accountable for abuse of power, because he said he 
couldn't do it because the Justice Department policy said he couldn't 
do it.
  We have had hearings. Those hearings were participated in by the 
Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle. Time 
was divided equally between the sides for questioning of witnesses.
  The witnesses were an ambassador hired by Secretary Pompeo, appointed 
by the President to represent us; Mr. Sondland, a close friend of the 
President's, apparently, or at least a big contributor of the 
President's, appointed by the President, who came back and said no.
  Certainly, I believe there was a quid pro quo that, if you didn't 
start an investigation, if you didn't announce that in public, then 
there wouldn't be the $391 million that you needed to defend your 
country and to defend freedom in Ukraine, which this Congress had, in a 
bipartisan way, sent to the President of the United States and that the 
Defense Department and others had certified reforms contemplated by 
that legislation had been effected, and they recommended the payment of 
that money.
  And in addition, you could not have a meeting with the White House if 
this didn't happen.
  So my friend continues to say no wrongdoing; nothing; no crimes; no 
this, that, and the other. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. And no 
matter how many times he says it, whether it is an editorial in ``USA 
Today'' or an editorial in some other paper or articles in some other 
paper or--I will tell my friend--people with whom I talk on your side 
of the aisle--I will not name their names--they, like Zelensky, would 
be afraid of retribution, just as Mr. Sanford found out that 
disagreeing would incur the wrath of the President of the United States 
and get a response, either in a tweet or some other way.
  Mr. Zelensky is in a very difficult position. The freedom of his 
country, the security of his people, he believes, are contingent upon 
whether President Trump will treat him fairly and as consistently as 
the Congress would want them treated.
  So I say to my friend: We are going to move ahead. We will all have a 
chance to vote on these articles, and we will have a chance to debate 
them. And then the Senate will have a trial, if, in fact, articles pass 
this House. And that trial will be where the President, presumably, 
will offer witnesses.
  But I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that Republican Senators are 
quoted frequently saying, we ought to have no witnesses. Republican 
Senators are saying, we ought to have no witnesses. Perhaps they just 
want to pass it so quickly. But it is as well, I think, because they 
don't know of any witnesses who will absolve the President from the 
actions that have been testified to without effective opposition to 
those premises.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we can debate this. We are going to debate it, I am 
sure, next week. It will be debated in the United States Senate, and we 
can continue to debate it here today. But the evidence, in the 
perception of many, is overwhelming and uncontradicted.

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman says the evidence is 
overwhelming, the gentleman cites the Mueller report, the whole 
investigation that went on for 22 months with thousands of subpoenas, 
witnesses, and innuendos. And at the end of the day--with the full 
authority, by the way, Mr. Mueller had to file any criminal charges, if 
there were any laws broken that he saw--not one charge was filed.
  What is the most interesting and maybe the most telling is that, in 
your Articles of Impeachment, the eight pages that you filed, not one 
time did you mention the Mueller report, because there is nothing 
criminal in the Mueller report. If there was, you would have put it in 
the Articles of Impeachment.
  You are trying to remove a President of the United States from 
office, and the Constitution says the standard should be treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, which you would think 
means you would list high crimes and misdemeanors--or treason or 
bribery. There is not a word of bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors 
listed in this.
  Not one time is the Mueller report mentioned. So if there is all that 
rich data, it would be here, and it is not, because there wasn't 
anything that came out of the Mueller report.
  The gentleman mentions the Department of Justice----
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I am going to go through a few points because the 
gentleman made a lot of assertions that are not accurate, and I think 
it is important to go through them.
  The Department of Justice did not say that a President can't be 
removed. The Attorney General made that clear, that the President can 
be indicted.
  But what the Attorney General said was----
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman tell me where he did that?
  Mr. SCALISE. Through the Department of Justice, he said there was no 
obstruction. There was no obstruction. That is what the Department of 
Justice said.
  Again, if there was, you would have put those findings from the 
Mueller report in this document. And there is nothing in there, no 
mention of the Mueller report.
  Then the gentleman opened up by saying the rules have been followed. 
The rules have been followed. That is what the gentleman from Maryland 
said. The only problem is, just today, yet another rule has been 
broken.
  House rules, clause 2(j)(1) of rule 11, provides that, once the 
demand is made for a minority day of hearing, minority members shall be 
entitled--``shall'' means it has to happen--to call witnesses selected 
by the minority to testify with respect to the measure or matter during 
at least one day of hearing thereon.

[[Page H10230]]

  Well, guess what? That didn't happen. We requested it multiple times, 
and the rules that the gentleman said ``the rules have been 
followed''--the only problem is the rule has been broken.
  ``Shall be entitled to a hearing,'' and it has been denied. The 
chairman denied it again today in committee.
  So you can't say the rules have been followed when, just today, that 
very committee broke the rules of the House allowing us to have the 
opportunity to present the alternative case.
  You want to talk about abuse of power. What is going on in that 
Judiciary Committee right now is an abuse of power: denying the 
minority the ability to even present the other side of an argument. You 
have got two sides of any argument, and maybe you think you made a 
strong case if you only present yours.
  You look at what is going on across the country when only one side 
has been presented. The country still thinks this is a waste of time, 
not going after a President because he broke the law but going after a 
President because you don't like him, you are unhappy that he got 
elected in 2016, and you are afraid that he might get elected again in 
2020.
  I trust the people of this country to make that decision again next 
year, and they will--not Members of Congress who have expressed that 
they wanted him impeached before he took the oath of office, Members of 
Congress on your side who said impeachable offenses aren't required to 
impeach a President.
  So, when we talk of abuse of power, absolutely, that is an abuse of 
power.
  The gentleman expresses concern for the people of Ukraine, maybe 
expresses that the President of Ukraine himself might be afraid to 
speak candidly. I have more confidence in the President of Ukraine 
that, if he says something, I believe it. We have worked with him on a 
number of things: cleaning up corruption. He is actually delivering on 
his promise, like this President has been delivering on his promise.
  But let's talk about all the disdain, the concern for the people of 
Ukraine not having the tools to defend themselves. I am curious: Where 
was that disdain when President Obama and Joe Biden were in office and 
not one single time did they heed Ukraine's request to sell them 
Javelin missiles? Not one of them. They didn't sell one.

  And Ukraine asked multiple times: Please allow us to defend ourselves 
against Russia. President Obama and Vice President Biden said no. I 
never heard anybody on that side expressing concern about the ability 
of the people of Ukraine to defend themselves then.
  Good thing, when President Trump was asked that question, he said 
yes. No quid pro quo, just yes: Here are 360 Javelin missiles sold, so 
that they can push back Russia. And I am glad they are doing it. I am 
glad they are able to defend themselves.
  Then you look at something equally alarming that has come out that 
deserves real attention in this Congress, and that is the Horowitz 
report: 17 listed abuses of the FISA process.
  The gentleman knows, I supported the FISA process to allow us to 
combat terrorists. It is a controversial program, a program that has 
got a very narrow scope to allow the United States to protect our 
national security, but it also has a very strict requirement from our 
intelligence agencies. The FBI and the CIA have the ability to go 
unfettered and ask the judge for the ability to surveil people.

                              {time}  1500

  The judge trusts that they are giving him the full information. And 
we saw abuses listed in the Horowitz report of the FISA process. Even 
more, Mr. Durham is initiating and conducting his own criminal 
investigation.
  And what the Attorney General talked about this week is that they 
know that there are people in those intelligence agencies who were 
spying on the Trump campaign. I mean, imagine Federal agencies--FBI, 
CIA--spying on the campaign of a candidate for President.
  Republican or Democrat, we should equally be alarmed that that 
happened. I hope it gets rooted out. I hope whoever did that and abused 
their power goes to jail. But it happened, and it is being investigated 
in a criminal way.
  But Horowitz, himself, pointed out where there were abuses of the 
FISA process. And you know what, that is coming back up to this 
Congress early next year for renewal. Parts of that program are going 
to come back up again, important tools to combat terrorism, but tools 
that now have been identified to have been abused. We need to work 
together to clean that up so that doesn't happen again. But that 
happened, and it was used against the Trump campaign.
  I haven't heard the disdain and outrage from both sides. I am surely 
outraged. Our side is surely outraged. I would hope that we are all 
outraged that that happened.
  But when we talk about those reports, again, if there were all of 
those things that the gentleman asserts in the Mueller investigation 
and, ultimately, report, I am curious that not one of those--there is 
not any mention of the Mueller report in these Articles of Impeachment 
that we will be facing on the House floor next week.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think I am speaking English. Let me repeat. What the Mueller report 
said was the Department of Justice policy was that they could not 
indict a sitting President of the United States. It went on to say, as 
I quoted, that did not mean that they could assert that there was no 
obstruction of justice. And if they thought they could assert that, 
they would have asserted it.
  And Attorney General Barr then mischaracterized the Mueller report 
before it was released to put, in my opinion, the President's spin on 
the Mueller report, which, very frankly, the gentleman's side of the 
aisle has continued to spin all the time.
  I mentioned the six people who were convicted of lying to the 
investigation, close associates of the President of the United States, 
now in jail or waiting to be sentenced. Mr. Stone falls into that 
category.
  Mr. Barr said that there was no obstruction. He was wrong. He 
mischaracterized, misstated, and misled the American people. And 
Mueller said in his report that was not what he found.
  Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.
  But there were, in addition to the six people I have talked about, 10 
Russians indicted for participating in trying to undermine the 
integrity of the elections in our country on behalf of Mr. Trump.
  Now, the gentleman indicates that the Mueller report has not been 
mentioned. The Mueller report is not the gravamen or the central--we 
lawyers say ``gravamen''--but the central tenet here.
  The central tenet is, on July 25 and, frankly, leading up to that and 
succeeding that, the President of the United States involved himself in 
a way to enrich himself in terms of the election that was coming up, 
2020--not the 2016 election, the 2020 election.
  The evidence has not been rebutted that that was the fact; and, in 
fact, people close to the President of the United States confirmed it.
  What the articles say is there was an abuse of power, which is what 
almost every constitutional scholar says was the central concern of our 
Founding Fathers when they included the impeachment provision in the 
Constitution of the United States: to be a check on authoritarian power 
serving its own interests, not the people's interest. That is what the 
central claim here is.
  And with respect to the other Article of Impeachment, it does not 
mention the Mueller report because what it was focused on--although 
Mueller focused on the obstruction of justice evidence, not the charge, 
but the evidence.
  What we are focusing on is the biggest attempt to prohibit the 
Congress of the United States and the exercise of its legitimate 
constitutional responsibility of oversight from getting information, 
either in testimony or in documents. And almost every scholar of past 
Presidents--including President Nixon and including President Clinton 
and the extraordinary discovery that was exercised against President 
Obama on a regular basis--found that this President has stonewalled 
more than any other President and with less justification than any 
other President, because most Presidents referred to executive 
privilege.
  This President went much more broadly than those who dealt with him

[[Page H10231]]

personally, but simply wanted to preclude information from getting to 
the Congress so that it could make decisions based upon that evidence.
  And, of course, the other suit that we have is a President who said 
he was going to release his tax information to the American people. He 
has fought in every forum to prevent that from happening, 
notwithstanding the legislation, which was not adopted by us--it is 
very old legislation--which says the tax writing committee can get that 
information.
  And I would suggest the American people ought to have that 
information so they can determine for themselves whether this President 
is acting for his benefit or for their benefit, which is his 
constitutional responsibility.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, but when the 
gentleman talks about stonewalling, acting as if President Trump is the 
only President in history to seek alternatives to a question that is 
asked by Congress----

  Mr. HOYER. I didn't say that. Don't mischaracterize what I said. I 
did not say that.
  Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman said that this President has tried to defy 
more than any other President. Those were roughly the words he said.
  Mr. HOYER. That is accurate.
  Mr. SCALISE. Let's keep in mind, President Obama, it took us 6 years 
to get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious scandal, and we still 
didn't get all of the information we wanted. For 6 years, President 
Obama fought various ways in the court.
  Was that impeachable? Of course, we didn't try to impeach the 
President.
  Every President, I am sure, including George Washington, had 
differences with Congress. We have multiple branches of government.
  So the legislative branch has powers. When we exercise those powers 
in regard to the executive branch, the executive branch also has an 
equal opportunity to have a discussion, first of all, to see if we can 
come to an agreement.
  Again, if you go back to the Clinton impeachment or you go back to 
the Nixon impeachment, both sides reached an agreement. Your majority 
never tried to go reach an agreement with the White House on how to get 
access to whatever it is you might have wanted to get access to.
  What is a fair process?
  Allowing the President to have his legal counsel in the room to ask 
questions to witnesses, that was denied. But that negotiations didn't 
happen.
  It did happen in Nixon. It did happen in Clinton. And so you had a 
fair process of back and forth, where, ultimately, they agreed on rules 
of the game during an impeachment. It didn't happen here.
  So when your majority asked, through various committees, for 
information from the White House, the White House has the ability to 
exercise other rights.
  Again, letter after letter. The gentleman used the term 
``stonewalling.'' It is not stonewalling to respond to the committee 
and say: Okay, these are the things that we can get you. Here, look, 
DOD, we will work with you.
  You never tried to work with DOD, but they said: Call us.
  Didn't call them. Agency after agency, the Secretary of State 
responded. All of these agencies sent letters in response. That is not 
stonewalling. That is complying with the law. You might not have liked 
the answer.
  And, again, if you didn't like the answer--I think we all know when 
you pull out the Constitution, there is not just two branches of 
government--you could have gone to the third branch of government and 
said: Courts, make them comply because they are not.
  You didn't do that. So then you just rushed to impeach the President 
because you didn't like the answer.
  If you go to the Mueller investigation, the gentleman lists those six 
people who were convicted. Not one of them had anything to do with 
accusations made against the President. In fact, they are not listed. 
They are not listed in the Articles of Impeachment.
  The gentleman talked about Russia. Yes, we know Russia tried to 
meddle in our election in 2016. I think people on the gentleman's side 
might think Donald Trump was President back then. Barack Obama was 
President. Joe Biden was Vice President when Russia did try to 
interfere with our election. Why didn't they do more to stop it?
  It is a good question to ask, but go ask President Obama and Vice 
President Biden. Don't go impeaching Trump because Russia tried to 
interfere with the 2016 election.
  There were, absolutely, things that were going on in Ukraine that 
raised concerns. You had the Ambassador, the Ukraine Ambassador to the 
United States wrote an op-ed against candidate Trump. They were trying 
to interfere with the election against Donald Trump when he was a 
candidate for President. I didn't see any attempt to be concerned about 
that by the gentleman's side.
  But again, just go impeach Donald Trump because so many on the 
gentleman's side didn't like the fact that he won in 2016 and are 
afraid he is going to win again in 2020.
  Again, that is not why you impeach a President.
  So when you talk about these facts, it is important to point out all 
of the other sides.
  Sondland, who has been brought up multiple times, Sondland testified 
under oath. He asked the President: Is there anything you want?
  The President responded to him--he said this under oath. The 
President said: ``I want nothing, no quid pro quo.'' That was 
Sondland's testimony.
  So, again, as these people are being brought up, let's look at the 
whole context.
  When the rules are being brought up, I haven't heard a response from 
the gentleman when I read him a House rule that is, today, being 
violated.
  In committee, they took a vote to violate House rules. The committee 
doesn't have that power. The House has that power, and it hasn't 
exercised it. That is still a rule of the House that is being broken 
today, not allowing the minority to have a day of hearing, trying to 
hide the facts from the American people.
  If they were so serious about impeaching the President because you 
have this overwhelming evidence, then let both sides present their 
case. But, no, that House rule, today, is being violated. And there are 
many examples of that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The irony is that the reason we got cooperation in the Nixon case and 
in the Clinton case is because those administrations cooperated. This 
administration has absolutely not cooperated.
  The gentleman has those letters, and he put them down as if they mean 
something. They are further evidence of delay. The committee requested 
legitimately.
  What the gentleman didn't say--he said we ought to go to court. Mr. 
Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman knows what happened when we went to 
court, because we have gone to court five or six times. We haven't lost 
a case yet. We have not lost a case yet where the court has said that 
Congress is entitled to that information.
  So these letters are fine, but they are delay and dissemble as we 
throw them on the table, as if they mean something.
  The gentleman says the Russians interfered in our election. They did. 
The irony is, one of the reasons that the Obama administration didn't 
get more involved in that is because there was knowledge by some that 
they were interfering on behalf--or suspicion of--Mr. Trump because of 
some of the evidence we have heard.
  Mr. Stone's case, Mr. Gates testified about the knowledge that the 
President had about WikiLeaks and of the President's invitation for 
WikiLeaks to release information.
  Sondland changed his testimony. We have gone to court. The 
administration has refused to cooperate.

                              {time}  1515

  The gentleman ignores those facts. They are facts, and they are facts 
that are generally accepted across the land, even by those who are 
supporters of the President.
  So we are going to have this discussion. They are going to have this 
discussion in the Senate. But the President chose not to come to the 
House to defend against the allegations. His counsel said they weren't 
going to participate. They had the opportunity; they did not take it. 
We will see what happens from there.

[[Page H10232]]

  

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would not discount things like this 
letter from the Secretary of Defense, who, on October 7, 2019, received 
a subpoena and on October 15, 2019, responded. That is not delay, and 
that is not obfuscation.
  A week later, they responded and said that the Department is prepared 
to engage in the process, consistent with longstanding practice, and 
provide the responsive information should there be a resolution to this 
matter.
  It was a week later. That doesn't sound like somebody trying to run 
away from a request or a subpoena. A week later, the majority got a 
response. The gentleman might not have liked the response, but there 
was not a follow-up: We are going to work with you, Department of 
Defense.
  The Secretary of Defense sent this a week after the majority's 
request, and the majority is going to impeach a President because they 
didn't like this answer and say: Oh, he is obstructing.
  Again, I go back to Fast and Furious, one example: President Obama, 6 
years we fought to get the information--6 years. We didn't try to 
impeach him for that. It doesn't mean he was breaking the law or 
committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
  Maybe he delayed a lot longer than we would have liked. Six years is 
a lot longer than it should have taken to get answers to real questions 
about people who died. But for 6 years, we waited and worked and went 
and got those answers. That is the legal process.
  And maybe we should work together, if we think that is too long, to 
try to speed it up.
  But that was 6 years. This was 1 week after the subpoena the 
Secretary of Defense himself sent the majority this letter and said: 
Call us and work with us to get you this information.
  The majority didn't follow up. They just said: Nope, we don't like 
it. That is too late. It is delaying.
  A week later, the majority got an answer, and they didn't like the 
answer, so the majority said: Let's impeach the President of the United 
States.
  There is letter after letter like this from other agencies--the 
Department of Energy. We can go down the list. But this wasn't 3 years 
later the majority got an answer. Yes, maybe the majority could raise 
questions then and go to the courts, but the majority didn't.
  The majority got an answer a week later. That is delaying to the 
point where the majority would impeach a President of the United 
States?
  And my friend doesn't think those conversations happened during 
Nixon?
  My friend doesn't think those conversations with the White House 
happened during Clinton, where there were things that they didn't feel 
that they had to give that were subpoenaed and they went back and 
forth, but they came to an agreement?
  Mr. Speaker, it means you have to sit down and work with people that 
I might not like.
  It has been clear on the other side that there are some on the 
majority side who hate this President and who don't want him to be 
President. We understand. We have elections for that. We had an 
election in 2016, and he was duly elected.
  Then the majority alleged that he conspired with Russia, but he 
didn't. Russia tried to interfere on President Obama's and Joe Biden's 
watch. It was their watch when it happened. President Trump didn't have 
any involvement in that, and the Mueller Report made that clear.
  But then the majority kept going on making assertion after assertion, 
just like in these two Articles of Impeachment, and the majority comes 
up with abuse of power.
  To quote Professor Turley, one of the witnesses from last week: The 
only abuse of power is by this majority trying to remove a President 
from office for exercising his rights under the law.
  A week after the majority's request, their subpoena, a week after, 
they got a letter from the Secretary of Defense himself, and that is 
enough to impeach a President?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we could go, I guess, all day on this. But 
the fact is, let me say, with that letter, the gentleman says 1 week. 
The fact of the matter is this President has been defying Congress for 
years in terms of giving it information it constitutionally had the 
right to have. He has not responded. In fact, we have gone to court, 
and we have won every case. It is not like the court said: Oh, well, 
they have the right to do this; they can talk back and forth for days, 
years, and months.
  The court said: No, they are entitled to that information.
  Don't send me a letter; send me the information I request.
  For my friend to pretend that that was just 1 week's delay--it has 
been years of delay to responding to information requested legitimately 
by the Congress of the United States.
  After months of going to the court, the courts have come to a 
conclusion over and over and over again that the Congress is entitled 
to that information.
  Two courts have now decided that we are entitled to his tax 
information and to his financial information. We haven't gotten it.
  Why? Because he appeals again.
  Why? Because that is his modus operandi, as I said. He did it in the 
private sector, and he is doing it in the public sector.

  What surprises me is that--I am not wishing it, but my friend may be 
in charge someday again, and my friend is going to be very upset with 
the precedent that the gentleman is arguing for at this point in time 
in terms of not cooperating with the Congress of the United States in 
conducting its constitutional duties.
  As I say, we could go on and on on this. We are going to have 
additional hearings. I would repeat again, from a USA Today editorial: 
``Trump has met the impeachment investigation with outright and 
unprecedented defiance,'' which is one of the reasons I suppose he 
didn't appear and he instructed people who have information, like John 
Bolton, like Secretary Pompeo, and like so many others: Don't appear. 
Don't testify. Don't provide information. That is obfuscation and 
refusal to cooperate. But we will have an opportunity to deal with 
these in the future.
  I would hope that, at this point in time, Mr. Whip, we might cease 
and desist so our friends could have an opportunity to say what they 
want to say. But I am prepared to proceed if my friend is so disposed.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I just hope the gentleman isn't asserting 
that the President of the United States, like any other American has 
the right, shouldn't have the right to appeal a decision. Ultimately, 
the courts at some level will resolve any issue before them. Courts do 
that, and that is the legal right of every American.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Of course he is.
  Mr. SCALISE. By the way, if the President is victorious in the 
courts, would the gentleman recognize that he did lose that case, or 
would the gentleman say that was obfuscation, following the legal 
process?
  Again, President Obama, for 6 years on Fast and Furious--just one 
case, 6 years.
  The gentleman hasn't been in the majority for a year yet, and somehow 
that is so long, a week later response is so long that the majority 
should impeach a President, when, just on Fast and Furious, we didn't 
get questions we wanted answered from the White House, and in some 
cases it took 6 years. Some of that went through the courts.
  We won some of those cases, by the way. We didn't win all of them, 
but we surely did win some of those cases.
  But when we won a case against the President, meaning he violated 
some component of the law, we didn't impeach him for it, but we got the 
information, eventually. It took a lot longer than we would have liked.
  But the President, just like President Obama, had the legal right to 
appeal decisions that he might not have agreed with in courts like the 
Ninth Circuit, which has one of the highest overturn rates of any 
circuit in the country.
  So, if a circuit got it wrong and ultimately somewhere up higher they 
get it right, is that somehow something we should impeach a President 
of the United States for because they exercised their Article III 
powers to go to a judicial branch to get an answer to a question?

[[Page H10233]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. This could go on forever.
  Of course not. I didn't make that assertion. Don't put it in my 
mouth.
  My friend has every right, not only the President, but every citizen 
has the right to repair to the courts of the United States for redress 
of their grievances and the pressing of their case, period. The 
President has that right.
  I never asserted that the President ought to be impeached on that 
basis, nor do I assert it now, nor do we assert it in our articles 
which have yet to be voted on, so we will see what they do on that 
vote.
  But let me remind the gentleman and let me remind Mr. Speaker of the 
House, we had a vote in 2017, we had a vote in 2018, and we had a vote 
in 2019. Those votes were on whether or not we ought to move Articles 
of Impeachment forward to impeach the President of the United States. I 
voted ``no'' on each one of those votes. Over 60 percent of the 
Democrats voted ``no'' on each one, some higher, on each one of those 
votes in '17, '18, and '19.
  So when you assert, Mr. Speaker, that somehow the Democrats were just 
frothing at the bit to impeach the President--I don't want to impeach 
this President. I wish this would pass from us. No one ran for Congress 
to impeach the President of the United States. But no one ought to 
shirk their responsibility.
  I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, my belief is that there is not a single 
Republican in this House, not one, confronted with these facts against 
President Obama who wouldn't have voted to impeach President Obama--not 
one of the minority. I am convinced to my bones, and I have been here a 
long time and served with a lot of people, that not one of them would 
have voted against either one of these articles if President Obama had 
done the same fact pattern with the same evidence. Not one of the 
minority would have voted against one of these articles.
  That is my view, Mr. Speaker, but we will see.
  I said this morning, quoting the papers, that we are not whipping 
this. This is not about whipping some partisan vote. This is about each 
Member having to decide for themselves, with their conscience, with 
their moral values, and with their oath of office to defend and protect 
the Constitution of the United States, whether or not--and my friend 
quotes one witness, one constitutional expert. Three constitutional 
experts said, if you do not move forward on impeachment, effectively, 
the executive power will be unchecked and you will create a king, not a 
President.
  Three times this Congress said: We are not going forward. But then, 
on July 25, a phone call occurred in which this President clearly said 
to an ally to whom we wanted to give $391 million to defend himself and 
his people and his country, but withheld because: I would like you to 
do me a favor.
  That favor was not to help America, and that favor was not to clean 
up corruption, because he already had certified by his departments that 
they had met that criteria. It was, as the evidence is almost 
uncontroverted, to help him in the coming election and to undermine 
somebody he perceived to be one of his, if not the, principal opponent.
  This is a heavy decision this Congress and this House will have to 
make, and each one of us will have to make it. Let us hope that each 
one of us makes it honestly and unrelated to politics or party, but 
related to patriotism and oath of office.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, just to keep the record clear, when the 
President made that phone call, the oft-misrepeated quote was this: ``I 
would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been 
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to 
find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say 
Crowdstrike . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people . . . The 
server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went 
on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some 
of the same people.''
  The President expressed some concern with what happened in 2016 and 
concern about what happened to our country. ``I would like you to do us 
a favor,'' and then he said, ``our country.''
  There is no mention of Joe Biden in there, no mention of him. It is 
about getting to the bottom of the corruption that we all know 
happened. We might not have all the answers we want. We sure would like 
to get those answers, but it happened. It happened under Barack Obama 
and Joe Biden's watch. For whatever reason, they didn't do enough to 
stop it.

                              {time}  1530

  But when the gentleman asked if one of us would vote against Articles 
of Impeachment if it was President Obama, not one of us would have 
because we would have never brought these Articles of Impeachment. We 
didn't bring these kinds of Articles of Impeachment.
  Again, I just listed one case, 6 years for Fast and Furious, where 
people died; Benghazi where people died, where we didn't get the 
answers we wanted, where the administration rebuffed, over and over 
again. But not one time did we bring Articles of Impeachment, because 
they were not impeachable offenses, just like there are no impeachable 
offenses here.
  And so, we are proudly whipping against it because this is not the 
way to abuse Congress' power of impeachment, as one of those witnesses 
last week said.
  In the call--some of the other witnesses, constitutional scholars, 
when one of them tried to make fun of the son of the President of the 
United States, tried to bully and make fun of his name. Shameless. 
Shameless. It happened. To call that person a Presidential scholar or 
impartial, when some of those witnesses gave money to candidates 
running for President against President Trump, if that is the 
definition of impartial Presidential scholars, I think we all take 
their perception of whether or not this President should be removed 
from office a little bit differently than somebody who truly is 
impartial.
  Even Professor Turley, who acknowledged that he didn't vote for 
President Trump, but said it would be abuse of Congress' power to move 
forward with impeachment because there are no impeachable offenses.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. The good news is they didn't bring impeachment against 
President Obama because he did nothing to warrant such an action. How 
proud I am of that.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________