Secrecy behind closed doors where one person is setting the rules, breaking with the tradition that weve always had with the only three other times in our countrys history where an impeachment inquiry began in the house. They laid out rules of fairness where people were able to ask questions on both sides, people were able to call witnesses on both sides, even the president would be able to have an opportunity to have somebody there to also question people. Its always been the case and yet its not the case here. And so very serious questions of fairness have been raised and i would ask the gentleman are we going to finally get beyond this secret closeddoor star chamber process of impeachment and go to something that is rooted in fairness. And i would yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding, i reject wholly and fully the premise underlying the whips representation. There is no unfairness in this process. The republicans are like the wyer who neither has the facts, if he has the facts, he pounds on the facts or if he has the law on his side, he pounds on the law, but if he net they are has law or facts on his side, he pounds on the table, madam speaker. He makes noise. The republicans talk about process, not the substance. And the process, quite interestingly enough, is much of what the republicans put in the rules that we included in our rules when we adopted them. And as the whip clearly knows, one of the strongest advocates and defenders of the president of the United States sits there in the hearing, asked questions and can review documents and to go right back to the white house and to all your members and say this is what happened. There is no unfairness in this and no requirement that we have a vote. The committee is doing its job of fact finding. Frankly, the white House Counsel wrote a letter filled with eight pages that clearly miss concxds con truce miss concxds con struse the status of this process. We do not conduct a trial, madam speaker. The senate cuggets the trial. And just as in our legal due process system, when that occurs, the president will have all those due process im sure extended to him. Thats not what this proceeding is. This proceeding is to decide whether there is probable cause to think that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. We have not made that conclusion yet. We may not do it if the facts dont lead us there. As mr. Schiff pointed out in his letter to all the members, there is a very definite reason why rand juries and this committee is doing its process with full participation by the republican members of the select committee on intelligence, full participation. It is because witnesses ought not to be forewarned of what somebody else has said. Why . So they dont par on the the other witness, but tell the truth as they know it to be. And i will tell the gentleman the other reason grand juries are in secret is to protect the innocent so there is no probable cause, there will be no assertion that somebody alleged that somebody did something wrong. But the republicans have been pounding on process. And the reason they have, madam speaker, they dont want to discuss the substance. The acting chief of staff did discuss subtans, on the front page of the Washington Post. Of course we do this. So i would tell my friend, this process is fair, its consistent with the rules, its consistent with the constitution of the United States, its consistent with the laws of this country. And it is about one of the most serious matters we can deal with and we dont want to make it a circus. Yes, the committee is doing its work in camera, so to speak. Deducing the facts. And your members and particularly one of the president s strongest supporters, defenders and collaborateors is sitting in the room every time the hearing occurs. Unless he absences himself. And the members of that committee that you have appointed, not personally you, but your caucus, are sitting in the room. Ual time, asking questions so this hearing is fair, judicious, thoughtful. Smurch the empt to be chairman of the committee is shameful. He is a fair and experienced member of this body who has onducted himself as he should. But it is our constitutional responsibility, madam speaker, behind conduct of a may rise to the level gh crime and a mid misdemeanor. We dont know if that is the case, but if it is, we will meet our duty to the constitution, to the laws and the american people. I yield back. Mr. Scalise with all due respect, you can talk about process and facts, and the facts point out this process is shrouded in see verycy. You literally had a chairman who was running around for two years during the whole Mueller Investigation saying he had, quote, more than circumstantial evidence there wasco lution between the president and russia. And the Mueller Report comes out and there was were no charges. There was no collusion. The chairman never showed his secret evidence. If he had evidence, more than circumstantial, his quotes, then he should have showed it to the american people, but he didnt. Because there was no he. Those were the facts. And if the facts were there, you know he would have shown that evidence. It didnt exist. So instead of moving on and taking care of the work of the people of this country, its another witchhunt. Its another fishing expedition. In secret. So you talk about fairness, why is it that voting members of congress are being denied access to the room . The press doesnt have access to these hearings that you call fair. You call them fair. There was never even a vote of this house to start an impeachment inquirery. It was a decree from the speaker. And the Washington Post in september, quote, therefore today i am announcing the speaker of the house, i am announcing the house of representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. Thats a decree by the speaker of the house. Thats never happened before. The other three times where there was n impeachment inquiry it was started with a vote of the full house. Everybody was accountable. No starr chamber, no one or two people in this country that think they could run the entire process and deny the people the right of a duly elected president to serve because they just dont agree with the results of the 2016 election. They never showed high crimes and misdemeanors. Your side has never shown high crimes and misdemeanors. You are just looking around for something. And you are calling witnesses and you talk about fairness. Who is in the room . Our side cannot call witnesses. You think thats fair . Our side president s own counsel the gentleman will have an opportunity. Mr. Hoyer that is your rule. Mr. Scalise this is your rule. Are you in charge of the house. This is my time. Ill yield to you in a moment. But if you want to talk about fairness, lets lay out the facts because these are the facts. Our side cannot call witnesses. You can change that rule today and i would ask the gentleman would you be willing to change the rule to let our side call witnesses . To let the president s counsel be able to question witnesses who are in secret making charges against him to try to literally undo the results of a duly elected press . Would you be willing to change the rules to do that . I would yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer fine, we are going under your rules. Mr. Scalise these are your rules. Mr. Hoyer when we are in the minority we were not allowed to do what you were requesting to do. Mr. Scalise we never tried to impeach a president. In all three cases mr. Hoyer ask your counsel if those were your rules. Ask your counsel if those are your rules. Mr. Scalise you being able to control everything and not letting the other side participate. Madam speaker, i claim the time. The speaker pro tempore gentlemen, please. Lets have some order. You can proceed. Mr. Scalise lets look at the process. Lets look at the facts. Yes, if you think its fair that you can control everything and deny the ability for members of congress to go in and see whats happening behind closed doors in that room, if you think its fair to deny the ability for both sides to call witnesses, hey, you get to call your witnesses and you think thats fair and you dont want anything to be disclosed. Talking about incense. Everybodys innocent until proven guilty. You think the president s should have to prove his incense time and time again. With anonymous sources. Many cases citing things that are inaccurate. That have been disproven. But you can lay false claims and the chairman can lay false claims out and the president has to go prove his incense and time and time again we see even with these selective leaks coming out of your committee, which shouldnt happen, many of those are disproven, too. But the damage is done. Just like when the chairman opened up the Committee Hearing with a parity, stating things that were false, not part of the phone call between President Trump and president zelensky, giving his own version of it which was false. While the public was watching on tv thinking that was the transcript. Thats disingenuous. That is not a fair process. Thats what happened. Just today and yesterday and every day we have had members of our party, dont know if any members of your party have tried, members of our party who wanted to go down there and read the volker testimony or sit in the hearings were turned away because the process is going on in secret. This is not fairness. This is not how its always been done. If you really think its unfair and you think the rules should be changed, you do get control over that, ail write the rule with you and well vote for it together. We could pass that rule today. I filed a rule change with Ranking Member cole of the rules committee to allow members access to these hearings. Would you be willing i would ask the gentleman, would you be willing to sked this rule for the floor so we could have more fairness in this process . I would yield. Mr. Hoyer does the gentleman not trust mr. Nunes . Apparently there is no answer to that question. Mr. Nunes is the ranking republican. A very close friend, associate, and defender of the president of the United States. He is there to hear every word. My presumption is he also can tell every word to his colleagues. Mr. Scalise let me ask the gentleman would he allow mr. Hoyer he yielded to me. Is he reclaiming my time his time . Mr. Scalise you asked a question. Could i answer the question . Mr. Hoyer you didnt do you trust mr. Nunes . Mr. Scalise i would trust mr. Nunes to have equal access to calling witnesses just like chairman schiff does to subpoena people that chairman schiff can do that mr. Nunes cannot. Why is mr. Nunes denied sews same rights that the chairman has . I yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. He hasnt answered my question yet but i will assert again, we are operating mr. Scalise hes denied that. Mr. Hoyer under the rules that the republicans adopted in their rules package and applied to our side when we were in the minority, madam speaker. The same rules that they imposed upon us they are now complaining about. Because they dont think they were fair. Apparently they thought they were fair when they were applied to the democratic minority. But apparently now those same rules, their rules, they adopted, they voted for, are not now fair because they are in the minority. Very frankly, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Whats fair to the goose is fair to the gander. They are your rules, mr. Scalise. You ask your counsel, we adopted your rules on the issuing of subpoenas. Your rules. Mr. Scalise with all due respect, the goose is being cooked behind closed doors because you started an impeachment inquiry by decree. You could change the rules today, if this is an impeachment inquiry, if it is, i would ask the question, are we in an impeachment inquiry right now . Mr. Hoyer we are in an exercise of our constitutional responsibility. Mr. Scalise of an impeachment. Mr. Hoyer is the gentleman going to let me answer. The answer is we are involved in exercising our constitutional responsibility to oversee, to make sure that the laws of this nation and the constitution of this nation are honored in practice and in spirit, but particularly in practice. Let me ask the gentleman a question, do you think its ok to ask foreign leaders to interfere in our elections . Mr. Scalise is the gentleman yielding . Mr. Hoyer certainly. Its your time. You yielded to me. Im asking question. Mr. Scalise as the socalled mr. Hoyer thats substance. Mr. Scalise as the socalled whistleblower complaint started with leaks to the press where they said there were quid pro quos in the cone phone call with zelensky. Mr. Hoyer you want me to read the transcript . Mr. Scalise this was before the transcript was released. These are all the insinuations. This is a pattern even going back to the Mueller Investigation, again i cited the chairman running around saying he had. Mr. Hoyer who point mr. Scalise there was no collusion. Now we move on to this claim of quid pro quo. First of all you can name all the whistleblowers you want, you wont. You wont even allow them to be interviewed. Somebody trying to take down someone who was deemed to have a political bias is trying to take down a president of the United States in secret mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield. Mr. Scalise i absolutely yield. Mr. Hoyer is that the person the president of the United States ought to be treated as if he had done treason and we know what we do to those who commit treason is that the whistleblower you want outed . The whistleblower you want exposed to that kind of danger . Is that what you are talking about . Madam speaker, i would ask the whip if he would yield. Mr. Scalise if you are talking about the whistleblower, a whistleblower again who is deemed to have a political bias who got all their information secondhand. By the way the standard for being a whistleblower used to be first hand information. Secretly days before the whistleblower complaint was filed, after going to chairman schiffs staff and working with partisans to develop the whistleblower complaint, they changed the rules for even designating what is a whistleblower so it could allow secondhand information. Who changed that rule . We would be curious to find out. You dont want us to find that out because you are holding all this in secret. Shouldnt we know whats really going on and whats behind this socalled whistleblower complaint thats been debunked . So many of those claims were debunked, there was no quid pro quo. The two people on the phone call are the ones that are in question here that both said there was nothing wrong. Both of them. In fact, zelensky said there was no pressure. He wasnt even aware that any funds were being held up. He praised the president for selling missiles to ukraine. Which by the way barack obama would not sell when he was president of the United States. He withheld the javelin missiles that ukraine was asking for to defend themselves against russia. Again we talk about russia. Who stood up to russia . President trump stood up to russia by allowing ukraine to buy the jaffle lynn missiles to bust the tanks. Barack obama wouldnt sell though those. I dont know why he wouldnt allow ukraine to stand up to russia. I dont know why he allowed russia to interfere with our elections and do more to stop t we should be getting to the bottom of that, yet we are not. Because its all a focus of secretcy, drip drab leaks selectively to give a false namplete our members cant talk to our colleagues about some of the things that happened in those hearings. Its all secret. We want it to be opened up. Thats why i filed a rule change. And again i would ask the gentleman would he support a rule change that would allow all members to participate and be involved in at least sitting in on these hearings . To see whats really going on if you are going to ask people to impeach the president of the United States. Its always been done by the vote of the house. Now its being done by a decree from the speaker. You wont answer the question whether or not yes or no its an impeachment inquiry. The speaker said it is but we havent voted on it. Why dont we have a vote like we did all other times to set real rules of fair nevments they always set rules of fairness where both sides got to participate. Real due process part of our constitutional duty. Thats being denied. In secret. Thats whats happening in this room right now. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer madam speaker, there is no such rule. None. Mr. Scalise there is. Mr. Hoyer mr. Scalise, believes, madam speaker, the more he repeats that somebody will believe it. Mr. Scalise why are members being denied entrance to the room. Mr. Hoyer have you fielded to me . Thank you so much. There is no such rule. There is no requirement. For any committee to undertake any investigation that you have to have a rule passed by this house. And the gentleman apparently thinks that by having an investigation, inquiry, that somehow thats an impeachment. Its not. He is absolutely right. To impeach wed have to have a vote of this house. Clearly, that is correct. That is consistent with the constitution and laws of this country. There is nothing that says or than the republicans who repeat it ad nauseam because they are hopeful that some people will believe what they say. That somehow this is unfair that democrats and republicans sitting together as a constituted select committee on intelligence are looking at this matter. Everybody has a right to ask a question in the room, all the members, have a right to review the materials. What he doesnt like is the rule that they put in place, madam speaker, about who can call witnesses. They said, they said the minority could not call witnesses unless the chairman and the Committee Approved of it. Thats their rule. Not our rule. We adopted our rule, we kept that rule in. I asked the gentleman, madam speaker, a question. Does he believe it is right for a president of the united ates to seek foreign interference in our elections . He has not answered that question. Hes not a transcript, its a report of the conversation which came from the white house. I would hope we could count on its accuracy. President , quote, i would like you to do us a favor, though. What do you think though means. I know you want something, but i would like you to do a favor, hough. Ulvaney, aid withheld to press ukraine. He doesnt say what it was for but you dont think president zelensky had any doubt, i would like you to do a favor. Now the whip, madam speaker, has not answered my question whether he thinks its appropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader for help whether the 2016 or 2020 elections. He talks about hunter biden and joe biden all the time, it could not be an unreasonable conclusion that that is what he was talking about. Let me ask mr. Scalise would the gentleman yield on that accusation you just threw out. Mr. Hoyer collusion, by the way is not a crime. However, mr. Mueller did find that there was reason to believe that there was obstruction of justice which is a crime. He said however that under Justice Department rulings, he could not indict the sitting president so he referred it to us. Is not a special prosecutor as mr. Schiff pointed out. The special prosecutor precluded the two most recent impeachment proceedings, by the way, did their work in secret. Did their work as the grand jury does that work. I know i dont think the gentleman is a lawyer, but the grand jury, people under the investigation do not have the right to question, present evidence or have counsel present in a grand jury, that is the prosecutor trying to find out if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed by a, b or c. If the grand jury agrees, an indictment is laid down and all he Due Process Rights to which go to law ni, he did school and i dont know how he wrote that letter. Mr. Scalise would the gentleman yield . Mr. Hoyer do you believe that it is appropriate to need a favor clearly about the elections, whatever election, do you believe its appropriate for us to ask a foreign leader to involve themselves in our elections . Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding because there were many things thrown out there. The department of justice disagreed with muellers assessment that he didnt have the ability to bring charges and he brought zero charges. Mueller had full authority to bring charges and he didnt mr. Hoyer would you yield . Mr. Scalise i will after i go through the different clays. Its interesting that the majority leader led selectively on will you do me a favor. Let me you read the full sentence because you are trying to take one context and shift it somewhere else which has been done over and over by chairman schiff and others. Quote, this is President Trump, i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowd strike. He said i would like you to do us a favor, not me, us. Thats what he said and when he said i would like you to do us a favor, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. The corruption was going on in ukraine. The interference from russia, much of it was coming from ukraine in 2016. We know that, dont deny that. Quote, i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowd strike. He is not talking about biden or future election, he is talking about the company that was looking into the corruption and interference by russia in the 2016 election. We havent gotten to the bottom of it. This absolutely went through ukraine and in the ndaa, a law that is on the books today that the gentleman voted for and i voted for, the law requires when the auns of america is giving money to a foreign country they have to make sure they are looking into whether or not there is corruption. He is looking into the corruption because we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars over there. The law, not his personal preference, the law says he has to look to make sure there is no corruption. Thats in the ndaa law we passed last year. Thats current law. The president is complying with the law asking him do us a favor, us, not him. Please make that note accurately and then he asks about crowd strike, not biden, crowd strike. We know what they were involved in. They were involved into looking into the illegal activity that russia was participating in to try and interfere into the 2016 election. I wish your committee would be spending more time so we can stop it from happening again. Thats what he was talking about. Thats the context, its not accurate and not fair to read it out of context and attribute it to Something Else because many have done that i would like you to do us a favor and then he says all of this stuff happening in ukraine, they say crowd strike. Thats what he asked about. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding and i know he is interested in reading the whole thing. Let me read him some more from the report we got from the white house. He other thing there is a lot of talk about bidens son that biden stopped the prosecution and people want to find out about that. So biden went around bragging that we stopped the prosecution, so if you could look into it that doesnt sound like to me the 2016 election if you could look into it, it sounds horrible to me. What do you mean he doesnt mention biden. Ill give you a copy of this if you like. I read the whole thing. What do you think giuliani was talking about . 2016 . Huhuh. Come patriots, Million Dollar bail. The ambassador fired, why . Because they wouldnt be complicit in the elections of the United States of america and had the courage to come testify as did the security adviser for russia from the white house in this administration. Now, frankly, madam speaker, i dont think this is the time to argue the case. Time continues to be finding out the facts. Finding out the facts. , every day are more instructtive whether its r. Giuliani, the president s lawyer, who lawyer, who was substituted, madam speaker, for the state department. A private state department. You still havent answered my question. Is it appropriate i want a favor, by the way, the bidens, hunter biden, joe biden, we ought to look at them. Everybody thats looked at this has said, including the recently prosecutor i dont think he still is the prosecutor, but the subsequent prosecutor said we looked at this, nothing there. Nothing there. That wasnt acceptable to the president of the United States so he kept beating on it. And he had 391 million needed by our ukranian friends to defend themselves against the russians, otherwise known as putin. Maybe putin didnt want that money to go to ukraine, madam speaker. We just did a resolution for which mr. Scalise voted and that resolution essentially said that the actions taken the other day by the president in a phone call with the authoritarian leader of ukraine helped russia, helped hurt our ed syria and allies in the fight against isis and is now reached an agreement that the president claims some victory where the turks got everything wanted and our allies are going to be pushed out. Mr. Scalise i hope the gentleman is not concxds con flating ukraine with turkey and the kurds because you just made that assertion. Mr. Hoyer i did not make that assertion. Hat i said was we are going to have a hearing on that very matter without a vote of this committee combause it is their responsibility. And your minority member, mr. Mccaul is for that resolution. My point to you is, there was no vote of this body that they should do that. They are doing their responsibility as the select committee on intelligence, as the judiciary committee, as the Foreign Affairs committee, as the government oversight and reform committee, they are doing their duty. And when they reach a conclusion, they will come and report to us and they will report perhaps no finding or maybe they will report we have findings, and as a result, this body will vote. But the gentleman still has not answered my basic question, do you think its correct for a president of the United States clearly, if you read you want to read the whole thing, you read the whole thing, almost everybody that has read it, even some of mr. Trumps friends that is now mad and said, this is not proper. Im asking whether the whip thinks taste ok for a foreign leader to interfere in our elections. Mr. Scalise russia was trying to interfere in our elections when president obama and President Trump is trying to get to the bottom of how the russians interfered to make sure it doesnt happen again and he has Legal Authority in the ndaa to focus on did he keysing corruption as it involves taxpayer money and that is what they were discussing on that phone call as well. But getting back to the issue of the hearings and the gentleman talks about the hearings and what they are doing hearings on a bill to lower drug prices. Mr. Hoyer we did that yesterday. Mr. Scalise the gentleman wont bring that bill to the floor that will be passed and signed and families across america would be paying lower prices for drug prices, but we dont get that opportunity because they are focused on an impeachment inquiry. The speakers own words said this is an impeachment inquiry. You say its a committee doing a normal hearing. Its not a normal hearing. There were rules laid out by the house by a vote by all members of the house going back to andrew johnson. They voted in the house. For clinton and nixon, they voted in the house. Both sides could call witnesses. That is not the case today. Only chairman schiff gets to call the witnesses. Why cant everybody question nunes witnesses or jim jordan witnesses . They are not allowed to come forward. 103a2. The rules of the house, which you are in the majority, you can change, we can change, but every time there has been an impeachment inquiry, all three times this house established those rules. And so you want to deem an impeachment inquiry by the speakers decree and not a vote of the house, then do it the fairway it has always been done where both sides can call witnesses and both sides can issue subpoenas. The white house can actually have counsel to ask questions to witnesses, some who have made statements that have been deemed inackralt but wont allow the people that deem it inaccurate to come testify. You want to be able to present some onesided report and say this shows us what we wanted, because if a prosecutor wants to go and find somebody guilty and they can look, but thats not the way it is supposed to work. It is where the prosecutor sees something wrong and go out and in a fair process, find it. That is the Justice Department. Adam schiff is not a prosecutor in this case. He might have been a prosecutor in his previous life but he is a chair in congress. He is not a prosecutor but acting like one and doing it in secret without fair rules. I cant go into that hearing and you cant go into that hearing. Rank and file members are being denied to go in. You can change that rule. If it is truly an impeachment inquiry and you wont answer the question yes or no, but the speaker said it is, then if it is, treat it like every other impeachment inquiry where it is fair on both sides. You might like the fact only you can call witnesses, but you know thats not a fair process and its not been done in all other cases. I would ask the gentleman would he be willing to treat this impeachment inquiry like all of the other impeachment inquiries in the history of this congress have been held. Hoyer hire mr. Scalise mr. Hoyer mr. Scalise ought to know this isnt like any other one. Im not sure about john roberts. There was a special prosecutor in the nixon case. Nixon fired the first one. Mr. Cox, you recall. Mr. Jaworski succeeded him. There was a special prosecutor in the clinton case. All of them did not exactly, because all the republicans are in the room that were on the committee. Members of the committee. Its a select committee on intelligence. The Intelligence Committee operates that way. Consistent with their rules and with your rule. You continue to say, we ought to change the rule. It is your rule that we adopted in our own rules. You didnt like it you liked it when it was applied to us. But you dont like it when its applied to you. We never mr. Scalise we never had an impeachment inquiry. Were talking about an impeachment inquiry. Which has been done before. Theres precedent. Three times. Its always been done the same way. Youre now having an impeachment inquiry but youre treating it as if its a secret, closeddoor hearing, which its not. Mr. Hoyer will you yield . Mr. Scalise i will yield. Mr. Hoyer madam speaker, the whip continues to ignore the fact that theyre very different circumstances. There were two special prosecutors with respect to nixon. And one special prosecutor with respect to mr. Clinton. That was a radically different position than we find ourselves in today. Mueller, by the way, was appointed by the Deputy Attorney general of the United States, a republican, appointmented by the president of the United States of america appointed by the president of the United States of america, mr. Trump, not our guy. He appointed. That the misses special hes now a special prosecutor, but i forget exactly what his title was. In any event. Wasnt a special prosecutor. But he did in fact find that there was reason to believe that there was obstruction of justice. Mr. Scalise he had authority. He filed no charges. He found nothing that rose to the level of filing charges. That he had the full authority to do. Mr. Hoyer that is inaccurate. Mr. Scalise that is accurate. Mr. Hoyer that is inaccurate. Mr. Scalise did he file a charge . Please name. It i havent seen the charge name it. I havent seen the charge. Mr. Hoyer why didnt he file a charge . If you read the report, as im sure you did mr. Scalise youre acknowledging he didnt. Mr. Hoyer he said, i didnt file a charge because i cannot file a charge against the president of the United States. Mr. Scalise the department of justice disagreed with that. Mr. Hoyer under Justice Department rules. He was an employee and working for the Justice Department. He was under under the Deputy Attorney general of the United States. He was not an independent actor, a special prosecutor. He was an employee of the Justice Department. And the rules that mueller followed under the Justice Department is, you cannot indict a president. He said, however, the congress can take action. He said that. He said, we were the Proper Authority to take action in a case like this. We are doing that. He puts a lot on inquiry. Investigation, inquiry, hearing. Its a factfinding process in the pursuit of our constitutional duties to find out whether high crimes and miss demeaners have been committed misdemeanors have been committed by the president of the United States. Its a hearing, an investigation. Call it an inquiry. The speaker said inquiry. I adopt that language. Investigation, hearing. Whatever the language is. Mr. Scalise an impeachment inquiry is different. Mr. Hoyer the substance, the substance of these charges, and i asked him about one, he hasnt answered that question, whether he thinks its appropriate to ask a foreign leader for a favor, he says, no he, he didnt ask for a favor. He said, by the way mr. Scalise he looked for favor to look into crowd strike. Read the sentence. Mr. Hoyer why did he mention the bidens . Mr. Scalise a lot of people are asking about the biden, by the way. Mr. Hoyer thats reaching. Mr. Scalise i dont think thats anything new. Mr. Hoyer because that was the subject of the discussion, madam speaker. Mr. Scalise crowd strike was the subject of the favor fours. For our country. To find out how russia interfered with the elections. And by the way, all nine republicans of the house Intelligence Committee sent a letter to chairman schiff accusing him of, quote, withholding the existence of documents from the minority. So you want to talk about fairness maybe its fair for you to withhold information from the minority members of a committee during an impeachment inquiry. Withholding information. Hiding it. Keeping it in secret. Turning away other members of congress from even walking into the room. And youre going to fend that . We would join with you today to establish rules of fairness. You dont have to make them up, you dont have to reinvent the wheel, because in all other three impeachment inquiries, they did it the same way where both sides had true fairness. If you think fairness, juzz because just because you have the might doesnt make it right, you have the majority, so you can call your witnesses and shut everybody else out and, quote, withholding the existence of documents from the minority. Thats not the way to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise those are your rules. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer madam speaker, we adopted the rules adopted by the republican majority in the last congress dealing with this subblet. Mr. Scalise with all due respect, we never adopted impeachment inquiry rules. Mr. Hoyer of course not. Youre talking about subpoenas and right to documents. Madam speaker, if hell yield. Hes talking about subpoenas, hes talking about right to see documents. The select committee on intelligence mr. Scalise both sides having equal access to call witnesses. To counter things that are said that are inaccurate. Which are right now not being allowed to happen. And again, its in secret. Nobody can see, you can make claims or statements about fairness. The members, the minority members of the committee have just said its not fair. And so, you can make it fair, you can bring a rule up that we would support, that would actually allow both sides to have the same access to information and witnesses. You can do that right now. And id ask the gentleman, would he be willing to do that . Mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise ill yield. Mr. Hoyer im willing to follow the rules that you imposed upon us. Mr. Scalise on impeachment inquiries . Mr. Hoyer we didnt have an impeachment inquiry. Mr. Scalise this is an impeachment inquiry. You just admitted it. Mr. Hoyer the rules of the committee in terms of subpoenas ands with witness witnesses. Were following that and witnesses. Were following that rule much he complains about it. Madam speaker, he hasnt and he the substantive question. They dont have an answer to the substantive question. Clearly the testimony that was the given yesterday by the acting chief of staff clearly indicated putting leskwadge onure crane to get something we leverage on ukraine to get something we want and clearly the president mentions the elections of the 20206789 mr. Scalise and the chief of staff mentions corruption. Which is the law, by the way. Mr. Hoyer are you reclaiming your time . Mr. Scalise yield back. Mr. Hoyer thank you. He mentioned the Justice Department. Mr. Barr is essentially mr. Trumps lawyer. Mr. Trump mentioned him in the transcript too. Its not a transcript, its a report of the call. Said, talk to barr and hell come over there with you and talk about this corruption. I. E. , hunter biden and joe biden. Not crowd source. Madam speaker, the Justice Department refused to investigate this case. Notwithstanding the waterfall f facts and information that raised questions. We havent resolved the answers to those question, but we are investigating them. Because its our constitutional responsibility. I would say to my friend, we can go on for the next five hours talking about this. We would not agree. Would you continue to say, process, my perspective is were pounding on the table. Because the facts dont want to be discussed. The only reason i brought up turk is because by a vote of turkey is because by a vote of 364 35460, we said the actions of the president of the United States were inappropriate and dangerous and helped our enemies, not our you a lies. Thats what we said allies. Thats what we said in our resolution. 2 3 of republicans voted for that because they were concerned about our National Security interest. Were concerned about our National Security interest. When a president of the United States is talking to a foreign leader, talking about elections, past, present or future. Inappropriate. In our opinion. And we think inappropriate in the minds of the american people. But well see. And well have a vote on that at some point in time. But first, were going to find out what the facts are. And we have witnesses coming forward to give us those facts. With every republican member of the committee able to be there, able to question witnesses with equal time, because we believe thats fair. And very frankly, he says, well, they dont have a right to call witnesses. They do have a right to suggest calling a witness and the committee can vote on it. Under republican rules that we adopted. So, madam speaker, i would hope that perhaps we can go on perhaps to Something Else because were not going to Reach Agreement on this. Were going to continue to have what we believe are fair, proper, consistent with the rules, consistent with the constitution of the United States, consistent with the laws of the United States of america, to find out whether this president has committed high crimes and misdemeansers misdemeanors and then when we conclude an answer to that question, every member of this house will have availability of all the information and, very frankly, mr. Schiff says, in his letter to all of us, that once the witnesses have been concluded, that we can see that. What he doesnt want is to have the witnesses reading each others testimony and parroting it. Thats fair thing to make sure that we dont have one witness just simply adopting the testimony of another witness. We want the truth, not parroting of other information. So i would hope we can move on. Im prepared to continue to speak about this. But i dont think were going to reach any conclusion beyond what we Natalie Andrews covers congress for the wall street journal. The host overwhelmingly passed a resolution. No Speaker Pelosi says the house will take up new legislation. Why do democratic leadership think this is necessary . Where is House Republican leadership