Debate and 2 00 p. M. With votes postponed until 6 30. Tuesday and wednesday will meet at 10 00 a. M. Morning debate and on thursday the house will meet at 9 a. M. With last votes of the week expected no later than 3 00. We will consider several suspensions. Pt complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. The house will consider the protect Older Workers against diss krim nation act. This ensures that victims can enforce their rights so Older Americans are able to strengthen our economy by contributing their talents to the work force. A proposition that i believe is very important. In dig, the house will consider view s 76, congressional re ct of dissprolve of the bureau that leaves student loan borrowers who were defrauded with little or no recourse. Mr. Scalise i appreciate the majority leader going through those bills. There were a few bills that the speaker referenced earlier this week that would also be considered. Congresswoman lees resolution to repeal the 2002 aumf and congressman khanna. I wanted to ask if those two bills are part of that package for next week . Mr. Hoyer that is a possibility but have not yet been scheduled. Mr. Scalise as it relates to the war powers act, we had heated debate on the floor yesterday r. Hoyer mr. Speaker the speaker pro tempore the chair would ask members to take their conversations off the floor. Mr. Scalise we have had a robust debate for years in this house on whether or not to modify, make changes to the 2002 aumf. It has been a constant debate. There is lack of ability to form consensus clearly on both sides. There are a number of members on our side who brought up this issue before as well as your side. I was yesterday, in the time of crisis where we are in the middle of a crisis, we had just taken out one of the most beautyal terrorists that we have seen in soleimani. There isnt disagreement that he is a terrorist. President obama said he was head of terrorist organization and in violation of International Law that prohibited from him being in iraq. Instead of having a conversation separate from that on actual changes to the aumf that that is where your majority would like to go and clearly on our side, there were people who were interested in having that debate. We went into what turned out to be an effort to take a cheap shot at the administration by bringing a resolution that has no effect of law. The aumf is going to be changed, there has to be an act of congress. Instead of engaging in that kind of conversation, debate, negotiation, instead it was just a resolution that everyone recognizes would not have made any changes to the aumf, so why during that time that were in ight now the path to go as opposed to whether or not real changes to the aumf should take place. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for his question, the authorization of use of military force consistent with the constitution of the United States which sets forth clearly that it is the congress and only the congress that can declare war, we believed and still believe it was necessary to move as quickly as possible to clarify that the expectation that the congress of the United States is that it would be included in any conversation, discussion and debate with reference to whether or not we ought to take an act of war. Now without getting into the complexities and i would call your attention to an extraordinary good article that was in todays paper by jim webb, the former secretary of winner, a navy cross ee who fought in vietnam and served in the United StatesSenate Whether or not the action that was taken by the president was justified. Let me say something, mr. Speaker. I would hope this debate, and i said this yesterday during the course of the debate, would not descend into demagoguery. I was very disappointed with the remark made by one of the republican members of this house when he said, they are in love with terrorists. Referring to the democrats, presumably, who were proponents of assuring that the war powers act would be honored by the president and the constitutional requirement that we are the ones and only ones who declare a war. Not one of us loves terrorists. He went on to say we see that they mourn soleimani more than think mourn or gold star families. Now thats interesting from, frankly, a member of a party whose president criticized very, very sharply and directly a gold star family. It is ironic coming from a party whose president , our president , but of the republican party, said he didnt respect john mccain, one of americas great war heroes. Who showed such courage. So my point to the gentleman is hat i would hope contrary, proverbs, 19 5 says this, a false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies will not escape. I would hope the gentleman that uttered these comments would apologize to every member of this side of the aisle. The gentleman correctly, just now, i thought made a very calm and correct statement with respect to that we ought to have a substantive debate. I have criticized this congress , others have criticized this congress on both sides of the aisle for not, over the last 30 years, passing authorizations of the use of military force. The last one we did was in 2001 and 2002. The gentleman asked whether those bills may come to the floor. We voted on them as you know previously. Those amendments passed. They were in the National Defense authorization act to direct, directly address the issue of authorization of military forces, and the expenditure of funds in military action. Nobody laments the loss of mr. Soleimani. Who did, in fact, not only plan , execute, and fund terrorist actions that resulted in the loss of american life. Having said that does not absolve us from the responsibility for policies hich are akin to or are acts of war. Without going further into that, let me refer to what we did yesterday. Let me read from the war powers act, mr. Speaker. Congressional action, paragraph c, concurrent resolution for removal by president of the nited states armed forces. Notwithstanding substantial b at any time that United States forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories, without a eclaration of war, or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the president if the congress so directs by concurrent resolution. That is what we passed yesterday. Many republicans, mr. Speaker, said, well, this is an act that has no consequence. I would hope that none of us believe that the expression of opinion by the congress of the United States, by majority vote in each houses, has no consequence. If that is the case, we are in a bad time in our democracy. So what we did yesterday was consistent with the section c of section 1544 regarding congressional action is exactly what we did yesterday. It will go to the senate. It will have, as we understand from the parliamentarians in the senate, privileged status. Meaning that the senate will have to consider that. And also meaning that it can be passed or defeated by a majority vote. This is a serious time. Taking the kind of military action we took was a serious step. Many of us were not very pleased with the lack of substantive information that we received at the briefing. Briefing tuesday. Wednesday, excuse me, just yesterday. Obviously many members of the United States senate were not pleased as well. I would say to my friend, sbreek, mr. Speaker, it is portant that this body confronted with one of its most important and serious and consequential decisions, that is the declaration of war and military action against another tion, that it be debated without pejoratives being projected as either side, without investigative vestigative invective similar to the ones i just red. And if you believe the United States requires congress to act before we can take actions of war, that somehow that implies that you are in bed with or tell porizing about or favorable to those who commit terror. That is a mccarthy tactic. It is highly offensive. And if said on this floor would be subject to the words being taken down and the member not being allowed to speak again on his floor during that day. Let me, in closing, on this response, mr. Speaker, simply say to the republican whip, that i agree with his premise that we ought to have a careful adult substantive discussion about policies that may plunge this nation into war. That is our duty. That is what our citizens expect of us. Think we had that yesterday strike that. I think in some instances we had a serious discussion, but in some instances there was too much invective that we were giving aid and comfort to terrorists. That is a slippery slope if we cannot discuss what posture the United States ought to be in. And exercise our constitutional duties to decide whether this nation ought to go to war with a foreign country, with another nation. Is hopefully we can have that in the future. Because one of the most consequential debates that this body ever has. So i will tell him again, mr. Speaker, that we may be taking up additional legislation. Consistent with the war powers act. I believe the senate, hopefully, will, next week or at the latest, i think they have 15 days or 10 days to consider it and put it on the senate floor for a vote. So that we can transmit to the president of the United States the Congress View on how carefully we ought to approach these issues. Very frankly i will say sadly there is much sentiment on this side of the aisle that the commander in chief does not address these issues carefully and thoughtfully and in concert with his advisors and the advisors in the congress of the United States. We had no consultation. We didnt even have a notice, much less consultation of this action. No one, i would close with, laments the loss of a life who s sponsored, funded, and advocated terrorism. But this is not about him. Its about us. Its about our constitution. Its about our responsibility. Its about how these decisions ought to be made. I yield back. Mr. Scalise thank i thank the gentleman for yielding. To start with the comment that the gentleman referenced on the floor yesterday, i will read from statement from the gentleman who made that comment yesterday, quote, let me be clear. I do not believe democrats are in love with terrorists and i apologize for what i said earlier this week. So the gentleman has apologized for that statement. I apreesh just want to point that out. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for pulling that to my attention. Mr. Scalise i ask that not be used for the other conditions and concerns we had on the floor yesterday. Frankly there were statements made on the gentlemans side as well that i think ought to be addressed, apologized for. But lets be clear mr. Hoyer if the gentleman would call my attention to those statements, and the speakers of those, i would be happy to oblige and talk to them. I really do believe, mr. Speaker, this issue should be handled in the most responsible and respectful way possible. Because it is one of the most serious if not the most serious issue with which well deal. And we ought to deal with one other based upon the intellectual arguments. The constitutional premises, and the law. Not on personalities or assertions of malintent. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman. First of all to start with the president s not Just Authority but its the president s responsibility under the constitution as our commander in chief to keep this country safe. President trump has made it very clear that hes going to protect this country from terrorists, people who want to do us harm domestically or abroad. In the case of soleimani, there was a red line issued a long time ago. And i know in the past previous administrations have issued red lines and then let those lines be blown through without taking any action, and i would argue that that makes our country less safe. Anyone who seeks freedom, including people in iran who seek freedom today from this oppressive redream, they have one place they can look to and that is the United States of america. Thats what makes us such a great nation. Is that we dont shed our blood to conquer more land. We shed our blood to keep people safe not just here in america but provide freedom around the world to anyone who seeks t the fact that President Trump maintained a red line that was crossed is something we all should applaud. I would say this, you can go back to when president obama was in office and Osama Bin Laden had been the number one target of this country since the september 11 attacks. President obama made the decision, it was his call, to take out bin laden. When they thought, they werent positive they thought they might have a Real Intelligence understanding of where he was. And the president made that call. We had a lot of disagreements with president obama during that time on policy, but we applauded that decision. We united behind that decision because it was the right thing to do to take out a terrorist who had been a major threat to our country by the same token, i understand your side has a lot of differences with the president. I just wish in a time like that, when everyone acknowledges out howe brute a terrorist he was. He was in iraq clothing to kill more americans, we dont have to wonder if hes going to do it because had he decades on history of killing americans. Blood of hundreds of our men and women in uniform were on his hands and no one disputes it. So hes taken out by a call that i think is the right call by our president , to take him out in iraq which the 2002 aumf gives him the authority to do. The constitution gives him the authority to do. Again, if there is some that didnt want the president to have that Legal Authority, that debate should happen here under the guise of changing the law, but the law gives the president that authority. Congress gave that authority to the president in 2002. I wasnt here. I know the gentleman was. It was heavily debated. But ultimately that law was passed and that law is still on the books today. If there is a desire to change the law, that debate should happen not through a resolution in the middle of this conflict where missiles are being fired back and forth, but where we can actually talk about changing the law in a responsible way that focuses on the longer term objective, not just to try to undermine the president in the middle of him acting out his duties as commander in chief. Under the constitution and under all Legal Authority. There are Obama Administration officials, multiple, who just in the last few days very publicly said that President Trump had the full Legal Authority to take the action he did. We i think he should have. Im glad sole man i is no longer on this planet plotting to kill americans which he was doing illegally in iraq. And that is something we can debate, but a lot of us felt it eap ropriate political shot. There was a president ial candidate yesterday, major candidate for president who said innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of unnecessary and forat ted military tit that time akuwaiting the brutal iranrist, equating that to shooting down an airplane and another 176 people dead because of irans actions. The two of them are not on the same level. Those comments are unnecessary. Taking out soleimani and others have suggested it, too. We can have that agreement, but the legislation is not only untimely, but it wouldnt even achieve the purpose that many on both side of the aisle would like to see and that is a real discussion about whether the war powers act operates operately. Scholars suggest it may be unconstitutional. There were times when president obama took action, many times using drone strikes where he never notified us. I surely wasnt notified in advance of the Osama Bin Laden killing and im not sure if the gentleman from maryland was notified in advanced. And im ok. The president notified us afterwards. The law requires notification after. I think it would be irresponsible to require the president to notify Congress Prior to the taking out of a terrorist every time they are trying to take out a terrorist. President obama used that authority multiple times to take out terrorists without prior notification of congress but meeting other legal requirements. And if those legal requirements should be changed, lets have that debate. I havent seen that legislation. Maybe the gentleman will bring the legislation to the floor next week that would repeal the aumf. Lets have that debate if the majority wants to go. Yesterday it wasnt a change of law. 1983 Supreme Court says that measures do not have form of law. And if that were to pass the senate which i doubt highly, it doesnt go to the president and doesnt change the law. So typically when we have conflicts like this, Congress Comes together behind our commander in chief to stand up for america against terrorists and a lot of us felt that wasnt the case yesterday. It was disappointing. The gentleman from georgia made his comments, apologizing for the comment he made but in the broader context of what happened yesterday, it was disappointing instead of having a sincere debate about whether the 2002 aumf should stand in place or be changed, which is a longer negotiation, that that resolution that just took a swipe at the president and tried to limit his ability, limiting the president to do certain things is disingenuous. You cant direct the president cant call him on the phone to say, you can pass a law to direct him to do something and thats what happened yesterday. And thats the point and concern. The gentleman knows, there is strong interest on both sides to revisit and maybe keep it in place, but the 2002 aumf has been a topic of conversation for a long time and will continue to be one, but if there is an effort to change it and desire to change it, then it ought to happen through the proper course of legislation and that isnt what happened yesterday. And i would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for his comments, simply to focus the record and make clear for the record, the 2002 authorization for use of military force to which the gentleman refers, authorizes the use of for, one, to defend against iraq, not iran, and two, to enforce United NationsSecurity Council resolutions egarding iraq. Force se of military authorized the action that was taken i think is incorrect. Thats what they do argue. Hasnt been resolved by a court but i believe and i think many of my side of the aisle and scholars around the country have said that the 2002 authorization did not authorize that particular act. Again, no one laments the loss of soleimani. Everybody agrees that he ponsored, paid for and ordered committed, acts of terrorism. And we will continue to believe that Congress Needs to speak and whether or not a court would hold that the section that i just read with reference to the president would have to take action in the event that the senate and the house adopts the concurrent resolution that we passed yesterday and that is now at the senate and under the war powers act will have to be considered by the senate and will be subject to a majority vote, not a 60 vote threshold for passage. I would hope that if the congress did that, that the president would certainly take that into consideration and consult with the congress on any further action that he might take. Unless, of course, and as the war powers authorizes, the president can and should that the military can and should take to defend to defend itself in the face of imminent threat and or actual threat. I yield. Mr. Scalise talk about where we are on the impeachment resolution that was passed last ear by the house, ultimately its typically an administrative duty to send papers over to the senate if legislation passes. Obviously impeachment managers would need to be named. There is breaking news that the speaker has asked chairman nadler to bring impeachment managers to the floor next week and im not sure if that is ongoing or something already in the works, but does the gentleman expect that legislation to come to the floor next week . And does that mean the papers have been transmitted to the senate or would be transmitted to the senate within the next few days . Mr. Hoyer in answer to the gentlemans question, the expectation is that we will have kint with the letter just sent to all of our members and to instructions to mr. Nadler or suggestions to mr. Nadler, we expect there to be legislation on the floor next week with reference to what we call supplemental legislation for appointment of managers and funding of the effort and we pect papers will be sent sometime soon. Mr. Scalise does the gentleman yield . Mr. Hoyer i yield. Sca mr. Scalise we have seen chorus of democrat senators in the recent days expressing concern that the papers should be sent over. Obviously on my side, we felt that there was no case, there was no crime and it was clear in so many areas of this, but ultimately house passed the legislation, whether the speaker voted for it or against it, its not some power of the speaker exclusively to hold on to that if the speaker doesnt want to send it to the senate ultimately for the ability to function as a legislative body, if the house passes legislation, it goes to the senate so the senate can take it up and do whatever they want to do with it, but one person out of 435 can make a decision that if the house passes legislation and the motion to reconsider is tabled, then it goes to the senate. Hopefully thats resolved by next week and charade ends and we get true justice where its disposed of which i think everybody acknowledges once it goes over to the senate but let us get back to doing the business of the peoples work and get to some of the broader Bipartisan Legislation that has been in the works for a long time to address real issues, like lowering drug prices, like securing our border and so many other things that republicans and democrats in the middle of all this are working together to try and accomplish. Mr. Hoyer as the gentleman knows we have 275 bipartisan bills which have been sent to from the house to the senate dealing with the environment, dealing with wages, dealing with jobs, dealing with making our communities safer, dealing with violence against women, dealing with equal pay for equal work, which was something that john kennedy signed in 1963 but today is not a reality unfortunately. So there are many issues i could name, obviously a lot more because we have sent 400 bills to the senate and sit unattended . Why . Because the senate is confirming judges . And the irony of a party that was so intent, in my political life making sure that judges cted only on the law, what philosophical premise has to be given to judicial appointments and a majority leader who refused a president of the United States who submitted a nominee, mr. Garland, for 11 months, it is inconceivable to me that any founding father thought for 11 months now it has been a few days we passed impeachment and send the papers over, for 11 months, president of the United States pursuant to his Constitutional Authority sent a nominee to the United States senate, 11 months before the election. Nd the majority leader said, tough, we are not going to consider it. We are not going to allow the committee to consider it or reported out to the floor and going to be no voting. Yes, there has been some delay. Because in that context and in the context of the majority leader working hand and glove with the defendant or the respondent, however you want to call it, in this criminal case, hand and glove by his own admission, he was not going to do anything that the president didnt want him to do. Like the prosecutor saying or the juror saying im not going to do anything that the defendant doesnt want me to do. So, yes, we have been concerned and are concerned to this day. An honest trial, that is the responsibility of the United States senate, an honest trial tries to elicit from both sides all of the relevant evidence. We are concerned that it appears that the senate kernl at this juncture has made no decision to receive all the relevant evidence. We think that is inconsistent with their responsibilities under the senate rules and to the American People. And we lament that fact and we have been trying to get from the senate what are the rules. You talked about process excuse me, mr. Speaker, the other side talked a lot about process and how they needed to have this avenue, that avenue and the other, mr. Speaker. And thats all we were asking, because this is the trial, not the time when you have essentially a grand jury deciding whether or not there is probable cause that the president of the United States abused his power, thats our role is an analogy to a criminal case. But there was no expression from processte that a normal to determine the truth of an allegation was going to be pursued in the United States senate. So, the speaker simply wanted to have that assurance. We have not gotten it. The American People have not gotten it. But what has happened since we passed that resolution . A number of people have come forward, mr. Bolton in particular, and said, ill testify. And other people have been identified as having relevant, pertinent firsthand knowledge. Not hearsay, firsthand knowledge of the allegations that are included in articles of impeachment one and two. So, im hopeful that in fact the senate, both republicans and democrats, come to an agreement all of the facts witnesses raise their hands, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. The senators are going to raise their hands under senate rules and say they swear to be impartial in the consideration of the evidence. And yet they will not allow the evidence, apparently, at this oint in time at least, to be illuminated. Im hopeful that that changes. I expect, as i said earlier, mr. Speaker, to the republican whip, that those papers will be transferred in the near term. I dont know specifically when, but in the near term. To the senate. And im hopeful that the American People will get what they deserve. From the United States senate. Serving as essentially jurors. And will be sworn in as such by the chief justice. Not by the Vice President presiding over the senate, but of the chief justice presiding over a quasilegal, quasipolitical process. , a will tell my friend letter has been sent. I do expect legislation to be considered next week, which is necessary to proceed with the process. And i hope the process proceeds, mr. Speaker, in a judicial, fair and way that allows all of fromvidence on both sides, the president s side and from, in this case, the houses side, ich will carry the argument, justifying the articles of peachment and the finding of fact that those articles are in fact worthy of having the president of the United States removed for abuse of power. Thats the issue. It ought to be argued fairly on both sides and the evidence ought to be adeuced on both sides. And i yield back to my friend. Mr. Scalise thank you for yielding. Its interesting that the gentleman talks about fairness. In the trial. Its quite rich of the speaker to call for fairness in the senate, when she denied fairness in the house. You can look at house rules. Rules that require that the minority gets a day of hearings on impeachment and that rule was thrown out the window. The gentleman said, an honest trial tries to elicit all of the evidence. And then of course we had multiple witnesses we wanted to bring forward that were denied. So clearly all of the evidence didnt get out. So i guess by definition, it was not an honest trial in the house. I am confident theyll have an honest and fair trial in the senate. And in fact, there are negotiations to make sure it will be fair. And by the way, mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise i want to make this point. When president nixon when the impeachment proceedings were moving forward with president nixon, it was a Democratic Congress. That negotiated with the Nixon Administration, with the nixon white house, to determine fair set of rules. And the house adopted those rules. That was a democrat conference. Then you fast forward to the clinton impeachment. Where you had a democrat president and a republican house. And the house negotiated with the white house to come up with fair rules and ultimately they adopted the nixon standard, because everybody agreed that was a fair process. Whether or not you liked the outcome is one thing, but it was a fair process. That never happened here. This house didnt make an effort to try to negotiate a fair set of rules with us in the minority or with the white house. And again, house rules actually require a minority day of hearings and that was broken. Not allowed. We didnt get that minority day of hearings. Weve requested it multiple times. To try to get some fairness, to elicit facts from all sides. But we werent given that opportunity. The senate now has a case that was sent over to them by a lot of estimate them, by a lot of estimates its an inadequate case, its a weak case. The majority must acknowledge, that which is why theyre holding the papers and hoping for more things. Which is what this was all about anyway. Seemed like every week we would hear more rumors that, oh, next week the big witness is going to come out and everythings going to be exposed and then that witness would testify under oath that, no, they didnt see a crime. No. But dont worry, next week theres going to be another one. And this will go on forever and ever and ever. Its like a groundhogs day of impeachment. And at some point i would hope the majority would say enough is enough. Well actually let the people of this country decide, which they will. Its going to be the people of the country that decide the president at the end of this year. In the elections. This president obviously has a very strong case to make. What hes done to get this economy back on track. What hes done to rebuild this military. To protect america. To secure our border. And all of the other things that we will have a case to make to the people and of course the gentlemans going to have a nominee thats going to make their case. However far left that case will be, well see through the primaries. But the people will ultimately make that decision. Our job should be to focus on doing the work of the American People and hopefully that happens. The senates going to have their opportunity. Im confident theyre going to have a fair trial. I wish that would have been the case here in the house. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, the constitution does not provide for a trial in the house of representatives. Period. However, mr. Speaker, the minority continues to make the analogy of what is done in the house, impeachment, analogous to indictment, into making a charge to determining that there is probable cause. Secondly, in the Nixon Administration there was a Democratic Congress and there was discussion back and forth and guess what, the president s witnesses were came forward. What happened in this case . The president said, nobody can testify to the congress. I believe that was obstruction of justice. But thats for the senate to decide. Certainly obstruction of the congress. In the clinton administration, the same thing happened. Witnesses came forward, including, i believe, the chief of staff. Staff of the white house. So it was a very different situation. In addition, in both the nixon and clinton administrations, the minority shoves aside the fact that there were special prosecutors. That had depositions of all the witnesses. And were available in the United States senate at the time of the trial. So they had full information. Thirdly, the gentleman does not either remember or assert, mr. Speaker, that the Judiciary Committee to the white House Counsel said, you can participate, theres time for you to come down, theres time for you to call witnesses, theres time for you to make your case. The white House Counsel notified the committee, were not interested. Why were they not interested . In my opinion, because their expectation is they were going to go to the senate and have the case dismissed without any evidence being introduced. Mr. Speaker, i think thats unfortunate. But those are the facts. Hats what happened. If you make a further analogy to the grand jury, the defendant plays no role in the grand jury. None, zero, zip, no counsel, no witnesses, not even in the room. And the jury decides, is there probable cause to believe that x committed an offense worthy of Going Forward . Thats what happens. Theres no participation. Now, there was participation here. The president had opportunities here. And all the republicans participated and could cross examine the witnesses that did in fact come forward in both the Judiciary Committee, the government reform committee, and in the intel committee, Foreign Affairs committee, Financial Services committee, government reform committee. I think thats i mentioned that once before. So, i would hope that would happen in the senate. If you want to know the truth, mr. Speaker, thats what ought to happen. But if it is just presenting information that is not relevant in this trial, i. E. I did a good job on the economy, i. E. I did a good job on Foreign Policy, i. E. I did a good job in protecting our borders, thats the president s argument in a political sense, i understand that. But thats not legally relevant information as to whether or not he abused his power. In particular, in the phone call with the ukrainians in which he with held money appropriated by the congress of the United States withheld money appropriated by the congress of the United States to protect, help protect an ally, ukraine, against incursion by mr. Putin. Im sure mr. Putin was very pleased that that money did not go to mr. Zelensky and the ukrainian forces. We think that was an abuse of power. My friend, the republican whip, thinks it was not. I get that. Its what makes the world go around. Differences of opinion. Its now in the senate. That is where trial is provided for in the congress. That is where witnesses should be provided. That is where both sides ought to be able to make their arguments. Before the jury. The United States senate. And then and only then should the United States senate make a determination whether or not the allegations had merit and warrant the consequences. So i tell my friend, when you make these analogies of what happened here in the house, its done, you may think its bad, mr. Speaker, the whip may think it wasnt done correctly, but the proof of the pudding will be, is he urging the senate to do what everybody in america thinks of as a trial . Because thats what the senate under the constitution is, the trier of facts and law. Presided over by the chief of the Supreme Court of the United States. And i would hope the gentleman would be urging as strenuously in the senate, where trial and proper procedures should be followed, as he did here in the house. And i yield back, mr. Speaker. Mr. Scalise thank you. Clearly, as the gentleman knows, its the senates job to try the houses case. If the house failed to make its case, thats the houses fault. To suggest that the senate needs to mop up the mess that was done here because there was not fairness, because both sides didnt get the opportunity, if one side just wants to say, hey, ive got a case to make, im going to go make my case, but im not going to let them make theirs, im not going to let them call their witnesses. And we had a long list of witnesses we wanted to call that we were denied. Youre in the majority, you get to make the rules. Ok, if thats you what want to call fair, you can. But its not what you want to call fair, you can. But its not. So the senate has, it but it was all done, according to the majority, out of urgency. Thats the word we heard over and over again. If the gentleman wanted to have other people come and testify, the president and every president s exerted executive privilege, so if the standard is the president exerting executive privilege equates to obstruction of congress, then you have to retroactively go back and impeach every president , including george washington. Exerting executive privilege is not an obstruction of congress. Congress can have a disagreement with the president. We surely have had disagreements with previous president s exerting executive privilege when we were in the majority. Guess what, you fight those out in the courts. The gentlemans well aware of that. And maybe the courts will say yes. Maybe the courts will say no. But that attempt wasnt made. Why . Because according to your own leader, speaker pelosi, urgent. Chairman schiff, the timing is driven by the urgency. Chairman nadler, the threat is urgent. And so they rammed through, and other facts, other witnesses that they didnt want, they discarded. Actual rule of the house, clause 2j1 of rule 11 requires, not allows, but requires the minority to have a day of hearings. That was denied. Because there was urgency. They didnt want all the facts to get out. They were concerned about urgency. And then lo and behold, it sses, and all passes, and all of a sudden what happened to the urgency . Speaker says, well, were going to hold the papers. You had senators, i think its time to send the impeachment to the senate. Let Mitch Mcconnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is. Other senators said very similar things. But at some point in time, if it was urgent, and then it happened, and then you dont send it over because now all of a sudden you realize theres weak case and youre hoping Something Else pops up, youre hoping maybe the senate can do the things that werent done here, because it wasnt urgency, it was expediency, appeasing a political base. There was no crime. Every other impeachment started with a crime. Not the hope of a crime. You can listen to a phone call and suggest something, interestingly i never saw any attempt to impeach president obama because he didnt give that aid to ukraine. If the aid was so important that it was impeachable not to give it, obama didnt give it. It was bad Foreign Policy, it wasnt impeach but President Trump did give the aid so help ukraine stand up to putin. President obama didnt help ukraine stand up to putin. Maybe the impeachment would have been in the other direction. But again, that was bad Foreign Policy that president obama didnt give ukraine the tools that they asked for and were denied by the Obama Administration, but wasnt impeachable. You might have a disagreement with President Trumps Foreign Policy and maybe you agreed with it, but the president did send that aid. There was no investigation and he sent the aid. But impeach him for it because you disagree with other things. I think that became very clear. And at some point, if it is focused on personality, i think people are most fed up with. If there were facts, both sides would have been able to present all the evidence and both sides call all of the witnesses. Side was confident, that didnt happen. We were denied what the rules of the house require, we wanted it and asked for it and the rules required it and you blew through it away. Thats not fairness. The senate will conduct a fair trial base odd a weak case. The senates job is to try the case that was made in the house whether it was a strong or weak case and that ought to happen. And i would yield. The oyer mr. Speaker, gentleman, i dont know what analogy he is using to process, but what he just said, if the witnesses werent called and presented in the grand jury, then the defense attorney cant call them, then the prosecutor cant call them. That is absolutely untrue. I could use a harsher word how lacking in substance i think that representation is. The senate is now trying the case. The grand jury has sent the case over there, Strong Enough to have significant majority of the house vote for it, by a way, in a partisan sense. Not a single there was a single republican and three or four talked to me privately and i will not mention their names that they didnt vote as they talked to me. But the fact of the matter is, what the gentlemans proposition is that if you didnt call the witnesses in the house, then you cant call them in the senate. Now the reason for that is because they dont want the witnesses called, which is why the president told them dont testify in the house. They were asked to testify. And what happened when we asked them to testify . Now, you have to have a subpoena. Mr. Mcgahn went to court and when he lost the appeal and going to appeal to the Supreme Court, the fact of the matter is, there was certainly from our perspective overwhelming evidence, not that he withheld money but the reason he withheld money, obviously in the cases cited by the minority whip, congress had not appropriated and directed that money to be sent to ukraine and in fact, the president president obama gave significant aid. He didnt give the missiles but he gave significant aid and assistance to the ukranians. But the fact of the matter is, we didnt direct him to send the money but we dected to this president to send the money. Mr. Mccarthy and i cosponsored legislation which directed the president to impose the sanctions on russia because we werent confident he would do so on his own. But the analogy that he continues to make as a rationalization for why the senate does not appear to have a fair, open triallike as the constitution requires, with swearing to be impartial, meaning they want to get at the facts and make a judgment on the facts, he has not, mr. Speaker, explained why he is not realming the same fairness that he wanted to have here. He said he didnt get fairness, i get that. But i urge the minority whip to urge the majority leader to have a trial as you would expect to have a trial if either of us were under indictment. We would expect to be able to call witnesses and we would understand that the prosecution would sall such witnesses as they believe necessary and are relevant to the case. Thats a very important phrase and i want to emphasize, relevant to the case because so many of the witnesses, like the whistleblower, who is protected by our laws that we have passed, from being exposed to adverse action. And the president says bring us the whistleblower. The republicans say bring us the whistleblower. The whistleblower doesnt have any knowledge to testify on, it was hear say that he heard from somebody that a guy down the street committed a crime. I didnt see it, he told me. I call up the police and say that a crime is being committed down the steet, you better go see. So i emphasize, mr. Speaker, hopefully in closing, that we had passed, republicans all voted no, i get that, the house of representatives believed by a majority vote that we had made a case for probable cause and under those circumstances, the constitution says the senate will then try that case to determine whether or not, in fact, the probable cause was accurate. And all were asking is it be done in a fair, open and complete manner, because there was no special prosecutor and no way to compel some of those witnesses who refuse to testify, who now, john bolton are saying, yes, i will testify. Personally i dont believe that the Senate Majority leader wants john bolton to testify, but he clearly has firsthand not whistleblower not somebody told me, firsthand knowledge. By the way, when he heard about it, he apparently called it a drug deal. I hope, mr. Speaker, that the do will urge the senate to what he wanted done here or perhaps take the position theyre wrong means we can be wrong. Mibe two wrongs will make it right. Not the way we usually think of it. But im hopeful that not only will the minority whip, i hope the minority leader will do that. It would be good for the country. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman. If the gentleman wants to talk about how the process works, i made it clear, the gentleman is in the majority and you make the rules however you want. But to say as the gentleman said earlier, an honest trial tries to elicit all of the evidence. Not all of the evidence was presented. Again we called and asked for multiple witnesses and denied the ability to have witnesses we asked for. You are in the majority, you said no and were able to roll over that because you had the votes. Dont say it was fair or honest trial when by your definition and all of the facts mr. Hoyer would the gentleman yield . We did not have a trial. The constitution does not require a trial. We are not the trial forum. The senate is the trial forum. And certainly the gentleman has watched enough television of trials, maybe been in trials for all i know. Im a lawyer and obviously i have been in trials, thats the place that you call witnesses. Thats where the defendant has there is no right in the grand jury to call witnesses. He has no right in the grand jury to be there or have his lawyer be in the grand jury room. We afforded the president that right and he rejected it. His lawyer said thank you, but no thanks. Were not going to play. So you continue, mr. Speaker, in my view, the minority whip continues to conflate the responsibility we had here in the house and the responsibility the senate has. The senate is the trier of facts, not the house. The house is a determine ant of whether there is probable cause and we did that and its over in the senate. And it is their responsibility and duty and as they lift their hands to swear they will be impartial to get all of the relevant evidence, relevant evidence, relevant evidence, not just some fishing expedition on either side, prosecution or defense, and with that, i hope we can end this debate because it will be endless if we do not, simply because we are not going to agree, mr. Speaker. We have obviously very different perceptions as to what the duty of the house has and very different perceptions that if what we thought we did in the house was wrong, ought to repeat it in the senate. I think the papers will be going to the senate. The senate will decide what its going to do. I hope the senators can put themselves as the founders and people would expect. And i yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Lets be clear, probable cause is not the standard in the constitution. To remove a sitting president , the constitution is very specific, treason, bribery or high crimes or misdemeanor. Not probable cause. That is not what impeachment is to be used for. There were multiple witnesses and tryouts in secret that chairman schiff after all of this inyou endo and you would hear leaks and leaks and this is going to happen and then would have a secret hearing and none of us could find out what was happening in those secret hearings. All of the leaks and inyou endo turned out to be disproven. Couldnt find that out because the chairman closed those hearings to the public and to most members of congress. Ultimately the senates job is to try the case that was made in the house, weak and strong and clearly it was weak because the urgency would already be going on if it was a strong case. Even if its a weak case, its not the senates job to mop up that mess but the senates job to go and hear the case that was made in the house with one side presenting their witnesses and again, you get to have that opportunity. We wanted to bring witnesses forward and they were sworn in, i dont know if you call them something different. They were there to present fact and can you name the crime . No. Was there bribery, no. But let the senate do their job and hopefully they get that next week and i would encourage that the house will get that done. I the impeachment of President Trump. Next we, the house will vote on impeachment managers, sending the articles of impeachment to the senate. Follow the process live on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org impeachment, and listen on the free cspan radio app. Announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up saturday morning, George Mason University law School Professional professor discusses iranian Cyber Threats against the u. S. Government and private sector targets. On Daniel Franklin will be to talk about their annual issue looking at what is to come in 2020. Washingtonwatch journal, live at 7 00 eastern. Join the discussion. Ahead, Army SecretaryRyan Mccarthy talks about u. S. Policy and strategy in the indo pacific region. The Brookings Institution hosted this event. Carthy talks about u. S. Policy and strategy in the indopacific region. The Brookings Institution hosted this event. Ladies and gentlemen, good