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 he. 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 the impeachment of President Trump. Next week the house will vote on impeachment managers. Follow the process live. Live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up sunday morning, a discussion of the u. S. Around tensions and the strategy Going Forward. Also, a resident scholar. Join the discussion