Legislative Program
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we are encouraged by the progress that we are seeing and involved in on the appropriations bills to properly fund the government.
As we have both discussed for some time now, the important job of Congress exercising its power of the purse is critical. The willingness for all sides to work together--House, Senate, Republican, Democrat, along with the White House--to get to a place where we can reach an agreement on how to properly fund our troops not for a month or two at a time but for the entire year, the value that it gives those men and women in uniform, the ability for our generals to acquire the tools that are necessary so that they can train safely and defend our country effectively, it is well served when we reach this agreement.
I am encouraged by the progress the gentleman reflected. Hopefully, we can get to that point where, early next week, those bills are agreed upon, finalized, passed with large bipartisan majorities, which I have no doubt we will produce, and then get those signed by the President and move to USMCA, as the gentleman talked about.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I share full agreement with what the gentleman talked about in regard to all the agencies as we have had these negotiations and look forward to seeing them come to fruition early next week, to get that approved then.
Of course, the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is a critical step to show the world that we can come together, build better trade relationships with our neighbors, create over 160,000 new jobs for hardworking families, get our economy moving even stronger, allow us to sell products into countries like Canada and Mexico that we can't sell today, and also send a message to our friends around the world like Japan, Great Britain, and so many others that want to get better trade deals with us as well. It tells them that we are fully able to not only negotiate those better deals but pass those deals through Congress.
Then, as we all know and all agree, I would imagine, we focus our efforts on China to get China to play by the rules that everybody else has, with a stronger agreement that allows our country to be even more secure and our economy to thrive even more.
All of that is critical to get additional economic growth.
I would ask, does the gentleman know the timeframe? We are, as you mentioned, trying to get the final details worked out with the administration. Hopefully, those final pieces get put in place today or tomorrow so that it can get sent down to Congress. If that does happen, is there a timeframe, as you look at the calendar for Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? Is there a place where the majority is looking at putting it on the calendar more than other places so we can prepare as we look to whip that bill and produce, obviously, the votes to pass it?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. We stand ready to continue this work in good faith, which it has been from the beginning.
Obviously, President Trump negotiated this deal, but his trade representative, Ambassador Lighthizer, has done yeoman's work, working tirelessly with all of us in Congress--Republican, Democrat, House, Senate--to work through the final details that we all had.
A trade deal is always complicated. It always has pieces that some like more than others. Ultimately, when it is better for the country than the current deal we are in with NAFTA, I think there is broad agreement that we finally got there, so hopefully we can get that completed next week and then start yielding the economic benefits.
If the gentleman had something else, I will yield.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, anytime we can make an agreement better for the hardworking families of this country, it will be a Christmas gift well received by families all across the Nation. I look forward to getting this done and then hopefully, like I said, getting others done with other countries. We definitely have that opportunity and will seek it.
I want to shift gears and talk about impeachment and where we are, where the committee is right now. There are a number of items that I wanted to discuss, but one that has been an issue raised in the Judiciary Committee last night and today that continues to be a concern is that, under the rules, the minority was promised an actual day of hearings, and that has yet to happen. Multiple requests have been made, letters sent to the chairman. For whatever reason, the chairman has rejected and, in appearance, violated the rules by not allowing what has historically been granted as a minority day of hearing.
I would like to ask the gentleman if he was aware of this. It has been raised in the committee multiple times, why not only that tradition but why that rule is not being followed, and I would yield.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that. It just seems an odd break from the rule that is designed to ensure that both sides are heard, and that is why there is an opportunity for a minority day of hearing.
The opportunity was requested, and the opportunity was denied, and then the committee today is going to be voting. The committee is acting as a jury to remove a President of the United States. Clearly, there were witnesses that we sought to bring forward that we were not allowed to bring forward, breaking from the custom and tradition of all the other impeachments that we have had. Clearly, the Nixon rules were repeated with Clinton so that both sides were treated fairly.
For whatever reason, this majority chose not to follow that custom and tradition, so the minority was not allowed to bring all the witnesses that we requested, and so the minority day of hearing was the only opportunity to present additional evidence that was sought.
And so if the jury, in essence, today is going to give a verdict, which they are, I would expect that the committee is going to pass the Articles of Impeachment.
You had over 70 percent of this committee, the Judiciary Committee, over 70 percent of the members of this jury already voted to impeach the President on various votes that have been taken on this House floor. So if the jury doesn't want to hear the other side's argument, it begs the question: Was the jury rigged?
Because, out of fairness, but also out of the actual rules of the House, that opportunity is in the rules for the minority to have a day of hearings, and it was denied. That means that the evidence that was going to be submitted to the jury who is voting to remove a President was also denied.
And why both sides weren't able to be heard, why the chairman did not want both sides to be heard, I think begs a lot of questions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, the President, like any other person who is requested to provide information, did comply.
When you look at the Articles of Impeachment, at the beginning of all of this, of course, there was the Mueller investigation for 22 months, which alleged many things. And, ultimately, the results turned out that there were no crimes committed by the President, as we had looked into when we were in the majority and knew that years ago, but for whatever reason, others wanted to continue making assertions. Those assertions turned out to be false.
So, instead of dropping it there, then you had the whistleblower complaint and the allegations of all of these things that happened on a phone call.
The only problem is the President then released the transcript of the phone call. And not only did those things not get reflected in the transcript, but the two people who actually participated, who should be listened to the most, both said there was nothing wrong with the call.
President Zelensky was asked was there any pressure applied. He said no. He got the money. He got the money, and he also got the Javelin missiles. He thanked President Trump on the phone call for the aid that allowed him to push back Russia.
As I will point out, President Trump sold 360 Javelin missiles to Ukraine so they could defend themselves, pushing back against Russia. President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden sold zero Javelin missiles to Ukraine to help them push back from Russia.
So all of this assertion of one President not allowing Ukraine to get the aid they need to stand up to Russia turned out to be true. President Obama is the one who didn't allow Ukraine to have the tools they need. He sold them zero.
They asked: Please sell us the Javelin missiles so we can defend ourselves against Russian aggression. And President Obama and Vice President Biden said no.
Why? That is a good question, and maybe somebody needs to open an investigation into that.
But in the meantime, President Trump said yes. He actually sold them 360 Javelins. President Zelensky, on the call, thanked him.
Was there pressure applied? Actually, there were thanks involved, President Zelensky thanking President Trump for allowing him the tools to stand up to Russia. He said: We may buy more. But he thanked him for the ones that he sold.
There was no quid pro quo. There were no investigations. They asked for help, and President Trump said: Absolutely. We will help you stand up to Russia.
And the facts are there.
Then you look at the catchall Articles of Impeachment. It wasn't the bribery and the quid pro quo that were alleged for months, because there was none, and so that is not in the Articles of Impeachment. So you see these catchall phrases like ``abuse of power,'' ``obstruction of Congress.''
Then you read what they allege to be obstruction of Congress: it is the President exercising his rights.
The different Federal agencies that were asked for information--this is the obstruction of Congress--these Federal agencies all responded. They responded to the committee. They said: Here. Let's have a conversation about how to get you information that you want without violating the executive privileges that every President has been afforded.
These are letters right here: White House, December 1, 2019; December 6, 2019; October 15, 2019, Office of the President:
Including invoking privileges that are held by the President in no way manifests evidence of obstruction; otherwise warrants, offered to negotiate about what information you want.
Secretary of State, October 1, 2019, sent a response to the committee.
Department of Energy, October 18, 2019, sent a response to the committee. Never heard back from the committee, so clearly the committee must have been okay with the response.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense on October 15, 2019:
The Department is prepared to engage in the process consistent with longstanding practice and provide the responsive information should there be resolution of this matter.
The Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense said: Here. What do you need? Let's talk and work through it.
They didn't get a response from the committee. The committee didn't say: No. We want more. The committee didn't say: We disagree with you-- which means, by the way, there is a third branch of government. That is, the judicial branch.
If the two branches disagree, historically, in all these impeachments--by the way, you don't have to wonder about it. You can go back and look at history: Nixon, Clinton. Go back to Andrew Johnson.
The White House and the legislative branch negotiated what kind of information they wanted, and if there was a disagreement--and sometimes there is--you go to the courts and you say: Let's resolve it.
There were some people who the committee asked to come and testify before the committee. They issued subpoenas. In some cases, they withdrew those subpoenas. So that person wasn't out of compliance; they weren't asked to come. But in some cases, they went to the courts, and the courts are actually still working to resolve that difference. The courts haven't worked it out.
That is an obstruction of Congress, to actually send a response to a question?
The legislative branch asked the executive branch a question. The executive branch, in letter after letter after letter, responds. The committee didn't then go back and say: No. You didn't give me what I wanted.
These were all responses. They might not have gotten the answer they wanted, but they got an answer. And if they didn't agree with the answer--the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) knows, historically, how that works--you ask again.
Maybe you ask for something different. Maybe you narrow it. Maybe you say: You know what, you have to give that to me, and if you don't, I am going to go to the courts and make it happen.
They didn't do any of that. They didn't do any of that. They just filed Articles of Impeachment: Impeach the President. We don't like the answer.
They gave us answers, answer after answer. And instead of saying, ``Well, we disagree with your answer. This is what you need to send,'' they just said, ``Let's impeach the President,'' because that was the objective all along, as we know, in this whole sham. It has always been about impeachment, not about facts.
So when you have a process, if you don't want to follow the process, you don't want to actually go and try to get answers to questions, you just want to end at a conclusion of impeachment, that is where we are.
And that is why you see these two articles that don't list crimes. All the alleged crimes were debunked. They are not in the Articles of Impeachment. And so we end up with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Then you look at the things that are alleged, and there are actual answers from the different Federal agencies to the questions that were asked. The committee never went back and followed up. They just said: We are going to impeach the President because that is what we were going to do from the beginning.
Seventy-one percent of the members of the committee had already voted to impeach the President before the call with President Zelensky.
So why didn't the majority go through the normal process? Why didn't the majority allow us, the minority, our own day of hearings to counter some of these false allegations? I think the American people have figured it out. Because it was never about getting to the facts.
If that was the case, they would have worked with the executive branch to get those answers to those questions. They didn't. They would have worked with us to allow us to have the minority day of hearing that the rules of the House allow us, but they didn't. And so this is where we are.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman says the evidence is overwhelming, the gentleman cites the Mueller report, the whole investigation that went on for 22 months with thousands of subpoenas, witnesses, and innuendos. And at the end of the day--with the full authority, by the way, Mr. Mueller had to file any criminal charges, if there were any laws broken that he saw--not one charge was filed.
What is the most interesting and maybe the most telling is that, in your Articles of Impeachment, the eight pages that you filed, not one time did you mention the Mueller report, because there is nothing criminal in the Mueller report. If there was, you would have put it in the Articles of Impeachment.
You are trying to remove a President of the United States from office, and the Constitution says the standard should be treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, which you would think means you would list high crimes and misdemeanors--or treason or bribery. There is not a word of bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors listed in this.
Not one time is the Mueller report mentioned. So if there is all that rich data, it would be here, and it is not, because there wasn't anything that came out of the Mueller report.
The gentleman mentions the Department of Justice----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. I am going to go through a few points because the gentleman made a lot of assertions that are not accurate, and I think it is important to go through them.
The Department of Justice did not say that a President can't be removed. The Attorney General made that clear, that the President can be indicted.
But what the Attorney General said was----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Through the Department of Justice, he said there was no obstruction. There was no obstruction. That is what the Department of Justice said.
Again, if there was, you would have put those findings from the Mueller report in this document. And there is nothing in there, no mention of the Mueller report.
Then the gentleman opened up by saying the rules have been followed. The rules have been followed. That is what the gentleman from Maryland said. The only problem is, just today, yet another rule has been broken.
House rules, clause 2(j)(1) of rule 11, provides that, once the demand is made for a minority day of hearing, minority members shall be entitled--``shall'' means it has to happen--to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to the measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
Well, guess what? That didn't happen. We requested it multiple times, and the rules that the gentleman said ``the rules have been followed''--the only problem is the rule has been broken.
``Shall be entitled to a hearing,'' and it has been denied. The chairman denied it again today in committee.
So you can't say the rules have been followed when, just today, that very committee broke the rules of the House allowing us to have the opportunity to present the alternative case.
You want to talk about abuse of power. What is going on in that Judiciary Committee right now is an abuse of power: denying the minority the ability to even present the other side of an argument. You have got two sides of any argument, and maybe you think you made a strong case if you only present yours.
You look at what is going on across the country when only one side has been presented. The country still thinks this is a waste of time, not going after a President because he broke the law but going after a President because you don't like him, you are unhappy that he got elected in 2016, and you are afraid that he might get elected again in 2020.
I trust the people of this country to make that decision again next year, and they will--not Members of Congress who have expressed that they wanted him impeached before he took the oath of office, Members of Congress on your side who said impeachable offenses aren't required to impeach a President.
So, when we talk of abuse of power, absolutely, that is an abuse of power.
The gentleman expresses concern for the people of Ukraine, maybe expresses that the President of Ukraine himself might be afraid to speak candidly. I have more confidence in the President of Ukraine that, if he says something, I believe it. We have worked with him on a number of things: cleaning up corruption. He is actually delivering on his promise, like this President has been delivering on his promise.
But let's talk about all the disdain, the concern for the people of Ukraine not having the tools to defend themselves. I am curious: Where was that disdain when President Obama and Joe Biden were in office and not one single time did they heed Ukraine's request to sell them Javelin missiles? Not one of them. They didn't sell one.
And Ukraine asked multiple times: Please allow us to defend ourselves against Russia. President Obama and Vice President Biden said no. I never heard anybody on that side expressing concern about the ability of the people of Ukraine to defend themselves then.
Good thing, when President Trump was asked that question, he said yes. No quid pro quo, just yes: Here are 360 Javelin missiles sold, so that they can push back Russia. And I am glad they are doing it. I am glad they are able to defend themselves.
Then you look at something equally alarming that has come out that deserves real attention in this Congress, and that is the Horowitz report: 17 listed abuses of the FISA process.
The gentleman knows, I supported the FISA process to allow us to combat terrorists. It is a controversial program, a program that has got a very narrow scope to allow the United States to protect our national security, but it also has a very strict requirement from our intelligence agencies. The FBI and the CIA have the ability to go unfettered and ask the judge for the ability to surveil people.
The judge trusts that they are giving him the full information. And we saw abuses listed in the Horowitz report of the FISA process. Even more, Mr. Durham is initiating and conducting his own criminal investigation.
And what the Attorney General talked about this week is that they know that there are people in those intelligence agencies who were spying on the Trump campaign. I mean, imagine Federal agencies--FBI, CIA--spying on the campaign of a candidate for President.
Republican or Democrat, we should equally be alarmed that that happened. I hope it gets rooted out. I hope whoever did that and abused their power goes to jail. But it happened, and it is being investigated in a criminal way.
But Horowitz, himself, pointed out where there were abuses of the FISA process. And you know what, that is coming back up to this Congress early next year for renewal. Parts of that program are going to come back up again, important tools to combat terrorism, but tools that now have been identified to have been abused. We need to work together to clean that up so that doesn't happen again. But that happened, and it was used against the Trump campaign.
I haven't heard the disdain and outrage from both sides. I am surely outraged. Our side is surely outraged. I would hope that we are all outraged that that happened.
But when we talk about those reports, again, if there were all of those things that the gentleman asserts in the Mueller investigation and, ultimately, report, I am curious that not one of those--there is not any mention of the Mueller report in these Articles of Impeachment that we will be facing on the House floor next week.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, but when the gentleman talks about stonewalling, acting as if President Trump is the only President in history to seek alternatives to a question that is asked by Congress----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman said that this President has tried to defy more than any other President. Those were roughly the words he said.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Let's keep in mind, President Obama, it took us 6 years to get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious scandal, and we still didn't get all of the information we wanted. For 6 years, President Obama fought various ways in the court.
Was that impeachable? Of course, we didn't try to impeach the President.
Every President, I am sure, including George Washington, had differences with Congress. We have multiple branches of government.
So the legislative branch has powers. When we exercise those powers in regard to the executive branch, the executive branch also has an equal opportunity to have a discussion, first of all, to see if we can come to an agreement.
Again, if you go back to the Clinton impeachment or you go back to the Nixon impeachment, both sides reached an agreement. Your majority never tried to go reach an agreement with the White House on how to get access to whatever it is you might have wanted to get access to.
What is a fair process?
Allowing the President to have his legal counsel in the room to ask questions to witnesses, that was denied. But that negotiations didn't happen.
It did happen in Nixon. It did happen in Clinton. And so you had a fair process of back and forth, where, ultimately, they agreed on rules of the game during an impeachment. It didn't happen here.
So when your majority asked, through various committees, for information from the White House, the White House has the ability to exercise other rights.
Again, letter after letter. The gentleman used the term ``stonewalling.'' It is not stonewalling to respond to the committee and say: Okay, these are the things that we can get you. Here, look, DOD, we will work with you.
You never tried to work with DOD, but they said: Call us.
Didn't call them. Agency after agency, the Secretary of State responded. All of these agencies sent letters in response. That is not stonewalling. That is complying with the law. You might not have liked the answer.
And, again, if you didn't like the answer--I think we all know when you pull out the Constitution, there is not just two branches of government--you could have gone to the third branch of government and said: Courts, make them comply because they are not.
You didn't do that. So then you just rushed to impeach the President because you didn't like the answer.
If you go to the Mueller investigation, the gentleman lists those six people who were convicted. Not one of them had anything to do with accusations made against the President. In fact, they are not listed. They are not listed in the Articles of Impeachment.
The gentleman talked about Russia. Yes, we know Russia tried to meddle in our election in 2016. I think people on the gentleman's side might think Donald Trump was President back then. Barack Obama was President. Joe Biden was Vice President when Russia did try to interfere with our election. Why didn't they do more to stop it?
It is a good question to ask, but go ask President Obama and Vice President Biden. Don't go impeaching Trump because Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election.
There were, absolutely, things that were going on in Ukraine that raised concerns. You had the Ambassador, the Ukraine Ambassador to the United States wrote an op-ed against candidate Trump. They were trying to interfere with the election against Donald Trump when he was a candidate for President. I didn't see any attempt to be concerned about that by the gentleman's side.
But again, just go impeach Donald Trump because so many on the gentleman's side didn't like the fact that he won in 2016 and are afraid he is going to win again in 2020.
Again, that is not why you impeach a President.
So when you talk about these facts, it is important to point out all of the other sides.
Sondland, who has been brought up multiple times, Sondland testified under oath. He asked the President: Is there anything you want?
The President responded to him--he said this under oath. The President said: ``I want nothing, no quid pro quo.'' That was Sondland's testimony.
So, again, as these people are being brought up, let's look at the whole context.
When the rules are being brought up, I haven't heard a response from the gentleman when I read him a House rule that is, today, being violated.
In committee, they took a vote to violate House rules. The committee doesn't have that power. The House has that power, and it hasn't exercised it. That is still a rule of the House that is being broken today, not allowing the minority to have a day of hearing, trying to hide the facts from the American people.
If they were so serious about impeaching the President because you have this overwhelming evidence, then let both sides present their case. But, no, that House rule, today, is being violated. And there are many examples of that.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would not discount things like this letter from the Secretary of Defense, who, on October 7, 2019, received a subpoena and on October 15, 2019, responded. That is not delay, and that is not obfuscation.
A week later, they responded and said that the Department is prepared to engage in the process, consistent with longstanding practice, and provide the responsive information should there be a resolution to this matter.
It was a week later. That doesn't sound like somebody trying to run away from a request or a subpoena. A week later, the majority got a response. The gentleman might not have liked the response, but there was not a follow-up: We are going to work with you, Department of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense sent this a week after the majority's request, and the majority is going to impeach a President because they didn't like this answer and say: Oh, he is obstructing.
Again, I go back to Fast and Furious, one example: President Obama, 6 years we fought to get the information--6 years. We didn't try to impeach him for that. It doesn't mean he was breaking the law or committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
Maybe he delayed a lot longer than we would have liked. Six years is a lot longer than it should have taken to get answers to real questions about people who died. But for 6 years, we waited and worked and went and got those answers. That is the legal process.
And maybe we should work together, if we think that is too long, to try to speed it up.
But that was 6 years. This was 1 week after the subpoena the Secretary of Defense himself sent the majority this letter and said: Call us and work with us to get you this information.
The majority didn't follow up. They just said: Nope, we don't like it. That is too late. It is delaying.
A week later, the majority got an answer, and they didn't like the answer, so the majority said: Let's impeach the President of the United States.
There is letter after letter like this from other agencies--the Department of Energy. We can go down the list. But this wasn't 3 years later the majority got an answer. Yes, maybe the majority could raise questions then and go to the courts, but the majority didn't.
The majority got an answer a week later. That is delaying to the point where the majority would impeach a President of the United States?
And my friend doesn't think those conversations happened during Nixon?
My friend doesn't think those conversations with the White House happened during Clinton, where there were things that they didn't feel that they had to give that were subpoenaed and they went back and forth, but they came to an agreement?
Mr. Speaker, it means you have to sit down and work with people that I might not like.
It has been clear on the other side that there are some on the majority side who hate this President and who don't want him to be President. We understand. We have elections for that. We had an election in 2016, and he was duly elected.
Then the majority alleged that he conspired with Russia, but he didn't. Russia tried to interfere on President Obama's and Joe Biden's watch. It was their watch when it happened. President Trump didn't have any involvement in that, and the Mueller Report made that clear.
But then the majority kept going on making assertion after assertion, just like in these two Articles of Impeachment, and the majority comes up with abuse of power.
To quote Professor Turley, one of the witnesses from last week: The only abuse of power is by this majority trying to remove a President from office for exercising his rights under the law.
A week after the majority's request, their subpoena, a week after, they got a letter from the Secretary of Defense himself, and that is enough to impeach a President?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I just hope the gentleman isn't asserting that the President of the United States, like any other American has the right, shouldn't have the right to appeal a decision. Ultimately, the courts at some level will resolve any issue before them. Courts do that, and that is the legal right of every American.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. By the way, if the President is victorious in the courts, would the gentleman recognize that he did lose that case, or would the gentleman say that was obfuscation, following the legal process?
Again, President Obama, for 6 years on Fast and Furious--just one case, 6 years.
The gentleman hasn't been in the majority for a year yet, and somehow that is so long, a week later response is so long that the majority should impeach a President, when, just on Fast and Furious, we didn't get questions we wanted answered from the White House, and in some cases it took 6 years. Some of that went through the courts.
We won some of those cases, by the way. We didn't win all of them, but we surely did win some of those cases.
But when we won a case against the President, meaning he violated some component of the law, we didn't impeach him for it, but we got the information, eventually. It took a lot longer than we would have liked.
But the President, just like President Obama, had the legal right to appeal decisions that he might not have agreed with in courts like the Ninth Circuit, which has one of the highest overturn rates of any circuit in the country.
So, if a circuit got it wrong and ultimately somewhere up higher they get it right, is that somehow something we should impeach a President of the United States for because they exercised their Article III powers to go to a judicial branch to get an answer to a question?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, just to keep the record clear, when the President made that phone call, the oft-misrepeated quote was this: ``I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people.''
The President expressed some concern with what happened in 2016 and concern about what happened to our country. ``I would like you to do us a favor,'' and then he said, ``our country.''
There is no mention of Joe Biden in there, no mention of him. It is about getting to the bottom of the corruption that we all know happened. We might not have all the answers we want. We sure would like to get those answers, but it happened. It happened under Barack Obama and Joe Biden's watch. For whatever reason, they didn't do enough to stop it.
But when the gentleman asked if one of us would vote against Articles of Impeachment if it was President Obama, not one of us would have because we would have never brought these Articles of Impeachment. We didn't bring these kinds of Articles of Impeachment.
Again, I just listed one case, 6 years for Fast and Furious, where people died; Benghazi where people died, where we didn't get the answers we wanted, where the administration rebuffed, over and over again. But not one time did we bring Articles of Impeachment, because they were not impeachable offenses, just like there are no impeachable offenses here.
And so, we are proudly whipping against it because this is not the way to abuse Congress' power of impeachment, as one of those witnesses last week said.
In the call--some of the other witnesses, constitutional scholars, when one of them tried to make fun of the son of the President of the United States, tried to bully and make fun of his name. Shameless. Shameless. It happened. To call that person a Presidential scholar or impartial, when some of those witnesses gave money to candidates running for President against President Trump, if that is the definition of impartial Presidential scholars, I think we all take their perception of whether or not this President should be removed from office a little bit differently than somebody who truly is impartial.
Even Professor Turley, who acknowledged that he didn't vote for President Trump, but said it would be abuse of Congress' power to move forward with impeachment because there are no impeachable offenses.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCALISE.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source