Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Louisiana State University football team for winning the 2020 College Football Playoff National Championship. On January 13, 2020, the undefeated LSU Tigers took to the field as the No. 1 ranked team in all of college football and defeated the defending National Champions and No. 3 ranked Clemson Tigers by 42-25 in the Louisiana Superdome. The LSU Tigers displayed determination and explosiveness throughout this entire historic season, never taking their foot off of the gas and beating an unprecedented seven Top-10 teams during their ascent to a perfect 15-0 record. The Fighting Tigers, led by Louisiana-native, Coach Ed Orgeron, amassed impressive individual, team, school, and conference records on their march to the championship. LSU is the first team in Southeastern Conference history to go 15-0. The Tigers are also the first team to ever beat each of the top four teams in the AP preseason poll. Their high-flying, No. 1 offense was led by Quarterback Joe Burrow, the 2019 Heisman Trophy Winner, who also set the record for the most total touchdowns by a player in a single season. Wide Receiver Ja'Marr Chase, winner of the 2019 Biletnikoff award and graduate of my alma mater Rummel High School, set the record for the most receiving yards in a BCS/CFP national championship game with 221 yards and two touchdowns. Coach Orgeron, winner of the Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year award and famously known as ``Coach Oeaux,'' fearlessly led his men throughout this magical season with the motto ``One team, one heartbeat.'' This national championship is LSU's fourth in school history, and it is perfectly fitting that the championship game was held only an hour away from campus in the great City of New Orleans. The 2019 LSU Tigers have staked their claim as one of the all-time best teams in the history of college football. And Heisman-winner Joe Burrow just finished one of the greatest seasons played by a college quarterback. As Coach O said, this is a team for the ages and they have made the entire State of Louisiana very proud. Geaux Tigers.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader going through those bills. There were a few bills that the Speaker had referenced earlier this week that would also be considered. Congresswoman Lee's resolution to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and there was also some legislation by Congressman Khanna that would eliminate the ability for the administration to use certain funds related to Iran. I wanted to ask if those two bills were going to be part of that package for next week, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. First of all, to start with, it is the President's not just authority, but it is 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 he is going to protect this country from terrorists or people who want to do us harm domestically or abroad. In the case of Soleimani, there was a redline issued a long time ago. I know, in the past, previous administrations have issued redlines and then let those lines be blown through without taking any action, and I would argue that makes our country less safe when people don't think we are going to back up our words with actions as not just the greatest military force in the world, but the greatest defender of freedom throughout the world, anyone who seeks freedom, including people in Iran who seek freedom today from this oppressive regime. They have one place they can look to, and that is the United States of America. That is what makes us such a great nation is that we don't shed our blood to conquer more land; we shed our blood to keep people safe, not just here in America, but to provide freedom all around the world to anyone who seeks it. The fact that President Trump maintained a redline that was crossed is something we all should applaud. And 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, and President Obama made the decision. It was his call to take out bin Laden when they thought--they weren't positive, but 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 that your side has a lot of differences with the President. I just wish in a time like that, when everyone acknowledges how brutal a terrorist he was and he crossed a redline--he was in Iraq plotting to kill more Americans. We don't have to wonder if he was going to do it, because he has a decades-long history of killing Americans. The blood of hundreds of our men and women in uniform were on his hands, and no one disputes it. And so he is 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 do. Again, if there are some that didn't 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 wasn't 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 Obama administration officials who, just in the last few days, very publicly said that President Trump had the full legal authority to take the action he did. Now, we can debate whether or not you think he should have done it. I think he should have. I am glad that Soleimani is no longer on this planet plotting to kill more Americans, which is what he was doing illegally in Iraq. And that, ultimately, is something that we can debate. But a lot of us felt it was inappropriate to be bringing a resolution, not to change the War Powers Act, not to have this serious discussion about whether or not the 2002 AUMF should still be in place as it was; but to just take a cheap political shot at the President in the middle of this. There was a Presidential candidate just yesterday, Democrat Presidential Candidate, a major candidate for President, who said innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwarranted military tit-for-tat. So, in essence, equating the killing of one of the most brutal terrorists, who killed hundreds of Americans, and plotting to kill more, equating that to Iran shooting down an airplane and another 176 people dead because of Iran's actions, the two of those are not on the same level. Those kinds of comments are unnecessary as well. I am not sure what is unwarranted about taking out Soleimani, if that is what he is suggesting, and others have suggested it too. So, again, we can have that disagreement. But the legislation was not only untimely, but it wouldn't even achieve the purpose that many on both sides of the aisle would like to see, and that is a real discussion about whether the War Powers Act operates properly. Frankly, there are many scholars who suggest the War Powers Act may be unconstitutional. We have never challenged it in the courts. On a number of fronts there were times when President Obama took action, many times, using drone strikes, using other attacks, where he never notified us. I surely wasn't notified in advance of the Bin Laden killing. I am not sure if the gentleman from Maryland was notified by President Obama in advance of the Bin Laden killing, and I am okay with that. I don't think the President needed to get permission. He notified us afterwards, which is what the law requires, by the way. The law does require 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. Again, President Obama used that authority multiple times to take out terrorists without prior notification of Congress, but clearly meeting other legal requirements along the way. If those legal requirements should be changed, let's have that debate. I haven't seen that legislation come forward. Maybe the gentleman is going to bring the legislation to the floor next week that would repeal the AUMF. I think that would be an unwise move to do, but let's have that debate, if that is where the majority wants to go. But yesterday wasn't that debate because it wasn't a change of law. A 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision made it clear that measures do not have the force of law unless they are formally presented to the President; and we all know that that, even if it were to pass the Senate, which I doubt highly it would, it doesn't go to the President. It doesn't 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. A lot of us felt that that wasn't the case yesterday, it was disappointing. Again, the gentleman from Georgia made his comments apologizing for that comment he made, but in the broader context of what happened yesterday, it was just disappointing that, instead of having a sincere debate about whether the 2002 AUMF should stay in place as is or be changed, which is a longer negotiation; that resolution just took a swipe at the President and tried to limit his ability. I mean, literally language that says directing the President to do certain things is disingenuous when the resolution doesn't have the effect of law. You can't direct the President to do something. You can't call him on the phone and say I direct you to do something. You could pass a law to direct him to do something, but that is not what happened yesterday, and that is the point and the concern. Again, as the gentleman knows, there is strong interest on both sides to revisit, maybe to 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 going to be a sincere effort to change it and a desire to change it, then it ought to happen through the proper course of legislation, and that wasn't what happened yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, to start with, the comment that the gentleman referenced on the floor yesterday, I will read from a statement from the gentleman who made that comment yesterday: ``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.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, clearly, as the gentleman knows, it is the Senate's job to try the House's case. If the House failed to make its case, that is the House's fault. To suggest that the Senate needs to mop up the mess that was done here because there was not fairness, because both sides didn't get the opportunity, if one side wants to say, ``I have a case to make. I am going make my case, but I am not going to let them make theirs, and I am not going to let them call their witnesses,'' and we had a long list of witnesses we wanted to call that we were denied. You are in the majority. You get to make the rules. If that is what you want to call fair, you can, but it is not. The Senate has it, but it was all done according to the majority out of urgency. That is the word we heard over and over again. If the gentleman wanted to have other people come to testify, the President and every President exerts executive privilege, so if the standard is a President exerting executive privilege equates to obstruction of Congress, then you would 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 have surely had disagreements with previous Presidents exerting executive privilege when we were in the majority. You fight those out in the courts. The gentleman is well aware of that. Maybe the courts will say yes, and maybe the courts will say no, but that attempt wasn't 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.'' They rammed it through, and other facts and other witnesses that they didn't want, they discarded. The actual rule of the House, clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI requires--not allows but requires--the minority to have a day of hearing. That was denied because there was urgency. They didn't want all the facts to get out. They were concerned about urgency. Lo and behold, it passes, and all of a sudden, what happened to the urgency? The Speaker says we are going to hold the papers. You had Democratic Senators: I think it is 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. At some point in time, if it was urgent and then it happened, and then you don't send it over because now all of a sudden you realize it is a weak case and you are hoping something else pops up, you are hoping maybe the Senate can do the things that weren't done here because it was an 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 didn't give that aid to Ukraine. If the aid was so important that it was impeachable not to give it, Obama didn't give it. We didn't try to impeach him. It was bad foreign policy that he didn't provide Javelin missiles to Ukraine. It wasn't impeachable. But President Trump did give the aid, President Trump did sell the Javelin missiles to help Ukraine stand up to Putin. President Obama didn't help Ukraine stand up to Putin. If that is who you are most concerned about, then maybe the impeachment would have been in the other direction. But, again, that was bad foreign policy that President Obama didn't give Ukraine the tools that they asked for and were denied by the Obama administration, but it wasn't impeachable. Here you might have a disagreement with President Trump's foreign policy. You might have a disagreement that he did sell the Javelin missiles, maybe you agreed with it. But ultimately the President did send that aid. There was no investigation and he sent the aid. But impeach him for it anyway because you disagree with other things. I think that became very clear. At some point, if it is focused on personality, I think that is what people are most fed up with. If there were facts, then both sides would have been able to present all of the evidence, both sides would have been able to call all of the witnesses. If the majority had confidence in their case, they would have said, Okay. You can call your witnesses, because our witnesses are better. We have higher confidence in our case. But that didn't happen. We were denied what the rules of the House requires: a minority day of hearing. We wanted it, we asked for it, the rules required it, but they blew through it, they threw that away. That is not fairness. But the Senate will conduct a fair trial based on a weak case. If the case was stronger, regardless, the Senate's job is to try the case that was made in the House, whether it was a strong or a weak case, and that ought to happen. Justice is being denied every day it is not. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Probable cause is not the standard in the Constitution. To remove a sitting President, the Constitution is very specific: treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, not probable cause. That would be in the Constitution if that is what the Framers intended for impeachment to be used for, but that is not what impeachment is to be used for. There were witnesses called, multiple witnesses. There were tryouts, by the way, in secret that Chairman Schiff had prior to asking the President at the last minute, after all of this innuendo and you would hear leaks and leaks and this is going to happen, and then they would have a secret hearing where witnesses were sworn in, but none of us could find out what was happening in those secret hearings. And as we talked to Members that were there, all of the leaks and innuendos turned out to be disproven. We couldn't find that out, because the chairman closed those hearings to the public, closed those hearings to most Members of Congress. But ultimately the Senate's job is to try the case that was made in the House, weak or strong. And clearly it was weak, because the urgency that was talked about, it would already be going on if it was a strong case. But even if it is a weak case, it is not the Senate's job to mop up that mess. It is the Senate's job to go and hear the case that was made in the House with one side presenting their witnesses. And, again, the majority got to have that opportunity. We didn't have the opportunity to present witnesses we wanted to bring forward. And there were witnesses. They were sworn in. I don't know if you would call them something different, but that is what they were. They were there to present facts. Many gave innuendo, but when asked under oath, Can you name the crime? No. Was there bribery? No. But let the Senate do their job, and hopefully they get that next week. I would encourage that the House get that done next week. It should have been done a while back. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he has anything else.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCALISE. As it relates to the War Powers Act, obviously, we had a heated debate on the floor yesterday. We have had a robust debate for years in this House on whether or not to modify and make changes to the 2002 AUMF. It has been a constant debate. There has been a lack of an ability to form consensus, clearly, on both sides. I know the gentleman is aware there are a number of Members on our side who have brought up this issue before, as well as Members on your side. Yesterday, we were literally in the middle of a crisis. We had just taken out one of the worst and most brutal terrorists that we have seen, in Soleimani. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement that he was a brutal terrorist. The Obama administration designated him as the head of a terrorist organization, and he was in violation of international law that prohibited him from being in Iraq. In the time of crisis, instead of having a conversation separate from that on actual changes to the AUMF, if that is where my friend's majority would like to go--clearly, again, on our side, there were people who were interested in having that debate. It was disappointing that, instead, we went into what turned out to be more of an effort to take a cheap shot at the administration by bringing a resolution that had absolutely no effect of law. If the AUMF is going to be changed, it has to be an act of Congress. I know the gentleman is aware of that. On our side, we are aware of that, too. Instead of trying to engage in that kind of conversation, debate, and negotiation, it was just a resolution that everyone recognizes would not have made any changes to the AUMF. Why, during this time that we are in right now, was that the path to go, as opposed to trying to have a sincere debate on whether or not real changes to the AUMF should take place? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman talks about fairness in the trial. It is 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 that require 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 the evidence. Of course, we had multiple witnesses we wanted to bring forward that were denied. Clearly, all the evidence didn't get out. I guess, by definition, it was not an honest trial in the House. I am confident they will have an honest and fair trial in the Senate. In fact, there are negotiations to make sure it will be fair. By the way, I want to make this point because 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 a fair set of rules, and the House adopted those rules. That was a Democratic conference. Then, fast forward to the Clinton impeachment where you had a Democratic President and a Republican House. The House negotiated with the White House to come up with fair rules. Ultimately, they adopted the Nixon standard because everybody agreed that was a fair process. Whether or not you like the outcome is one thing, but it was a fair process. That never happened here. This House didn't make an effort to try to negotiate a fair set of rules with us in the minority or with the White House. Again, House rules actually require a minority day of hearings, and that was broken and not allowed. We didn't get that minority day of hearings. We requested it multiple times to try to get some fairness to elicit facts from all sides, but we weren't given that opportunity. The Senate now has a case that was sent over to them. By a lot of estimates, it is an inadequate case, and it is a weak case. I think the majority must acknowledge that, which is why they are holding the papers and hoping for more things, which is what this was all about anyway. It seems like every week we would hear more rumors that, next week, the big witness is going to come out and everything is going to be exposed, and then that witness would testify under oath that, no, they didn't see a crime. But don't worry, next week, there is going to be another one. This will go on forever. It is like a Groundhog Day of impeachment. At some point, I would hope the majority says enough is enough, that they will actually let the people of this country decide, which they will. It is going to be the people of the country that decide the President at the end of this year in the election. This President, obviously, has a very strong case to make with what he has done to get this economy back on track, to rebuild this military, to protect America, to secure our border, and all the other things that he will have a case to make to the people. Of course, the gentleman is going to have a nominee who is going to make their case, however far left that case will be. We will 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 Senate is going to have their opportunity. I am confident they are going to have a fair trial. I wish that would have been the case here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I point that out and that that not be used for any kind of justification for the other disagreements and issues and concerns we had with what happened on the floor yesterday. Frankly, there were statements made on the gentleman's side as well that I think ought to be addressed, apologized for.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, finally, to talk about where we are on the impeachment resolution that was passed last year, at the end of last year by the House. Ultimately, it is typically an administrative duty to send papers over to the Senate if legislation passes, obviously impeachment managers would then need to be named. There is breaking news that the Speaker is announcing that she has asked Chairman Nadler to be prepared to bring impeachment managers to the floor next week. I am not sure if that is ongoing, or if that is something that had already been in the works. But does the gentleman expect that legislation to come to the floor next week? And does that mean that the papers either have been transmitted to the Senate or would be transmitted to the Senate within the next few days? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wants to talk about how the process works, I have made it clear. The gentleman is in the majority. They get to make the rules however they want. But to say, as the gentleman said earlier, an honest trial tries to elicit all of the evidence, no one can make the argument that all of the evidence was presented. Again, we called and asked for multiple witnesses and were denied. We were denied the ability to have the witnesses we asked for. Now, they are in the majority. They said no, and they were able to roll over that because they had the votes. But don't say it was fair. Don't say it was an honest trial, when by their own definition, all of the facts in evidence have to come out.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, of course we have been seeing a chorus of Democrat Senators in the recent days expressing concern that the papers should be sent over. Obviously, on our side, we felt that there was no case, there was no crime, and it was clear I think in so many areas of this. But ultimately, if the House passes legislation, any legislation, whether the Speaker voted for it or against it, it is not some power of the Speaker, exclusively and dictatorially, to hold onto that if the Speaker doesn't 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 that the Senate can take it up and do whatever they are going to do with it. But this idea that one person out of 435 can make a decision that even if the House passes legislation and the motion to reconsider is tabled, then it goes to the Senate. Hopefully, that is resolved by next week and that charade ends, and we finally get true justice where it is disposed of, which I think everybody acknowledges that will happen once it goes over to the Senate. But let us get back to the business of doing the people's work. And hopefully, we can then 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, like so many other things that Republicans and Democrats actually in the middle of all of this are working on together to try to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. If you look at what they are attempting to do, there has been a lot of talk about the 2002 AUMF, Madam Speaker, and I am sure, as Congress has over the years, we will continue to have a healthy debate over what that proper role should be of Congress as it relates to the 2002 AUMF. But that is not what this debate is about. When you read the resolution, in fact, just by its own name, this is not an act of Congress. This isn't even changing the law. So if you want to have a sincere debate over what that power should be that Congress gave to the executive branch, then let's have that debate. But don't try to pass some fig leaf resolution that is only intended to try to undermine the President in the middle of a conflict with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran. There is no dispute about how bad of an evil terrorist Soleimani was, yet here you hear all of these equivocations: Oh, Soleimani was bad person but. Madam Speaker, how can you sit here and try to apologize for the things that he did by saying that taking him out was wrong? This world is a safer place with Soleimani gone. If you want to apologize to anybody, go apologize to the families of those hundreds of men and women in our uniform who are dead at the hands of Soleimani, not only the people whom he had already killed but the even more Americans whom at the very time of his death he was plotting to kill. How much is enough? At what point do we say: Take him off the face of this planet so he can't kill more innocent people? That is what was ultimately done. We support President Trump in his efforts at keeping America safe, just like we supported President Obama when he took out Osama bin Laden, another evil terrorist who had the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands. If we are going to be serious about keeping this country safe, absolutely, there is a role for Congress to play, but you have got to support the efforts of your Commander in Chief to carry out his constitutional duty which he has to keep this country safe.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Louisiana State University's quarterback, Joe Burrow, for winning the Heisman Memorial Trophy. As the most prestigious award in college football, this honor is afforded to the most outstanding player who has exhibited excellence and integrity both on and off the field. Through hard work and dedication, Joe has exemplified these qualities, and there is no other college athlete more deserving of this award. On December 14, 2019, Joe became the first LSU player since Billy Cannon to win the Heisman, shattering previous voting records and receiving the highest percentage of first place votes. Breaking national and SEC records, Joe passed for 4,715 yards and 48 touchdowns during the regular season, completing a college football record 77.9 percent of his passes. Joe's historic season led LSU to its first SEC Championship since 2011 and a berth in the College Football Playoff. Originally from Athens, Ohio, Joe Burrow was given the opportunity to play football at LSU by head coach Ed Orgeron. Seizing this opportunity, Joe transformed the LSU offense and overall attitude of the team. His leadership on and off the field has made Louisiana proud, and we are forever grateful for his time at LSU. On behalf of Tiger fans in Louisiana and across the nation, and as a proud LSU alumnus, I again congratulate Joe on winning the Heisman Trophy, and officially recognize him as an adopted Louisianan. Geaux Tigers.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for yielding. I thank all the people who we have worked with to get to this point because passing the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is going to be a major victory for American workers, yet another sign that we can improve on our current trade relationships. I think a lot of people were concerned that maybe the President would pull out of NAFTA because he was clearly critical of the flaws of the previous agreement. But what he did was actually go and negotiate with Mexico and get a better deal for American workers. Then he went to Canada, which might have been a little more reluctant, but he got a better deal with Canada, as well. What you see is not only a trade agreement that is a major win for the American economy--conservative estimates show over 160,000 new jobs get created. Agriculture gets a big win because many of our products that we can't sell to Canada now will be able to be sent to those markets. This shows how Congress can work with this administration to do something that is really good for American workers. But what it also does, Madam Speaker, is it sends a message to the rest of the world that we can work with our friends to get better trade deals, our other friends around the world like Japan, like the United Kingdom, who would like to work to get better trade deals. But if you can't get a deal from your neighbors from the north and south, you surely are not going to be able to get a deal with anyone else. Now, this tells them that we can close deals and that there are other countries lining up that want to be a part of this economy. We have the hottest economy in the world, and it is only going to get better for workers here. But it then sends a message to China that not just America wants to send, but a message that all of our allies around the world want to send, that when you do business with America, you have to follow the rules. You can't play by your own set of rules. And now, for enforcement of deals, it really shows that China is going to have to become part of the world economy and play by the rules that everyone else in the world plays by. That is an important win for all of those forgotten men and women across this country who appreciate the work President Trump has done, Bob Lighthizer, who has been his quarterback on this all the way through, and everyone else. So it is going to be a big win for our country and for our economy.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order for failure to disclose the waiver of clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, pursuant to clause 6(g) of rule XIII, which requires the Rules Committee to specify in their report any waiver of a point of order against a measure under consideration. Madam Speaker, this underlying resolution violates clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, which entitles the minority of the committee to have the ability to call witnesses to testify during at least one day of a hearing on any given measure. This was not afforded to the Committee on the Judiciary minority members during consideration of the Articles of Impeachment, despite numerous requests by a majority of the minority members. Therefore, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule and the underlying resolution for the violation of minority rights and the denial of this evidence to be put into the Record and for this hearing, which the House rules require, which was not complied with and was denied. Madam Speaker, I urge the enforcement of this rule.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, impeaching a President of the United States. This isn't about some solemn duty tonight. Let's talk about what this is really about. This has been about a political vendetta, a political vendetta that didn't just start with the Zelensky call. It started long before that. Just listen to some of the quotes from Democrats in this Chamber: Speaker Pelosi: It's been going on for 22 months, 2\1/2\ years, actually. We cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump. What's more serious is that he can't win. This isn't about some crime that was committed. It is about fear that he might win reelection. That is not why you impeach a President. Al Green: ``I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this President, he will get reelected.'' The list goes on, Madam Speaker. In fact, there are some quotes that I can't even read on this House floor that some of our colleagues made. And keep in mind, more than 100 Democrats on this House floor voted to impeach this President before the Zelensky phone call. Just look at some of these Articles of Impeachment they voted for 2 years ago: Fifty-eight Democrats voted to impeach the President over comments he made about NFL players kneeling for the Pledge of Allegiance. Over 50 Democrats voted to impeach him for that. Just this summer, over 90 Democrats voted to impeach the President for comments he made about The Squad. So he makes comments about some other Members of Congress who make a lot of comments about him, and 95 Members vote to impeach the President of the United States. This is a political vendetta. It has nothing to do with a crime committed. There was no crime. And why don't we listen to some of the witnesses? Obviously, we weren't able to call all the witnesses we wanted, but there were witnesses. In fact, Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, he is mentioned over 600 times in the Schiff report. He was their star witness. And what did he say when asked: ``Did President Trump ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?'' His answer: ``No.'' ``Any preconditions for the aid to be released?'' ``No.'' ``Any preconditions for a White House meeting?'' Under oath, he testified: ``No.'' Abuse of power, let's talk about that Article of Impeachment, Madam Speaker. George Washington Law Professor Turley, who admitted under oath that he voted against Donald Trump, spoke to this claim of abuse of power. In fact, he said: ``If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power; it is your abuse of power.'' You are doing precisely what you are criticizing the President of doing, abuse of power. There is a House rule, Madam Speaker, that requires--not allows, but requires--that the minority get a day of hearing, which we asked for multiple times. They broke this rule. They didn't allow us to have a minority day of hearing. They didn't want to hear the facts about this case because it was never about the facts because there was no crime. It is about a personal political vendetta. Now let's talk about obstruction of Congress, as they make up these terms to impeach a President because they didn't find a crime, and they were looking. It has been an impeachment in search of a crime. But they talk about obstruction of Congress in saying the President defied subpoenas, subpoena after subpoena. Let's go through the Departments. The Department of State they subpoenaed. Do you know that, literally, just 4 days after the subpoena, the Secretary of State, himself, responded to their subpoena? The Department of Defense, a week later responded to the subpoena. The Department of Energy responded to the subpoena. We can go on and on with all of these agencies. That is an abuse of power, that is an obstruction of Congress, responding to your subpoena? That is what they did: They responded. You might not have liked the answer, but that is not the way this works. You don't impeach a President because you don't like his foreign policy, as so many of those foreign policy experts came and testified. But this isn't just about Donald Trump. They don't just hate Donald Trump, Madam Speaker. They hate the 63 million Americans who voted for this President, the forgotten men and women of this country who have been left behind, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it is those forgotten men and women of this country that Washington had left behind. And what is this President doing for them? He is delivering for them: 600 jobs in Pennsylvania; 1,000 jobs, workers in Mingo Junction, Ohio; $750 million investment for 600 new jobs across this country; The Detroit News; Chrysler, 6,500 new jobs. That is what this President is doing to deliver for those men and women of this country who have been left behind. It is about time somebody stands up for Americans, and President Trump is. So it is a political vendetta. But if they are going to go through with this, Madam Speaker, impeachment will not just be a stain on this Democrat majority; the impeachment will be their legacy.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I share full agreement with what the gentleman talked about in regard to all the agencies as we have had these negotiations and look forward to seeing them come to fruition early next week, to get that approved then. Of course, the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is a critical step to show the world that we can come together, build better trade relationships with our neighbors, create over 160,000 new jobs for hardworking families, get our economy moving even stronger, allow us to sell products into countries like Canada and Mexico that we can't sell today, and also send a message to our friends around the world like Japan, Great Britain, and so many others that want to get better trade deals with us as well. It tells them that we are fully able to not only negotiate those better deals but pass those deals through Congress. Then, as we all know and all agree, I would imagine, we focus our efforts on China to get China to play by the rules that everybody else has, with a stronger agreement that allows our country to be even more secure and our economy to thrive even more. All of that is critical to get additional economic growth. I would ask, does the gentleman know the timeframe? We are, as you mentioned, trying to get the final details worked out with the administration. Hopefully, those final pieces get put in place today or tomorrow so that it can get sent down to Congress. If that does happen, is there a timeframe, as you look at the calendar for Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? Is there a place where the majority is looking at putting it on the calendar more than other places so we can prepare as we look to whip that bill and produce, obviously, the votes to pass it? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we are encouraged by the progress that we are seeing and involved in on the appropriations bills to properly fund the government. As we have both discussed for some time now, the important job of Congress exercising its power of the purse is critical. The willingness for all sides to work together--House, Senate, Republican, Democrat, along with the White House--to get to a place where we can reach an agreement on how to properly fund our troops not for a month or two at a time but for the entire year, the value that it gives those men and women in uniform, the ability for our generals to acquire the tools that are necessary so that they can train safely and defend our country effectively, it is well served when we reach this agreement. I am encouraged by the progress the gentleman reflected. Hopefully, we can get to that point where, early next week, those bills are agreed upon, finalized, passed with large bipartisan majorities, which I have no doubt we will produce, and then get those signed by the President and move to USMCA, as the gentleman talked about. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.