Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I would trust Mr. Nunes to have equal access to call in witnesses, just like Chairman Schiff does, to subpoena people. Chairman Schiff can do that, and Mr. Nunes cannot. Why is Mr. Nunes denied those same rights that the chairman has? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I would trust him to run that same fair process.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SCALISE.--Mr. Nunes to call witnesses?

Mr. SCALISE. They did.

Mr. SCALISE.--behind closed doors with innuendos.

Mr. SCALISE. Well, you asked a question. Could I answer the question?

Mr. SCALISE. Absolutely. I would absolutely yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE.--participate. Madam Speaker, I reclaim the time.

Mr. SCALISE. I am trying to answer it.

Mr. SCALISE. If you would yield, if you are talking about the whistleblower, we are talking about a whistleblower, again, who is deemed to have a political bias who got all of their information secondhand. And oh, by the way, the standard for being a whistleblower used to be firsthand information and, secretly, days before the whistleblower complaint was filed, after going to Chairman Schiff's staff and working with partisans to develop the whistleblower complaint, they changed the rules for even designating what is a whistleblower so it could allow secondhand information. Who changed that rule? Boy, we would sure be curious to find out. But you don't want us to find all that out because you are holding all of this in secret. Shouldn't we know what is really going on and what is behind this so- called whistleblower complaint that has been debunked? So many of those claims were debunked. There was no quid pro quo. In fact, the two people who were on the phone call, the ones who are really in question here, both said there was nothing wrong, both of them. In fact, Zelensky said there was no pressure. He wasn't even aware that any funds were being held up. He praised the President for selling Javelin missiles to Ukraine, which, by the way, Barack Obama would not sell when he was President of the United States. He withheld the Javelin missiles that Ukraine was asking for to defend themselves against Russia. Again, we talk about Russia. Who stood up to Russia? President Trump stood up to Russia by allowing Ukraine to buy the Javelin missiles to bust the tanks. Barack Obama wouldn't sell those. I don't know why he wouldn't allow Ukraine to stand up to Russia. I don't know why Barack Obama allowed Russia to interfere with our elections and didn't do more to stop it. But we should be getting to the bottom of that, yet we are not because it is all a focus of secrecy, drib-drab, selective leaks to try to give a false narrative. Our Members can't go talk to our other colleagues about some of the things that happened in these hearings. It is all secret. We want it to be opened up. In fact, that is why I filed a rule change. Again, I would ask the gentleman: Would he support a rule change that would allow all Members to participate and be involved in at least sitting in on these hearings to see what is really going on if you are going to ask people to impeach the President of the United States? Again, it has always been done with a vote of the House. Now it is being done by a decree from the Speaker. And you won't answer the question of whether or not, yes or no, it is an impeachment inquiry. The Speaker said it is an impeachment inquiry, but we have never voted on it. Why don't we ever vote like we did all other times to set real rules of fairness? They always set rules of fairness where both sides got to participate. Real due process, which is part of our Constitutional duty, is being denied in secret. That is what is happening in that room right now. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. We never tried to impeach a President----

Mr. SCALISE.--with all due respect.

Mr. SCALISE. And in all three cases where there was an impeachment-- --

Mr. SCALISE. These are your rules. You are the majority party.

Mr. SCALISE.--the rules allow for both sides to have fairness.

Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman will have an opportunity----

Mr. SCALISE. The gentleman made a lot----

Mr. SCALISE. This is your rule. You are in charge of the House.

Mr. SCALISE. You think fairness is you being able to control everything and not letting the other side----

Mr. SCALISE. And the Department of Justice disagreed with that, but he had the authority.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, with all due respect, this process is rotten to the core. The gentleman can talk about process, and he can talk about facts. The facts point out that this process is shrouded in secrecy. Madam Speaker, you literally have a chairman who was running around for 2 years during the whole Mueller investigation saying that he had ``more than circumstantial evidence'' that there was collusion between the President and Russia. And then the Mueller Report comes out, and there were no charges. There was no collusion. In fact, the chairman never showed his secret evidence. If he had evidence ``more than circumstantial''--his quotes--then he should have shown it to the American people. But he didn't because there was no evidence. Those were the facts. If the facts were there, Madam Speaker, you know he would have shown that evidence. It didn't exist. Instead of moving on and taking care of the work of the people of this country, it is another witch hunt. It is another fishing expedition in secret. The gentleman talks about fairness, why is it that voting Members of Congress are being denied access to the room? The press doesn't have access to these hearings that the gentleman calls fair. He calls them fair. There was never even a vote of this House to start an impeachment inquiry. It was a decree from the Speaker in The Washington Post in September: ``Therefore, today, I am announcing''--the Speaker of the House--``I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.'' That is a decree by the Speaker of the House. That has never happened before. The other three times when there was an impeachment inquiry, it was started with a vote of the full House. Everybody was accountable-- no Star Chamber, no one or two people in this country who think they can run the entire process and deny the people the right of a duly elected President to serve because they just don't agree with the results of the 2016 election. They never showed high crimes and misdemeanors. The majority has never shown high crimes and misdemeanors. They are just looking around for something. The majority calls witnesses. They talk about fairness and who is in the room. Our side cannot call witnesses. Do you think that is fair? Our side, the President's own counsel----

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

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I know we all continue to mourn the loss of our colleague, Elijah Cummings. We still see the flowers sitting in the spot where Elijah used to sit. Yesterday, I thought we had a very appropriate remembrance of our colleague in a special way, remembering who he was, the special person he was, the giant that he was, the leader--sometimes in a very boisterous way, sometimes in a gentle way. But Maya, his wife, and his three children are in our prayers, and will continue to be as we remember that great loss that we experienced and will continue to remember. I yield to the gentleman.