Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on behalf of all Granite Staters to recognize the life and legacy of Elias Skipp Ashu, who passed away unexpectedly last week. He body the spirit of the Queen City and he left this world too soon. As a lifelong Manchester resident and St. Anselm College alarm, Skipp dedicated his career and life to bettering his community. He was a successful businessman, local leader and philanthropist who never gave up, gave up on the potential of Manchester and all its residents.
He was a community fixture who loved taking in the downtown area. He helped revitalize as chair of the Manchester Development Corporation. Skipp was instrumental in making the Civic Center project a reality. One of the city's most consequential economic development projects since the Industrial Revolution. His immense impact was known by all. Which is why he was named Citizen of the Year in 2000. I hope we can honor Skipp Ash legacy by continuing to work together to move Manchester and New Hampshire forward.
I offer condolences to his wife, Gail, the Ashu family, friends and all who knew him. May Skip's memory be a turtle? I yield back. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio right? That objection gentleman is recognized for one minute. Madam Speaker, it is with heavy heart that I rise to honor the life and service of U.S. Army Sergeant Thomas Cole Walker of Karnad, Ohio.
Sergeant Walker, who enlisted after graduating from Cognac High School in 2016, was tragically killed on October 20th during a training exercise at Fort Seward. Just 20 years old, just 22 years old, he had been awarded the Good Army, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. His dedication to protecting this nation was nothing short of heroic and serves as an inspiration to us all. But Sergeant Walker was more than a patriot.
He was also a son, a brother and a husband. His loss is felt by many. Madam Speaker, please join me in extending condolences to the friends, fellow soldiers and family of Sergeant Walker, especially his wife Taylor, his brother Jared, sisters Peyton, Whitney and Wendy and his father Thomas. I pray that the outpouring of support from the cognac community will help ease their sorrow during this difficult time. I know this entire chamber joins me in thanking Sergeant Walker for his service, honoring his life and praise for praying for his family.
I yield back repurposes gentleman from New York Rice.
That objection gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This month marked a painful anniversary of one fateful afternoon in Schoharie, New York, when 20 precious souls were lost in the preventable crash of a limousine that should never have been allowed on the road. The families of those lost many from my hometown of Amsterdam, New York. The families of eight young people devastated by the catalog crash on Long Island in 2015 and countless others touched by these preventable tragedies have raised their voices, raised their voices to demand action.
Last week, we introduced bipartisan legislation that answers their call. It is important, I believe, to respond to that call, to that request. The Safe Limo's Act, the ...take Unsafe Limo's Off the Road Act and the end the Limo Loophole Act have responded to them with great sensitivity. Thank you to my friend, Representative Antonio Delgado, for joining me in sponsoring this lifesaving legislation and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have signed on in support.
These commonsense measures will save lives and ensure that this never happens to another family. With that, I urge this body to raise our nation's Limousin safety standards without delay. And I yield back.
Madam Speaker, what purpose does the gentleman from West Virginia Rice. Consent is half for women. Objection, gentleman is recognized for one minute mass bigger. I rise today to commend the House for passing H.R. 7:28, the bipartisan Title 8 Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act.
My wife Mary was it? It was a critical care nurse for over 45 years. And we can tell you firsthand the role that nurses play in patient care. But America is facing a shortage of skilled nurses. Our nursing workforce in America is aging and the average age is 50 years old by 20.
By 2022, there will be a 1 million job nursing of nursing jobs open and available. We must find a way to encourage people to go into nursing. This bill helps not only to recruit nurses, but provide rural and underserved communities a competitive way to attract and keep talent. H.R. 7:28 is a step forward in addressing our nation's growing need for nurses. Let us figure. Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time.
What purpose does the gentleman from California writes? Incentives just the house for one minute to revise and extend my remarks an exception. Without objection, the gentleman's recognized.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group of talented students from my district who recently earned the title of mock trial World Champions. The Venture Academies mock trial team was one of 38 teams that traveled to New York to compete for this honor in the Empire Marcha World Champion. They successfully argued a fictional case involving a construction company that was accused of failing to take proper safety precautions by Trump, by portraying the prosecutors and the defendants, as well as the witnesses in this case.
They ended up bringing back the top prize to Stockton. But this isn't the Fincher Academy's first big success. Last year, the team placed fifth in the Empire contest, and for the past six years, they've won first place in the smoky King County mock trial competition. One day, some of these students could come here and stand in this podium, putting their debate skills to work while arguing for or against important legislation. So please join me in congratulating the Venture Academy's mock trial team mock trial workshop World Champions and I yield back for what purpose?
A gentleman from California writes can consented to address that objection. Gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, today we'll vote on a resolution that will somehow try to legitimize the last five weeks worth of phony impeachment. Inquiry is going on downstairs in a secure room instead of voting on and taking up the issues that matters the American people. We continue to chase this witch hunt, trying to take down the accomplishments of our president, Donald J. Trump. Indeed, the economy we have the unemployment, we have success we're having in the Middle East and others around the world aren't good enough.
When my colleagues on the other side or I'll admit that they probably won't win another election, they have to use impeachment process to try to take the president down. That shows how phony this process is. So to try today to pass a resolution, some alegitimate atomize last five plus weeks worth of work and indeed really two and a half years worth of attacking this president shows that this place has a misplaced set of priorities. Instead of doing the work for the American people, using this as a political process to attack what we've all been able to accomplish, I yield back for our purposes.
The gentleman from California writes, Let's be clear, unanimous consent to address that objection. Gentleman is recognized.
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of my district, California's Central Coast, who are worried about health care and the high cost of prescription drugs. Earlier this month at home, I spoke with people at retirement communities, town halls and at that at their doorsteps delivering food for Meals on Wheels. Throughout these conversations, one thing was made clear we need to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I'm proud the House passed H.R. 9 8 7 to strengthen health protections and bring down drug costs.
I'm excited that we're looking ahead to do more to ensure people never have to choose between lifesaving medicine and putting food on the table. That's why I co-sponsored H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act when we give the power to Medicare to negotiate prices directly with drug companies and make lower prices available to everyone. We all win H.R. three, give power back to the patients. It is what people in my district are asking for and I am proud to support it.
Madam Speaker, I yield back.
What purpose does the gentleman from Florida writes the House for one minute and provides that objection?
Gentleman is recognized.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution that attempts to justify the sham impeachment process that I've personally witnessed. The majority claims this resolution will ensure a, quote, fair, open and transparent process. You want to know how fair this process is? The resolution names the Financial Services Committee as part of the investigation. And earlier this month, the chairwoman of that committee said President Trump should be, quote, placed in solitary confinement. Further, Republicans will only be allowed to subpoena witnesses with Chairman Shift's approval as deemed necessary to the investigation.
If we've learned anything from the investigation so far, we know the majority does not think due process is necessary. Are even think basic fairness is necessary of a yes vote on this resolution today gives a stamp of approval to a process that has been damaged beyond repair and a blatant and obvious coup to unseat a sitting president of the United States. I will not support a resolution that promises an open and fair process without the basic fundamental procedures necessary to ensure it.
I yield back for purposes of generating from California right to just for one minute and to revise it without objection.
Generally recognized. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H to ninety six, which is an important resolution affirming the United States record on the Armenian genocide that the House overwhelmingly passed on Tuesday. This historic resolution makes clear that our nation unequivocally recognizes the Armenian genocide and encourages education and understanding of these tragic events. Madam Speaker, as you know, the Armenian genocide, the first genocide in the 20th century, took place from 1915 to 1923.
During this tragedy in history, 1.5 Armenians were killed, men, women and children. Now, I was privileged to visit Armenia earlier this year and talk to many Armenians about this tragic history. We must remember and acknowledge the lives that were taken and the pain that was inflicted. We can never forget the atrocities that took place then or other examples of ethnic cleansing, nor allow them to continue. So I am pleased that this body passed this critical resolution on Tuesday for the constituents in my district, across the nation and the world.
Thank you. And I yield the balance of my time.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition? Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call a post resolution 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The clerk will report the resolution House calendar number 52. House Resolution 660 resolved that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary Oversight and Reform and Ways and Means are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump. President of the United States of America. Section 2. Open and Transparent Investigative Proceedings by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence referred to in this resolution as a permanent select committee is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows. One, the chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section two notwithstanding clause to J. Two of rule eleven of the rules of the House of Representatives upon recognition by the Chair for such purpose.
Under this paragraph, during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph 1, the chair and the ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes as determined by the chair the time available for each period of questioning. Under this paragraph, a shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple Peri's of such questioning, but each such period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate.
Only the chair and ranking minority member or the permanent select committee employee, if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning at the conclusion of questioning. Pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five minute rule pursuant to clause 2 J 2 A of rule eleven three to allow for full evaluation of minority witness request. The ranking minority member may submit to the chair in writing any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
Within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph 1. Any such requests shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution for a the ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee, as authorized with the concurrence of the chair to require as deemed necessary to the investigation. I by subpoena or otherwise one the attendance and testimony of any person, including at a taking of deposition and to the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents, and double lie by interrogatory the furnishing of information.
B in the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to sub paragraph A.B, the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision. The question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision subject to the notice procedures for committee meetings under clause 2, G, 3, A and B of Rule Eleven. See subpoenas and interrogatories. So authorize may be signed by the ranking minority member and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
5 They're chairs authorized to make publicly available in electronic form their transcripts and depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee and furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information. Six, the Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and cereal's the permanent select committee may deem appropriate. With respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the chair shall transmit such reports and dependencies along with any supplemental minority additional or dissenting views file pursuant to clause to one of rule eleven to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information.
The report require about this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Section 3 Transmission of Additional Materials. The Chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized in consultation with the ranking minority member to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary Section for impeachment inquiry procedures in the Committee on the Judiciary.
The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to follow the participation of the President and his counsel.
B The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution. Provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with their procedures referenced in subsection A. The Rules Committee and the rules of the House. C one the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized with the concurrence of the Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary to require as deemed necessary to the investigation a by subpoena or otherwise by the attendance and testimony of any person, including at a taking of a deposition, and double by the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents, and b by interrogatory the furnishing of information to in the case that the chair declines to concur and a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph 1, the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision.
The question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2 G. 3 A M.B. of Rule Eleven. Three subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member d. The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives.
Such resolutions, articles of impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for one hour. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole. Pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. And let me say, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the professionalism that my friend from Oklahoma has demonstrated throughout this process. We don't see eye to eye on this impeachment inquiry, but he's always conducted himself with integrity and defended this institution.
And during consideration of this resolution all time yield, it is for the purposes of debate only. I ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
But that objection, Madam Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon, the Rules Committee marked up and favorably reported House Resolution 660 directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, president of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for our country. Over 230 years ago, when the founders of our country wrote the Constitution, they entrusted us with the gift of self-government.
But they knew the persistence of this gift was not assured. It may be taken for granted today, but having just shaken off a tyrant, the founders knew better. They understood that the very foundations of our country are dependent on safeguarding against one branch of government encroaching on the others. That's what the idea of checks and balances is all about within that system. The framers gave only this Congress the power, if need be, to impeach a president over possible wrongdoing.
This fact that no one is above the law is what separates this country from so many others because of its seriousness. The impeachment process has been rarely used for presidents for just the fourth time in our nation's history. Congress is now investigating whether to impeach a president of the United States. Our authority to do so under Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States and the rules of the House of Representatives is clear and the courts have recently agreed for all the disagreements I have with President Trump, for all his policies, his tweets and his rhetoric that I deeply disagree with.
I never wanted our country to reach this point. I do not take any pleasure in the need for this resolution. We are not here in some partisan exercise. We are here because the facts compel us to be here. There are there is serious evidence that President Trump may have violated the Constitution. This is about protecting our national security and safeguarding our elections. That's why the Intelligence Committee has been gathering evidence and hearing testimony. Like any investigation, reasonable confidentiality has been paramount.
Witnesses should not be able to coordinate testimony in advance. The truth must be allowed to prevail. Republicans have been a part of every single proceeding conducted so far. Republicans conducting these depositions along with their staffs have had an opportunity to question each and every witness. Now, Madam Speaker, we are entering the public facing phase of this process, and I commend the investigative committees and their staffs for the professional manner which they have conducted themselves. I'd also like to commend the courageous public servants that have bravely come forward to tell the truth without their courage.
This possible wrongdoing would never have seen the light of day. The public should not be left in the dark. They should see the facts about the president's conduct firsthand. That's why I introduced this resolution. It establishes the next steps of this inquiry, including establishing the procedure for public facing hearings conducted by the Intelligence Committee and the process for transferring evidence to the Judiciary Committee. It's about transparency and it's about due process for the president. Some on the other side will never be satisfied with any process that it covers the truth of what the president did.
Madam Speaker, none of us knows whether or not President Trump will be impeached or convicted. Only the facts and how we respond to them will dictate the outcome. But I truly believe that 100 years from now, historians will look back at this moment and judge us by the decisions we make here today. This moment calls for more than politics. It calls for people concerned not about the reactions of partisans today, but of the consequences of an action decades from now if we don't hold this president accountable.
We could be ceding our ability to hold any president accountable. And at the end of the day, this risk resolution is about Donald Trump. It isn't about any of us. It's about our constitution. It's about our country. And so I urge my colleagues to not just think about the political pressures of the moment these will pass. Please consider the heavy responsibility you have today to this institution. The Constitution and to our country. I reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from Oklahoma arise? Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such times. I may consider gentlemen recognized.
I want to begin by thanking my friend for his kind words and for the professionalism which he handled last night's hearing. But before I begin, Madam Speaker, I would ask the chairman if he would withdraw his resolution, at which time I will ask unanimous consent that the House immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6 6 8 instead, which provides for consideration of House Resolution 660 under a rule. Madam Speaker, this would in no way prevent consideration of the resolution before us.
Today, however, would provide us with an opportunity for all members to participate in the process. My proposed rule would provide for four hours of general debate on H.R. 6 6 0. Allow for amendments under an open process. And provide for a motion to recommit on an issue as important as this. Madam Speaker, one hour of debate on a resolution written in the dark of night and marked up in a process where no Republican amendments were accepted is simply insufficient.
Additionally, it would allow all members to offer amendments to improve the process to get to the truth, which I'm sure is the goal of all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
With that, I would ask the chairman to accept my request. Menu. I've certainly yield to my friend General Tackiness. No, I do not.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then I would ask unanimous consent. The debate time on the House Resolution 660 be expanded to four hours so every member could participate. Gentleman from Massachusetts has yielded our time for debate. Only the gentleman from Massachusetts would have to yield for this request.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In that case, I want to begin by echoing my friend's words. It's a sad day for all of us. For me personally, I'm sure for all of my colleagues on the Rules Committee and for the institution as a whole. Today's resolution sets forth a process for impeaching the president of the United States. It's not a fair process. It's not an open process. It's not a transparent process. But instead, it's limited and a closed process with a preordained outcome.
Impeachment of the president is one of the most consequential acts that the House of Representatives can do, and it should only be done after the fullest consideration. And yet, over the last month, without a vote and with only the speaker's say so. Committees have been engaged in a closed impeachment inquiry on what amounts to nothing more than a partisan fishing expedition. At least today, the majority is admitting what we know.
I have known all along that the House was not following an appropriate process for impeachment. But I do not think the process was setting forward. And this resolution is a fair one either. It's not fair to the president of the United States. It's not fair to the House of Representatives and it's not fair to the American people. The process laid out in the resolution before us is different from the process used for both President Nixon in 1974 and President Clinton in 1998.
Today's resolution provides fewer process protections and fewer protections for minority rights than what we've seen in previous impeachment efforts at our markup. Yesterday, Republicans tried to change that. We tried to offer constructive amendments that made the process more fair, that would give rights to the minority, that would give rights to the accused, and that would ensure due process for everyone.
Republicans offered 17 amendments and not one, not one. Madam Speaker was accepted, not one.
We offered amendments that would align the subpoena powers in this resolution with the subpoena powers used for President Clinton. Unlike the Clinton inquiry, today's resolution does not provide for co-equal subpoenas power.
Instead, it grants the minority the right to subpoena witnesses materials. Only with the concurrence of the chair, with no such limitation on the rights of the chair to issue subpoenas, we offered amendments that would change that. But the majority rejected both of them. Each of them in turn.
We offered an amendment that would allow all members the right to fully access committee records. This is common sense. If you're doing something as serious as impeaching the president, then members should have the right to see what records the committee produced so that they will know what they're voting on. Yet the majority rejected that. We offered an amendment that would require the chairman of the Rules Committee to promulgate procedures to allow for the participation of the president and his counsel in proceedings of the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee.
This right was granted to President Clinton in 1998. Yet it's not present here. And the majority again rejected the amendment. I think the difference is clear. Today's resolution fails to give the minority the same rights as were present during the Clinton impeachment, and it fails to offer the same due process protections that were given to Presidents Nixon and Clinton. And in the latter case, I note those rights were given by a Republican House to a Democratic president. Today's resolution shows a Democratic House failing to give these same protections to a Republican president.
Madam Speaker, the unfairness is clear. This is not a fair process, nor was it ever intended to be.
It was preordained from the beginning without due process and without a fair process of respect. Minority rights. I do not believe the American people regard will regard this process as legitimate. A legitimate process is one that offers protections for everyone involved. And without those protections. This will be seen as just another partisan exercise. One the majority has been pushing since the very first first days of the 116 Congress. We can do better than that. Madam Speaker, the rules committee should have done better than this.
But since the Rules Committee didn't the House from us and with that, Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the measure and reserve the balance of my time.
Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from. The said. Manage speaker, let me just say briefly that this resolution provides better protections for the president than what Presidents Nixon and Clinton received. And just like under Nixon and Clinton in the Judiciary Committee, the president's counsel can submit additional testimony or evidence for the committee to consider. The president is and his counsel can attend all hearings and raised objections. They can question any witness just going is going beyond Nixon and Clinton. This resolution allows the president's counsel to ask questions at the presentation of evidence.
Under our procedures, the ranking minority members of the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee may issue subpoenas if authorized by the committee by a committee vote. These are the same subpoena powers that the ranking minority member was given during Clinton and Nixon. Our resolution allows for greater member participation than under past impeachment procedure procedures, including a robust process for the minority to propose witnesses and even issue subpoenas if authorized by committees. And let me just say, I think the fact of the matter is, I don't think there is any process that we can propose that Republicans who prefer to circle the wagons around this president and prevent us from getting to the truth would accept.
I ask unanimous commitment, unanimous consent to insert into the record H. RES S. 81 from the hundred fifth Congress. The Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution that contains the same minority subpoena powers as a resolution. Objection. I also ask unanimous consent to insert in the record h res aido 3 when the 93 Congress the Nixon impeachment inquiry resolution which also contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution. Objections. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from New Mexico, the assistance speaker.
Mr. lou-ann chairman is.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution on the floor. We're here today because of the rule of law.
This resolution, the inquiry is Congress upholding the oath. We pledge to the Constitution. We're here because of the president. His actions, his jeopardizing our national security for his own political gain. We're here because we know the White House and the president admitted that President Trump used the power of the presidency to pressure and strong arm the president of a foreign country for his political gain. He called it a favor. Do us a favor, he said. But it wasn't a favor.
It was a coordinated attempt to undermine the rule of law because of those actions. Congress is compelled to be here to uphold the rule of law, to make sure Americans hear the truth. To say that no one, not even a president, can abuse the system without fair and just consequences. I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield to managed to distinguish ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, my good friend Mr. Nunez from California. Gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
I want to thank the gentleman. We are not here to run a show trial in an effort to impeach the president, United States. It's clear that since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, they have always intended to transform the Intelligence Committee into the impeachment committee. Every one of their actions from the staff they hire to the Trump conspiracy theories, they investigate their willful neglect of our basic oversight duties demonstrates that this has been their plan from day one.
And now this is further confirmed by the adoption of these rules, which simply gives the House approval for the Intelligence Committee Democrats to continue pursuing their bizarre obsession with overturning the results of the last presidential election. Nevertheless, after spending three years trying to manufacture a crime they can attribute to President Trump. They've come up empty. First, they insisted that the president is a Russian agent. Then they claimed he's a money launderer and a tax cheat and a fraudulent businessman.
And now they've decided they don't like the way he talks to foreign leaders. But they have no evidence and no argument to support impeachment. All they have is the unconditional cooperation of the media and their advance to advance their preposterous narrative. If they had a real case, they wouldn't be wasting time spoon feeding, ridiculous attacks that include defamation and slander on both current and former Republican staff of the Intelligence Committee. What we're seeing among Democrats on the Intelligence Committee is down in the skiff right now is like a cult.
These are a group of people loyally following their leader as he bounces from one outlandish conspiracy theory to another. And the media are the cult followers permanently stationed outside this committee spaces, pretending to take everything seriously because they, too, support the goal of removing the president from office. Gentlemen's time regardless of the Germans. Time's expired. I yield the gentlemen 15 seconds to close. Germans recognized. After today, the House Intelligence Committee ceases to exist. Oversight is not being done.
And we now have a full fledged impeachment committee in the basement of the Capitol. Think about that, America, and I'll yield back the balance of my Tianamen yells back.
Gentleman from Massachusetts Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from Maryland, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Raskin.
Gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House impeachment inquiry has discovered a substantial body of evidence that the president, the United States, has violated the Constitution by placing his political interests above the interests of the country, thereby putting both our democracy and the nation's security in jeopardy. In light of this evidence, the House of Representatives must fully investigate. We have sworn a sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We will honor our oath by countering all high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the American people and our Constitution. Today's resolution sets the table for the next phase of the inquiry. This phase includes open hearings led by the Intelligence Committee to allow the American people to hear from witnesses who have personal knowledge of the president's actions. Relevant materials will then be transferred to the Judiciary Committee. So we may fulfill our solemn in time honored duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.
The majority has conducted hearings up to this point in to scrupulously bipartisan way, giving professional staff counsel for both the majority in the minority precisely equal time to question witnesses and equal opportunities for members of the majority in the minority to question them, too. Despite. Gentlemen, I yield Germany's show 20 seconds, gentlemen, seconds. We will afford the president all the due process protections that were afforded to his predecessors in a similar situation. That includes the ability to attend hearings, question witnesses and submitted and submit evidence.
As recently as Friday, the federal courts have reaffirmed that the House is the sole judge of impeachment. And we set the rules here. These rules are fair and strong and we'll make sure that we can and we will defend the Constitution of the United States. The gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield two minutes to my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Mr. Jordan from Ohio. The gentleman is recognized for two men.
I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker, trying to put a ribbon on a sham process. Does it make it any less of a sham? Never forget how this whole thing started. Democrats are trying to impeach the president of the United States 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who has a bias against the president, who worked with senator or excuse me. Vice President Biden the day after the now famous phone call between President Trump and President Zelinski.
The so-called whistleblower gets a read out from somebody on that call, writes a memo in the memo he uses terms like this call was scary, frightening. But what does he do waits 18 days before he filed a complaint? And who's the first person he goes to see? The first people he goes to see in that 18 day timeframe? Chairman Shift staff. Chairman Shift staff, 435 members of Congress, only one individual, one member of this body knows who this person is who started this whole darn crazy process chairmanship and what's this resolution do gives them even more power to run this secret proceeding in a bunker in the basement of the Capitol.
This resolution continues the unfair and partisan process just two days ago, two days ago, we were prevented from having the witness answer our questions in one of these depositions. And this resolution is going to give more power to the person who made that decision in the bunker in the basement of the capital.
We are less than 13 months before the next election. Americans understand that this is unfair, Americans get fairness, they instinctively know this is unfair and partisan process. They will see how unfair and partisan is today when the vote happens on the floor of this House. We can do a lot better than this. We can do a lot better than this. The American people see through it. I urge a no vote on this resolution and I thank the gentleman on the Rules Committee for his work and his leadership.
With that, I yield back gentleman yields back gentleman from Massachusetts. And then this week, I like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record in New York Times article titled Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine call reporting concerns in which Colonel Alexander Venkman, an Army officer who was on the call, said, and I quote, I do not think it was properly demanded a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and quote, this would all undermine U.S. national security.
I feel one minute to the gentleman from South Carolina, the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, Gentlemans recognized for my comments big enough.
Thank you for your limited time. Over the last month, the impeachment inquiry has built a powerful body of evidence around President Trump's call with prisoners, Zaleski of Ukraine. When he told the foreign leader, I'd like you to do us a favor, though we've learned so much about that call and thinks that followed it because some dedicated public servants have demonstrated their pitches them to this great country by coming forward and testifying and given us the information as they know it.
These brave patriots have been called to Rayo radical unelected bureaucrats. Ibid been called that by a group of people who Thomas Pande would call some US soldiers and sunshine patriots. He warned us that these people will come forward in a crisis shrink from the service of country. But he stands it now deserves a love and thanks of man and woman for tearing it like hell is not easily conquered. Yet we had this conflict with us, the heart of the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
We are here today because brave, dedicated public servants and patriots are standing up for their country. Gentlemen from Oklahoma, thank you very much. House Speaker, I recognized my good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for two minutes.
Gentleman is recognized her two minutes. And I thank the gentleman for yielding yesterday. Rules Committee reported an impeachment resolution that was hastily drafted without Republican input. And just 24 hours notice for review last night, we offered on the Republican side 17 amendments. Unsurprisingly, none were adopted, despite assurances that all members will have access to materials supporting the articles of impeachment. To date, Chairman Schiff has ignored 72 bipartisan requests to view Ambassador Volcker's transcript. But pursuant to clause to Rule 11, Clause 2 E-2 committee records are the property of the House.
So does members of the House should have access? Last night, the Rules Committee was stated that perhaps Republicans were not requesting the information at the right time. So you have to ask when is the right time to view, to ask, to view our own House records? Republicans requested an authorizing vote and now we will have one. However, this process has not been open and transparent, and it diverts from precedent set in the two most recent presidential impeachment investigations as a result.
This investigation will be conducted with no minority input. A presidential pitchman investigation is a national trauma. All members must take this constitutionally vested power seriously. And Americans deserve to be represented in this process. Unfortunately, neither serious nor equal consideration nor full access to records appear to be criteria under which the Democrats are willing to conduct this investigation. That is a shame and it renders this process a sham.
I yield back gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I'm proud to you. One minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Miss Scanlon generally is recognized for one minute.
I take no joy in contemplating the impeachment of a president, because in contemplating it, we must acknowledge a threat to our Constitution and the values that bind us, not only as members of Congress, but as Americans. We've tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of serious allegations of misconduct so that we can deliver the truth to the American people. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence only to be stonewalled. The president's defenders have tried to distract the American people by falsely claiming to have been excluded from the investigation.
While their stunts and smears have hindered the constitutional process. This resolution outlines ground rules for the House as we move forward, granting the same or greater due process rights to the president and the minority as they themselves drafted when they were in the majority. We will have open hearings. They can question witnesses, they can propose subpoenas. They can present evidence. I am proud to sponsor this resolution. Our constitution requires it and our democracy depends on it. And with that, I yield back.
Gentlemen from Oklahoma. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, I yield to manage to my good friend whose fingers Republican ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee from state of Georgia. Mr. Collins. Gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
Think about a speaker, no matter what is said by the other side today. This is a dark day and a cloud has fallen on this house. It has been falling for 10 months and it is showing itself today. What we are seeing is this if the gentleman who is my friend of mine from the Rules Committee would actually want to talk about. Are these the same rules as Clinton and Nixon, then we would have had a much longer period of debate because he knows and I know it is not.
There are similarities. Some better, some not. But they are not the same. Let's get that out of way first. The problem I'm having here is the resolution before us today is not about transparency. It's about control. It's not about fairness, about winning. It's about following the facts. This resolution is about delivering results. You know how I know this, because the resolution gives no proper way for how these abilities or transferring of documents from the Intel Committee to Judiciary Committee will happen.
Does it even give a timeframe? And I've heard a lot of discussion today about maybe we didn't know how to properly ask last night and rules. Maybe I'll guarantee you my staff and I know how to properly use rule 11:02 A to ask for information. We're told yesterday by committee, one of the committees that we couldn't have access that because the parliamentarian said we could. And that's just false and needs to stop. This house is developing and shredding procedures every day.
And if members on the minority or the majority cannot have the rise that they were given, then we're in a sad situation. And in fact, the haste to put this together, they didn't give an example as was done in Clinton and Nixon. The rule, 7:49, we didn't exempt it out. Even in those two impeachments, it was known that maybe we don't let every member come see this while this is going on. We didn't make zip it during this time.
We were so hurry to impeach this president. We don't really give a darn about the rules. But here's my biggest concern as ranking member, the Judiciary Committee. I have a question. We've been here 200 plus years as a committee and our committee has been neutered. Our committee who handles impeachment? We're the reason in that committee. That's our jurisdiction. We have been completely sidelined. Our chairman and others have been sidelined. So I have been silent.
It is so bad that they had to have the rules committee. Right. The presidential due process and give it to us. This is not right.
I wish you gentlemen an additional 15 seconds.
The Germans recognize I do not know what happened to our committee, but we still exist. Due process only kicks Senate Judiciary for the president. It does not kicked in in the closed door. Secret hearings of Adam Schiff. This is a travesty. No one should vote for this. This is a sad day. The curtain is coming down on this house because the majority has no idea about process and procedure. There simply after a president, I yield back.
Gentleman from Massachusetts, Madam Speaker, I get it, my friends. The other side, the I want to talk about process, process, process. But it's interesting that not one of them wants to talk about the president's conduct. And that speaks volumes at this time. I would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from Florida, another distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings.
Chairman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, Chairman. And I think ranking member of Cole for the manner in which you all are shepherding us all through this difficult process. Madam Speaker, it's time for the American people to see how the administration put our national security on the auction block in exchange for political favors. At the heart of this scandal is the White House's decision to slam the brakes on nearly 400 million dollars of merely military aid for Ukraine, military aid for a vital partner, military aid that was desperately needed to beat back Russian aggression, military aid that was key to our own national security and essential in keeping an adversary at bay.
We know what our Ukrainian friends all thought about this. They were horrified. The facts are clear. I'll talk. National security experts viewed it as a grave and dangerous mistake. And as we've seen time and time again from the Trump administration, this decision played right into Vladimir Putin's hands.
The Germans for 20 seconds, gentlemen, tracking support, pushing ahead with this inquiry because I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against America's enemies. The American people deserve the facts about how this abuse of power betrayed our national security and put our country at risk.
German yields back gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Before I proceed to you myself, such time as I may consume, quickly respond, my friend, Mr. McGovern. We're debating process here because that's what this is. This is a process resolution to impeach the president of the United States and accept a single amendment last night. You didn't confer with us when you did it. So that's why we're talking process. It's an unfair process.
With that, I yield to my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee, distinguished lady from Arizona, Miss Lesko, two men I like it generally is recognized for two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, Representative Cole, for yielding this impeachment process is a total sham. This resolution, which seeks to legitimize it, misleads the American public. Section 2 of this bill is titled The Open and Transparent Investigative Proceedings by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But the process set forth in this resolution is far from open and far from transparent. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The resolution continues the closed door meetings that blocks entry to members of Congress and prohibits the president's due process rights.
And it merely authorizes, but does not require Chairman Shift to make transcripts public. Last night, Republicans offered 17 amendments to add some fairness into the process, but Democrats rejected them all. I had an amendment to ensure minority witnesses could call an equal number of witnesses, as the majority Democrats said no. I had amendment to require the Intel chairman to turn over exculpatory mirit materials to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats shot it down. I had amendment to give ranking members of the Senate the same authority as chairman to submit materials to the Judiciary Committee.
Democrats rejected that, too. The process set forth by this resolution by awaits basic standards of fairness. I urge opposition to this resolution and I yield back the balance of my time. Gentle lady spec gentleman from Massachusetts this week. Are you myself? 10 seconds. Gentlemans recognized the journalist. He wants to talk about a sham process. Let's talk about a sham process instead of respecting the constitutional authority of the House of Representatives. The White House has obstructed our investigation, ignored our deal.
You are duly authorized subpoenas, withheld key documents, prevented witnesses from testifying and intimidated witnesses. They have tried to disparage members of Congress. I yield myself an additional five seconds. And who are trying to disparage members of Congress who are trying to fulfill their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States. Article 1 of the Constitution gives the House the right to investigate the president. And we are taking our responsibility seriously. Madam Speaker, I like to yield one minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Democratic caucus.
Mr. Jeffries, chairman, is recognized for one minute. The House impeachment inquiry is about abuse of power. It's about betrayal. It's about corruption. It's about national security. It's about the undermining of our elections. It's about defending our democracy for the people. The House is a separate and co-equal branch of government. We don't work for this president or any president. We work for the American people. We have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch.
Our job is to ask difficult questions on behalf of the American people. What we are doing right here is consistent with the words of James Madison, who in Federalist 51 said the House should be a rival to the executive branch. Why did Madison use the word rival? The founders didn't want a king. They didn't want a dictator. They didn't want a monarch. They wanted a democracy. And that is exactly what we are defending right now. No one is above the law.
Gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I yield two minutes to my good friend. Distinguished conference chair for the Republican Party, Liz Cheney from Wyoming. Gentle lady is recognized for two minutes.
Thank you very much. And thank you to our Republican leader, the rules committee for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning already. A desire and desperation almost on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the nation take this body seriously. Then then they need to start acting like they take themselves seriously. Madam Speaker, when we are here gathered, discussing this most grave and solemn obligation we have addressing impeachment.
We know, Madam Speaker, what a serious process would look like. We have seen it before. We have seen members on both sides of this aisle in the past when we've been engaged in the impeachment of a president act in a way that is serious, reflects the dignity of this body and reflects the importance of the constitution. That is the opposite. Madam Speaker, of what we have seen so far, no matter what my colleagues say about this legislation, no matter what my colleagues say about the process they've been engaged in to date, it is absolutely the case that it has been a secret process that has denied rights to the minority that is involved leaking selectively things that the majority would like to have leaked in which rights have absolutely been denied.
And they cannot fix that. They cannot fix what has been a tainted record and a tainted process by now suddenly pretending they're opening it up. And Madam Speaker, let me say one other thing. Every time I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about efforts to somehow undermine national security for political gain, I can't help but think about what they are doing precisely this morning. When we are facing the threats we are facing as a nation.
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff and others, take what is arguably the single most important national security committee in this body. The House Intelligence Committee, and they tell the House Intelligence Committee, turn away from those threats, do not focus on oversight, do not focus on the challenges we face. And instead, we are going to consume you in a political partisan process to impeach the president of the United States.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle will be held accountable by history to what they are doing.
You'll the gentlelady. An additional 15 seconds to closure, Madam Speaker. They will be held accountable by history for what they are doing. They have absolutely no right to talk about threats to this nation if they are diverting the full attention, resources and focus of the House Intelligence Committee onto a sham political process run by Chairman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. And gentleman back in that time expired. Chairman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield one minute to the gentleman from Florida, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Michele Ala.
Gentleman is recognized for one minute, Madam Speaker, having been through this before. I know how painful impeachment investigations can be. I also know that I'm not alone in saying that supporting this continuing inquiry is not a decision that any of us makes lightly. None of us, as we ever hope to consider investigating our own president for compromising our national security and obstructing justice regardless of political ideology. We all understand our constitutional duty. It's with profound sadness and disappointment that we have to continue this investigation.
The accusations the House is investigating go straight to the heart of our Constitution. Our constitution endows us with not only the authority, but also the duty to hold our colleagues in the federal government accountable if they fail to act in the best interests of our nation. I don't think anyone here believes that domestic politics should interfere with foreign policy. I hope we will all vote to continue this investigation simply so that we can be clear on all the facts. More than anything, I'm confident that all of us possess a capacity for fairness and a commitment to doing what is right for the country we love.
I yield back gentleman from Oklahoma.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Are you one minute to my good friend, distinguished Republican ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Brady from Texas is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The impeachment and removal of the president is a serious matter at its heart. It lets a small partisan group in Washington overturn the will of the entire American people. Above all, Americans believe in fairness. And when accused the right to due process, this sham and peach meant offers neither. It's secret, it's partisan. It's being conducted behind closed doors to hide information from the American people, all with one goal in mind. Take down President Trump by any means necessary.
I will not legitimize this unprecedented, an unfair charade with this vote. Today, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff long ago abandoned the due process and fairness that was guaranteed during the Clinton impeachment. I know because I was here in Congress forced. There is simply no cause for this impeachment inquiry. None. And it's shameful to create a constitutional crisis for purely partisan reasons.
I yield back dairyman knows back gentleman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield. Two minutes to the gentleman from California. The distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Shift, gentlemen is recognized for two minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 6 6 0. I rise in strong support, but I do not take any pleasure in the events that have made this process necessary. I rise in strong support of the resolution, but I do so with an understanding that the task before us is a solemn one. How each member of this chamber approaches the vote this morning and the days and weeks ahead may be the most important service as members of Congress we will ever pay to the country and constitution that we all love and have pledged to defend.
For the past several weeks, Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee in the Foreign Affairs Committee have engaged in an intensive investigation that work which has been conducted with equal opportunities for both parties to question witnesses. As I added a great deal to our understanding of the president's conduct as evident in the July 25 call record and the events that both preceded and followed that call. That work has necessarily occurred behind closed doors because we have had the task of finding the facts ourselves without the benefit of the investigation that the Justice Department declined to undertake.
Despite attempts to obstruct, we have interviewed numerous witnesses. We have provided important testimony about the efforts to secure political favors from Ukraine, who have provided important testimony about the efforts to secure political favors from Ukraine. We have reviewed text messages among key players which show how securing political investigations was placed at the forefront of our foreign policy towards Ukraine. This resolution sets the stage for the next phase of our investigation, one in which the American people will have the opportunity to hear from the witnesses firsthand.
We will continue conduct this entire inquiry with the seriousness of purpose that our task deserves because it is our duty and because no one is above the law. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the resolution and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Oklahoma.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield one minute to my good friend from the great state of Texas, Mr. Babbin. Gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you.
What began with a rallying cry of we're going to impeach the EXPLETIVE DELETED to a crowd of liberal activists and young children by my colleague from Michigan on the very first day of this new Congress is now the majority's flagship initiative. What a shame and what a waste of time and the people's house.
My view, our president was doing his job ensuring that if taxpayer dollars for my constituents and yours was going to the other side of the world, that it would be paired with a commitment to crack down on corruption at all levels, no matter who someone's daddy is or what their political ambitions are. I think we all know that this was inevitable from the moment Donald J. Trump was elected. The ends of harassment and impeachment have just been waiting for the means and they think that they've found them.
There is, however, one small measure we can take as one house to bring a shred of dignity to these disgraceful proceedings. I can stand to be counted. We can stand and be counted one by one and announce our yay or nay with a vote by call of the roll that even.
Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, is time's expired. Gentleman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from California, the speaker. Ms. Pelosi.
Gentlelady is recognized for one minute. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Adam Speaker, thank you for the recognition. I want you to begin my remarks by some of the most beautiful words in our country's history. We the people, the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to other selves and to our pross, their posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.
It goes on immediately to establish Article 1, the legislative branch. Article 2, the executive branch. Article 3, the judiciary. The Genius of the Constitution. A Separation of Powers. Three co-equal branches of government. To be a check. And balance on each other. And just to that, that we take the oath of office, we gather here on that opening day with our families gather round. To proudly raise our hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
And that is exactly what we are doing today. Sadly, this is not any cause for any glee. Comfort. This is something that is very solemn. That is something prayerful and that we had to gather so much information to take us to this next step. Again, this is a solemn occasion. Nobody I doubt anybody in this place or anybody that, you know, comes to Congress to take the oath of office, comes to Congress to impeach the president of the United States unless.
His actions are jeopardizing our honoring our oath of office. So I'm grateful to our committee chairs for all of the careful and thoughtful investigation they had been doing. As this inquiry has proceeded. And today, the House takes the next step forward as we establish the procedures for open hearings conducted by the House Intelligence Committee so that the public can see the facts for themselves. This resolution ensures transparency, advancing public disclosure of deposition transcripts and outlining the procedures for the transfer of evidence to the fishery committee to use in its proceedings.
It enables effective public hearings, setting out procedures for the questioning of witnesses and continuing the precedent of giving the minority the same rights and questioning witnesses as the majority, which has been true at every step of this inquiry. Despite what you might hear fulminating there, it provides the president and his counsel opportunities to participate, including presenting his case, submitting requests for testimony, attending hearings, raising objections to testimony, giving, given cross, examining witnesses and more.
And contrary to what you may have heard today, we give more opportunity. To the to his case, then was given to other presidents before. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making that point so clearly. And these actions, this process, these open hearings, seeking the truth and making it available to the American people will inform Congress on the very difficult decisions we will have to make in the future as to whether to impeach the president. That decision has not been made.
That's what the inquiry will pursue. It will investigate. And then we can make the decision based on the truth. I don't know why the Republicans are afraid of the truth. Every member should support allowing the American people to hear the facts for themselves. This that is really what this vote is about, what it's about the truth and what is at stake. What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy. I proudly stand next to the flag and I thank the gentleman from New York for providing it for us.
This flag. So many have fought and died for this flag, which stands for our democracy. When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall heard this over and over.
On September 17th, 1787, the day our Constitution was adopted, he came out of Independence Hall. People said to him, Dr. Franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or a republic?
And he said, as you know, he said, a republic, if we can keep it. If we can't keep it. And this constitution. Is the blueprint for our republic and not a monarchy. But when we have a president who says Article 2 says, I can do whatever I want, that is in defiance of the separation of powers. That's not what our Constitution says. So what is at stake is our democracy. What are we fighting for?
Defending our democracy for the people. You know that at in the early days of of our revolution, Thomas Paine said the times have found us. The Times found our founders to declare independence from a monarchy, to fight a war of independence, when to right our our founding documents. And thank God they made amendable so that we can always be expanding freedom. And the genius, again, the genius of that constitution was the separation of powers. Any usurping of that power is a violation of our oath of office.
So proudly you all we all raised our hand to protect and defend support the Constitution of the United States. That's what this vote is about today, we think. The times sound our founders. The Times have found others in the course of our history to protect our democracy, to keep our country united. The times have found each and every one of us in this room and in our country to pay attention to how we protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Honoring the vision of our founders who declared independence from a monarch and established a country contrary to that principle, honoring the men and women in uniform who fight for our flag and for our freedom and for our democracy.
And honoring the aspirations of our children so that no president, maybe whoever he or she may be in the future, could decide that Article 2 says they can do whatever they want. Again, let us honor our oath of office. Let us defend our democracy. Let us have a good vote today and have clarity. Clarity as to how we proceed, why we proceed. And again, doing so in a way that honors the Constitution. We must honor the Constitution and how we do this, we must respect the institution we serve and we must heed the further words of our founders.
E Pluribus Unum from many, one. They didn't know how many or how different we would be, but they knew that we needed to always be unifying. So hopefully, as we go forward with this for the clarity of purpose, a clarity of procedure. A clarity of fact, a clarity of truth about the truth. It's about the Constitution. We will do so in a way that brings people together that is healing rather than dividing. And that is how we will honor our oath of office.
I urge and I vote and your back the balance of my time.
Gentlemen from Oklahoma. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to my good friend, distinguished gentleman from Texas and the ranking Republican member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. McCall JAMA is recognized for two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd also argue that Article 1 does not say you can do whatever you want to do. And the Constitution says that in our founding fathers said that as well. And for 38 days, I have objected to this impeachment probe because it denies due process, fundamental transparency and basic fairness to Republicans. The White House and the American people from day one, Democrats have ignored the rules and 45 years of historic impeachment precedent without any authorization.
Adam Schiff has conducted a secret probe outside of his committee's jurisdiction. He has blocked us from calling our own witnesses, his witnesses or being interviewed behind closed doors in the most secretive room in the United States Capitol. That is not democracy. He is muzzled Republicans. I've been in the room placing a gag order on depositions while leaking cherry picked facts to the press. He refuses to even allow us to read the transcripts without being babysat by a Democrat staffer.
He's refused to let what is here from the most important witness who brought this entire thing. The whistleblower, he is barred White House counsel from any participation. And now, 38 days into the Democrats rush to impeachment. Speaker Pelosi claims she wants to establish rules and transparency. You cannot make your game fair by allowing the opposing team onto the field at the two minute warning. The bipartisan precedents from Nixon and Clinton still must be followed, and they are not being followed under this resolution.
The White House counsel remains shut out of this process. This is unacceptable. Only three times in our nation's history. Has Congress exercised its great power of impeachment. Our founding fathers in Federalist Papers, number 65, Alexander Hamilton, warned us of abusing this power because they saw a future Congress yield abusing gentlemen.
An additional 15 seconds. They they foresaw a Congress. At one point in history, abusing this process for partisan political gain. So instead of overturning an entire election with a partisan weapon, we should just allow the American people to vote.
jamas times agree with that in Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from California, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee mysteries.
Kennedy is recognized for one minute. Does he have a minute? Yes. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 660. Impeachment is not something that we take lightly. But when the president endangers our national security, he gives us no other choice. We now know from Trump's own call record that he pressured a foreign government to interfere in our elections and investigate his political opponents. We now know that Trump's potentially sought to apply leverage on Ukraine first with a coveted White House meeting.
Second, by withholding security assistance to fend off Russian aggression. Today's resolution allows us to present these facts in a clear, professional and fair way. I urge passage of H.R. 660 so the American people can to learn the truth. And I yield back. Gentleman from Oklahoma.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, distinguished gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Biggs is recognized for 30 seconds.
Thank you. I've heard today how much my colleagues on the other side wish to make this an open, transparent process. And this is for we the people. And I would really like to believe that. And yet after they introduced the resolution, they have another weeks full of hearings behind closed doors and they schedule another week for full hearing, buying closed doors. If this is about transparency, then open it up. If you want the American people to see it, open it up.
Give members access to the transcripts. Let the media into the room. Let us participate. Failing to do so denies transparency. Who saves the light?
What you're saying? One minute to the gentleman from California, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. De Sonya Chairmen's, recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in strong support of this resolution from the very start of this inquiry. The White House has obstructed the House of Representatives. The White House has completely ignored, duly authorized subpoenas and has tried to prevent witnesses from testifying. The White House has also directed other agencies to do the same. The Department of State, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget all have refused to produce a single document in response to valid subpoenas.
This is an unprecedented cover up in the White House and its defenders in Congress have tried to justify it with baseless procedural claims that contradict the Constitution and historical precedent. History will judge us all. After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to focus on process instead of substance. After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to ignore the facts and instead of defending the Constitution. And there are no more excuses for those who turn a blind eye by the president, pressures foreign actors to interfere with our democracy.
A You back the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
I have a speaker on the way. So I'm going to reserve for the moment, if I may. Gentleman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I yield one minute. The gentleman from New York, another distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Morelli.
Gentleman is recognized for one minute. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 6 6 0. I am deeply troubled that this process has become necessary at all. But we have no choice. We must continue to investigate alarming allegations of misconduct by the president, and we continue with a public process through which all Americans will have the ability to access and to assess the evidence. This has been and will continue to be a fair and sober inquiry.
Members on both sides will continue to have the opportunity to quick question witnesses, seek evidence and refute testimony presented during these proceedings. Indeed, the president will have strong protections as we weigh the evidence during our deliberations. Our only goal is uncovering the truth. Did the president pressure Ukrainian leaders with the threat of withholding critical military assistance in order to serve his political interests? Has the president endangered American interests abroad by engaging in domestic political intrigue? These are serious issues, not of politics, but of national security.
This inquiry is our solemn obligation, but it is our obligation nonetheless. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, swear up, uphold our oath to the Constitution and preserve a transparent process. I have experience from Oklahoma. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I yield three minutes to the distinguished whip of the House Republican Conference. My good friend from Louisiana, Mr. Scalisi, gentlemen, is recognized for three minutes.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank my colleague, Mr. Cole, for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
Unfortunately, we've seen since the day that President Trump was inaugurated, there been some people that made it public that they wanted to impeach him, not because they're high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the constitutional standard, but just because they don't agree with the results of the 2016 election. That, Madam Speaker, is not why you impeached president. There is precedent. This has only happened three times in the history of our country. Every time it not only started with a full vote of the House, but it also started with actual fairness.
We're not getting that fairness today. When you look through this resolution in multiple places, it gives veto authority by the chair to literally reject any witness that's brought forward by the minority. So no rights for the minority unless the chair so designates. In fact, in this resolution, it allows the chair to veto even the ability for the president to have legal counsel in the room if the chair chooses at his whim. They can literally kick out the president's legal counsel.
This is unprecedented. It's not only unprecedented. This is Soviet style rules. Maybe in the Soviet Union, you do things like this where only you make the rules, where you reject the ability for the person you're accusing. To even be in the room to question what's going on. For anybody else to call witnesses when only one person has the right to call witnesses. And as we saw just the other day, the chairman was literally directing the witness to not answer certain questions by the Republicans.
What kind of fairness is that? Maybe you think it's fairness if you can run roughshod over somebody because you've got the votes. But that's not how impeachment was supposed to go. In fact, Alexander Hamilton himself during the debate on the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned of days like this. And I quote, The greatest danger is that the decision on impeachment will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
Alexander Hamilton warned about days like today, this is not what we should be doing. Clearly, when you last the American people who know that they're paying higher drug prices and they see that there's legislation, bipartisan legislation to lower drug prices that won't come to this floor because of the infatuation with impeachment, we don't even have a bill to formally pay our troops and make sure they have the tools they need to defend this country because there's such an infatuation with impeachment.
Madam Speaker, when you look through this resolution and you see how one sided, how soviet-style this is running, this is the United States of America, don't run a sham process. A tainted process like this resolution ensures it ought to be rejected. And any bipartisan rejection of this resolution an ideal back the balance of my time.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Judiciary, Mr. Never Gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
Yeah, but I mean, we got a point in consume. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I support this resolution because it is the solemn duty of the Congress to investigate the serious allegations against the president. I support this resolution because it is indefensible for any official to demand that an ally, one, depending on our support in an existential struggle with Russia, investigate his or her political adversaries. I support this resolution because no person, Republican or Democrat, should be permitted to jeopardize America's security and reputation for self-serving political purposes.
I support this resolution because if after a fair and thorough inquiry, the allegations against President Trump are found to be true, they would represent the profound offense against the Constitution and the people of this country. I support this resolution because I believe it is the duty of this House to vindicate the Constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public trust placed in him or her. I support this resolution, not because I want the allegations to be true.
They saddened me deeply, but because if they are true, the Constitution demands that we take action. I support this resolution because it lays the groundwork for open hearings. The House and the American public must see all of the evidence for themselves. I support this resolution because I know we must overcome this difficult moment for the nation. This resolution is necessary to ensure that our constitutional order remains intact for future generations. I support this resolution because we have no choice.
I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Oklahoma.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to reserve my time as we're waiting for Speaker 2 to come in research.
Gentleman from Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Angle. Gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr.. I thank the gentleman and rise to support moving forward to the next open phase of this impeachment inquiry so that the American people can hear from witnesses, see the evidence and understand the troubling story of what's taken place in this administration. As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my priorities are supporting American diplomats and diplomacy.
Working with partners and allies and ensuring that our foreign policy advances America's interests. This administration has unfortunately undermined all those priorities since its first day. But in the last month, we've learned more and more about just how deep this goes. The facts are clear. The White House launched the shadow foreign policy that circumvented and undermined our normal diplomatic channels. A distinguished career ambassador was publicly smeared and pushed aside critical military aid for Ukraine. A valued partner locked in a life or death struggle against Russia was blocked.
That the goal, not some foreign policy priority, not an effort to make our country safer or stronger. Quite the opposite as delaying these resources hurt Ukraine and directly benefited Vladimir Putin. Why, then, to pressure a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 elections? It's what the framers feared most. The president's own words say it best from the record of a call with President Zelinsky as he sought the tools to push back against Russia. Mr Trump's answer I'd like you to do us a favor, though.
Since that first damning piece of evidence came to light, the Intelligence Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees have worked to fill in the pieces of the puzzle, thanks to the courage of public servants who obey the law and testified even in the face of bullying and intimidation from the administration of ugly, baseless smears from the president's allies. And I condemn the shameful efforts to identify and harass the whistleblower whose life may be jeopardized for coming forward to tell the truth. His times.
I salute all those patriots and I salute my fellow that he shares. I heard Mr Chavern from Ownby's Maloney and the late Mr Cummings.
The Gentleman Gentleman from Oklahoma, Gem and Reserves, gentleman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services. Ms.
Waters generally is recognized for one minute. And we thank you, Chairman McGovern. I rise in support of H. Red sic 60p and the process that set forth within by which the impeachment inquiry will continue to be conducted. To be clear, contrary to what these desperate Republicans have claimed, the Constitution imposes no requirement that a procedure Regin resolution such as H raise six is to be voted on by the House. Claiming otherwise is but a fabrication meant to distract from the mountain of growing evidence that demonstrates this president abused his power for personal benefit.
However, while not necessary, this resolution provides for impartial procedures similar to those used during the past impeachment proceedings because the Republicans requested a formal procedural vote. I expect nothing less than their full support, but h read 660. Anything less would be shameful. As chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, we have been conducting credible investigations into the conduct of this administration and this work will continue in the manner outlined by H 60. I look forward to Democrats and Republicans alike prioritizing country over party jarheads.
We thought an oath to do.
Voting in favor of generally 6/6 Jeff. Gentleman from Massachusetts. Gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Madam Speaker, your one minute to the gentleman from California. Mr Swan. Swalwell.
Gentleman is recognized for one minute. I would like you to do us a favor, though. President Trump said those 10 words on July 25 to Ukraine's president before asking the Ukrainian president to investigate a potential political opponent for the past month. The Intelligence Committee has led an investigation into what happened around that phone call in this early investigative stage. We have heard powerful corroborating evidence that President Trump led an extortion shakedown scheme over the Ukrainians, leveraging $391 million of taxpayer dollars to have a foreign power assist him in his upcoming campaign.
Just as powerful as the evidence we heard is the courage of the people who have come forward to provide it, define lawless. White House orders to obstruct and instead adhering to lawful congressional subpoenas. The evidence, however, is not a conclusion at this stage. We must move now to a public process with due process protections for the president to secure and test that evidence. When our founders designed the Constitution, they considered a lawless president and how to hold that person accountable.
James Madison said the Constitution needed a provision for defending the community against long elements. Time's expired. Now we must solve gentlemen on this matter. I yield.
Members have reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. Gentleman from Oklahoma.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to inquire from my friend if he has additional speakers. We do. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from the gentleman.
And in that case, House speaker. I reserve my time. Gentleman who serves gentleman from Massachusetts. Happy to yield 30 seconds. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr..
The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, today is a serious and solemn day for our country. The House's impeachment inquiry has exposed the truth and uncovered significant evidence that the president abused his power to honor the oath to defend the Constitution that each of us took. We must move forward with this impeachment inquiry. For, as Thomas Jefferson once said hundreds of years ago, a sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.
Let us honor the Constitution and defend it today by voting yes on this resolution. Spirt gentleman from Oklahoma.
House Speaker. I continue to reserve my time and reserves. Gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to yield 30 seconds. The German for Pennsylvania. Mr. Boiled.
Gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I did not come here to launch an impeachment process. However, the facts demand it. A republic, if you can keep it. What we decide today will say more about us than it says about the conduct of the president.
I yield back gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I continue to reserve my time and reserves.
There was a gentleman from Massachusetts.
I yield, Madam Speaker, yield 30 seconds. The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline. The Germans recognized for 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, on opening day, we take an oath of office. We take an oath not to a king, not to a president, but to protect and defend the Constitution. It is our solemn duty. And in fact, this resolution sets forth the procedures for the next phase of our impeachment inquiry. We know substantial evidence has been presented that the president abused his power, undermined our national security and undermined the integrity of our elections. We are duty bound to proceed.
It is a sad day, but not because Congress has the courage to stand up for our democracy, but because the president's conduct has forced this action. I urge my colleagues to a better just expired.
Gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I continue to reserve to serve. Gentleman from Massachusetts. I'm prepared to close your eyes. Yeah, the first gentleman from Oklahoma.
Madam Speaker, if you myself, sometimes I may consider tenements recognized. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the resolution to ensure transparency for the American people. My amendment will do three very simple things. First, it will require the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to publicly release the transcripts of all depositions and interviews in a timely manner to allow any necessary redactions to protect classified or sensitive information.
My colleagues on the other side have been operating in secret and behind closed doors. They've been violating standing house rules by preventing member access to documents, let alone sharing anything with the people that elected them to serve. Second, my amendment requires the Intel chairman to transfer all records or materials, including exculpatory records or materials to the Judiciary Committee. The chairman's instructed to again make the necessary redactions to protect any classified or sensitive information. In contrast to the Democratic majorities resolution, let the chairman choose what information he will share.
And finally, my memory requires the Intelligence Committee's records and reports, as well as any material received from any other committee involved be made available at least 72 hours prior to the Judiciary Committee considering any articles of impeachment or other recommendations. The resolution before us today does absolutely nothing to guarantee that the American people will see this vital information. New procedures my Democratic colleagues set up for this impeachment inquiry are fundamentally unfair and fundamentally partisan. They reject due process. They reject minority rights and they reject adequate public disclosure disclosure.
The American people will not respect the process. That's not fair. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to reject this measure, and I urge the House to insist on bipartisan procedures that respect the rights of the minority and the right of due process. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy of California.
Gentleman is recognized.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker. Elections have consequences. Her fellow Americans use their vote to choose who will work for them. So I ask you all a simple question. Especially to my colleagues. Is that what is happening here today? Are we gathered these final moments before we depart for a week? To fund our government, to pay our troops. Are we gathered today? To prove a new trade deal. Are we gathered to debate the critical national security issues regarding China?
Are Iran? Well, that answer would be unanimously no, we are not working for the American people. Those items would resemble the achievements of a productive Congress, a Congress that truly works for the people. But you know what, this Congress counts. This Congress records is more subpoenas than laws. That's the legacy. It is not just devoid of solutions for the American people. It is now abusing its power to discredit democracy. By using secret interviews and selective leaks to portray the president's legitimate actions as an impeachable offense.
Democrats are continuing their permanent campaign to under mine his legitimacy. For the last three years, they have predetermined the president's guilt. They have never accepted the voters choice to make him president. So for 37 days and counting, they have run an unprecedented, undemocratic and unfair investigation.
This resolution today only makes it worse. I've heard members on the other side say. They promise rights to the president, but only if he does what they want. That's the equivalent of saying in the First Amendment you have the right to the freedom of speech. But you can only say the words I agree with. That's what you call due process. The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Cole. Would help correct some of the transparency concerns we have witnessed over the last few weeks.
But today is more than the fairness of an impeachment process. It is about the integrity of our electoral process. Democrats are trying to impeach the president because they are scared. They cannot defeat him at the ballot box.
That's not my words. That's the words of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that has offered impeachment three different times. This impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election. Is an attempt to influence the next one as well. This is not what Democrats promised when they entered the majority 11 months ago. In this chamber, we heard from our speaker. Why we all sat here. We heard what the speaker said. When she talked about words of optimism and cooperation.
It was said we would work together to make America stronger, more secure and more prosperous. We were told our mission was to return the power to the people. In fact, our new colleagues on the other side of the aisle were sent to Washington with a mandate to do just that. So what's happening? Nothing like that today. Not long ago, Democrats recognize that a partisan impeachment would put politics over people and harm our nation. That exact same speaker that talked about cooperation, that talked about and promised the American people that they would be different.
They would be different if you trusted you with the majority. You have failed in that promise. That speaker said impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bi partisan. The word of bipartisan. I do not think we should go down that path because it divides the country.
What has changed since those words have been spoken? Alexander Hamilton wrote. There will always be the greatest danger. That the decision to use the impeachment power would be driven by partisan Anna Moscati instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. This sham impeachment by Democrats have proven HAMIILTON Right, and portrays the speaker's own words. I know emotions are high. I know members would even run for positions of chairs simply on the fact that they would be a better chair for impeachment.
Right after the election. But when we all stood that day and listened to the words of the speaker of cooperation, we all raised our hand to uphold the Constitution. Tomorrow is November 1st. We're one year away from an election not just for this House, but for the highest office of presidency. Why do you not trust the people? Why do you not allow the people to have a voice? Why in a process that America lends their voice to all of us, that you deny us to speak for them?
Is animosity risen that high? Is Hamilton proven correct again? There is a moment in time that you should rise to the occasion. This is that moment. This is the moment that history will write. History will ask you when you cast this vote. When you cast a vote to justify something that has gone on behind closed doors. I want you to ask the historian and answer the question. What do you know that happened there? Have you read anything that took place that you just justified?
What do you believe the definition of due process is? What do you think the First Amendment is? You have the right to have a voice are only the words that you agree with. You may get elected in a primary, but in a general election, you're elected to represent the people of America, not to deny their voice. This house is so much better than what is transforming today. I believe everyone who runs for this office runs to solve a problem.
But when you go back to the American public. With the achievement of more subpoenas than loss. That is not why you ran. That is not why we are here. And that's why I agree with my colleague, Mr. Cole, that believes in the power of the people. People before politics. That we believe and know we can do better than we believe. The speaker, when she said about cooperation, we believed her when she said if you trusted him with the majority, they would be different.
I guess it's only fitting you take this vote on Halloween. I yield back. Members are directed to address taped remarks to the chair. The gentleman from Oklahoma has one minute remaining with that.
Madam Speaker, I will yield back the balance. Gentleman Yes, back. Gentleman from Massachusetts. You myself. The balance of the time. Gentleman is recognized. Madam Speaker, let me assure the distinguished minority leader that this Democratic majority can legislate and also fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to hold this president to account, because it is our job. We took an oath to do that. And in terms of our legislative accomplishments, they are second to none. When you were in the majority, you shut the government down.
Today, the Education and Labor Committee just reported out the higher ed bill. We we passed a bill to deal with gun violence. We passed the DREAM Act. We raised the minimum wage. We will. We're working on a bill to lower prescription drugs. We tried. We passed a bill to protect our elections. So Russia doesn't interfere in our elections ever again. So, MS. Romano speak. I want to say to my colleagues that I am proud of the process we are following here today that brought us this resolution.
You know, Mr. Madam Speaker, past Congresses under the impeachment of President Nixon and Clinton found it prudent to have a resolution in place laying out the path forward. And that is what we are doing here today. This resolution before us today is based on precedent. It includes protections for President Trump. The president's council is given the right to ask questions when the evidence is presented. The rules here expressly provide his counsel the chance to be invited to offer concluding a concluding presentation.
Neither of these things was were guaranteed to President Nixon and President Clinton. And it lays out a clear path forward so that the American people know what to expect going forward. Madam Speaker, the obstruction from from this White House is unprecedented. It is stunning. We don't know whether President Trump will be impeached, but the allegations are as serious as it gets, endangering national security for political gain. Madam Speaker, history is testing us. And I worry based on what we have heard from the other side today, that some may be failing that test.
There are no kings and queens in America. That is what separates this country from so many other nations. No one is above the law. Let me repeat that. No one is above the law. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield back my time and I move the previous question of the resolution.
Question. Question now, Carson ordering the previous question on the resolution. All in favor. Say I pass now your opinion of the chair, the eyes have it matters on that.
I would request the Asian nation, the Asian nation requested those favoring a vote by the Asian and nays will rise. A sufficient number having risen the yays and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device pursuant to Clause 9 of Rule 20. The chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. The chair emphasizes that this will be a 15 minute vote.