Resolution is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. I would begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power. This committee has already covered the central findings of the special counsels investigation. The president s 2016 Campaign Asks for and received the assistance of the russian government. Key figures from the campaign then lied to federal investigators about it. The special counsel found that at least ten times the president took steps to interfere with the investigation. In at least five of those incidents, the special counsel concluded that all of the elements necessary to charge obstruction of justice had been met. Our investigation is not only about obstruction. Our work must also extend beyond the four corners of the mueller report. We have a responsibility to consider allegations of federal election crimes, selfdealing, violations of the constitution, and failure to defend our nation from current and future attacks by foreign adversaries. Of course this committee and others have gone to court to secure evidence thats been withheld from congress on indefensible legal grounds. Former white House Counsel Donald Mcgahn is not, quote, absolutely immune, unquote from appearing before this committee. We require his testimony for our obstruction investigation, but the president has vowed to, quote, fight all the subpoenas, unquote, and this, too, is conduct that requires a congressional response. As members of congress and in particular as members of the house Judiciary Committee, we have a responsibility to investigate each of these allegations and to determine the appropriate remedy. That responsibility includes making a judgment about whether to recommend articles of impeachment. That judgment cannot be based on our feelings about President Trump. It should not be about personal behavior. It must be a decision based on the evidence before us, the evidence that keeps coming in. Now, theres been a good amount of confusion in the press and elsewhere about how we should talk about this work. Some have said that absence in grand moment from which we passed dramatically concerned about the president s conduct to actively considering articles of impeachment, its hard to know exactly what the committee is doing here. Others have argued that we can do none of this work without first having an authorizing vote on the house floor. But a house vote is not required by the rules of the house or by the constitution. There should be no doubt about our purpose. We have been open about our plans in this committee for many months. The record is recounted in the preamble of the resolution before us now. On march 4th, 2019, we sought information from many sources related to, quote, alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump. On may 8th, we recommended that the household attorney general barr in contempt. As part of that remgcommendatio the committee was clear that our work include, quote, whether to include articles of impeachment with respect to the president , close quote. On june 11th, the house approved hres 430, authorizing this kmee committee to enforce subpoenas in court. The Committee Report stated explicitly that our work includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with reference to the president. Pursuant to that resolution on july 26th, we asked the federal court for access to grand jury information. We told the court that it falls to this committee to, quote, exercise a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of articles of impeach close quote. On august 7th, we filed suit to enforce our subpoena from mr. Mcgahn. There again, we told the court that we require his testimony in order to help decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment. In each of these documents, we have been explicit about our intentions. This committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Thats what were doing. Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. Theres no legal difference between these terms, and i no longer care to argue about the nomenclature, but let me clear up any remaining doubt. Conduct under investigation poses a threat to our democracy. We have an obligation to respond to this threat, and we are doing so. Under the procedures outlined in this resolution, we will hold hearings that allow us to further consider the evidence against the president. At those hearings, in addition to member questioning, well allow staff counsel to participate for one hour per witness, evenly divided between the majority and the minority. This will allow us to develop the record in ways that the fiveminute rule does not always permit. We will also allow the president to respond to the evidence in writing and on the record. No matter how we may disagree with him, President Trump is sbie entitled to respond to the evidence in this way. And well treat certain sensitive evidence, such as grand jury information, as being received in executive session. Under these procedures, with when we have finished these hearings and consider as much evidence as were able to gather, well then decide whether to refer articles of impeachment to the house floor. We have a constitutional, historical, and moral obligation to fully investigate these matters and to make that decision. Let us take the next step in that work without delay. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution, and i yield back. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate this. Welcome to everybody here who is expecting one thing and getting another. Last week i was driving to a great event. It is the opening of football season at the university of georgia. Were going between the hedges. The day was starting, our first home game. My wife and i are driving down the road, and shes looking at her phone, bored, shes looking and shes in her instagram account. She looks over at me and she shows me this picture of a person, its a family member, a close family member. She looks over and she says and a friend who was staying with us, she said, megan told me about filters that you can use to make your appearance look better. And i said, yeah, what are you talking about . She said, look at this picture. This looks nothing like our family member. What did she do . I said, well, i dont know. I said, undoubtedly, she used one of the filters. Whats happened today is great. The Judiciary Committee has become a giant instagram filter. To make you appear that somethings happening thats not. Its really interesting. I hope hell come back at this. The difference between formal impeachment proceedings and what were doing today is a world apart no matter what the chairman just said. What were looking at here is a filter. Its great, though, because i love this. Im not saying this much press up at 8 00 in the morning in a long time. Lets look at the facts. Nothing we have here is anything that could not have been handled five minutes before a hearing of any time that we have. The filter may make you think something is happening, but really, what we have is a walk down the yellow brick road. In fact, you want to see the yellow brick road . The emerald city is impeachment, and my colleagues are desperate to get there. They have been desperate since last november when they won the majority. They started this path. They walked. Look at the whereas clauses on what theyre doing and how theyre doing it. In fact, whats interesting, its very disturbing to me is the whereas clause in the second paragraph when it admits the russian government interfered in the 2016 election. Weve had no hearings and no bills brought forward in this committee that deals with that issue. Undoubtedly, we acknowledge it like weve done a lot of things in this committee. But we dont want to solve it because wed rather talk about it. So we continue the whereas clauses. We continue the whereas this, the yellow brick road. Whats interesting is all along they thought people were coming along with them and that the public was happy with this and that other members in their own party were happy with this. Somewhere down the yellow brick road, they looked around and said, theres not all of us here. People arent following anymore. Then we come to today. The resolve part, which is actually the real part of this resolution. For all the folks covering this, this is not anything special. In fact, lets talk about it. Number one, the chairman may designate a full committee or subCommittee Hearing for the purpose of presentation of information of this committee. Oh, my goodness. You can do that any time you wake up. The chairman could wake up this morning and say, this is what were doing today. Why do we need a resolve clause for that . I didnt know we needed to define the chairmans authority into saying what were going to do today. Hes made it clear all year this is what he wants to do. The second one, if a witness is called to testify, the Committee Staff here we are again. Because we know it looks more impeachment like if we have staff answering questions. I dont know what its like on the other side of the aisle here, but Staff Meetings must be heck around here because ive never seen a majority bunch of members who desperately want to give away their authority to do something. Ive never seen this with a brand of lawyers that you have on your side of the aisle. I am amazed that you just dont ask for more member questioning and let some of these brilliant lawyers go at it because theyre good. But yet, undoubtedly, like i said, im not sure whats happening on that side, but this desperation to get staff to be in the spotlight to ask questions is just something that is, again, instagram filter. Lets put it in there to look like something that its really not. For some lawyers, im looking at one right here, mr. Raskin, its amazing. I dont understand this one. But this could have been done at any hearing, at any hearing we do. The chairman just has to bring it up as a motion. Its in the rules. We dont have to be doing this as a resolution. But it looked really good over the weekend. Were going to start inquiries into impeachment and put regulations in place to do that. Then it went off the track completely through the wheat because even leadership didnt know what they were doing. Then number three. This one is a problem. It talks about executive session and how theyre going to handle information because heres a problem. They already promised in Court Filings that they had these procedures in place. In fact, i wrote a letter to the chairman saying, no, you really dont. In the copy of the letter i have here, you dont have these in place. Maybe this is a time maybe they thought the judges would miss it. Right now the tv camera is on. Judges, you might want to look at this. They didnt have the procedures in place. You may have a filing saying you did, but you dont. And also, let me also state for anybody listening here, this cant be kept strictly in this rule cannot contradict house rules. Any member of the house can see this material. Any member. The last one, this one is the most amazing. Weve been building up one, two, three, four. I am so happy that this resolution presenting the committee in open seg aftssion the fact. Everybody in this room, everybody in this country, everybody outside this country can do this. Anybody who has an email address, anybody who has a pen and paper can write a letter to this committee. Were now telling him he can do this. As if this president has a hard time expressing himself. I think he understands this in his counsel. Then the chairman after consultation with me can invite the president to review. This is again, this shows you how frankly, unfortunately silly weve gotten today. To actually put in number four resolution to say that the president in his counsel can write a letter to this committee. Have we gotten to that point yet . Really . So look, the instagram filter is applied. Make sure it looks good. Spruce up the parts. Make your story look good. The press is here. Weve been you know, i wanted a long time to be able to say this. Welcome to fantasy island. Because were here. It may all look good. The unfortunate part is when the screen goes down, you just see a simple procedure issue, a simple procedure issue that doesnt deal with impeachment, doesnt deal with anything else. It simply gives another press release for whatever were doing now. So its early. Its 8 00. The popcorn is on. As ive said, let the show begin. I yield back. President trump announced that his administration would take action to ban flavored ecigarettes from the market in an effort to protect children against addiction. He was joined by health and Human Services secretary alex azar and fda acting commissioner dr. Norman sharpless afterwards, President Trump answered reporter questions. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It strikes the word subcommittee from the first procedure of this investigation. Impea impeachment is a serious matter, mr. Chairman. The American People deserve to have these proceedings play out in the full committee where we can more fully examine the evidence and charges brought against the president , not shoved away in some special subcommittee where only a few members can gather evidence and question witnesses. This matter is so serious, in fact, that the full house has historically authorized the Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry provided this committee with the specific instructions for opening the inquiry. In fact, as law fair notes in an article from earlier this week, quote, a major difference between this resolution and prior procedural documents in connection with the last two impeachment proceedings is that this resolution is not connected to a vote by the full house directing the committee to begin a formal impeachment inquiry of the president , end quote. The historical precedent is clear. On february 6th, 1974, the whole house voted to approve resolution 803, which authorized the committee to investigate whether to impeach president nixon. This resolution also detailed how the Judiciary Committee could accept information and granted specific funds for the investigation. Then only after the full house had spoken, the Judiciary Committee unanimously adopted its procedures to handle material gathered during the inquiry on february 22nd, 1974. The committee then unanimously adopted procedures for presentation of evidence during the impeachment inquiry three months later on may 2nd, 1974. This Committee Also received instructions from the full house before leaping into the clinton impeachment inquiry. On october 5th, 1998, the Judiciary Committee adopted impeachment inquiry procedure and reported a resolution authorizing the inquiry to the full house. The full house then affirmed the committees decision to open an inquiry, approving House Resolution 581 on october 8th, 1998. By jumping the gun and refusing to put this resolution before the full house, you are fundamentally denying both this congress and the American People the ability to fully participate in this inquiry. You even stated in the court brief dated july 22nd, 2019, quote, although the house has not considered a formal resolution structuring any particular proceedings by this committee, such a resolution is not a necessary predicate to consideration of articles of impeachment. This also contradicts statements by speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer, who have said the house isnt opening an impeachment inquiry. Mr. Chairman, having been here during the clinton impeachment mr. Chairman, having been here during the clinton impeachment proceedings, i would have expected you would understand the gravity of this inquiry and not cut this houses knees out from under it or potentially keep members of this committee from being involved in the proceedings by sequestering proceedings to the subcommittee level. You at least owe it to the American People to have this inquiry be on display in front of the full Judiciary Committee. For that reason, i urge adoption of the this amendment, and i yield back. Gentleman yield . Sorry, i yield to the Ranking Member. I appreciate it. You just brought up an interesting point. I have right here the chairman was here and was very vocal in the clinton era impeachment issues on how this is supposed to go about and how you actually are supposed to do this. Its ream interestilly interest what was needed back then is not needed now because frankly theres a serious problem. They dont have the votes to go to the floor. So now were having to make up the as we go. But you brought up a very good point. I got like eight, nine pages of the contradictions of where were at today. You bring that up, i disagree that this is anything with impeachment. If theyre going to imply it, we at least need to point out the inconsistencies here. I appreciate the gentlemans amendment. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize myself mr. Chairman, i yield back also. Thank you. I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment essentially says that the chairman can designate the full committee. A full Committee Hearing is being for the purpose of presentation and impeachment investigation but a subcommittee hear cannot. I would make two points. Number one, there are so many instances of misconduct and allegations of misconduct that we may very well, in order to do a complete and thorough job, have to use subcommittee as well as Committee Hearings, not being enough days otherwise for the task. Number two, theres ample precedent for subcommittees being used in this fashion. I was on the committee during the clinton impeachment, as the gentleman states. The committee under then republican leadership, under chairman hyde, used subcommittees to hold hearings on the subject. I remember in particular one subCommittee Hearing in the constitution subcommittee on the question of what is an impeachable offense. But subcommittees were used for impeachment hearings as part of the impeachment investigation. The Committee Held hearings. At least the constitution subcommittee, maybe other subcommittees, i dont remember, also did. Theres no reason we cant parcel out the work thats necessary to be done to subcommittees if necessary. So i oppose the amendment. Any other discussion . Last word. Gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, you just made my point. I go back to my very first statement in my Snapchat Filter. Youre using your Snapchat Filter here. You went basically to say what now . Instagram you said. Instagram, snapchat. I missed it, darn it. Were so in fantasy land here, nobody knows whats going on. This is the problem. You just went back to what we said. Instagram, snapchat, twitter, it doesnt matter. Were not in an impeachment inquiry. It doesnt matter what were doing here. This is what i dont care. Heres my problem. The chairman could do this at any time. The chairman could do this at any time. You just dont do it. He wants the appearance of something its not. He just gave the answer to the gentleman from colorado saying that we did this in an impeachment inquiry. Youre not in an impeachment inquiry. So you can continue to call it whatever you want. Just be honest. What were looking at is lets talk about whats here and not here. With that, i yield back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment . The gentleman from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I do support the amendment. If were going to do something, it ought to be in the full committee. But i want to direct you to the second paragraph of this resolution. It says, and im quoting from the resolution, the mueller report, quote, found that the russian government interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion. Yeah, okay. And whats that got to do with President Trump or impeaching President Trump . Then we jump i mean, i had thousands and thousands of felony indictments come through my court from grand juries. This would be thrown out of court, in any legitimate court, because you jump clear from the russian government interfered in the 2016 election and then said not that President Trump or the Trump Campaign was involved. Oh, no, but that there were at least ten episodes of President Trump using his official powers to thwart or attempt to thwart the special counsels investigation, unquote. Its trying to make it appear yeah, russia tried to interfere with our election. Theyve been doing that for many decades. They want to create as much chaos in america as they can. But then to jump over and make it appear, oh, well, President Trump was involved. No, he was not involved. And it is a fraudulent, deceptive paragraph because this is supposed to be about the wrongdoing of President Trump. Yet, the resolution makes a statement about russia that donald trump conclusively had nothing to do with. We had people at cnn, msnbc, all of the regular suspects, fraudulently asserting that there was no question the Trump Campaign colluded with russia and that surely they just knew that President Trump was going to be indicted for it. Well, information was fraudulently withheld on these channels that the Clinton Campaign had colluded, conspired with fusion gps, christopher steele, and conspired with russian agents to create a fraudulent dossier that they could use to attempt to affect the election to defeat candidate donald trump. Well, we still have people like comey and rosenstein committing fraud upon the fisa court, swearing to information they knew was fraudulently deceptive, and they knew it was not only not verified, but the information had no basis, in fact, while their own information was that it was completely untrustworthy. Now comes this resolution thats supposed to be setting up a basis for impeachment, or as wed say in texas, this is fixing to be an impeachment. It isnt now, but maybe its fixing to be. It starts out by stating a deceptive and fraudulent paragraph that russia did a wrong, even though the report in the testimony made clear there was no evidence of the Trump Campaign participating in that whatsoever. Further, we know that President Trump knew he had not colluded nor conspired with russia. He knew the effort to say otherwise was the real fraud, so he kept trying to ensure that he was not framed by the conspiracy involving fusion gps, christopher steele, and some others within the doj. In other words, he was not obstructing justice. He did everything he could to make sure there was justice, not a frameup, not injustice, and there was no fraud except there was fraud, just not from his campaign. So how can someone be guilty of obstructing justice when the very goal they have is to do what they can to avoid a major fraudulent miscarriage of justice. Its time to put this aside. Let the Democratic Candidates for president run on their own, and lets get back to being judicious. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment . For what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, i think everybody assumes this is the next step in a relative to the potential of impeaching President Trump. And im going to address that issue now even though the text of the resolution doesnt specifically apply to that. We have heard from the other side of the aisle that the president wants to be above the law. I would respond by saying this committee wants to be above the law too. And two wrongs dont make a right. Everybody should be equal in the eyes of the law. We should be fair. We should be giving due process to people, you know, who are being investigated. And this resolution doesnt do that. Well have all of these witnesses. Well get all of this stuff that might be given to us that has to be dealt with in executive session. And the committee has attempted to sue that. It only allows the president to respond in writing, either in person or by counsel. As the Ranking Member has said, anybody can write a letter to the committee. We get lots of letters on that. The president , if he wants to respond to something, can write a letter, just as any other citizen of the United States can write a letter. This is protected by the first amendment. But the difference between what is being proposed here and what happened both in 1974 and 1998, i have a little bit of familiarity with that, is that in both 74, the democratic majority allowed president nixons counsel to someone witnesses and to cross expect other witnesses. And in 1998, the republican majority allowed president clintons counsel to do the same thing. And not allowing the president s counsel the same kind of rights as was done in the two previous president ial impeachments that have been put before this committee is a gross denial of due process. And were the committee thats supposed to stand up and protect the Constitutional Rights of everybody, and that includes whomever happens to be the president of the United States at the time. Now, let me say that i was scrolling the internet news. I do a lot of that when im back home over the weekends. There was one headline that said that this committee should either go bold or go home. This charade has been going on now since march 4th. You havent gotten enough evidence to convince a majority of the house of representatives to even authorize an impeachment inquiry. Thats probably why the committee hasnt gone to the floor to ask for one. The votes arent there. Also, even if the votes are there to authorize an inquiry and to impeach President Trump, hell not be kicked out of office by the senate. I think thats been painfully evident ever since the beginning of what this exercise has been. We ought to be legislating, not continuing an investigation that hasnt come up with a smoking gun. The headline on the internet news said go bold or go home. Its time to go home. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition . Gentleman from ohio. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is yet another resolution put forth by democrats on this committee to keep this socalled impeachment chatter alive and well to look for something that isnt there. They lack the fact, and they know it. Instead of focusing on the Opioid Crisis or keeping families safer at borders or rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure or lowering Prescription Drug prices, theyve been busy on this committee pursuing a faux impeachment, a fake impeachment. What i mean by a faux impeachment, its absolutely not happening. Its a charade. Absolutely is. Well, it seems like every week the majority is issuing subpoena after subpoena, Holding Hearing after hearing, and passing resolution after resolution regarding an investigation thats already been completed by special Counsel Robert Mueller at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, all so the democrats on the committee can keep talking about the possibility of impeachment without actually authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry. Today we have yet another resolution that wastes more of this distinguished committees time to ostensibly give this committee the power to do something thats already in this committees power to do. And still, Committee Democrats havent scheduled such a vote. Nor has this committee marked up anything to authorize formal impeachment proceedings. Here are the facts. Special counsel mueller, after a lengthy and thorough 22month investigation, indicated in his report, then sat before this very committee and testified that the president did not collude with the russians in their efforts to interfere in our 2016 elections. The attorney general determined that the president did not obstruct justice, period, end of story. The democrats on this committee know that, and they know that the American People know that. And thats why they wont pursue formal impeachment proceedings. But they also know that most democrats hate this president. Theyve decided that hes guilty regardless of what the facts say. And so instead, the Committee Democrats feel no choice but to investigate and investigate and investigate until they find something that looks like a crime. Well, this resolution, we a we spending valuable Committee Time on today is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This is despite the fact that right before we return from august recess, the doj Inspector General issued a scathing report detailing the many ways that then fbi director Comey Violated Department rules in the way he handled sensitive information, potentially jeopardizing our National Security in what appears to be yet another effort by the left to undermine President Trump. But democrats on this committee are much more interested in continuing to relitigate the Mueller Investigation rather than considering issues long awaiting consideration before this committee. This morning we could have used this committees time to bring in and question the Inspector General about his recent report, but we arent. And we likely never will, which is a shame. Because americans, our constituents, deserve to know exactly what happened and what can be done to prevent future leaks at the fbi. I hope that after today, democrats can finally move past this fake impeachment strategy and on to more pressing matters pending consideration before this committee. But i suspect that next week when we return from our respective districts, they will find yet another way to continue down this rabbit hole. And i yield back. Gentleman yield back. Is there further discussion on this amendment . For what purposes does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I support the buck amendment. I think the gentleman from colorado is exactly right. This is something that if were going to take up and move on, we should do this in the full committee. Thats appropriate. The desire to maybe limit some of this to a subcommittee, you foe what, were a selfgoverning body. We can change the rules. We can apply the rules as the majority sees fit because you are the majority. But i point to something that i think is important, and its the way this resolution is Going Forward and the importance of the buck amendment. But this is happening the way this is developing needs some context. On july 26th, the chairman told the d. C. District court that he had issued grand jury handling procedures for the house Judiciary Committee. Such procedures did not previously exist. So the same day, dated july 26th, these new rules were handed down with no prior authorization from the house, no open hearing, no committee vote. But the chairman told the District Court we had these rules. Those rule changes deserved a vote in an open hearing just like any other rule change. Just like what were doing today. Instead, those rule changes were drafted behind closed doors and implemented without the committees input. Thats a normbreaking process. According to the court filing, the new grand jury procedures would prevent any member not on judiciary intelligence from viewing the grand jury material, and ill refer you to page 25. The grand jury handling procedures require any grand jury materials to be stored in a secure area with access limited to certain members of the committee, designated staff. Refer to page 38. I wont quote that. House rule 11 states that no member may be excluded from the records of this committee. That rule cannot be set aside without a full vote of the house. The rule is clear. So one of two things might happen. Either the chairman is going to say were going to that were somehow reading it wrong and procedures dont prevent noncommittee members from viewing it, but then you better correct his application to the court, hadnt he . Or were reading this procedure right and they violate the rules of the house, in which case he needs to clarify to the court he misrepresented his authority. Either way, thats an example of the problems that we see Going Forward in the fashion that we are doing in the committee today. Now, that rule has been set aside in the past, of course. But how . By a vote of the whole house of representatives. During the clinton impeachment, for instance, the house passed res 525, which suspended rule 11. But it wasnt done in a Judiciary Committee hearing. It was done in the full house because thats a rule of the house. In the rush to attack the president , the chairman continues to do serious and lasting damage to the integrity of this committee and this institution. The majority wont let anything stand in the way in their rush to impeachment. So when we get back to the amendment, the amendment brings this back to the full committee. And thats where this should be. Thats where this should be. And so mr. Chairman, i realize that theres some confusion. Cnn said just yesterday, are democrats conducting an impeachment inquiry . And it depends on who you ask. The chairman said it has been an impeachment inquiry and continues to be. Another representative on this Committee Said it is not impeachment, which is what i think everybody wants to jump to right away. Theres some confusion. I wish it were clear. Its not clear. And thats the point that the gentleman from wisconsin and also the Ranking Member were making. This resolution is designed to pursue an investigation into impeachment. That would normally take place after a resolution of the whole house. But we just had one of those two months ago, and it was defeated by twothirds of the members of this body. So mr. Chairman, its obvious to me that you cant get the impeachment going the way you want to. Youre telling the court were doing an impeachment inquiry. Yet, the body itself, the house of representatives has rejected resolution to impeach. So here we are with massive contradictions where members of the majority have told cnn just yesterday that its unclear what were doing. With that i, yield back. Mr. Chairman . Gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman . Gentleman from gentlelady from arizona. From arizona. For what purposes do you seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Gentlelady is recognized. Thank you. I support the buck amendment. In chairman nadlers opening statement, i believe i heard him say that some of the media is saying its hard to know what we are doing here, and thats exactly what i want to know. What are we is. Its a show. Its just one more example of the same time wasting, resource wasting, mediaseeking activity that has become way too common in this committee. Lets go back. First the democrats erroneously claimed that there was russian collusion with trump, and then they were wrong. Because after two years, almost two years, at least 25 million spent of taxpayer money, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 warrants, the special counsel stated there was no collusion, no conspiracy with the russians, and President Trump and his campaign, or for that matter, any u. S. Citizen. So after realizing that their twoyear claims that trump was colluding with russia flocked and that they were dead wrong, then they switched automatically to saying, oh, were doing obstruction of justice, thats it. So we carried in witness after witness. You had in james dean, you had in robert mueller. Those flopped. They totally flopped. And now i dont know what were doing here, just more thee y more show without getting anything done, nothing signed into law of any significance from this great committee. And with that, i yield back my time. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Two days ago democrats on the house Judiciary Committee voted to take away an american citizens Second Amendment right, you voted to do that even though that citizen had committed no crime and you voted to allow the rights to be taken in a Court Proceeding that that citizen doesnt even get to show up to defend themselves. Now today, youre changing the rules to make it easier for you to pursue impeachment of the United States, changing the rules in the congress. First you vote to take away americans firearms then you vote to impeach the guy they elected president all in one week. Actually all in less than 48 hours. In the house Judiciary Committee, the committee thats supposed to protect the rules, supposed to protect Constitutional Rights, all in less than 48 hours youre doing it. And why are you changing the rules . Why are you changing the rules . Gentlelady from arizona was right, because nothing else has worked for you. Michael cohen hearing was a flop. The john dean hearing was a flop. And everyone in the country knows the bob mueller hearing, they saw it, that was a flop. So lets change the rules in the middle of the game because weve got to find something. Weve got to find something. Never forget how this whole thing started. Never forget how this whole thing started. A false accusation about the president of the United States, saying the president coordinated with a foreign country to influence the election. Jim comey investigated that for ten months. Guess what . He found nothing. And we know he found nothing because we deposed him and he told us after ten months they didnt have a thing. But that didnt stop it. 22 months later, bob mueller does a special counsel investigation and he investigates it for 22 months, and what does he tell us . Other members have already said this. He found nothing. No coordination between the Trump Campaign and russia to impact the election. 32 months of investigations, they find nothing. But what do democrats want to do . What do they want to do now . Change the rules, keep investigating, because weve got to find something so we can impeach this president. Maybe the country would be better served. Maybe the constituents we represent would be better served if they actually figured out how the false accusation happened. And the good news is, as ive said before on this committee, the good news is thats exactly what the attorney general of the United States is doing, and thank god for bill barr. Thats exactly what hes doing. But you know what . We can do the same thing. We can do the same thing, and a great place to start is just what mr. Chabot just said. Why dont we start with the Inspector General, the Inspector General for the Justice Department which we have jurisdiction over just issued a report two weeks ago, a scathing report on the guy who is most responsible for this threeyear saga that our country has had to live through, jim comey. Jim comey, the guy who opened the investigation in july of 2016, jim comey, the guy who allowed peter strut to run the investigation after that guy had run the clinton investigation, after that guy had said to lisa paige, dont worry, lisa, well stop trump. Jim comey, the guy who allowed the dossier to go to a secret court to spy on a fellow American Associated with the Trump Campaign. Jim comey who leaked information to the New York Times so we would get the special counsel. Jim comey the guy who on january 6th goes to trump tower trying to trap the president while hes telling the president hes not under investigation. Scathing report by the Inspector General on that guy, and when i asked the chairman two days ago, two days ago when he was busy taking away peoples Second Amendment rights, when i asked him two days ago when we might have a chance to question the Inspector General, his response, the chairman of the judiciarys response was, i dont know, we havent thought about that. That is scary. That is scary when you have the Inspector General issue that kind of report and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee doesnt even though a thing about it. Hasnt even thought about when were going to bring him in so we can talk to him. This is the Judiciary Committee, for goodness sake, and think about what has happened in 48 hours in this committee. This is scary. And everyone in the country knows and everyone who said this earlier, they know that there arent the votes to do this. There arent the votes to do this right, so youre playing this game in the Judiciary Committee, of all places. Maybe if you were a little less focused on taking peoples Second Amendment rights and impeaching the guy they made president , we can actually do what this committee is supposed to do. I yield back. The gentleman from virginia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, i support the buck amendment. When i was in the Virginia Legislature we had a process of killing bills in Sub Committee that werent ready for prime time. A lot of times they didnt have recorded votes in Sub Committee, so they were sent there in the hopes that they would die by a voice vote never to see the light of day at full committee. But i actually forced our rules to change to require recorded votes of subcommittee. So i think that the sunshine of the full committee is important and thats why i support the buck amendment. But this is time to consider something greater. I am so proud to be a member of the Judiciary Committee. It is the most serious, the most substantive, the committee historically of the highest integrity. But what we have seen over the last six months is a jv version of the voik thatjudiciary commi i saw, that i saw when i was a staffer for the former chairman of this committee back in 1998. And what we have seen over the past six months is an embarrassment. Its a recognition that impeachment resolution could not pass the full house, so this committee is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. Trying to have the authority of an official impeachment inquiry and without the support of the full house. Why is that . Because from the beginning the hearings and actions of this committee have been some of the most partisan actions that weve seen. And its my hope that we can recognize the seriousness of the moment, the task of monumental and historic proportion that the gentleman cited back in 1998 when he was on this committee. And ill quote the statement. The issue in a potential impeachment is whether to overturn the results of a national election, the Free Expression of the popular will of the American People. That is an enormous responsibility and extra engineer power and it should not be exercised in a manner which either is or would be perceived by the American People to be unfair or partisan. In our conduct in this matter does not earn the confidence of the American People, then any action we take, especially if we seek to overturn the results of a free election, will be viewed with great suspicion and could divide our nation for years to come. Mr. Chairman, those are your words from 1998 and i heard them myself. I would ask that we take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves and not go down this road were going down today. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Does the gentleman yield . I yield. Thank you. I agree with what i said 20 years ago. I yield back. And i yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentleman leads back. Who else seeks recognition . The gentleman from california. Mr. Chairman, as i understand the chairs opening comments, it was in essence since the rules are silent, that gives us the ability to make them up as we go along. Well, no, when the rules are silent, precedent governs and the precedent is clear, as my colleague from arizona pointed out. In the 206 years that this committee has sat, it has never conducted an impeachment proceeding without first being authorized to do so by a vote of the full house. And thats because the power of impeachment belongs to the whole house and the whole house has not delegated that power to any of its committees. It must first make that delegation, and to this date it has not. Committees are creatures of the hours. Their only powers are those that are delegated by the house. Committees cant freelance. If the majority wants to exercise the houses power of impeachment, all youve got to do is ask the house to do so. All you have to do is ask the house that it direct and authorize this committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Thats all you have to do. Resolve that the house authorizes the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry into the impeachment of the president. Its that simple. I dare you to do it. In fact, i double dog dare you to do it. Have the house vote on those 18 words and then go at it. Why dont you do that . Its because you want to give the illusion of impeachment without the reality of it. Youre duping that portion of your base that is clamoring for impeachment into thinking you are, when you arent. Some democrats can tell their constituencies theyre conducting an impeachment inquiry while others can tell their constituencies that they arent. You can have your impeachment and deny it, too. Thats why you wont pass that resolution. If this president is guilty of such heinous crimes as you irresponsibly charge, why are you so reluctant to impeach him . If you can actually prove these accusations, as joseph welch once said, why wont you do so before the sun goes down . You wont do so because you cant. And if you want to know what an abuse of power truly looks like, it looks like whats unfolding right now. I yield back. The gentlemen yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition . The question occurs on the amendment. All in favor will say aye. Opposed no. No. The roll call is requested. Mr. Nadler. No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Mrs. Lofgren. No. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mrs. Jackson leigh. Mr. Cohen. No johnson of georgia. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutsche. Mr. Deutsche notes no. Mrs. Bass. Ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Jeffries notes no. Mr. Sis leany notes no. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lu votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Demmings. Ms. Demmings votes no. Mr. Corea votes no. Ms. Scan lon votes no. Ms. Garcia votes no. Ms. Mcbeth votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Dean votes no. Ms. Mccarsle powell votes no. Ms. Es co bar votes no. Mr. Collins votes yes. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Gomer votes aye. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Buck votes aye. Mr. Ratcliffe. Ms. Robe votes aye. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintic votes aye. Ms. Lesco votes aye. Mr. Cline votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stubey votes yes. The gentlelady from texas. No. Ms. Jacksonlee votes no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Has anyone else not voted that wishes to vote . Mr. Chairman, plr the Judiciary Committee passed a resolution on guidelines for its investigation into articles of impeachment against President Trump. We are live now on capitol hill where House Speaker nancy pelosi will be briefing reporters shortly. Good morning. Yesterday we gathered on the steps of the capitol to hold a moment of silence to observe a nation
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.