multiple requests that hearing be scheduled and at one point actually telling me as i actually responded to this that we ll rule with it today. we re here today and it is a farce that we are having to rule on this today. there is no other time we re taking up the articles today. so the rule is not the rule this rule is not superseded by any portion of h resolution 660. they were too busy to get it it to floor and chose not to exempt the minority hearing today. now we re not having it so i continue my point of order. if i understand the gentleman s point of order he asserts we are violating clause 2j1 of house rule 11 by conducting the mark-up before we ve held the hearing that the minority members requested on december 4th. in my view the gentleman is claiming a broader privilege than it provides the minority.
keeping the minority position from being represented in the hearing. it is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony. of course, that did not happen at the december 4th hearing. the minority had a witness at the hearing professor turley, ablely represented their position and was afforded ample time to discuss that position. rather than being shut out they did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred. but that is not the purpose of the house rule. second, the minority and the president have special protections under house resolution 660. procedures provided under house resolution 660 give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to present evidence and subpoena witnesses. thus their alternative
the minority has asked for a day of hearings on the matter of the december 4th hearing which was the constitutional grounds for impeachment. i m willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing but not before today s mark-up of the articles of impeachment. the house rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day nor does it require me to schedule a hearing as a condition to taking anything specific legislative action. the minority would have the ability to block legislative action which is not the purpose of the rule. i have reached this conclusion after reviewing the plain text and legislative history of the house rule. after considering prior precedent and committee practice and consulting in the congressional research service. i believe my scheduling is reasonable. the minority views haven t been shut out. the legislative hills tree shows it was written to prevent the committee majority from
provided with the demand. he has refused to respond to multiple additional request that s that hearing be scheduled and told me, and i responded to this, we will wrul it today, we re here today and it s a farce thatay we have to rule on this today, there is no other time we re taking up the articles today. and the rule is, this rule is not superceded by any rule. they fwhr too big of a hurry to get 660 to the floor. this could have been done, they chose not to, and now we re not having it, i continue my point of order. if i understand the gentleman s point of order, he asserts thatrd we re violating house rule 11 by conducting this mark up before we held the minorityld hearing. in my view he is claiming a
broader prif lvilege than what asked by the minority. it was the constitutional grounds for impeachment. i m willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing but not before today s mark up of the articles of impeachment, the house rule does not require me to schedule a hearinghe on a particular day n required to schedule a hearing. otherwise the minority could delay or block legislative action that is clearly not the purpose of the rule. i reached this after reviewing the plain text and legislative history of the past rule. and after consulting with authorities in the congressional research service. ion believe it is reasonable fo several whereireasons. first, the minority has not been