the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. october 31, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable paul tonko to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times with many forces and interests demanding their attention. give them again rossity to enter into their work -- generosity to enter into their work. may they serve you in the work they do as you deserve. give of themselves and not count the cost, fight for what is best for our nation and not count the political wounds. toil until their work is done d not seek to rest and labor without seeking any reward other than knowing they are doing your will and serving the people of this great nation. bless them, o o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. joyce. mr. joyce: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of all granite staters to recognize the life and legacy of elias "skip" ash shoe who passed away last week. he embodied the spirit of the queen sitty. as a lifelong resident, he dedicated his career and life to bettering his community. he was a successful businessman, local leader, who a never gave up on the potential of manchester and its residents. he loved taking in the down town area he revitalized. mr. pappas: he was instrumental in making the civil center project a reality. his immense impact was known by all which is why he was named citizen of the year in 2000. i hope we can honor skip's legacy by continuing to work together to move manchester and new hampshire forward. i offer condolences to his wife, family, and friends who knew him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the 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. sergeant walker who enlisted after graduating from high school in 2016 was tragically killed on october 20 during a training exercise at fort sue ward. just 22 years old he had been awarded the army good conduct medal, national defense service medal, korea defense service medal and army service ribbon. mr. joyce: he serves as an inspiration to us all. but he 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, brother, his sisters, and his father. i pray that the outpouring of support from the 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 praying for his family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech. mr. tonko: -- the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: this month marked a painful anniversary of one afternoon this new york when 20 precious soles were lost in a crash of a limousine that should not have been ott the road. the families of those lost, many from my hometown, the families of eight young people devastated by the 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 limos act, the take unsafe limos off the road act, and end the limo loophole act have responded to them with great sensitivity. thank you to my friend, representative delgado, for joining me in sponsoring this lifesaving legislation and colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have signed on in support. these commonsense measures will save lives and ensure this never happens to another family. with that i urge this body to raise our nation's limousine safety standards without delay. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to commend the house for passing h.r. 728, the bipartisan title 8 nursing work force re-authorization act. my wife was a critical care nurse for over 45 years. and we can tell you firsthand the role that nurses play in patient care. million mckinley: but america is facing a shortage of skilled nurses. our nursing work force in america is aging and the average age is 50 years old. by 2022, there will be a one million job -- 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. 728 is a step forward in addressing our nation's growing need for nurses. madam speaker, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: 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 academy's mock trial team was one of 38 teams that traveled to new york to compete for this honor in the empire mock trial world champion. they successfully argued a fictional case involving a construction company that was accused of failing to take proper safety precautions by proper trage 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 venture academy's first big success. last year the team placed fifth in the empire contest and for the past six years they have won first place in the san joaquin 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. please join me in congratulations the venture academy's mock trial team world champions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today we'll vote on a resolution that will try to legitimatize the last five week's worth of phone yim peachment inquiries going on downstairs in a secure room. mr. lamalfa: instead of voting on and taking up the issues that matters to the american people, we continue to chase this witch-hunt trying to take down the accomplishments of our drezz, donald j. trump. the economy we have, the unemployment we have, success we are having in the middle east and others around the world aren't good enough when my colleagues on the other side will admit they probably won't win another election they have to use the impeachment process to take the president down, that shows how phony this process is. to try today to pass a resolution somehow legitimatize the last five-plus weeks worth of work, 2 1/2 years worth of attacking this president, shows 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 have all been able to accomplish. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the 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 their door steps 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. 987 to strengthen health protections and bring down drug costs. i'm excited that we are looking ahead to do more to ensure people never have to choose between lifesaving medicine and putting food on the table. mr. carbajal: that's why i co-sponsored h.r. 3, the lowerer drug costs now act -- 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. 3 gives power back to the patients. it is what people in my district are asking for and i'm proud to support it. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the resolution that attempts to justify the sham impeachment process that i 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 schiff's approval, as deemed necessary to the investigation. if we learned anything from the investigation so far, we know the majority does not think due process is necessary. mr. spano: they don't even think basic fairness is necessary. a yes vote on this resolution today gives a stamp of approval to the process that has been damaged beyond all repair in a blatant and obvious coup to unseat a sitting president of the united states. i will not support a resolution that promises an open an fair process without the basic fundamental procedures necessary to ensure it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.res. 296, 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. i was 5eub8 to talk to armenians about this tragic history. we can never forget the atrocities that took place then on other -- then or other examples of ethnic cleansing. i'm pleased this body passed this critical resolution on tuesday for constituents in my district, across the nation and around the world. thank you and i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 660 and ask for its immediate considering. the speaker: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 66, 0 resolved that the permanent select committee on intelligence, the committees 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 the permanent select committee is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows. one, the chair of the permanent select committee shall designate and open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section. two, notwithstanding clause 2-j-2 of rule 11 of the rules of the house of representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose during any hearing pursuant to paragraph 1, the chair and 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 shall be equal for the chair and ranking minority member. the chair maconner if recognition for multiple periods of such question bug each such period of questioning shall in the exceed 90 minutes in thing a refwat. 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 11. three, to allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, 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 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. 4-a. the ranking minority member of the permanent select committee is authorized for 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 take of deposition and two, the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and document, and ii, by interrogatory, the furnishing of information, b, in the case the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph a, the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee or decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercise and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to consider such decision ubject to clause 2 of rule 11. subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member and my be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member. five, the chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcript and depositions by the permanent select committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution with appropriate redaxes 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 append anything information and materials 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 slews filed pursuant to clause 2-1 of rule 11 and make such report publicly available in electronic form with appropriate redaxes to protect classify and other sensitive information. the report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultuation 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 4. impeachment inquiry procedures in the committee on the judiciary. a. 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 the procedures referenced in subsection a, the rules committee and the rues of the house. c-1. the ranking minority member of the committee or the -- committee on the judiciary is authorized with the concurrence of the chair they have judiciary to require as deemed necessary to the investigation a, by subpoena or otherwise, i, the attendance and testimony of any person including at a taking of a deposition and ii, the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, and b, by interrogatory the fun furnishing of information. two, in the case that the chair declines to concur in 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. such notice procedures for committee meeting under clause 2-a and b of rule 11. 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. may make e d -- recommendations as it deems proper. the speaker: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. mr. mcfwoverb: 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 through the this process. we don't see eye-to-eye on this impeachment inquiry but he has already conducted himself with integrity and defended this constitution. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. i i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. mcgovern: 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 brampling 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 separate this is country from so many others. because of its seriousness, the impeachment process has been rarely used for presidents. for just the fourth time now 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. the court have recently agreed. for all the disagreements i have with president trump, for all his policies, his tweets and 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 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. i commend the investigative committees and their staffs for the professional man for the 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 uncovers 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. 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. at the end of the day this resolution isn't about donald trump. it isn't about any of us. it's about our constitution. it's about our country. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. cole: madam speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to begin by thanking my friend for his kind words and the professionalism with which he handled last night's hearing. before i begin, madam speaker, i would ask the chairman if he'd withdraw his resolution at which time i will ask unanimous consent for the house immediately proceed to the consideration of h.r. 668 instead. which provides for consideration of house resolution 660 under a rule. madam speaker, this would in no way prevent the consideration of the resolution before us today. however, it would provide us with an opportunity for all members to participate in the process. i pro-- my proposed rule would provide for four hours of yen debate on h r. 660, allow for amendments under an open process, and provide for a motion to recommit. on an issue as important as this, one hour ever 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 ask the chairman to accept my request. the speaker pro tempore: the yield.an mr. cole: i yield to my friend. mr. mcgovern: no, i do not. mr. cole: i ask unanimous consent that the debate time on huelings 660 be expanded to four hours -- the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman has yielded for debate only. the gentleman from massachusetts would have to yield for that request. mr. cole: 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 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. it should only be done after the fullest consideration and yet over the last month, without a vote and only the speaker's say so, the committees have been engaged in a closed impeachment inquiry in what amounts to nothing more than partisan fishing expedition. at least today the majority's admitting what we have known all along. that the house was not following an appropriate process for impeachment. but i do not think the process was setting forth in this resolution is fair, either. it's not fair to the president of the united states. it's not fair to the house of representatives. 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 have 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 and 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 accepts committee records. this is commonsense. if you are 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 ey are voting on if the -- on, yet the majority 7 -- spreekted that. and also -- respected that. and to allow the president and his counsel in proceedings on the intelligence committee, oversight committee, and foreign affairs committee. this right was granted to president clinton in 1998, yet it's not present here. 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, the respect for minority rights, i do not believe the american people will regard this process as legitimate. a legitimate process is one that offers protections for everyone involved. without those protections, this will be seen as just another partisan exercise, one the majority has been pushing since the very first days of the 116th 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 must. with that, madam speaker, i urge opposition to the measure and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. madam speaker, let me just say briefly that this resolution provides better protections for the president than what presidents nixon and clinton received. 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 and his counsel can attempt all hearings and raise objections, they can question any witness. this 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 member of the judiciary committee and intelligence committee may issue subpoenas if authorized by a committee vote. these are the same subpoena powers that the ranking minority member was given during clinton and nixon. it allows for greater member participation than under past procedures including a robust process for the minority to propose witnesses and 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 truth would accept. i ask unanimous consent to nsert into the record h.res. 81 from the 115th congress, the clinton itch peachment inquiry resolution that contains the same minority subpoena powers as the resolution. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record h.res. 803, the nixon impeachment inquiry resolution which contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: having said that, madam speaker, yield one continue mint to the gentleman from new mexico, the assistant speaker, mr. lujan. mr. lujan: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution on the floor. we are here today because of the rule of law. this resolution, the inquiry, is quong upholding the oath -- is congress upholding the oath we pledged to the constitution. we are here because of the president, his actions. his jeopardizing our national security for his own political gain. we are here because we know the white house an the president -- 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the house intelligence committee, my good friend, mr. nunes from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nunes: i want to thank the gentleman. we are not here to run a show trial in an effort to impeach the president of the 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 negligent of our basic oversight duties demonstrates this has been their plan from day one. 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 have come up empty. first they insisted the president is a russian agent. then they claimed he's a money launderer and a tax cheat cheat and fraudulent businessman. now they have 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 priposster russ narrative. -- - preposster preposterous narrative. what we are seeing among democrats on the intelligence committee down in the scif right now is like a colt. these are a -- a cult. these are a group of people loyally following their leader as he bounce from one outlantish conspiracy to another and the media are the cult followers, permanently stationed outside the committee spaces pretending to take everything seriously because they, too, support the goal of removing the president from office. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cole: i yield 15 seconds to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. r. nunes: after today, the house intelligence committee ceases to exist. oversight is not being done. pledged pledged full impeachment committee in the basement of the capitol. think about that, america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, distinguished member of the rules committee, mr. raskin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. raskin: thank you. madam speaker, the house impeachment inquiry discovered a substantial body of evidence that the president of 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 of thence against all enemies foreign and domestic. we'll honor or 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 witness who is have personal knowledge of the president's actions. relevant materials will then be transferred to the judiciary committee so we may fulfill our solemn and time honored duty to determine whether to recommended articles of impeachment. the group has conducted hearings in a bipartisan way giving professional staff counsel for both the majority and minority equal time to question witnesses and equal opportunities for members of the majority and he minority to question them, too. despite -- mr. mcgovern: an additional 20 seconds. mr. raskin: we will afford the president all the due process protection that is were afforded to his predecessors in a similar situation that includes the ability to attend hearings, question witnesses, and submit evidence. as recently as friday, the federal courts have reaffirmed 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 we can and will defend the constitution of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn't 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 -- worked with vice president biden the day after the now famous phone call between president trump and president zelensky. writes a memo. in the memo he uses term like this call was scary, frightening. what does he do? waits 18 days before he files a complaint. who is the first person he goes to see? first people he goes to see? chairman schiff's staff. chairman schiff's 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. chairman schiff. what's this resolution do? gives 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. this resolution's going to give more power to the person who made that decision in the bunker in the basement of the capitol. 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 it 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 and the american people see through t i urge a no vote on this resolution. i thank the gentleman on the rules committee for his work and leadership. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a "new york times" rt article army officer who heard ukraine call reported concerns. which colonel alexander vindman, an army officer on the call, said, i quote, i do not think it was proper to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen, end quote this. would all undermine u.s. national security. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, the majority whip, mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. mr. clyburn: over the last month, the impeachment inquiry has built a powerful body of evidence around president trump's call with prime minister zelensky of ukraine when he told the leader, i'd like you to do us a favor though. we learned so much about that call and what followed it because some dedicated public servants demonstrated their patriotism to this great country by coming forward and testifying and giving us the information as hey know it. these brave patriots have been radical, eer, unelected bureaucrats. they've been called that by a group of people who thomas payne would call summer soldiers and sunshine patriots. he warned us that these people ould come forward in a crisis, but deserve the thanks of man and woman, yet we have this conflict with us, the hard they are conflict the more glrs you the triumph. we are here today because brave, dedicated public servants and patriots are standing up for their country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. i recognize my good friend and fellow member of the rule committees, distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yesterday, rules committee reported an impeachment resolution that was hastily drafted, without republican input, and just 24 hour's notice for review. last night we offered on the republican side 17 amendments. unsurprisingly, none were adopt. despite assurances that all members will have access to materials supporting the articles of impeachment, to date, chairman schiff has ignored 27 bipartisans with 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. members of the house should have access. last night the rule committees was stated that perhaps republicans were not requesting the information at the right times. we have to ask, stwhen right time to view, ask to view our own house records? republicans requested an authorizing vote and now we will have one. however, 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 impeachment investigation is a national draw mafment 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 fully 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, a distinguished member of the rule committees, ms. scanlon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. take no joy in ake no joy contempt -- contemplating the impeachment of a president because in contemplating it we must acknowledge a threat to our country. we have tried to work within our means to get to the bottom of allegations of misconduct. committees have called witnesses and requested evidence only to be stonewalled. the president's defend verse tried distract the american people by falsely claiming to have been excluding -- excluded from the investigation while their stunts and smears have hindered the process. this resolution outlines ground rulers in 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. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to my good friend, the distinguished republican ranking member on the house judiciary committee from the state of georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: 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 a friend of mine from the rule committees would actually want to talk about are these the same rulesed a as clinton and nickson we would have had a much longer period of debate buzz he knows and i know it is no. there are similarity, some better, some not but they are not the same. let's get that out of the 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, it's 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 are transferring of documents from the intel committee to judiciary committee will happen. doesn't given a time frame. i've heard a lot of discussion today about maybe we didn't know how to properly ask last night in rules committee. i guarantee you my staff and i know how to use the rules to ask for information. we were told yesterday by a committee, one of the committee, that we wouldn't cr -- we couldn't have access because the parliamentarian said we couldn't. it's false and needs to stop. this house is developing and shredding procedures every day. if members on the minority or majority cannot have the right that they are given we are in a sad situation. in fact, the haste to put this together they didn't even exempt as was done in clinson and nixon, rule 11-2-e, they didn't exempt it out. we were so hurried to impeach this president, we don't really give a darn about the rules. but here's my biggest concern, ranking member of 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 handled 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 opinion sidelined. it is so bad they had to have the rules committee write the presidential due process and give it to us. this is not right. i wish -- mr. cole: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i do not know what happened to our committee but we still exist. due process only kicks in in jew dish for the president, it does not kick in in the closed door, secret hear offings adam schiff. that is a travesty, no one should vote for. this he curtain is coming down on this house because the majority has no idea about process and procedure. they're simply after the president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i get iting, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about process. not one of them wans to talk thebt president's conduct and that speaks volumes. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the mr. eman from florida, hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, chairman. i thank ranking member cole for the man for the which you all are shepherding us 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 of 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 thought about this they were horrified. the facts are clear. our top national security expert viewed it as a grave and dangerous mistake. as we have seen time and time again, from the trump administration, decision plays right into vladimir putin's hands. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 20 seconds. mr. hastings: i 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. before i proceed i yield myself such time as i may consume to quickly resfond my friend, mr. mcgovernor. we're debating process here because that's what this is. this is a process resolution to impeach the president of the united states. didn't accept a single amendment last night. didn't confer with us when you did it, that's why we're talking process. an unfair process. with that, i yield to my good friend and fellow member of the rule committees, the disting wished gentlelady from arizona, ms. lesko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i thank representative cole for yielding. this impeachment process is a total sham. this resolution which speaks to he -- which seeks to legitimize it misleads the american public. section 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 blocked entry to members of congress and prohibits the president's due process rights. and it nearly -- it merely authorizes duh does not require chairman schiff to make transcripts public. last night republicans offered 17 amendments to add some fairness into this the process but democrats rejected them all. i had an treatment 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 materials to the judiciary committee. democrats shot it down. i had an amendment to give ranking members of the -- ranking members the same authority as chairmen to submit materials to the judiciary committee, democrats rejected that too. the process set forth by this resolution violates basic standards of fairness. i urge on o-- opposition to this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: the gentlelady 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 with held key ith documents, prevented witnesses from testifies, tried to disparage members of congress, i yield myself five seconds. and they disparaged member of congress who are trying to full their re-- fulfill their responsibilities. article 1 of the constitution gives the house the right to investigate the president and we are taking our responsibility seriously. madam speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, the chame of the democratic caucus, mr. jeff reese. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. -- eff reese: mr. jeffries: the house impeachment inquiry about is about abuse of power. it's about betrayal. it's about corruption, it's about national security, it's about the undermifpke our elections, it's about the -- 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 sflivel 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to my good friend, the distinguished conference chair for the republican party, ms. chaney from wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. cheney: thank you very much, thank you to the republican leader of the rules committee for yielding to me. we have heard a desperation almost on the part of my colleague on the other side of the aisle that the nation take this body seriously then they need to start acting like they take themselves seriously, madam speaker. when we are here, when we are here talking about this grave and solemn obligation we have addressing impeachment. we know what a serious process would look like. we have seen it before. we have seen members on both sides of the aisle in the past when we have been engaged in the impeachment of a president act in a way that is serious, reflects the dignity of this body and the importance of this constitution. that's the opposite 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 have been engaged in to date, it is absolutely the case it has been a secret process that has denied rights to the minority. that has involved sleeking selectively things that the majority would like to have leaked in which rights of absolutely have been denied and they cannot fix that. they cannot fix what has been a tainted record and process by now suddenly pretending they are opening it up. 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. 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 for what they are doing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cole: yield an additional 15 seconds. ms. chfment heney: 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 on to a sham political process run by chairman schiff and speaker pelosi. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i am slighted to yield one minute to the -- i am delighted to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. shalala. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. shalala: having been through this before, i know how painful impeachment investigations can be. i also know that i am not alone in saying that supporting this continuing inquiry is not a decision that any of us makes lightly. none of us has ever hoped 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 goes 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 to the best interests of our nation. i don't think anyone here believes 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 am 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, very much, madam speaker. i yield one minute to my good friend, the distinguished republican ranking member on the house ways and means committee, mr. brady from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. the impeachment 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. when accuseer a right to due process this. sham impeachment 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 legitimatize this unprecedented and unfair charade with this vote today. speaker pelosi, chairman schiff long going abandoned the due process and fairness guaranteed during the clinton itch peoplement. i know because i was here in congress. there is simply no cause for this impeachment inquiry, none. it is shameful to create a constitutional crisis for purely partisan reasons. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the distinguished chairman of the select committee on intelligence, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of house resolution 660. 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 the intelligence committee, the oversight committee, and 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, has 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 favorites from ukraine. we have reviewed text messages monkey 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 have the opportunity to hear from the witnesses firsthand. we will continue to conduct this 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to my good friend from the great state of texas, mr. babin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. babin: thank you. what began with a rallying cry of we are 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 in the people's house. my view, our president was doing his job, ensuring if taxpayer dollars from my constituents and yours was going to the other side of the world it would be paired with a commitment to crack down on corruption at all levels. no matter who's someone's daddy is or what their political ambitions are. i think we all know this was inevitable. from the moment donald j. trump was elected, the ends of harassment and impeachment have been waiting for the means. they think they have found them. they are wrong. there is, however, one small measure we can take as one house to bring a -- bring a shred of dignity to these proceedings. we can stand and be counted one by one and announce our yea or nay with a vote by call of the role. to that end, madam speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the speaker, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, thank you for the recognition. i want to begin my remarks by some of the most beautiful words in our country's history. we, the people, of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity to 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 it's that that we take the oath of office. we gather here on that opening day with our families gathered round to proudly raise our hands to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. that is exactly what we are doing today. sadly this is not any cause for any 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. i'm grateful to our committee chairs for all the careful and thoughtful investigation they have been doing as this inquiry has proceeded. 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 depositions transcripts, and outlying the procedures for the transfer of evidence to the judiciary 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 in questioning witnesses as the majority. which has been true at every step of this inquiry despite what you might hear. it provides the president and his counsel opportunities to participate, including presenting his case, submitting requests for testimony, attending hearings, raising objections to testimony given, cross-examining witnesses, and more and contrary to what you heard today, we have give more -- we give more opportunity to the -- his case than was given to other presidents before. thank you, mr. chairman, for making that point so clearly. 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 i choirry will investigate -- inquiry 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. it is about the truth. 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, you heard this over and over, on day our 17, 1787, the 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 keep it. d 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 democratcy. what are we fighting for? defending our democracy for the people. you know in the early days 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, write our founding documents and thank god they made them amendable so we can always be expanding freedom. and the genius, again that genius of that constitution was the separation of power. any jew surping of that power is a violation of our oath of office. so proudly, you all, we all raised our hands to protect and defend what the constitution of the united states. that's what this vote is about. today we think the time found our founders, the times 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 nuss 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 men and women in uniform who fight for our freedom and for our democracy and honoring the aspirations of our children so that no president, 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 vuss a good vote today and have clarity, clarity as to how we proceed, why we proceed, and again, doing so in a way that hon norse 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 plure bus ewe numb frommark one. they didn't know how many we would be, or how different we would be, but they knew we needed to always be unify. hopefully as we go forward with this, the clarity of purpose, the 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 an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from texas, the ranking republican member on the house foreign affairs committee, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccaul: i'd also argue that afrl 1 does not say you can do whatever you want to do. the constitution says that and our founding fathers said that as well. 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 are being interviewed behind closed doors in the most secretive room in the united states capitol. that is not democracy. he's 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 baby-sat by a democrat staffer. he's refused to let us hear from the most important witness who brought this entire thing, the whistleblower. he's barred white house counsel from any participation. and now, 38 days into the deems rush to impeachment, speaker pelosi claim she is 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 hiry 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 -- mr. cole: i yield the gentleman 5 seconds. >> 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. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, a distinguished member of the rules committee, mrs. torres. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 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 opponent. we now know that trump potentially sought to apply leverage on ukraine. first, with a coveted white house meeting. second, by with holding security assistance to fend off russian aggression. today's resolution allows us to prevent these fact -- to present these facts in a clear, professional, and fair way. i urge passage of h.r. 660, so the american people can learn the truth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. biggs: thank you. i've heard today how much my colleagues on the other side wish to make this an open an transparent process and this is for we the people. and i would really like to believe that. yet after they introduced the resolution they have another week's full of hearings behind closed doors and schedule another week's full of hearings behind closed doors. if this is about transparency, eep it up. if you want the american people to see it, open it up. give members access to the transcripts. let the immediate wra into the room. let us participate fail -- failing to do so i denies transparencies and belies what you're saying. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. desull nay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. desaulnier: from the start of this inquiry, the white house has obstructed the house of representatives. the white house has completely ignore dudely 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, the 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 coverup and the white house and its defenders in congress have tried to justify it with baseless procedural claims that contradict the constitution and historic 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 defending the constitution and there are no more excuse frs those who turn a blind eye by the president and pressures foreign actors to interfere with our democracy. yield -- i yield back the balance of my time. mr. cole: i have a speaker on the wark i'm a i think -- i'm going to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. morrelle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. morrelle: i rise in strong support of house resolution 660. 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. we continue with a public process through which all americans will have the ability to access and 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 question witnesses, seek evidence, and we re-fute testimony presented in these proceedings the president will have strong protections as we weigh the evidence in our deliberations. our only goal is uncovering the truth. did the president pressure ukrainian leaders with a threat of with holding critical military assistance in order to serve his political interests? has the president endangered american interests abrd by engaging in domestic political intrigue? these are serious issues, not of politics but of national security. this inquirly sour solemn obligation but it is our obligation nonetheless. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution so we uphold our oath to the constitution an preserve a transparent process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker of i yield three minutes to the distinguished whip of the house republican conference, my good friend from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam speaker. 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 have been some people that made it public that they wanted to impeach him. not because of 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 impeach a 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 duh 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 kick out the president's legal counsel. this is uns predened. 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 perp 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 fair fns you can run roughshod over somebody because you've got the votes but that's not how impeachment was supposed to go. in fact, stander hamilton himself, during the debate on the constitution, in the federalist paper, 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 ask the american people who know they're paying higher drug prices and they see 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 have a bill to formally pay our troops and make sure they have the tools they need to defend this country because there's so much an infatuation with impeachment. madam speaker, when you look through this resolution an 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. i encourage burn rejection of this and yield back the balance f my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished chairman of the committee on judiciary, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: 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 a 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 after a fair and thorough inquiry the allegations against president trump are found to be true, they would represent the ofound offense against the constitution and 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 sadden 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 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i am going to reserve my time as we are waiting for a speaker to come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: 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. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 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 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 have learned more and more about just how deem deep this goes. the facts -- 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. 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 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 the call with president zelensky 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 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 obeyed the law and testified even in the face of bullying and intimidation from the administration. of ugly baseless smears from the president's allies. i condemn the shameful efforts to identify and harass the whistleblower whose life may be jeopardized for coming forward to tell the truth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. engel: i salute all those patriots and my fellow chairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. the gentleman from oklahoma. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the distinguished chairwoman of the committee on financial services, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. waters: thank you, chairman mcgovern. i rise in support of h.res. 660 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 procedural resolution such as h.res. 660, should 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 republicans requested a formal procedural vote, i expect nothing less than their full support for h.res. 60. 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.res. of 6 o -- 660. i look forward to democrats and republicans alike prioritizing country over party. voting in favor of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. swal well: i would like -- mr. swalwell: i would like you to do us a favor, though. president trump said those 10 words 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, de filing 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 lawlessness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. swalwell: now we must -- yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to engage from engaging in personalities towards the president. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i would like to inquire from my friend if he has additional speakers. mr. mcgovern: we do. i yield 30 seconds -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. cole: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. into guse: -- mr. neguse: 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 steckeds. mr. boyle: 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield, madam speaker, 30 seconds to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, on opening day we take an oath of office. we take aboath not to a king, president, but to protect and defend the constitution. it is our solemn duty. in fact this resolution sets forth the procedures for the next phase of our impeachment inquirery. we know substantial evidence has been presented that the 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 approve this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: madam speaker, if -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: 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 have 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 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 the democratic majority's resolution lets the chairman choose what information he will share. finally, my amendment 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. the 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. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the entleman for yielding. madam speaker, elections have consequences. our fellow americans used 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 ssues regarding china or iran? 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 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 undermine his legitimacy. for the last three years, they have predetermined the president's guilt. they have never accepted the voter's choice to make him president. so for 37 days and counting, they have run an unprecedent, 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 does what they want. that's 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 ability 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 have offered impeachment three different times. this impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election. it is an aterpt 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 while 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 recognized that a partisan impeachment would put poll toimbings people and harm our nation. that exact same speaker that talked about cooperation that talked about promised the american people that they would do different, they would be different if you justed -- if we 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 bipartisan, the word bipartisan, i do not think we should go down that path because it divides the country. what has changed since those ords have been spoken? alexander hamilton wrote, there will always be the greatest danger that the decision to use impeachment power would be driven by partisan animosity. instead to have real demonstrations of innocent or guilt, the sham impeachment by democrats have proven hamilton right and betrays the speaker's own words. i know emotions are high. i know members would even run for positions of chair 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 1. 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, to deny us to speak for them? has animosity risen that high? is hamilton proven correct again? there is a moment and time 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 the 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 or 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 laws that is not why you ran. that is not why we are here. 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. that we believe the speaker when she said about cooperation, we believed her when she said if you trusted them with the majority they would be different. i guess it's only fitting you take this vote on halloween. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are directed to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from oklahoma has one minute remaining. mr. cole: with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of he time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. thatcgovern: let me assure the minority leader that this democratic majory can legislate an also hold our responsibilities to hold this president to account. because it is our job. we took aboath to do that. in terms of our legislative accomplishments, they -- they are second to none. when you were in the majority you shut the government down. today, the education and labor committee reported out the higher ed bill. we passed a bill to deal with gun violence. we passed the dream act. we raised the minimum wage. we're working on a bill to lower prescription drugs. we passed a bill to protect our elections so russia doesn't interfere in our elections ever again. so madam speaker, i want to say to my colleagues that i am proud of the process we are following here today that brought us this resolution. madam speaker, past congresses under the impeachments of presidents nixon and clinton found it prudent to have a resolution in place laying out the path forward. that's what we are doing here today. this resolution before us today is based on precedent. it includes protections for president trump. the president's counsel 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 were guaranteed to president nickson and president clinton. it lays out a clear path forward so that the american people know what to expect going forward. madam speaker, the obstruction from this white house is uns pretented. 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 separate this is 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. i move the previous question on he resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question now occurs on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas 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. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 231, the nays are 196, the previous question s ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. > madam speaker. the speaker: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are .rdered members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote, colleagues. . five-minute vote the speaker: on this vote, the yeas are 232. the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted. the motion toion, reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. cleaver: i request permission to speak for one minute. the speaker: without objection. objection is heard. n -- the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 656 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 823. will the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of bill h.r. 823, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the state of colorado, and for other urposes. the chair: when the committee rose wednesday, october 30, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-264 offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. crow, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume -- part b of house report number 116-264 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. curtis of utah. amendment number 5 by mr. tipton of colorado. amendment number 6 by mr. crow of colorado. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in 116-264 house report 116-264 by the gentleman from utah, mr. curtis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report number 116-264, offered by mr. curtis of utah. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record coirthets by electronic device. this -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 180. the nays are 240. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 116-264 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, on which further proceedings were postpone the and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in part b of house report number 116-264. offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this is a two-minute vote. -- this is a two-minute vofmente -- vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 185. the nays are 231. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-264 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. crow, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report number 116-264, offered by mr. crow of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this voit, the yeas are 410 and the nays are 6. this amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration, the bill h.r. h.r. 823 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from maryland. >> the gentleman from maryland. >> when a member of the minority rises to object jegget to a motion to lay on the table, whose discretion is it to recognize that standing member aking the objection? the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. harris: i have apparel men temporary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. harris: when a member of the minority party rises to object to a motion to lay on the table -- not to reconsider a resolution, whose discretion is it to recognize that standing member making the objection? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has engaged in debate. mr. harris: mr. speaker, that is a parliamentary inquiry. that is absolutely apparel men temporary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: do you seek a recorded vote? mr. harris: i make apparel men temporary inquiry. under a rule when a member of the minority party rises to object to the motion to lay on the table the reconsideration of a resolution, under the rules, whose obligation is it or at hose discretion is it that member recognized, under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: you are not stating an inquiry pending the proceedings. mr. harris: mr. speaker, i make apparel men temporary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek a recorded vote. mr. harris: at this stage of house deliberations what options to consider the vote on the amendments on this bill? the speaker pro tempore: the previous resolution that was adopted by the house. mr. harris: i'm referencing the piece of business that is in front of the house right now. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman object to the amendments? mr. harris: i do. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek a recorded vote? mr. harris: parliamentary inquiry, what member can seek a recorded -- mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: that is the pending matter before the house. does the gentleman seek a recorded vote? mr. harris: i seek an answer to my first parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared on engrossment and third reading of the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: a bill to provide recreational areas and conservation areas in the state of colorado and foror purposes. -- for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed? >> yes in its current form. the clerk: mr. tipton of colorado moves to recommit the bill h.r. 823 with instructions to report back to the house forth with with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following, title 5 effective act section 501, nothing in this is act or an amendment made by this act restriggets or precludes one, any low-level overflight -- the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the reading is dispensed. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: my district is home to the high altitude army national guard aviation training sites. it is a privilege and honor representing the u.s. department of defense lone training site for the militaries of our allies arn how to fly in high altitudes. it is a vital asset to our national security. proposed wilderness expansion in this bill are creating concerns about the future of the site's ability to ensure military readiness for the men and women who may be deployed in combat zones. the sponsors of the core act is to protect haats. it looks to cole for white guidance as published in a.p. handbook how to operate under the core act. i know all too well that regulatory changes do not provide certainty. we cannot risk the guidance being overturned by future administrations. in conversations with d.o.d. i asked if they had any objections to the cole language laid out in the a.p. handbook. indirect correspondence with my office on may 13 and june 4 of this year, dode -- d.o.d. stated no objection. the only way to provide certainty is to ensure the implementation of the colorado guidance by codifying that in this bill. current law requires d.o.d. aircraft to fly at a minimum of 2,000 feet. in colorado, the terrain conditions maintaining a 2,000 foot minimum altitude challenging and dangerous. the colorado guidance requires that oxygen requirements, engine power limitations or turbulence meeting the 2,000 foot requirement, the aircraft can deviate from the requirements. you can see clearly why the core act includes provisions to be able to codify the colorado guidance. i do not understand the resistance to make this commonsense change to the bill. perhaps some of my colleagues remain supportive of other pending wilderness legislation and have direct and negative impacts on aviators utilizing 71 landing zones which is 40% of the freezing raining area. perhaps a rejection of this commonsense idea has been yet another example of the need to be able to reach out to all stakeholders. . . >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is recognized. mr. tipton: they need to reach out to old all stake holders. not allowing important amendments to even be considered by this house, we let eight amendments, mr. speaker, set in the rules committee not allowing members to be able to vote on them. these are voices from our district impacted by the bill. this is needed to be able to build true consensus for successful public lands efforts. i will also note that calling up the ghost of past public lands proposals that never had broad community consensus or got off the ground to begin with is not an adequate substitute for direct community outreach and consensus building and also the camp mies needed for a bipartisan success story. it's an unfortunate missed opportunity in the house to be able to get it right my good friend from colorado's sense of congress amendment that was just dopted is a message. that's what a sense of congress is, it has no teeth. they need more than just a good message, it deserves something codified in law. this m.t.r. will do just that. at least in h.r. 823, we'll be able to codify this and ensure that nothing in this bill will override the important colorado guidance critical to the mission this and the of safety of our men and women in the united states military. i urge adoption of the motion to recommit and be table protect our national security and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields -- the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. >> this bill that we are considering today, the colorado outdoor recreation and economy act is more than partisan debafmente it's about hike, hunt, it's about fishing. it's about skiing. some of you all may not think i ski, i do. it's about camping. it's about a colorado way of life and preserving our public lands. mr. neguse: the experiences we have outdoors with our loved ones bond us together. and for me, that was hiking with my father in rocky mountain national park. yesterday, my wife called me to let me know our 1-year-old daughter walked for the first time. and you know, i cannot wait to go back to colorado and to be able to hike with my daughter in the iconic public lands that are protected under this bill. because ultimately this bill is about protecting our most pristine and treasured place for generations long after we're gone. that's essence of our service, leaving a better world for those who come next. as tedy roosevelt once said, here's your country. cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage for your children and your children's children and do not let selfish men or greedy interests skim your country of its beauty, its riches, or its romance. at the end of the day we have an obligation to protect the public lands which is why i'm so honored to lead this bill. we have worked incredibly hard to make this bill something that our state can be proud of. i am proud that the house has voted to accept two of my colleagues' amendments because in colorado we get things done by communication and consensus. i'm proud that every will call jurisdiction impacted by a title of this bill supports those very same titles. republican and democrat. i am proud that this bill has bipartisan support back in the state of colorado. it's unfortunate that this motion to recommit is not about those things. it's not about improving the bill. it's not about reaching consensus, it's improving the bill. here's why. over 400 members in this chamber voted in favor of an antidepressant offered by my distinguished colleague from colorado, mr. crow who bravely served in our armed forces, fought for our country in afghanistan and iraq hsm offered an amendment to stress the importance of colorado's army national guard high altitude aviation training site. that measure passed unanimously. almost unanimously. seven or eight folks voted against it. because they recognize that the haats program is something we must protect. but the truth of the matter is this bill already addresses the concerns offered by my colleague. i will quote from the bill, on page 37, subparagraph f, military overflights. nothing in this title or amendment made by this title restricts or precludes any low level overflight of military aircraft over any area stounget this title or amendment made to this title. i could go on. but you also don't have to take my word for it. we have a letter from the colorado national guard, as my colleague mr. crow said yesterday in floor debate, we ought to listen to our troops, to our commanders, and what they have told us. i will just quote. it's through the diligent efforts of staff within the department, the offices of the bill's sponsors and the department of defense, we have mitigated prior concerns related to military overflight over the potential wilderness areas identified in this bill and i appreciate the efforts of congressman neguse and yourself, mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend the house is not in order. mr. neguse: the letter from the colorado national guard concludes by thanking the delegation for their effort to preserve colorado's natural beauty and looking forward to the passage of this important legislation. those are not my words. those are the words of the colorado national guard. so it is important for us not to lose sight of the bigger picture. the core act presents an opportunity for us to come together an show that we can still govern on issues that are so important to all our constituents. and while i may be new to congress, mr. speaker, the components of the bill that we are slated to vote on in just a short few minutes are not new to this congress. title 1 of this bill has been introduced for five straight congresses. tite 28 of this bill dates back to 2009. local advocates have been asking for the withdrawal of the thompson divide since 2010. title 4 of this bill was introduced in 2009. mr. speaker, these bills have been around since george w. bush was president. when those bills were being drafted this washington nationals had not yet played their first game at nationals ark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. neguse: i ask we vote against this motion to recommit and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. tipton: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded rote will rizz. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the charel -- the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on thee question of passag. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 199 and the nays are 210. this motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. > madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 227 and the nays are 182. the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my colleague from the rules committee, ranking member cole to insert the text of the amendment he would have offered if the house had rejected the previous question along with extraneous material into the record immediately prior to the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 660. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 30, 2019 1:32 p.m. that the senate passed 1678. igned sincerely, i am, roy h omp rw inch ch. >> i ask unanimous consent to remove welch, tores small and est ter pan from h.r. 2505 the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker, i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives messages in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: today is a serious day. last night was an extraordinary night. of e for the millions people who live in the washington metropolitan area to congratulate and to exalt with all of our region on the extraordinary achievement of the washington nationals. his morning in washington, the heavens are crying tears of joy. another words, it's raining, but there is no rain in any of our hearts or minds today. maybe raining, but the face on national fans are shining with pride and happiness. , r the first time in 95 years we have waited a long time, folks. a major league baseball team from our nation's capital is bringing home a world series championship. my colleague, mrs. norton, is here, being urged to put a sweater over her pride. for the mightiness of their bats and the nats pushed through in game seven last night against the houston astros. arguably the best team in either league this year who won the most games. i want to congratulate the houston astros on an extraordinary season but just didn't count on the washington nationals. but today the houston astros and the washington nationals are in absolute agreement. it is my understanding they are sending a joint letter to the major league baseball saying we want all of our games to be road games from now on. in case you didn't get that, neither team won at home. they all won games on the road. the good news was, the washington nationals had four games in houston and the astros only had three games in washington. so there is joy in washington this day. is sustained by a spirit of sports mapship. and our nats grew dedication from fans and my district. we have been waiting a very long time for this day. i hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the 2019 nationals and davey martinez who to become the al at&ts. gnats. and congratulate this year's most valuable player. started out with 19 wins and 31 loss season. what an extraordinary achievement to come that a far, that quickly to meet arguably as i said to beat the best team in baseball, the houston astros. i also want to mention as i said the most valuable player. stephen strasburg. recruited and signed with the washington nationals some years ago. he had to be operated on, tommy john, they call it, and he has come back to be one of the best pitchers in the major leagues and. so let's congratulate him and all the members of this team on this victory. to paraphrase the old poem, oh, somewhere in this favored land, the sun is shining light, the band is playing somewhere and somewhere hearts are light. and somewhere men are laughing and somewhere children shout. today, my colleagues, that somewhere is the nation's apital. congratulations, nats, we love you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. last week i joined several dozen of my colleagues at the scif many protest to the secret impeachment inquiry. 75% of the elected members of congress have been shut out of this impeachment inquest. this whole inquiry is a sham led by the speaker of this house and her impeach. czar, the chairman of the intelligence committee. their attempt today to try and open these proceedings is nothing short of soviet nass yost. a fake transparency that only leads to les participation, more secrecy and less due process. madam speaker, this is too little, too late. you can't unring the bell. on this sham process -- you can't unring the bell on the sham process that is your high water mark in seeking to undo the 2016 election at all costs. mr. keller: case in point, while saying there would be a rose lution to try to bring transparent stoy this, this committee continues to take depositions in secret. democrats in this chamber have been act like bank robbers after they trip an alarm they're trying to shove as much money into the bag as they can before the people get their due process, or before the police get there i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, this is a somber and solemn time. i rise in support of h.res. 66, 0 resolution establishing procedures for the impeachment of the president. i do it with a heavy heart. today we choose our beloved nation over individual self-interest and political party. we choose the process, regular and order, regular and in order and fairness and due process. we choose this little document called the constitution, lasting for over 200 years an we're reminded of the words of james madison who argued in favor of impeachment saying some provision was indispensable to defend the community against incapacity or negligence of the chief magistrate. we do not do this in a rush. we do not do it eagerly. but reminded of lieutenant colonel vindman who came here at 3 years old, he said, i dekated my entire life to the united states of america. he said about the call he was on, i realized this was troubling, that if the ukraine pursued an investigation into the bidens, it would be wrong. i do not think it was propper to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen. we stand on the constitution, we must do right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to reiterate my support for the united states-mexico-canada trade agreement, a deal that supports farmers and workers. however, usmca sits, unrat fid, even as president trump, mexico and canada signed the agreement over a year ago. each day that the u.s. mca is not raltfi we're losing out on valuable jobs and opportunities. speaker pelosi must get serious about bringing this legislation to a vote in congress my republican colleagues and i are ready to vote on the deal but house democrats setting their sights on baseless impeachment of the president choose to neglect important opportunities like this. i just voted against an impeachment resolution against the president when i should be voting on issues like usmca. i implore speaker pelosi to bring usmca for a vote so we can finally deliver for american farmers and manufacturers. let's get become to what we promised the american people we would do. i hope that my colleagues across the aisle can agree that ex-panning access to market remaining competitive and growing our economy is what's best for americans. instead of engaging in political shams that do nothing to move this country forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, currently military families who send all important care packages to their loved ones overseas have to pay some postage. these families are already paying a lot just by enduring the absence of their loved ones. that's why i am rae re-introducing the military care package program act which would waive these postal fierce family-sent care packages. in this spirit i'd like to take a moment to recognize an organization in my district called san pedros packages for patriots. packages for patriots has been sending care packages, letters an comfort items to our armed forces members overseas since 2008. these packages symbolize love and hope. for some soldiers, it truly means the world. this amazing organization was started by san pedro residents mike walker and his wife shirley. together along with a group of dedicated volunteers, pack annals for patriots has shipped over 16,000 care packages with over 200,000 pounds of supplies to american servicemens deployed in iraq and afghanistan. i'm sure every member of this body would like to join me in applauding their efforts in support of our servicemens overseas. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, michelle demon tain once said having a rouse stabble not of legs and arms but of courage and the soul. this quote describes sergeant class brian jenkins of gainesville, florida who tragically lost his life in a military exercise in georgia. throughout his 18-year military careering he distinguished himself as a true patriot. mr. owe ohoe: he -- mr. yow ho: he went on two tours in iraq and won four different military awards. our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, shaina, his three children, branson, briann; and deleila, as well as the families of the other two colleagues, private walker and preist first class fwar see ya, who were also killed in this exercise. the impact sergeant first class jenkins had on those around him will not be forgotten. we thank them for the sacrifice they made to this great nation. he truly was man of honor. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does he gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i rise to introduce a resolution supporting the three c's initiative to bolster energy infrastructure security in central and eastern europe. i am pleased to co-lead this bipartisan effort with ranking member of the house foreign affairs subcommittee on europe, adam kinzinger. energy security is national security. for years, russia has sought to undermine liberty and security in europe by forcing central and east european nation into reliance on russia for their energy needs. they do this through projects pipeline.ordsstream 2 thankfully 12 of our closest allies have banded together to increase their autonomy through the three c's initiative. this resolution makes leer clooer the u.s.'s strong support for the initiative and encourages member neighs to take action on joint financing of future projects. additionally it encourages the member nations to consider financing of clean energy projects as the world addresses the dire climate change crisis. in the face of increased russian aggressions, the u.s. must play a leading role in energy security in europe. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> 5 years ago, a future coen allen named was born. he was born with a gift, superior athletic ability. at 15 he was already a standout running back for the southlake carroll varsity football team. he rushed for 200 yards and scored four touchdowns. texans love competition. we love champions. we love inwinners. we find the pest best of all these things in high school football. 23 you want to know why texans are crazy about those friday night lights, look no further than owen allen. his performance on the field excites and inspires. running back allen was just named the dallas-fort worth high school offensive player of the week. but athleticism is only one of mr. allen's qualities. he's also a young man of great character, a young man of integrity an decency. as a member of congress i congratulate mr. allen and wish him many years of success as an athlete and human being. i pray god's blessing on him and his family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> every single day, eight kids are killed or injured by unintentional shootings with guns found in the home. last week, a 9-year-old child accidently shot their 4-year-old sibling in the face at their home in tennessee. earlier this year, a 4-year-old boy in oakland barely survived after accidently shooting himself in the head with a gun he found under the pillow. these accidental shootings are preventable. that's why i'm introducing the prevent family fire act of 2019, a bipartisan bill to reduce gun violence by providing a modest tax credit to insentivize the sale of things like gun safes. if we expand safe storage, we can reduce accidental shootings by 73%. it's not just accidental shootings. over 75% of school shootings involving kids an teens have access to unsecured guns at home and more than 80% of guns used by youth in suicide attempts were kept in the home of a victim, a relative, or a friend. there is much more that we need to do to address gun violence but this commonsense bill is a step we can take to save lives. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> a rasmussen poll conducted on october 2, 2019, found a sky-high 69% of independent voters were, quote, angry at the media. and over 60% of all voters share that anger. these voters are not upset because the media -- at the media because they are balanced and fair. they're upset because the media is biased and telling them what to think. or not telling them at all. the results of this astounding poll didn't appear in the nation's largest newspapers or the most-watched tv nudes programs and was hardly mentioned on social media. mr. mooney: the media's credibility is already at a record low. the road back to credibility for the media is to give the american people the truth and let them make up their own minds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today i rise to praise the house for unanimously passing the dignity in aging act. this act includes two bipartisan bills that i led to respond to challenges facing a growing, aging american population. social isolation and younger onset alzheimer's. as i heard from seniors and their families in my district, at my seniors workshop, we need to do more to support care givers, improve economic opportunities for older individuals, and ensure americans can age with dignity, security, and the quality of life. this act does that. mr. trone: this week democrats and republicans worked together to pass a dignity in aging act that's a win for congress, a win for serors, and a win for the american people. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition -- recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, congress exists to serve the american people. passing legislation that will protect their rights, promote their welfare. since january of this year, house democrats have been vigorously legislating for the people and have passed more than 00 bills. 200 bills. bills to secure a living wage for american workers. bills to protect pensions and fight discrimination in the workplace. bills to expand access to health care and lower the cost of prescription drugs. we have passed bills a to safeguard our elections, the bedrock of our democracy from both foreign and domestic interference. contrast, the republican-controlled senate has offered lit bull on instruction and inaction. their leader proudly calls hymn the grim reaper for laying waste to our 200 bills. so i rise today to implore senate lawmakers to do your job. take up these house-passed measures and start serving the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today on the last day of filipino -american heritage to recognize the bake shop in california and named the delano business of the year. they have been dedicated to hard work and unconditional love. as a result, the bake shop has become a staple and personal favorite of mine. one-third of the 52,000 residents are filipino. phil's bake shop has been a steadfast supporter. and the phillipines were struck by natural disaster. they collect donations in types of disaster while providing the rd working families with delicious sweet breads. it is honored as business of the year, and i am proud to represent a tremendous place in the 21st district of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. norton: madam speaker, with the impeachment inquiry vote, the house made history today, but the washington nationals made unprecedented history just last night. r dth nats won the world series for the very first time in american history. our nats were the underdog throughout the series, just like their hometown. the district of columbia has been for 218 years, but hold on, america. we are about to make it a double. nats' victory and pass the d.c. state hood during the 216th congress. for make my friend sheila jackson lee pay up on a bet against the houston astros. go nats. long live d.c. statehood. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> on veterans' day we remember the devotion of the brave men and women of the military who have honorably served our nation. our veterans have fought to preserve this nation. it's democracy, freedom and prosperity. american veterans have not only helped maintain the right established by our founding fathers but set an example of enduring patriotism. back home, they have helped advance our country by embodying the american spirit of hard work and preservation. today we acknowledge these men and women who have served our nation as members of our military. we thank them for their many chiropractics to our country and we remember in prayer those men and women who never returned home from foreign soil. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. gabbard: the history of the united states has been intertwined with the armenian people and the armenian genocide. american missionaries and diplomats let the world know that the ottoman empire was attempting to cleanse itself from the armenian and christian population. the u.s. became home to many survivors. limpkin to rafael have the term genocide. the denial of the armenian genocide has had consequences. i have visited and saw turkey which denies genocide and no fear of committing it again. turkey has become ethnic cleansing of the syrian kurds in northern syria. i called on our government to officially recognize the armenian genocide. the house has spoken with a clear voice. breaking the silence recognizing the armenian genocide and call on the senate and president trump to do the same. we cannot allow history to repeat itself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lesko: i rise in observance of domestic violence awareness month. an 25 years ago, i was in abusive relationship with my ex-husband. i became a single mother to a young daughter, working just to survive day-to-day. i never dreamed in a million years that i would be standing here before you today as a member of congress. speaking on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives, but i not only survived, i thrived. i share my story in hopes to help others. i hope they find strength in our efforts to acknowledge their suffering and recognize the many organizations that exist to help them today. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, in accordance with section 506 a-3-b of the trade act of 1974 as amended, i am terminating the direction of the republic of cameroon as a beneficiary subsahar and african country under the growth and opportunity act. i have determined that the government of cameroon engages of gross violations of internationally recognize the human rights contraconvenienting the eligibility requirements of section 104. despite intensive engagements, cameroon has failed to address concerns regarding persistent violations. these violations include extra judicial killings, arbitrary and unlawful detention and torture. i intend to term fate the designation of cameroon as a beneficiary under the a.g.o.a. as of january 1, 2020. i will continue to assess whether the government of cameroon has violations. signed donald j. trump, the white house, october 31, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies provides for the termination of a national emergency unless within 90 zace before its anniversary, the president transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue beyond the anniversary date. i have sent to the federal register the enclosed notice stating the national emergency of november 3, 1997 is to continue in effect beyond november 3, 2019. despite recent positive developments, the crisis constituted by the actions and policies of the government of sudan have led to executive order, the expansion of that ell order of april 26, 2006. and with respect to which additional steps were taken in executive order 13412 of october 13, 2006, executive order 13761 of january 1, 2017 and executive order 13804 has not been resolved. these actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 13067 as expanded by executive order 13400 with respect to sudan. signed dodged j. trump, the white house, october 31, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's afoundationed policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. today, some vote today, some would say it was very important, but actually it didn't do so much. in fact revoked some of our history, some of our precedent, me of our rules to take an unusual step toward supposed impeachment. i still continue to be of the opinion that we will not end up having a vote in this chamber on whether or not to on actually impeach president trump because if that happens, it goes to the senate. it gets slam dunk down in the senate both on the basis of massive failure of due process as well as no evidence, no direct evidence of any wrongdoing unless we're talking is a democratthat and held the second highest office before. due process.ot by the way, once it goes to the senate, they vote it down and then assures a repeat of 1996 where the current president is re-elected and i'm sure my friends across the aisle don't want to do that. in my opinion, i don't think we'll end up with a vote to actually impeach or not impeach president trump. we'll see how that plays out. but it is worth looking at precedent, as an old history major. has never quit studying history. if we look at the impeachment committee authorizations in 1974 and 1998, back then, when there was bipartisan concern about due process, not just one side concerned, the authorization by the house directed the judiciary committee to investigate if there was sufficient grounds for impeachment. currently, though, the speaker had directed six different committees with house intelligence at the forefront to continue their ongoing investigations as part of what was called an impeachment inquiry. and regarding the subpoena power what was 998, authorized in the resolution back in the days when there was concern about due process and airness and ensuring justice would be done, the resolution authorized both the chairman and the ranking member of the judiciary committee to issue subpoenas acting jointly or unilaterally. either the chairman or the ranking member declined to act and any other had the right to refer the decision to full committee. currently under what we voted on today, authorized the chair of intelligence, chairman schiff and judiciary committee to issue the authorization to the ranking member only is with the consent or approval of the chairman. it's incredible. i mean, basically our friends have said well, it's like a grand jury. well i have been a prosecutor in front of grand juries. i have been a judge who have impaneled grand juries and answered their questions and dealt with questions that arose. i'm quite familiar with them. . . in a grand jury, every single person then grand jury who is going to get a vote gets to hear every witness, gets to ask any question they wish, and they can even send the prosecutor out of the grand jury if they wish, they're only there as an advisor. but what we've had not only was inquiry, but ment ey actually had armed guards utside of the sensitive, compartmented information facility. the scif. armed guards. with guns. to try to keep us out. people like me. on judiciary committee. who is fully authorized under the current rules to sit in on any impeachment inquiry, participate. because the rules through precedent have made clear it's the judiciary committee that does that the speaker can't just stand up and say, i'm changing all the rules unilaterally. except for the fact that in this case that's exactly what happened. forget the rules. i'm decreeing these are the committees that will do an information i didn't realize until we went into the scif, which i'm authoriz to do, and rules, judiciary having jurisdiction, i should have a right to hear each one of those witnesses. iidn't know until we got in there, turns out, chairman schiffeach time a witness was about t begin to speak to the intelligence committee the committee, he would instruct , so ifis is unclassified a question is asked that you think might end up revealing something classified, then you can just say you can't answer, might reveal classified information. sounds to me like that was instruction when the republicans asked ask you a question you don't want to answer say, well, may reveal classified information an you don't have to answer their questions. except that then we find out that in the more recent depositions, the witnesses were actually instructed not to answer questions. well, this metaphor of a grand jury totally breaks down. it doesn't apply. there's never been a grand jury where one grand juror could tell the witness, you don't have to answer these other grand jurors questions. and we're going to put armed guards where people that are on the grand jury can't get in to hear the testimony if we don't want them to hear the testimony. sure they'll have to vote at some point. but we're going to put armed guards to keep the biggest part of the grand jury out of being able to see the witnesses, to see their countenance as they answered questions. it's why both in military court-martials, courts-martial, that i participated in, in ,ederal trials, in state trials we have an aversion to having depositions, yeah, you have a lot of depositions in civil trials, but in criminal trials, something as important as liberty, and i would submit, a president being thrown out that was duly elected is just as you ant, in such a case, get to ask the questions, you see the questions uric get to hear the answers, and you get to observe the witnesses. it's important. the et under orders of eaker and chairman schiff, so-called comparative grand jury kept the huge majority out of those hearings where we could hear and see for ourselves. and now we find out through the vote today that yeah, the judiciary committee is ultimately going to get this from the intelligence committee but never in the history of this country have we had such gross unfairness that one party would put armed guards with guns to prevent the duly authorized people from being able to hear the witnesses and see them for themselves. and then, oh, we hear from this resolution today, we're going to send you the depositions after we get through doctoring and looking at and editing the transcripts, we'll send you those so you have the evidence you need. that's not the kind of evidence that a coup should be based on. if we're going to have what they're trying to legalize as a coup, we ought to have a right to see each of those witnesses. and the only potential use for deposition should be impeachment of those witnesses. nothing else. not for anything substantive. the president's attorney, unlike in 1974 and 1998, were not allowed to be there. even see and hear the witnesses. so the references to this being a star chamber are not inappropriate. it's outrageous what's been going on for people who truly are about due process. regarding the procedures now, the judiciary committee must operate pursuant to the reed yours imposed by the chame of the rules committee. well previously, one of the oldest committees in the house of representatives, the judiciary committee, in prior mpeachments made the rules for the impeachment hearing. we didn't have it dictated by the rule committees. no. because this is the judiciary committee. these are people that are supposed to have expertise in constitutional issues. so when you have the committee that has more expertise in constitutional issues, what did the majority do? we don't want the committee with the most expertise on constitutional issues dealing with these constitutional issues. we want to put armed guards outside a hearing and have it in a secret compartmented information facility and we're not going to let the other side call their own witnesses so we get a fair picture of what actually went on. we're not even going to let them ask questions we don't want them to ask. we'll instruct the witnesses not to answer. because you see, they want it to be a one-sided, nondue process, sham court. and it's about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes. and if there's one thing i don't want to see in my lifetime, i don't want to ever have participation in, it's a civil war. some historian, i don't remember who, said, guns are only involved in the last phase of a civil war. what's gone on here is not protected the constitution. it's not protected the institutions. it's not protected this little experiment in self-government. what it has done is put it all at risk. because what some people in this body don't seem to understand is , when you set a precedent as dangerous as what we have been watching for the last three won't be many but there will be republicans, if this isn't stopped, there'll be republicans that will take the precedent of what the democrats have done here and use it against the democratic president. try to set him up an create a coup. like i say, it won't be me. but that's the way history works. somebody sets a precedent, then eventually somebody also not concerned about due process is going to try to mimic that and o one further. in 1974, 1998, the committee procedures during the clinton and nickson impeachment processes, they included theable of the president's counsel to attend all hearings, including those in executive session, question any and all witnesses called before the committee, submit written questions for dditional testimony, and provide sum miferse what he would propose to show and respond to evidence received and testimony presented either orally or in writing as determined by the committee. the president's counsel could also review all evidence obtained in the course of the impeachment inquiry. not only is the president's counsel not been allowed to do any of those thing that was been done in the past to ensure due ocess and fairness, even the rest of this voting body that will have to vote on an impeachment were not allowed to see the witnesses, to hear the witness, to review the transcripts until after they're through working with the transcripts. this resolution today bifurcates the impeachment, only allows president's counsel to participate in judiciary committee proceedings. it provides no ability to participate in the ongoing intelligence committee investigation. if we presume that the procedurs the rule committees have dictated to us on high allow the presint's counsel to participate in judiciary committee proceedings at all, they'll only have access to documents transmitted to the judiciary committee and not all the material obtained in the course of the intelligence committee's hearings. i just hapn to have house resolution 803 from 1974 that involved, well it was from chairman, democratic chairman, radino, from the committee on the judiciary. see that's the way it's supposed to be done. that way it's been done in the past. 1974. 1998. and under the rules that the democrats passed earlier this year in january, the rules say if a rule is not specific about a matter theprecedent is the rule. that's the rule. and it's been ignored repeatedly. so we vote today basically rubber stamping the secret starr chamber hearings, the one-sided questioning of the witnesses, oh, we did hear today, republicans have equal time to the democrats. 's just that democrats could ask whatever they wanted and get answers and republicans ouldn't. impeachment in the past, when we've impeached federal judges fore, came through our judiciary committee, very bipartisan because even as recent as the last 10, 12 years, even adam schiff realized, when you're going to remove a federal fficer from a position who was duly placed in, you've got to make sure you provide due process and you have buy-in on both sides. there was no buy-in today because evethough there's some republicans that are quite -- they're not big fans ofhe president. to put it mildly. they realize this process is an outrage. and it is a threat to our little experiment in self-government. an article comes out yesterday by paul spery entitled, the beltway's whistleblower furor obsesses or one ne. to my knowledge, i'vnot ever talked to this paul spery. with real clear investigations. he -- but he brings out a name that's been bandied about on the internet. a lot of people speculating . is guy was the whistleblower radless of whether this guy's the whistleblower not, it is important to look at what's been going on with him, just forget about the claim he's a whistleblower. look what he has been doing. and the more you find out, the more you realize, wow, president trump should have revoked clearances for prior potential conspirators ng before hdid. in the article it mentions, this 33-year-old -- welready knew he was a male, that he orked for vice president biden and this guy, he was held over from the obama white house and one of the things that president obama was able to do so much better than president trump was make sure that the people that worked in the white use, in the c.i.a., in the d.o.j., the f.b.i., but especially in the white house, in the old executive office building for the vice president, they made much better certainty that everybody there was going to be loyal to president obama and vice president biden. they did a magnificent job of that. so, anybody that's held over -- in fact, i understand h.r. mcmasters, great obama democrat loyalist, that was working -- continuing to work in the trump administration, made clear that he didn't want to hear any of his people ever say again that someone was an obama holdover. i guess he didn't want people outed in front of people loyal to the president, as being oyal to president obama. but mcmasters also was a boss of this guy. he did work for biden. he worked for c.i.a. director ohn brennan. brennan, the article said, was a vocal critic of trump who helped initiate the russia collusion investigation of the trump campaign during the 2016 election. further this guy left his national security council -- in 2017.he this guy was working in the white house. love brennan, love mcmasters. and he's in president trump's white house. and part of the national security council. they get to see everything that concerns anything on foreign policy and our own national security. but there were concerns about negative leaks to the media. he since returned to the c.i.a. headquarters in langley, virginia. the article says he was accused of working against trump and leaking against trump. said a former n.s.c. official speaking on the condition of anonymity. to discuss intelligence matters. alas this guy huddled for guidance with the staff of house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the obama era whom schiff's office had recently recruited from the national security council. and this guy worked with a democratic national committee operative who dug up the dirt on the trump campaign during the 2016 election. inviting her into the white house for meetings, former white house colleagues said. the operative, alexandra chalupa, a ukrainian american who supported hillary clinton, led an effort to link the republican campaign to the russian government. quote, he knows her, he had her in the white house, said one former co-worker. documents confirm the d.n.c. opposition researcher attended at least one white house meeting with this guy in november of 2015. she visited the white house with a member -- with a number of ukrainian officials low low -- lobbying the obama administration for aid to ukraine. and that's the aid we know we've seen, heard former vice president biden bragging that, hey, i'm leaving in six hours, and if they want this $1 billion, they're going to have to fire the prosecutor, who just happened to be investigating the gas company that was giving millions of dollars to his son. the article says, everyone knows who he, the whistleblower, is. cnn knows, "the washington post" knows. "new york times" knows. congress knows. white house knows. even the president knows who he is. said fred flight, a former c.i.a. analyst and national security advisor to trump. who has fielded dozens of calls from the media. yet a rare hush swept across the potomac. you know, normally "the new york times" and "the washington post," they can't wait to out a whistleblower. can't wait. don't mind seeing them destroyed. you look at a real whistleblower, not a fake one like we have here, a real whistleblower with direct information, like adam lovinger, who working in the defense department -- i didn't know that this scheme went that far. but lovinger is supposed to investigate improper payments by the defense department and he saw hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid different times to a guy named stephen helper -- stephon helper, who is a professor. and he couldn't see anything in return for all the money. and then we have this investigation about president trump and find out that actually halper was getting paid by the defense department to help set up trump campaign people so they could use that information to go before a foreign intelligence surveillance act court and get a warrant. to spy on the trump campaign. phenomenal. the defense department's paying a guy to help set up the trump campaign before president trump was ever elected. so they could get warrants to spy on the campaign. it's incredible. article says, trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a corrupt and biased media trying to protect the whistleblower from due scrutiny about his political motives. they also complain democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity and doesn't cover press disclosures. his democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family at risk of harm, although the government security personnel have been assigned to protect him. i come back to the facts, there are lots of people that have testified adversely to president donald j. trump. as far as i know, they're all still living, breathing, saying nasty things about him. their health is not put in jeopardy in any way. their personal safety is not a problem. now, that's not true of some other people that have been in high positions in this town, where people end up dead in the morgue. i'm not saying they caused it. i'm just saying, if you're worried about outing some incident, somebody, president trump's not the one you need to worry about. flight said, they're hiding him, they're hiding him because of his political bias. a c.i.a. officer specializing in russia and ukraine, this person was detailed over to the national security council from the agency, being the c.i.a., in the summer of 2015, working under susan rice, president obama's national security advisor. he also worked closely with the former vice president. that's the same susan rice, according to a book in the recent few years, after -- according to that book, it reported that secretary clinton called her husband and said, they're wanting me to go out there and say this attack in enghazi was all about a video. and the advice was, you know, you can't be the one that goes on the sunday shows because nobody's going to buy that. so, susan rice was picked to go out and tell people the attack in benghazi was based on a video, when most everybody, maybe not susan rice, but most people that had looked into it at all knew it was not about a video. at all. and the administration, obama administration, had been warned repeatedly of the threat that was coming and didn't give them the security they needed. nor did they allow anyone to go lift a finger to help the people at benghazi. and i love hearing people on the other side say, oh, you investigated benghazi for so long. you had nothing. yes, that's because the obama administration wouldn't produce anything that we asked for, the important things we asked for. they covered things up. same on fast and furious. and we didn't have a speaker on the republican side that would allow us to go to court and get those things released. so the more important things that got released were a result of judicial watch going to court and getting a court order to get things produced. but still, there was so much that was not produced. we don't know all the facts. about -- facts about what happened. by the way, i do know that intelligence people lied to the republican chairman of intelligence back then and he never would wake up and realize it. because he reported to our republican conference after benghazi, about six months after it, look, guys, some of you have asked me, isn't there somebody at walter reed that was injured, we keep hearing rumors? and mike said, no, i can tell you there is no one who was injured at benghazi that's at walter reed. i couldn't sit still anymore, this was on one of my trips to walter reed. i met such a person. he was on the roof with tyrone wood and the other heroes. he had much of his leg blown off. i met him and i honored his request for anonymity. but i couldn't sit there and listen to the republican chairman of intelligence perpetrating what he thought was true but was not and i knew it wasn't and i said, that's not true. he got red-faced and said, that is true. i said, no, i had lunch with one yesterday. he said, that's not true. and he told me later after the meeting, i've talked to our intelligence people and they tell me that the guy you must have seen, he's not at walter reed, he comes there for physical therapy. i said, no, i can tell you the building number and where his apartment is and it adjoins the physical therapy, it is right there on walter reed. but anyway. he didn't believe it. and i had texted or this great hero and didn't hear from him for a couple of weeks and later he emailed back that, gee, strangest thing happened. i had the most painful surgery on my leg. he had had numerous surgeries. but this was the most painful since half of it got blown up -- off on that rooftop in benghazi. painful id, but that -- they medicated me because of all the pain, and that night in the middle of the night, these guys show up at our apartment and they moved my wife, my kids , all of us immediately off the hospital property. it doesn't make sense. well, it made sense to me. we had intelligence people covering up the lie they told to the chairman of intel because he was a republican chair. i bet they don't lie like that to adam schiff. anyway. federal records, according to the article, show that bind's office invited this guy to an october, 2016, state luncheon. the vice president hosted for italian prime minister mateo rinzi. other invited guests included brennan as well as then-f.b.i. director james comey, then national intelligence director james clapper, several u.s. -- said an ld invitation was extended to this guy who was a relatively low-level g and it was unusual, he was politically connected inside the obama white house. former white house official said this guy worked on ukrainian policy issues for biden in 2015, 2016. when the vice president was president obama's point man for ukraine. he was a yale graduate. speaks russian, ewe yaincran, as well as arabic. he'd been assigned to the nfc by brennan. he was held over into the trump administration. headed the ukraine desk at the nsc under president trump. eventually transitioning into the west wing until june, 2017. he was moved over to the front office to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a forme white house official, where he saw everything. read everything. the official added that soon became clear among n.s.c. staff that this guy posed -- opposed the new republican president's foreign policies, quote, my recollection of this guy is that he was very smart, very passionate, particularly about ukraine and russia. that was his thing. ukraine. he didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with ukraine and russia and his views were at odds with the president's policies. in may, 2017, guy went outside his chain of command, according to a former n.s.c. co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that trump happened to hold a meeting with russian diplomats in the oval office the day after firing comey who led the trump-russia investigation. the email also noted that russian president putin had phoned the president a week earlier. contents of the email appeared to have ended up in the media which reported trump boasted to russian officials about firing comey who he allegedly called crazy, real nut job. in effect this guy helped generate the putin fired comey narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in congress. so anyway. it's a mess. now, one of the things about whistleblower protections, though, is if you were to be prosecuted for committing a whistleblower atus could be used to help hold off potential prosecution. it's my understanding that it would not likely win the day but it could delay prosecution. so say hypothetically you work for somebody like brennan or say hypothetically you work for somebody like mcmasters and brennan, and you helped come up with a conspiracy to oust a duly elected sitting president by alleging some conspiracy with that and you found out the attorney general and the u.s. attorney assigned to investigate the origins of the closing in on participants of your conspiracy. well, if you had a really smart you, , he might just tell you could get a whistleblower status, they start closing in on you, then we can start filing motions to keep you out of that prosecution because you're a whistleblower, you're in a protected status, it shouldn't prevent the ultimate prosecution but it could delay things for a while. so it could make sense if you're a co-conspirator, trying to bring down a duly-elected president that you might want that whistleblower status. but the problem that is, and his is a problem for a tainted inspector general who would protect such a whistleblower, because if you're complaining it has to be to get that status, somebody in your chain of command and the president was not in the -- we told, he's not in the whistleblower's chain of command. hat's outside of his intelligence, c.i.a. o it has to be within that leadership ladder and the president's outside of that. so he wasn't a real whistleblower. plus, a whistleblower has to have direct evidence. what we've seen with this march of the gossip mongers, as best described, that's been paraded into the secret star chamber with the armed guards outside of it so that other members of this grand jury can't get to see and hear the witnesses, it really appears to be a march of those who don't like president trump and are so willing to sully, in some cases valiant military service, great career, they're willing to have that tarnished gossip ed by becoming mongers. for example, one person that apparently had a great career in the army, william taylor, i understand he was in the infantry for six years. i was at fort benning for four years, i can tell you anybody who was a commander in the infantry didn't last any time at all if he alud gossip mongers like he's become to come before him and say, captain, captain, i heard that somebody else heard something that was said, he'd throw him out of the office. i'm not going to be running a goss ill column here. if somebody knows something directly, send them to me. but don't you come in here being a gossip monger. well, now he's become the gossip monger. well, i heard that somebody else heard that they heard the president say -- and i just come back to this as someone who had to sit and listen and evaluate evidence and make life and death decisions in a courtroom, yet analyze what kind of person is this before me as a witness. and if you have a witness before to that is willing to try destroy and remove a president from office who was duly elected under our constitution and they're now willing to use second, third, fourth-hand gossip, it tells you they are not the great person that they once were. they are not the patriot they once were. they're nothing but gossip mongers. and it should, if you're going to be a fair arbiter of truth and justice, it should dramatically diminish your evaluation and analysis of what they have to say. this is not a classy person, this is a gossip monger. and that's what william tai already became for the intelligence committee. and that's what vindman became. and some have said oh, gee, lieutenant colonel vindman, he's the ultimate american. he came in uniform. well i was trained if you're going to say bad things about someone in your chain of command including the commander in chief, because a lot of us were not happy with president carter when i was in at fort benning. but we all knew you can't say anything negative about president carter andest pearblely not -- especially not in uniform, doesn't matter if it's true. you can't d it. he comes in parading in his uniform. to try to take down a sitting president. and he uses gossip to do that. you know. and we also have to wonder, ok, so the whistleblower number one, great patriot we're told, who is not, he's a gossip monger. where did he get that information since he didn't get it firsthand? he was not allowed to receive information about those telephone calls that the president made to a leader of another country. so somebody violated the law by telling him. we don't know who that was. but whoever it was, vindman or anybody else, there's a good chance they committed a crime. and that crime and all the surrounding information about their crime should be admissible in helping impeaching analyze that witness' testimony. so you ought to be able to pursue it. but we're told when republicans were asking colonel vindman who , who did yout this transfer information to, they were shut down by the chairman. well, that tells you the chairman must know what the answers were. and he didn't want the republicans to have them. and it sounds to me like there's a chance he committed a crime and that was being covered up. because otherwise if you want due process if you want a fair process, if you want justice, then we've got to hear the good, the bad, the ugly so we can make a fair determination and every person elected as a member of congress is going to have a right to vote on that impeachment if it ever comes up and we have a right to hear the witnesses. anything else is a sham. y the way, curveball colonel vindman has been published, he went to stenographer we heard previously there were four stenographers who take down everything. i've used court reporters my whole adult life they miz a word from time to time, and i've had to fix transcripts where they missed something, we have that problem here, they're amazing. these stenographers are absolutely incredible. but they miss a word, time to time. but they've got four. and pay lirnt -- apparently we're told is they don't want to tape it so no foreign leader has to worry about hearing his own voice say thing he is said in a private conversation with the president of the united states. so they have four stenographers. four. so they make sure they get exactly what was said. and this guy, vindman goes to the stenographer and tells them i want to get these words inserted in the transcript. the name of the gas company, they're trying to go after president trump and say he demanded information on them. well apamptely -- apparently, none of the stenographers heard that. it sounds like not only is he a potential criminal for leaking information to people who weren't supposed to get it, but ere's also potential there that this is part -- you know, when you go to prove up a conspiracy in federal court, you have to prove not only that you plotted but there was an overt act. and his overt act of going to stenographers and trying to get words embedded into the transcript that the president idn't say could potentially be such an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. there's a lot we don't know here. but this process has the ossibility to bring this nation's constitutional republic to the brink of the end. on our watch. this ought to be a bipartisan thing. you can hate a president, you can disagree with him, but let's make sure that we have due process so we don't get drug into third world status. we know no country lasts forever. o country ever will. but if we're going to perpetuate this any further, we have got to have some bipartisan concern for justice, for due process, for making re that all of the protections, to protect us against a star chamber type thing, are not what we use here and unfortunately that's what 've been seeing for nearly three years. one of the things i was taught in law school, what separates us is we don't just take somebody and try to find a crime, that's unconstitutional. you have a crime that you find was committed and then you try to find out who probably committed it. when you have probable cause, you can get them indicted, then you can have a trial. what we have seen clearly is that over three years ago, some people in justice, f.b.i., intelligence, maybe defense, maybe somebody in the white house, they decided, here's donald j. trump, let's find a crime, whether he committed it or not, that we can wrap around his throat. and that's what we've been watching happen. they found somebody now, let's find a crime that we can allege. the problem with this one about the quid pro quo, demanding something -- they're going to have to prosecute vice president joe biden, they're going to have to is prosecute some u.s. senators who have sent letters that have said, gee, if you don't do this or that, we're going to cut off funding to you. whoa. joe biden bragged about it. i told him, you want this billion dollars, you better fire that prosecutor. they're going to have to prosecute all of those people before they go after president trump, and he didn't do anything nearly like he was accused of. and there's nothing wrong with a president saying to a foreign leader, you know, your country apparently was involved in a conspiracy to affect our election. could you help us out by giving us information about what happened? we just need to know. nothing wrong with that. nd you look at the transcript, not amended by somebody that was trying to set up the president, but by four stenographers that were intent on having everything in there that was said. and you see there was nothing wrong with this phone call. no, what was wrong was the process of trying to commit a coup de ta and take out a duly elected president. it's time we wake up. we do what's right for this country. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2019, gentlewoman from california, ms. hill, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. hill: thank you. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the isn't of my special order. -- on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hill: this is the last speech that i will give on this floor as a member of congress. i wasn't ready for my time here to come to an end so soon. it's a reality i'm still grappling with and i will be for a long time to come. i expected or i at least hoped to be here for at long -- for as long as the voters of my district deemed me worthy of the honor of representing them. could make a ld make a difference here in making our community, our great country, and the world a better place for generations to come. i, like so many of my colleagues, ran for office because i believed that our political system was broken, controlled by the powerful and the wealthy, ignoring and failing the regular people that it's supposed to serve. i came here to give a voice to the unheard in the halls of power. i wanted to show young people, queer people, working people, imperfect people that they belong here, because this is the people's house. i fell short of that. and i'm sorry. to every young person who saw themselves and their dreams reflected in me, i'm sorry. to those who felt like i gave them hope in one of the darkest times in our nation's history, i'm sorry. to my family, my friends, my staff, my colleagues, my mentors, to everyone who has supported and believed in me, i'm sorry. to the thousands of people who spent hours knocking on doors in the hot summer sun, who made countless phone calls, who sacrificed more than i could ever know to give everything they could in every possible way so that i could be here, i am so, so sorry. and to every little girl who looked up to me, i hope that one day you can forgive me. the mistakes i made and the people i've hurt that led to this moment will haunt me for the rest of my life and i have to come to terms with that. ever since those images first came out, i've barely left my bed. i've ignored all the calls and the texts. i went to the darkest places that a mind can go. and i've shed more tears than i thought were possible. i've hidden from the world because i'm terrified of facing the people that i let down. but i made it through because the people who love me most dragged me back into the light. and reminded me that i was stronger than that. to those of you who were by my side in my worst moments, you know who you are, i love you, i'm so grateful, and i will never forget. i'm here today because so many of the people i let down, people close to me, supporters, colleagues, people i've never even met, told me to stand back up and that despite all of my faults, they still believed in me and they were still counting on me. i realize that hiding away and disappearing would be the one unforgivable sin. i will never shirk my responsibility for this sudden ending to my time here. but i have to say more because this is bigger than me. i am leaving now because of a double standard. i am leaving because i no longer want to be used as a bargaining chip. i'm leaving because i didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites, used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter politics that i've ever seen and the right-wing media to drive cliques and expand their audience by distributing intimate photos of me, taken without my knowledge, let alone my consent, for the sexual entertainment of millions. i'm leaving because of amy sodgenits tick culture that gleefully coupled my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexual assault and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching. i am leaving because of the thousands of vial, threatening emails, calls and texts that made me fear for my life and the lives of the people that i care about. today is the first time i've left my apartment since the photos, take be without my consent, -- taken without my consent, were released, and i'm scared. i'm leaving because for the sake of my community, my staff, my family and myself, i can't allow this to continue. because i've been told that people were angry when i stood strong after the first article was posted, and that they had hundreds more photos and text messages that they would release bytyqi by bytyqi -- bit by bit until they broke me down to nothing, while they used my faults and my past to distract from the things that matter most. i'm leaving because there's only one investigation that deserves the attention of this country. and that's the one that we voted on today. today i ask you all to stand with me and commit to creating a future where this no longer happens to women and girls. yes, i'm stepping down. but i refuse to let this experience scare off other women who dare to take risks, who dare to step into this light, who dare to be powerful. it might feel like they won in the short term, but they can't in the long term. we cannot let them. the way to overcome this setback is for women to keep showing up, to keep running for office, to keep stepping up as leaders, because the more we show up, the less power they have. i'm leaving but we have men who have been credibly accused of intention acts of sexual violence and remain -- intentional acts of sexual violence and remain in board rooms, on the supreme court, in this very body, and worst of all, in the oval office. so the fight goes on. to create the change that every woman and girl in this country deserves. here in the halls of congress, the fight will go on without me. and i trust so many of my colleagues to be strong on this front while i move on to one of the many other battlefields, because we have an entire culture that has to change and we see it in stark clarity today. the forces of revenge by a bytyqier, jealous man, cyber exploitation and sexual shaming that target our gender and a large segment of society that fears and hates powerful women have combined to push a young woman out of power and say that she doesn't belong here. yet a man who brags about his sexual predation, who has had dozens of women come forward to accuse him of sexual assault, who pushes policies that are uniquely harmful to women, and who has filled the courts with dejongs who proudly rule -- judges who proudly rule to deprive women of the fundamental right to control their own bodies, sits in the highest office of the land. and so today, as my last vote, i voted on impeachment proceedings. not just because of corruption, obstruction of justice, or gross misconduct. but because of the deepest abuse of power. including the abuse of power over women. today as my final act, i voted to move forward with the impeachment of donald trump on behalf of the women of the united states of america. we will not stand down. we will not be broken. we will not be silenced. we will rise and we will make tomorrow better than today. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time for now, but not forever. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, for 30 minutes. mr. grothman: thank you. it's an honor to be here on the floor of the house of epresentatives, this 502nd anniversary of reformation day. prior to discussing immigration policy and the other issues of the day, i'd like to yield the first five minutes of my time o congressman arrington. mr. arrington: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership on the budget committee and thank you for your patriotism, your love for this country, and for your desire to do what's right for our country first and oremost. today, my dear friend, was a sad day, i believe, for our country. we've got now round two of this phony impeachment process. it's purely political. it is not based in fact, it's not based in the pursuit of truth and justice. there's no openness, there's no fairness, there's really no credibility and the american people, they're not buying this , not a single bit. and that's why we're seeing round two of putting lipstick on a pig, as we say in texas. but, listen, the nature of this phony process is what it is. no matter how you dress it up. and it's sad because we're allowing this institution to be degraded. we are making a mockery out of this chamber and the serious business of this country and the serious nature of impeachment. i'd say first and foremost that the claim that this president's committed a high crime, treason and impeachable offense is absurd, really. from the outset i'd say this is a baseless claim -- the only firsthand knowledge, the only primary source of evidence is his conversation with president citizensky. zelensky. the -- and unlike the cherry-picked information from chairman schiff, he let his conversation out in the full sunshine for all the public to see, and it was clear that the president not only didn't have a quid pro quo, the president not only didn't commit some impeachable offense for heaven's sakes, he was ensuring that taxpayer dollars, as the fiduciary, the chief fiduciary of this country, wasn't going to be wasted or abused or misspent on anything except for what it was intended to, and that every stone would be turned over to root out corruption. now, that's not just appropriate, that's to be commended for any chief executive, especially for our president. i think that this process is purely political and aimed, again, not at truth and stice, but at a distraction, a distraction from what's not happening on trade, on prescription drugs, and a whole host of things that we have to address if we're going to have a real impact on our fellow countrymen and to move this country forward. . i think it's a distraction from the socialist policies that have been advanced through this chamber that have no chance of having any real effect on mainstream america. and i think ultimately it's to discredit this president. instead of actually doing battle for hearts and minds the old-fashioned way, in the public squares, and at the ballot box, they are doing it by weaponizing this serious constitutional provision of impeachment. again, it's a sad day. what i say in closing, my dear friend from wisconsin, is that it's one thing to take the oxygen out of this chamber for actually doing things that are going to have a real impact and make a real difference in the lives of our fellow americans. it's one thing to take this president down yet another rabbit hole, another russian collusion hoax, but to do irreparable harm to our democracy. the presidency, how is it ever going to be the same after this? how will a president ever have a phone call with a foreign leader where they can have the candor that is necessary to build relationships and to do the people's business? i say to my fellow americans this isn't about truth and justice. this is about fear and hate. hate for our president and for what he stands for, for his agenda, and fear that they can't beat him at the ballot box so they are going to do it by weaponizing our congressional oversight responsibility and abusing the power of this great institution for their political objectives. i say that is wholly un-american. for my children's sake, they are doing irreparable harm to not only the presidency but to all of our democratic institutions. you lose that, you lose the ability to govern, republican or democrat, you lose the ability to govern functionly for the american people. what a sad day. history will judge cruelly those who participated in this instead of doing it the old-fashioned american way, in the it house-to-house, in the neighborhoods, in the public squares, and at the ballot box. god save our great country. and god help us all if this political railroad job and farce continues any longer. thank you to my friend from wisconsin, grateful for the time. god bless america. go west texas. mr. grothman: thank you. i realize a lot of what's been said here the last few days focuses on an impreachment inquiry. one has to ask ourselves why we have so many people who have been wanting to try to impeach president trump immediately. it was obviously a very important vote today, but it was the fourth vote since president trump was sworn in on impeachment. so far nothing has turned up. i think one of the motivations for this impeachment inquiry is to keep other stories off the page. to keep other stories out of the mainstream media. that is why today i want to address what i think is the biggest threat to america in the short term and threat unless we deal with it which will ultimately destroy our country and that is the threat of illegal immigration and people flowing across the southern border. i have been at the southern border three times this year to see for myself what the border patrol and other people in charge of securing our border have to put up with. i just would like to say they have done a tremendous job. yesterday in this building, so many people are focused on the impeachment inquiry, we had a hearing on the subcommittee, in the oversight committee in which ken cuccinelli, the united states citizenship and immigration service had -- head, and ma thute albans, acting director of i.c.e. were testifying before our subcommittee. it was interesting the appalling comments they had to put up with from members of this house being called white supremists for doing their job, for trying to secure the border. those are the type of things that every american should be aware what's going on in this building. but i would like to update people on the good job that president trump has been able to do the last six months. why he's been able to do this job. and the hatred which it has brought our president. in may over 145,000 people were processed trying to get into this country. and we allowed over 100,000 people in this country. about a year ago there was a study put out by m.i.t. and yale which increased the estimate of number of people in this country illegally from 10 million to 11 million, to 20 million to 22 million people. that's a lot of people. and obviously we could not forever go on, may after may after may in which 100,000 people were allowed in this country. that, by the way, is in addition to people who snuck in the country without being detected because we have no wall and we have not adequately funded our border patrol. i think experts believe another 10,000 people probably came in, at least 10,000 came into this country in may undetected. since that time, president trump has reached agreements with mexico in part by threatening tariffs, in part by just general situation -- sway shun. that we have reduced the number of coming into this country from over 100 thousand in may to i am told by the border patrol perhaps under 5,000 in september. after processing 40,000 to 50,000. this is because president trump reached an agreement with mexico that they will hold asylum seekers down there. he's reached out and reached agreements or reached help with guatemala, with honduras, and el salvador, in addition to mexico. in not only keeping more of their citizens there, but if people try to leave other countries for asylum, more are being kept in places like mexico and in salvador and honduras. i want to point out that this is not something that congress helped him with. these are things that -- things he's had to do on his own. there are other things he's trying to do that congress should be taking up but isn't. he has been trying to keep people from coming into this country, if they are public charge. we have enough people who we are taking care of our country, some through their own fault, some through no fault of their own. on various welfare programs. president trump tried to say, hey, we'll take people who are working, we'll take people who want to come here illegally. but courts, including a prominent judge appointed by president clinton, struck that down. so president trump was denied the opportunity to prevent people from coming here. president trump is still waiting, and i hope he does, to do something about birthright citizenship. another situation that i saw when i was on the border in which obviously america being one of only two of the 40 wealthiest countries in the world to say you have a child ere you get to be a citizen. his border patrol has been acting with not adequate funding. they have had up until recently 2,000 vacancies. they could use more people in addition to that. we are in the process of building 500 miles of wall. it's not going to be enough, but we like to believe we are going to be able to get that done by the end of december. but in any event, after doing all these actions, we have done a much better job, i would say the best job we have had in years, of holding down the number of immigrants in this country. like i said, the sad thing about it is, largely this is president trump acting on his own while congress tries to remove the immigration crisis from the headlines by spending day after day talking about impeachment, trying to chase some rumor down or maybe somebody operating under the guidance of a congressman making charges against president trump. i'll just ask the american public to keep your eye on the ball. and that ball is immigration. we cannot go back to the days of 100,000 people being allowed in this country every month. we have to make sure that the policies that president trump has implemented in the last five months continue to be implemented. and we have to demand from congress action on the variety of things that they should be doing instead of filling up the press with stories on immigration. i yield the remainder of my time back to the chair. and i ask for adjournment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. t the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.

Related Keywords

Honduras , Afghanistan , United States , Langley , Virginia , China , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Syria , New Mexico , Russia , West Virginia , Ukraine , Mexico , Arizona , South Carolina , Sudan , Massachusetts , Wyoming , Hampshire , New York , Georgia , United States Capitol , Philippines , Missouri , Oakland , Texas , Armenia , Washington , El Salvador , Kentucky , Florida , Rhode Island , Wisconsin , Togo , Stockton , Canada , Jordan , Mississippi , Oklahoma , Iraq , Tennessee , Cameroon , Colorado , Pennsylvania , Houston , Maryland , Ohio , Dallas , Utah , Turkey , Hawaii , Texans , Americans , America , Filipino , Ukrainians , Salvador , Armenian , Russian , Armenians , Ukrainian , Soviet , Syrian , American , Adam Kinzinger , Brian Jenkins , Benjamin Franklin , Nancy Pelosi , Joe Biden , William Taylor , Stephen Strasburg , Ken Cuccinelli , James Comey , Davey Martinez , Vladimir Putin , Adam Schiff , Thomas Jefferson , Brennan , Jackson Lee , James Madison , Walter Reed , Hillary Clinton , Alexander Hamilton , Owen Allen ,