Hunter biden behind closed doors. And so now the huge irony is that as the process moves to the senate, when republicans are going to control the entire process, theyre saying even though our argument was that we were cheated and this is unfair in the house, now that we control it, we dont want witnesses and we dont want a trial. Unbelievable. Thank you so much, heidi. Let me go back to garrett on the floor. Whats happening now . That measure did not succeed . Reporter it wont succeed. Were waiting on a few more votes to be cast. Im watching a couple more tick off the board. We expect this will probably be the last of the procedural hurdles at this phase of the game. We expect the next thing to happen will be the debate on the actual rules setting the terms of debate for the Articles Of Impeachment. This will look like an actual debate when it gets started. You will see members start to hash out not just the Process Arguments that you heard from heidi, but also democrats will
be making the case about why this is so important. Now, in terms of the rule itself, theres not a lot to this. It sets the terms of the debate. There wont be amendments. They expect to have a sixhour clock like a basketball game style. It will stop and start as we move throughout the course of the day. This is a little bit of congressional Throat Clearing to get to the actual action on the floor. As im watching the board now, 14 members left to vote. The clock at the bottom of your screen, people will get used to seeing that throughout the course of the day. Its sort of a suggestion. When the clock reaches zero, you almost never hear a vote gavelled out. We will wait as long as possible to get all members who want to vote in the chamber to vote, especially on a day like today. But expect to see the real debate portion starting any minute now. Thank you so much, Garrett Haake on the floor of the house. You know, i think it was somebody who once said that nothing concentrates the mind like the thought of imminent hanging. It just seems like trump has
only gotten serious about this the last week. Steve miller commissioned himself to write this writing for war. Its like hes decided im going to go to war now that i just lost the war. I dont know. It seems like to me that he has been in a war mode, you know, i think a few days ago he tweeted 124 times on a workday. This is not someone who is attending to the business of the country. This is not someone who is worried about infrastructure. This is someone who is singularly focused on trying to convince enough americans that the way hes doing this presidency is okay. And this is all about him and it always has been, it always will be as far as hes concerned. And i think weve got to remind ourselves every once in a while, he doesnt really think hes done anything wrong. He thinks its fine to leverage military aid to get dirt on his political opponent with a
Foreign Government. He thinks thats fine. But also, chris, this is a man who talks tough but has been running from his day in court his whole life. Who settles these lawsuits and the Racial Discrimination suits, who ran for president telling his own supporters ill never settle the Trump University suit. Thats a suit about a thing with his name on it. And however much it pained him at the end of the day when he was facing going into a courtroom, these were trump people, people who wanted to learn from donald trump who spent their own money. And when it came down and by the way, just a civil courtroom, money being the main issue. He said, no, i would rather pay 50 million than have my day in court. The reason hes upset and the reason it matters and why we have a constitution that provides for a triallike format for the very rare times when president s stand accused of high crimes, is that he will be put on trial. And we dont know everything, but we do know from his
behavior, hes been running from that his whole life. And the thought of a public live televised trial scares him. Has he ever been in a trial . Hes been in depositions, never been in a criminal trial. Has he ever walked into a courtroom and faced a judge and jury . A small amount did go to trial, but this quasicriminal format where his conduct is being looked at. Remember, every citizen goes to court, the president s lawyers, everyone. But because hes in charge of the laws, he doesnt go to court, he goes to a senate trial. Im sorry . He also has no one to sue him. I think to the point about this letter, is what he does is sue anybody who he feels threatened by, and so hes very aggressive. But in this case he cant sue, you know, congressman nadler. One problem, and the law is
the law and i should have gone to law school because im very admiring of this guy. But this Guy Turns Everything into a reality tv show. And in this reality tv show, and hes got Mitch Mcconnell playing his part. This is not a trial in the senate. This is a political game. Weve got more than theyve got in terms of votes. Were going to win this. Its just a game. And all of the people on his side from the freedom caucus, theyre playing the games this morning. Their whole role is to work for him and refigure this not as a constitutional crisis, but as a game show and hes the quiz master. Its just like it was with the apprentice. Hes the game player and the moderator. And he will define it his way. Hes innocent and were causing trouble. Ive got to bring in zoe lofgren. Ive known you forever. Thank you so much. Youve been through a couple of these things as a top staffer and now as a voting member. Im just saying that trump has this gift, or poison in him, his ability to turn everything into
a tv show, even this. He projects onto others his own behavior. But this is really kind of a depressing day here where we are required to hold him to account for committing a high crime and misdemeanor, abusing his authority. And we will be debating that all day. What do you make of these tactics . Is there a limit to how many times the minority, the republicans can slow things down today . Well, there are some limits, but i dont understand why they would do this. Why dont they just make their case if they can . So far, the case has been dont believe your lying eyes, nothing happened, which is bizarre. You cant excuse the behavior, really none of them are. So i guess in some ways its better that they pretend it didnt happen than that they say
its okay. Let me ask you, do we have any progress yet in the Democratic Caucus on who will be the people to make the case in january in the u. S. Senate for impeachment and conviction . Nancy pelosi will make that decision. I understand a number of people have been lobbying for it. I am not among them. I think whoever is called to do it will do their duty if nancy asks us to perform, and i assume that she will put together a very Competent Team and the rest of us will support that team. It must be bothering you i dont want to project, but for three months now weve been debating this and the people on our network, weve been covering it gavel to gavel. And yet there seems to be almost like a world war i situation, where the Trenches Lines dont move. They vibrate, but they dont move. How do you account for that . Well, you know, we have a reality and then we have a constructed reality thats really untethered from earth. And for those who are untethered, you know, theyre really not looking at the overwhelming evidence that was compiled, despite the president s efforts to obstruct. And thats a shame. I cant explain it or condone it, but thats what we have here. To you so much for joining us, a member of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you. Were watching on the screen now. Thats jim mcgovern. He was working for the chairman of the rules committee and there he is chairman of the rules committee after all of these years. The rule is simply about how long theyre going to debate, how much each side gets to have of the time. We hope that this will take about an hour under the rule itself to continue this question. And chris, two things. One, its interesting hearing from congresswoman lofgren, who
was on the Judiciary Committee staff during nixon and then voted on clinton and now trump impeachment. All the way back to don edwards in nixon times. So i wanted to pick up on a point you were making before we spoke to the congresswoman because i think you hit it on the head. We are looking at a pitched battle for all the marbles going into the next election between the senate trial that the constitution provides, and you call that oldfashioned, and what you outline that trump wants to do, which is turn this into the Peoples Court. Turn it into a tv show about court where the outcome is ordained, so the stakes dont matter, and then everyone has a fake fight. And i think you hit it on the head. Because Mitch Mcconnell already told us hes going to do what the trump folks want and he came out yesterday and said this is just partisan, we know how its going to end, pay no attention to this as far as. Isnt that sad for someone who actually runs the senate to speak about their own branch of government that way . Even if in the end they have a view. So that goes to what youre
saying. The president has a vested interest in reducing this way from its constitutional significance and back to a Peoples Court episode, which would put Mitch Mcconnell has judge wopner. This is a political question and its about drama and th theatrics. If you look at trump, he is recognizable after all of these years. Weve all been studying this character trying to figure him out. If you look at his view of the world, the world is just a bunch of bullies fighting with each other. No u. N. , no rules. Theres the speaker coming in right now. Shes one of the two Major Players in this whole event. Don edwards, i want to did you about that. Everything is about power, macho, bullying, there are no rules, theres no sanctions, theres no real punishments, its just like bully against ood like before world war ii, and japan against china and us in
the middle of that fight. No rules, no nothing. He seems to want to bring it down to that, because then hes never guilty of anything. Hes just another pug, another boxer out there fighting for himself. Well, i think thats certainly how he views the world. The problem is that there actually are rules and i think what the congress is doing, what the house is doing today is setting the terms and donald trump, whether he wants to or not, he is going to be placed in the middle of the rules that we all know and its called the constitution. So i think despite the fact that thats the game that he wants to play and hell run this all the way through to november. Thats why i think its incumbent on democrats to continue to tell the story about why it is and how it is the president abused his power and how he obstructed the congress. And most americans actually do think that there are a set of rules that we live under, that
near not lawless. And i think exposing the president s lawless behavior is going to be really important. Thank you, congresswoman. Lets go to chair of the house rules committee. I dont know what it is. Now, ive heard some on the other side suggest this process is about overturning an election. That is absurd. This is about protecting our democracy. These facts are beyond dispute. The only question now is whether we are willing to tolerate such conduct. Not just today by President Trump, but further more by any president of either party. To not act would set a dangerous precedent, not just for this president , but for every future president. 11 months ago many of us took an oath right here in this chamber. Ive had the privilege to take that oath 12 times now, and i believe it is not just for show. It is a contract between each of
us and the people we represent to place the National Interests above partisan interests, and to preserve those laws that make our country unique. We cannot reconcile the president s abuse of power and obstruction of congress with the oath of office that we took. We are being tested on something greater than our ability to toe the party line. Something bigger than being able to score the next Television Sound bite. This is a democracy sounding moment. History will judge us by whether we keep intact the fragile republic handed down to us by our forbearers or whether we allow it to be changed forever. For the sake of our countrys future, i hope and i pray that my colleagues will make the right decision. I reserve the balance of my time. Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you, mad am speaker. I think my good friend, Chairman Mcgovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you. Well, madam speaker, today is a very sad day for all of us, for me personally, for the rules committee, the entire House Of Representatives, and most importantly for the American People. For the second time in my life, the House Of Representatives will be voting to impeach a president of the United States. But unlike in 1998, the decision to have this vote is not the result of a bipartisan process, nor an open or fair process. Instead, its going to be a deeply partisan vote coming at the end of an unfair and rushed process prescribed solely by democrats to ensure a predetermined result. Impeachment of a president is one of the most consequential acts the House Of Representatives can undertake and it should only be done after the fullest and most careful consideration. Yet today, after a truncated investigation that denied the president due process, cherry picked evidence and witness testimony to fit their narrative and trampled on republicans Minority Rights, democrats in the house are pressing forward with a partisan impeachment vote. Doing so contradicts Speaker Pelosis own words back in march of this year when they said that, quote, an impeachment is so divisive to the country, that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country, unquote. But if were really being honest, democrats have been searching for a reason to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. In december of 2017, a current member of the majority forced a vote to impeach the president , and even then, long before there was even an Impeachment Investigation, 58 democrats
voted to impeach the president. And those members have only grown since then, to the point where the majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment, heedless of where it takes the country and regardless of whether or not theyve proven their case. And if my colleagues and the majority believe they have proven their case, let me be clear, they have not. The entire premise of these Articles Of Impeachment rests on a pause placed on Ukrainian Security assistance. A pause of 55 days. The majority has spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the motive of this pause, alleging the president demanded a, quote, quid pro quo, unquote, but with no factual evidence to back it up. Security aid to the ukraine was released, the administration did so without the ukraine ever initiating an investigation into
anyone or anything. Its even more startling to me that the majority wants to move forward with this resolution, given how substantially flawed and procedurally defective the entire process has been. The Judiciary Committee, which drafted these Articles Of Impeachment, engaged in an abbreviated process, hearing from no witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events in question. They did not conduct their own investigation, and only held two hearings on this topic before drafting the articles. One with staff and one with constitutional law scholars. Thats hardly the type of lengthy and serious consideration a topic as grave as impeachment demands. The committee actually charged with an Impeachment Investigation was the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, not the Judiciary Committee. But that committee, too, followed a primarily closed process. Republicans were denied the
right to call witnesses or subpoena documents and the president was denied the right to representation in the committees hearings. Without respecting Minority Rights and without respecting Due Process Rights of the president , how can anyone consider this a fair process . Madam speaker, it gets worse. The Articles Of Impeachment we are considering today are based on the schiff report. The final document produced by the Intelligence Committee and transmitted to the Judiciary Committee. But the schiff report includes unsubstantiated allegations, it includes in some cases news reports as the only evidence supporting socalled factual assertions, and it includes at least 54 different Hearsay Statements as assertions of evidence without any firsthand information from witnesses to corroborate those statements. The author of the author, chairman schiff, was never questioned by the Judiciary Committee, and he refused to sit
for questions or to explain how his Committee Conducted its investigation. In fact, during the staff presentation of evidence at the Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member collins asked how the investigation was conducted that resulted in the drafting of the schiff report. But he never received an answer. During the rules committee, consideration of House Resolution 755, there were numerous times when the members on both sides of the aisle posed questions to our witnesses, questions they could not answer because they sit on the Judiciary Committee, and were not the author of the report that brought about h res 755. The author has never appeared before members of the minority to explain a single thing in the report, nor to provide factual information supporting the many assertions it contains. Madam speaker, this is no way to go about impeaching the president of the United States. The articles before us are based on very limited information. They are based on hearsay, on news reports, and on other unsupported allegations. They are based on a report written by a member of congress who refused to answer questions about it, and i do not believe the allegations which are subject to interpretation actually rise to the level of an impeachable offense. To make matters worse, when republicans attempted to exercise one of their rights under house rules, they were shut down by chairman nadler. Under clause 2 j 1 of rule 11, the minority is allowed to demand a minority hearing day. On december 4th, the republicans on the Judiciary Committee proper properly exercised that right and transmitted a command to chairman nadler for a hearing day at which the minority could call their own witnesses. And to be clear, the minority
hearing day is not subject to the chairs discretion. It is a right and republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly commanded the exercise of that right. And yet, chairman nadler declined to allow a minority hearing day to be held before the voting of these articles. I think we can all agree that it would have been better for the institution and for the American People to allow all voices to be heard and all witnesses to be questioned before proceeding to a vote on something as this consequential. And yet the majority trampled on that right. But i suppose i should not be surprised by any of this, when the house passed res 660, the resolution setting up the official Impeachment Inquiry less than two weeks ago, i warned the house that the majority was setting up a closed unfair process that could only have one outcome. And today we are seeing the end result of this closed and unfair
process. A quick rush to judgment, forced through not one, but two committees in short order, with Minority Rights trampled, witnesses left unquestioned and due process ignored. It is also disappointing that members are not being given more time to debate this issue on the floor. Last night at rules committee i offered an amendment to double the amount of floor time debate from 6 to 12 hours. This would have allowed for roughly the same amount of debate time used in the clinton impeachment, and it would have ensured that all members could have the opportunity to speak on the floor. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. Well, i know my friend, Chairman Mcgovern, did the best he could. I do think its ironic that when all is said and done, the 13 members of the rules committee spent more time discussing h. Res 755 in committee yesterday
than we will spend debating it on the house floor for every member today. I think thats a disservice to the members of this body and to the American People. Madam speaker, we deserve better than a flawed process that led to this flawed outcome. The House Of Representatives deserves better than that. The president certainly deserves better than that. More importantly, the American People deserve better than what were doing here today. I oppose proceeding any further. I oppose the rule. I oppose this limited and unfair process, and i certainly oppose impeaching the president of the United States. With that, i urge opposition to the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from massachusetts. I would like to ask Unanimous Consent. I want to insert in the record a statement, a letter that i sent with regard to the members day. I think its important to correct the record that there were zero points of order that lie against h. Res 755. And i want to yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman is recognized. Were here to talk about the president s behavior and thats what i think we should all be focused on, not just process. But i just want to say that im proud of the process. Democrats and republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in the months long Impeachment Inquiry. Members of both parties have been involved in every stage of this process from sitting in and asking questions in closed door depositions to Questioning Witnesses in open hearings. The committees took more than 100 hours of Deposition Testimony from 17 witnesses and held seven Public Hearings which included republican requested witnesses. They produced a 300page report that laid out their findings and evidence. The Judiciary Committee then took that report and conducted two Public Hearings, evaluatingsievaluating the language and the impeachment standard before the reporting of the two articles. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. President trump was given the opportunity to participate in the Judiciary Committees review of the evidence presented against him. He chose not to participate, and President Trump to date has not provided any exculpatory evidence, but has blocked numerous witnesses from testifying about his actions. At this point, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, the Majority Whip mr. Clyburn. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Thank you for yielding me the time. I rise today, feeling the full weight of my duty as a member of this body, reflecting upon our oath of office to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is my sincere belief that under the circumstances that bring us here today, there is only one path for us to take to fulfill that oath. Thomas payne in this first of a series of pamphlets entitled The American Crisis published 243 years ago tomorrow, in tone, these are the times that drive mens souls. Some are soldiers and sunshine patriots, will lend this Crisis Strength from the service of their country. But he who stands it deserves love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily con kerred. These words were written at a time when our founders were rebelling against the rule of the british monarchy. Today, we have a president who seems to believe he is a king or above the law. Payne warned us that sole
unlimited power can belong only to god almighty. My faith leads me to take very seriously the words of our oath to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, so help me god. Madam speaker, three days ago, i joined with a bipartisan delegation of our colleagues, celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the battle of the bulge. We laid wreaths at the memorials of generals George Patton and anthony mccullagh. We visited fox holes that were occupied by some brave soldiers who fought in some of the worst Winter Weather ever visited upon the battlefield, and we visited the american cemetery, the final Resting Place of thousands of them and general George Patton. They were not summer soldiers in their efforts 75 years ago to preserve the republic, and we must not be sunshine today in our efforts to protect the constitution upon which this Great Republic stands. While our fight is not in the trenches of battlefields, but in the halls of this congress, our duty is no less patriotic. And i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you, i field myself 15 seconds just to respond to my friend. President trump, for the record, was not provided the opportunity to challenge the facts and still has not received the materials from the judiciary as required by h. Res 660. Another example of why this isnt a fair process. With that, i would like to yield to the gentle lady from wyoming,
the distinguished chairman of the Republicans Congress for the Unanimous Consent request. I ask Unanimous Consent to amend h. Res 767 for a manual call of the role so American People can see precisely who is supporting the impeachment of a duly elected president. Members should be required to stand and identify themselves openly and on camera on the question of adoption of these Articles Of Impeachment. Our time has been yielded for the purpose of debate by the gentleman from massachusetts. Does the gentleman from massachusetts yield for this unanimous cobb sent request . I do not. Gentleman from massachusetts does not yelled, therefore the Unanimous Consent request cannot be entertained. Gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you, madam speaker. I yield to the gentleman from missouri, the distinguished secretary of the conference for
the purpose of a Unanimous Consent request. The gentleman shall state his request. Thank you. Mad as am speak, i ask for Unanimous Consent to amend h. R. 667 to allow 12 hours of debate divided equally by the majority and minority which would allow every member of the house at least 1 minute and 40 seconds of debate, as opposed to currently 50 seconds. The peoples representatives deserve the right right of more than 50 seconds to be heard in this important matter. Time has been yielded, as i said, for the purpose of debate by the gentleman from massachusetts. Does the gentleman from massachusetts yield for this Unanimous Consent request . I do not. The gentleman from massachusetts does not yield, therefore this Unanimous Consent request cannot be entertained. Gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you very much. I want to yield four minutes to my good friend, the distinguished member of both the energy and Commerce Committee and the house rules committee,
and dr. Burgess of the great state of texas. The gentleman is recognized for four minutes. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yesterdays rules committee sent eight hours considering before to bring h. Res 755, the Articles Of Impeachment, to the house floor. Given the four to nine ratio of republicans to democrats on the committee, it is no surprise that we are now considering the articles before us. Despite robust debate on the socalled facts derived from the Impeachment Investigation and the process by which they were obtained, democrats and republicans remain in opposition to each other on our conclusions, as outlined yesterday by Ranking Member collins and several members of the rules committee through direct quotes, some democrats have been seeking President Trumps impeachment since his inauguration. The rush to impeach first And Solidify The Case Second threatens the credibility of the process and threatens the
credibility of the body engaged this very House Of Representatives. In fact, its been quoted before and it will be quoted again today, i suspect, chairman nadler recognized the gravity of impeachment when he stated in december of 1998, quoting here, the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment sub stanchly supported by one of our Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy and produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions, end quote. Well, on october 31st, this
house voted to authorize the official Impeachment Investigation, in h. Res 660, the process did not include the robust minority protections afforded the Minority Party in previous Impeachment Investigations. Even more concerning, chairman nadler, chairman schiff, refused to comply with the very rules of the house in granting access to Committee Records for members and scheduling a minority hearing in a reasonable amount of time, thus preventing the American People from being equally represented in the process. Refusing to allow members to access their own records, these are records of members of the House Of Representatives that they were not allowed to access these records obtained down in secret under armed guard in the Intelligence Committee, but its required under section 2e, rule 11. Theyve denied members the ability to do their job. The Judiciary Committee did not hear testimony from even one fact witness. Not even one. After they received a deluge of materials from the Intelligence Committee. This reversal of responsibility is indeed unprecedented. But turning to the case upon which the argument is bade, we had a whistleblower. Not a fact witness, a whistleblower who never appeared before any member of congress that we know of. A whistleblower complaint concerning a congratulatory call between President Trump and president zelensky of the ukraine. The whistleblower is known to have had contact with chairman schiffs staff, while republicans were denied any contact. The whistleblower complaint is not based on firsthand knowledge and the call transcript that was to support impeachment reveals nothing more than a congratulatory phone call. Look, a request for investigations as to how American Foreign aid will be spent does not equal soliciting election interference. The evidence brought before us does not amount to a high crime,
indeed it does not amount to any crime. Democrats claim that we must protect the integrity of our election. Look, if you really cared, then i have to ask, what are we missing while weve been focused on impeachment . We tied up the Intelligence Committee, we tied up the Judiciary Committee, and by the way, the ways and Means Committee had to give up their room. They couldnt even meet while you were doing all of this. This Impeachment Investigation is being painted against future interference and trumps request looks back at the 2016 election. Russia is the winner in this exchange because they have disrupted the process. Your time is expired. The gentleman from massachusetts. The gentleman is passionate about records. I should remind him that weve gotten no records from this white house, not a single document. At this time i would like to yield one and a half minutes to the gentle woman from florida. The gentle lady is recognized for one and a half minutes. I come to impeachment with deep sadness. The facts of this case are painful and indisputable. We know that the president illegally held Up Con Gregzly appropriated aid to the ukraine. We know he conditioned the release of the aid on president zelensky opening an investigation based on a debunked Conspiracy Theory about his political rival and foreign interference in the 2016 election. We also know that the president has actively blocked congressional attempts to determine the extent of his misconduct by ordering executive Branch Officials to defy subpoenas and withhold information. Despite the unprecedented obstruction from the president , the evidence in this case is powerful enough that to delay this vote any further would risk
interference in the 2020 election. And the permanent erosion of our system of checks and balances. This is not a matter of politics. This is a matter of protecting the integrity of our democracy for the next generation. As we labor to pass on to future generations many of the great hallmarks of our society, we must also work with active stewardship and vigilance to pass on a vibrant and functional democracy. If we dont do our duty to protect the constitution, the republic that we hand to our children will be less vibrant. If we do not do our duty to protection the constitution, the republic that we hand to our children will be less resilient and less effective. The gentle ladys time is expired. Gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you very much. I yield four minutes to my very good friend and fellow member of
the rules committee and of the Judiciary Committee, the gentle lady from arizona. The gentle lady is recognized. Thank you for yielding me the time. Madam speaker, you know, god takes us on journeys in our life and about 30 years ago i was married to an abusive exhusband, and when i finally left him there were times in my life i had no money, no place to live. And i tell you what, i never dreamed in a million years that i would be standing here today as a congresswoman in the United StatesHouse Of Representatives. And i tell you what, i never would have believed that i would be standing here talking about impeachment of a president of the United States. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I also serve on the rules
committee. I have spent hours and hours and hours reading transcripts, looking at documents, hearing testimony, and i can tell you one thing, i believe this is the most unfair politically biased, rigged process that i have seen in my entire life. Here are the facts. There is no proof, none, that the president has committed an impeachable offense. Not one of the democrat witnesses, not one, was able to establish that the president committed bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors as required in the u. S. Constitution. And as ive said before, the
democrats are really undermining their own argument here, because 17 out of the 24 Democrat Members on the Judiciary Committee voted here on this floor to put forward, move forward Articles Of Impeachment on july 17th of this year, before President Trumps call even took place. And 5 out of the 9 rules Committee Members that are democrats did the same thing. So if your argument is that this phone call is the main reason for this impeachable offense, why did you vote for impeachment, moving impeachment forward before the call even took place . The process has been rigged from the start. Other members have told you, i mean, never in the history of the United States have we had impeachment thats gone through
the Intelligence Committee and closeddoor hearings, where a member of the Judiciary Committee, myself, wasnt even able to ask one single question of a fact witness. The whole thing has been rigged, been unfair. In the process that you had set forth, you made sure that the president didnt have any right to have his counsel there until judiciary, but by then it was too late. It was too late. Because there was no fact witnesses allowed in judiciary. So i couldnt even ask a question, nor could the president. This is the most partisan impeachment in the history of the United States. Not one republican voted for it in Judiciary Committee, not one republican voted for it in rules, and not one republican, i dont think, is going to vote for it here today. Madam speaker, this is a sad day. I believe that democrats are tearing this country apart. Theyre tearing families apart. May god continue to bless all of you. May god continue to bless the president of the United States, and may god continue to bless our great nation. And i yield back. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair gentleman from massachusetts. Madam speaker, if republicans want to defend the president s indefensible behavior, they can do so. But i would urge my colleagues to stand up for the constitution and to stand up for this country and our democracy. At this point i would like to yield one and a half moments for the gentleman from california. The gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. Did you, madam speaker, and i want to take a minute to thank the leadership of the rules committee, mr. Mcgovern and mr. Cole for our civility last night. It was a long hearing and we are very much in disagreement, i
felt proud to be part of that hearing and i really want to recognize both the Ranking Member and the chair. The previous speaker is part of that rules committee and i would just say that the passion that she demonstrated in her comments, i cant say how much i completely disagree with her, which is a statement on the environment we find ourselves in. And i unfortunately agree with some of her comments, but where the responsibility is, i would put at the white house and the president. He is the divisive one. He is not trying to heal our wounds. The reality and urgency of this moment cannot be more consequential to the american democracy. This is not a hypothetical. President trump violated the law and solicited foreign interference in our election. At the same time, objective experts have overwhelming evidence that russia interfered in the 2016 election and is
actively engaged in undermining the 2020 elections. Our vote today and the senates actions on impeachment have very real longterm consequences for american democracy. Where do we go from here if the senate does not remove him . The president has a pattern of escalating behavior. The day before the Special Counsel testified to congress that the russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systemic fashion, President Trump made this call. Two days before that, the president says that article 2 of the constitution says that he can do whatever he wants. As washington warned in his fare well address, Foreign Interferes and misleads public opinion. We must honor that the president violated the law and betrayed the American People. I yield back. I yield two minutes to my very good friend, a distinguished member of the Armed Services committee, mr. Bern of alabama. The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying resolution to impeach President Trump. When the framers granted the house the power to impeach, they feared that it would be abused. Today those fears are realized, in record speed. This majority has assembled hearsay, speculation and presumptions for the purpose of overturning the 2016 election. Were not here today days before christmas because a majority has assembled a case against President Trump. No, were here today because the democrat majority believes getting impeachment done now will provide their members time to distance themselves from their vote. But i assure you, madam speaker, the American People are watching. Many of my colleagues have, from day one, rejected The Peoples Choice of President Trump. But another president will come
along more to the majoritys liking. Our actions here today will be remembered and will set the standard. The second article of impeachment seeks to remove President Trump for failure to produce certain requested witnesses and documents. But as the majority knows, every president in history has asserted executive privilege. The house has a legal avenue to challenge the president , the courts. But the majority has skipped this step, showing that this is about impeachment, as fast as possible, however possible. Most of my Friends On The Other Side of the aisle had no problem backing president obama when he stonewalled the house for years to block our request to find out the truth in the fast and furious investigation. That is why i filed an amendment to the resolution rejected by the rules committee saying based upon the democratic majority standard, they should have written Articles Of Impeachment against president obama and eric holder. I wish my colleagues would think about the standard being set. I predict that they will very soon regret it. And i yield back. Gentleman yielding back. Gentleman from massachusetts. Madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentle woman from california, a distinguished member of the committee, months torres. Madam speaker, the facts are clear. To quote the usa today editorial board, trump used your tax dollars to shake down a vulnerable Foreign Government to interfere in a u. S. Election for his personal benefit. The rule of law is what gives our great country its strength. The rule of law is what separates us from thirdworld countries, where dictators reign for decades on end. The rule of law is what makes us the envy of the world. The place that other countries look to as they grow their own
democracies. And it is the rule of law that brings us here today. We never want to see the rule of law deteriorate or rampant corruption take hold. We never want to see the day when future generations flee for refuge in another country, the way that others are seeking refuge in hour Southern Border right now. I urge my colleagues to vote yes, American Values and our constitution are worth fighting for. Gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you, madam speaker. I yield two minutes to my very good friend, distinguished lady from indiana, also distinguished member of the ways and Means Committee. The gentle lady is recognized for two minutes. Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in direct opposition to this rule and in opposition to the divisive bipartisanship that is on display right now in this House Of Representatives. Its no secret that democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since day one, regardless of any fact. They knew the result they wanted. They just needed time to figure out how to get there. So they began their Impeachment Inquiry, behind closed doors, selective leaks instead of transparency. No due process. Once they crafted their perfect narrative, they moved on to Public Hearings. They helpoped the american peop wouldnt notice that they failed to uncover one piece of evidence to justify impeachment. They failed to make the case for this drastic action, and yet here we are, for the first time in history, a president is on the brink of being impeached with the votes of one single party. But lets be clear about one thing. This Impeachment Obsession is not about accountability, its not about justice, its not even about the constitution. Its about pure partisan politics at its worst, and youre watching it right here
and the American People see right through this today. Theyve seen the rigged process. Theyve seen the lack of transparency and the complete absence of any supporting evidence. They know that washingtons broken and thats why here, to fix it. But instead House Democrats are dividing the country and further shaking the Peoples Trust in this congress. Its a sham impeachment. Its been carried out at the expense of Hard Working Americans who just want us to move forward. Madam speaker, this charade should go no farther. We should stop wasting time, focus on what keeps our nation moving forward, helping workers and families thrive. Protecting the safety and security of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule so we can get back to work for the American People. I yield back. The gentleman from massachusetts. I yield one min tout the gentleman from new mexico,
assistant speaker, mr. Liuhan. Madam speaker, no one came to congress to impeach a president. We came here to solve the mighty issues that impact the lives of the constituents we pledge to serve. Im here because too many families in my district still rely on water trucked in from dozens of miles away. Im here because too many new mexican children still go to school hungry. Im here because too many women in new mexico drive for hours to find a doctor able to care for them. But this moment has found us. We have reached a point in time where our love of country compels action, where our duty to this Republic Mandates that we do whats right. The president s behave wror is so blatantly wrong that ignoring his abuses of power would be abdicating the oath we made to protect this country and uphold our constitution. Thank you and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from oklahoma. Madam speaker i yield such time as i macon assume. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, madam speaker. If we defeat the previous question, ill offer an amendment on the rule, the house shall not proceed to consideration of the underlying resolution until six conditions are met. All evidence in the possession of chairman schiff has been made available to the Judicial Committee. Chairman schiff appear before the Judicial Committee to testify to the report he authored. All underlying unclassified evidence has been made available to the public, minority members of the Judicial Committee have received their right to minority hearing day. Minority witnesses requested by Ranking Member nunez and Ranking Member collins are called and allowed to be heard from accordance with h. Res 660 and subpoenas requested by Ranking Member nunez and Intelligence Committee are issued in force. Madam speaker, to be clear, my
amendment ensures that the majority does not proceed without providing a fair, equitable and transparent process, one that respects Minority Rights, one that opens up the investigation to all members of the house and one that allows republicans on the Judicial Committee to examine the most relevant witnesses. Make the Information Available to the committee that actually conducted the investigation. The process the house has followed has been abysmal. It was closed, an unfair process and did not respect Minority Rights and did not give the president due process. We can change that today. If we defeat the previous question, the house will only move forward with a real thorough and ultimately fair process that all members can be proud. Madam speaker, i ask Unanimous Con send to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. I urge no vote on the previous question. I yield one minute to my good friend, the gentleman from georgia. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. I thank my good friend. The majority has thrown almost every allegation imaginable against this president and yet these Articles Of Impeachment that have been submitted cannot name a single actual crime. After all the drama, the majority has not found a sing shred of evidence. The facts have remained the same, the transcript speaks for itself. There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian Government said ult multiple times they felt no pressure. The aid ultimately came. Even Speaker Pelosi said this whole thing would have compelling, overwhelming bipartisan support. None of those things exist. I rurj my colleagues to stand against the rule and the
forthcoming Articles Of Impeachment. This is a disgrace and dangerous to america and i urge a no. The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from massachusetts. Madam speak e i yield one min tout the distinguished gentle woman from massachusetts. To pair fries one of our founding mothers, Abigail Adams. People may let a president fall yet still remain a people. If a president lets his people slip from him, he is no longer a president. Just as Abigail Adams warned, donald trump has let the people slip from him. He works for himself, not us. He tried to extort a Foreign Government into investigating a political rival and he has unlawfully withheld witnesses and evidence. If we want a democracy, today we must stand for the rule of law. A vote to impeach is a vote to
remain a government that is of, for and by the people. It is a vote borne of great fear by our future, but also rooted in optimism, that if we stand for the truth for our constitution, we can continue to create a country of liberty, justice and equality for all. I yield the remainder of my time. The gentle lady yields back. Might i inquire how much time we have remain . The gentleman from oklahoma has 5. 25 minutes remaining. The gentleman from massachusetts has 13. 25 minutes remaining. I yield 90 seconds to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from new york. The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Thank you, madam speaker. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle throughout this whole process, their allies in the media, they like to say republicans only want to talk about process not substance even
though we continue to talk about substance as well. They declare their facts are uncontested. They just did it again. Just to maybe recap a few for everyone watching at home as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Hopefully theyll listen. President zelensky said no demand, no pressure, no quid pro quo. Yermak said their whole story with regard to the meeting with ambassador sondland is refuted. We heard from ambassador sondland that he heard from President Trump he didnt want any quid pro quo and he was guessing when he stated otherwise. Ambassador sondland said he was guessing and nobody told him otherwise. Ambassador volker said president zelensky didnt know there was a hold on aid on july 25th. He didnt find out until he read it on july 29th. Ukraine didnt have to do anything to get the hold released. When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the july
25th phone call transcript said do me a favor, it says do us a favor. If you look at that paragraph its about ukrainians. The blackledger to bring down the trump campaign, whether its a statement or origins of the steele dossier. Look at vogels report from december 2017, its refutable. These are substance. Stop saying the facts are uncontested. I yield back. Gentleman from massachusetts. I ask Unanimous Consent to insert page 69 of the Permanent Select Committee on intelligences open hearing where Deputy Assistant secretary of defense laura cooper testified that the Department Of Defense was not able to distribute all the aid with 35 million not provided since it was released so late. I also ask Unanimous Consent to
insert an a. P. Article entitled u. S. Officials knew of ukraines trump anxiety. So ordered. At this point, madam speaker, im proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Kennedy. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Dear ellie and james, this is a moment that youll read about in your history books. Today i will vote to impeach the president of the United States, and i want you to know why. He broke our laws. He threatened our security. He abused the highest, most Sacred Office in our land. I want you to know it does not feel good. I cant stop thinking about the cost to our country, not just the impeachable defenses but the