Resolution. The lerk will report resolution. The clerk resolution for investigative procedures offered chairman jerrold nadler. Committee issued multiple discovery requests to individuals with potential its mation relative to investigation into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his ssociates, and members of his administration. Whereas special counsel Robert Muellers report released on found that the russian government interfered mr. Nadler without objection, the resolution is considered as and open for amendment at any point. I will begin by recognizing myself for an Opening Statement. The resolution before us necessary next step in our investigation of obstruction, and abuse of power. This committee has already findings of entral the special counsels investigation. He president s 2016 Campaign Asks for and received the assistance of the russian government. The campaign om then lied to federal investigators about it. That ecial counsel found at least 10 times the president with thes to interfere investigation. In at least five of those incidents, the special counsel that all of the elements necessary to charge bstruction of justice had been met. Our investigation is not only about obstruction. Our work must extend beyond the four corners of the Mueller Report. We have a responsibility to allegations of federal lection crimes, selfdealing, violations of the constitutions clause and to prevent current and future attacks by foreign adversaries. F course, this committee and others have gone to court to secure evidence that has been ithheld from congress on indefensible legal grounds. Former white House Counsel cgahn is not, quote, unquote, fromune, appearing before this committee. Has found to, quote, fight all of the subpoenas, unquote, and this, conduct that requires a congressional response. As members of congress and in particular, members of the house Judiciary Committee, we have a responsibility to investigate allegations and to determine the appropriate remedy. Hat responsibility includes making a judgment about whether to recommend articles of impeachment. Be based ont cannot our feelings about President Trump. It should not be a personal misguided policies or personal behavior. Decision based on the evidence before us. He evidence that keeps coming in. Now, theres been a good amount of confusion in the press and should e about how we talk about this work. Some have said that absence some passed ment in which we dramatically from concerns about the president s conduct to considering articles of impeachment, its hard to know exactly what the committee is doing here. Have argued that we can do none of this work without first having an authorizing vote house floor. The house vote is not required by the rules of the house or by constitution. As the argument ignores which no such vote was taken. There should be no doubt about our purpose. E have been open about our plans in this committee for many months. The preamble in the constitution before us now. 4, 2019, we sought information from many sources related to, quote, alleged justice, public corruption, other abuses of President Trump. Ay 8, we recommended that the household attorney general barr in contempt. As part of that recommendation, committee was clear there were, quote, includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the president , closed quote. Approved , the house h. Res. 430, authorizing this ommittee to enforce its subpoenas in court. The Committee Report stated explicitly that our work whether to approve articles of impeachment with reference to the president. Resolution, on july 26, we asked a federal access the grand jury information. We told the court that it falls to, quote, mittee exercise a constitutional power f the utmost gravity, approval of articles of impeachment, closed quote. On august 7, we filed suit to for mr. Ur subpoena mcgahn. There, again, we told the Court Testimony inre his order to help decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment. Each of these documents, we have been explicit about our intentions. Is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to etermine whether recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Doing. What we are some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Call it an impeachment investigation. Theres no legal difference terms, and i no longer care to argue about the noemen clashure. Let me clear up nomenclature. Doubt. Be clear up any we have an obligation to respond to this threat, and we are doing so. Under the procedures outlined in this resolution, we will hold allow us to further consider the evidence against the president. Hearings, in addition to member questioning, we will llow staff counsel to participate for one hour per witness evenly divided between the majority and minority. Us to develop the record in ways that the fiveminute rule does not always permit. Also allow the president to respond to the evidence in writing and on the record. Matter how we may disagree with him, President Trump is entitled to respond to the this way. N we will treat certain sensitive vidence, such as grand jury information, as being received in executive session. These procedures, when we will have finished these hearings and consider as much evidence as we are able to then decide ll whether to refer articles of impeachment to the house floor. We have a constitutional, istorical, moral obligation to fully investigate these matters and to make that decision. Let us take the next step in work without delay. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. I yield back. Now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from his ia, mr. Collins, for Opening Statement. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Chairman. This. Eciate welcome to everybody here who was expecting one thing and getting another. Driving to a as great event. It is the opening of Football University of georgia. Were going between the hedges. The day was starting. It was our first home game. My wife and i were driving down the road, and shes looking at her phone. Bored. Shes looking and shes in her instagram account. She ooks over at me and shows me this picture of a family member, close family member. She looks over and says, megan told me about filters that you make your appearance look better. And i said, yeah. What are you talking about . Look at this picture. This looks nothing like our family member. Do . Did she i said, well, lisa, i dont know. I said, undoubtedly she used one filters. Whats happened today is great. The Judiciary Committee has filter. Giant instagram to make you appear that thats gs happening not. Its really interesting. He difference between formal impeachment proceedings and what were doing today is a world apart, no matter what the said. An just what were looking at here is a filter to make you believe something. Though, because i love this. I have not seen this much press long00 in the morning in a time. When we look at this, though, lets look at the facts. Anythinge have here is that could not have been handled five minutes before a hearing of any time that we have. The filter may think make you think somethings happening, but the y what we have is walkdown the yellow brick road. In fact, you want to see the brick road, go to the whereas clauses . Is the city democrats have been desperate since they won the majority. Walked. Look at the whereas clauses on what theyre doing and how in. re doing in fact, whats really interesting is the whereas clauses in the second paragraph. The russian government interfered in the 2016 election. No we had no hearings and bills brought forward in this ommittee that deals with that issue. Undoubtedly acknowledged it like we have done a lot of things in this committee, but we dont solve it. Because wed rather talk about it. So we continue the whereas clauses. Continue the whereas this. The yellow brick road. Whats interesting, all along they thought people were coming with them and the public was happy with this and members within their own party were about this. Somewhere along the yellow brick road they said, theres not all here. People arent following anymore. Then we come to today. Part which is the real part of this resolution hich, again, for all the folks covering this, this is not anything special. In fact, lets talk about it. The chairman may designate a hearing for presentation. Oh, my goodness. The chairman could wake up this say, this is what were doing today. Why do we need a resolve clause for this . Needed to define the chairmans authority to determine what were doing today. The whole year, this is what he wants to do. Called to s is testify, the Committee Staff here we are again. Ecause we know it looks more impeachmentlike if we have staff asking questions. I dont know what its like on side of the aisle here. But Staff Meetings must be heck around here because ive never seen a majority bunch of members who desperately want to give away their authority to staff to do something. Seen this with a brand of lawyers that you have on your side of the aisle, im that you just dont ask for more member questioning and let some of the brilliant awyers go at it, because theyre good. Yet, undoubtedly, im not said, i am not sure who whats happening on that side, but this desperation to spotlightto be in the to ask questions is just something that is, again, instagram filter. There to look like something thats really not. For some lawyers i am looking raskin, ght here, mr. Is amazing. I dont understand this one. Hey, again again, though, let this could have been done at any hearing, at any hearing we do, the chairman just motion. Ring it up as a its in the rules. We dont have to be doing this as a resolution. Good over ed really the weekend when we said were going to start inquiries into impeachment and we are going to regulations in place to do that. And then it went off the track completely through the week leadership didnt know what they were doing. Then, number three now, this ones a problem. Executive out session, how theyre going to handle information. Because heres a problem. Already promised in Court Filings they had these procedures in place. In fact, i wrote a letter to the no, you really dont here. The copy of the letter i have here. You dont have these in place. So its really interesting. Maybe this is a time. Maybe they thought the judges would miss it. On t now the tv cameras judges. You might want to look at this. They didnt have the procedures place. You may have said but they dont. For anybody listening here. Kept strictly in these rules cannot contradict house rules. Member of the house can see this material. Can. Ember of the house the last one. This one is the most amazing. Mean, weve been building up with un, two, three with one, two, three, four. Saying the president s counsel may respond in writing, in open session, the fact. Everybody in this room, everybody in this country, verybody outside this country can do this. Anybody that has an email ddress, anybody that has a pen and paper can write a letter to this committee. Were now letting the him dent were telling that he can do this . As if this president has a hard himself . Essing i think he understands this in his counsel. Chairman, after consultation to me, can invite the president. Gain, this shows you how, frankly, unfortunately, silly how weve gotten today. In number four resolution to say that the president and his counsel can write a letter committee. Have we gotten to that point yet . Really . The instagram filter has applied. Make sure it looks good. Spruce up the parts. Good. Our story looks the press is here. Weve been you know, i wanted a long time to be able to say island. Lcome to fantasy were here. It may look good. The unfortunate part is when the screen goes down, you just see a simple procedure issue. A simple procedure issue that do with impeachment or anything else. It simply gives another press release for whatever were doing now. So its early. Its 8 00. The popcorns on. As i said, let the show begin. I yield back. R. Nadler thank you, mr. Collins. Without objection, all other Opening Statements will be included in the record. Re there any amendments to the resolution . For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Nadler the clerk will report the amendment. The gentlelady reserves a point of order, a quorum is not present. Offered by mendment mr. Buck of colorado. To a resolution for procedures offered by chairman nadler. On page 4, beginning on line 97, strike the following or committee. R. Nadler the gentleman is recognize to explain my amendment. I withdraw my point of order, a quorum is not present. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady withdraws her point of order, a quorum is not present. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Buck my amendment is simple. It strikes the word subcommittee first procedure of this investigation. Impeachment is a serious matter, mr. Chairman. The American People deserve to have these proceedings play out in the full committee where we examine the y evidence and charges brought against the president. Not shoved away in some special where only a handselected few members can gather evidence and question witnesses. This matter is so serious, in fact, that the full house has historically authorized the to open an mmittee impeachment inquiry, provided his committee with specific instructions for opening the inquiry. In fact, there are notes in an earlier this week, quote, the major difference between this resolution and documents in al connection with the last two impeachment proceedings is that not connectedn is to a vote by the full house, to begin the committee a formal impeachment inquiry of the president , end quote. Historical precedent is clear. On february 6, 1974, the full to approve House Resolution 803, which authorized the Judiciary Committee to whether to impeach president nixon. This resolution also detailed Judiciary Committee could accept information and granted specific funds for the information. Then, only after the full house had spoken, the judiciary adopted unanimously its procedures to handle material gathered during the 22, 1974. February the committee then unanimously adopted procedures for this Committee Also received instructions from the full house after leaping into the clinton impeachment inquiry. The committee adopted impeachment inquiry procedures and reported a resolution authorizing the inquiry to the full house. The full house then affirmed the committees decision approving House Resolution 581 on october 8, 1998. By jumping the gun and refusing to put this resolution before the full house, you are fundamentally denying both this congress and the American People the ability to fully participate in this inquiry. You even stated in a court brief dated july 22, 2019, quote, although the house has not considered a formal resolution, structuring any particular proceedings by this committee, such a resolution is not a necessary predicate to consideration of articles of impeachment. This also contradicts statements by speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer, who have said that the house isnt opening an impeachment inquiry. Mr. Chairman, having been here during the clinton impeachment proceedings, i would have expected you would understand the gravity of this inquiry and would not cut this houses knees out from under it or potentially keep members of this committee from being involved in the proceedings by sequestering business to the subcommittee level. You at least owe it to the American People to have this inquiry be on display in front of the full Judiciary Committee. For that reason, i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back. Ms. Collins will the gentleman yield . Mr. Buck i yield to the Ranking Member. Ms. Collins i appreciate it. You brought out an interesting point. The chairman was here and was very vocal in the clinton era impeachment issues on how this is supposed to go about and how youre supposed to do this. Its really interesting to see that what was needed back then is not needed now because theres a serious problem. They dont have the votes to go to the floor. Now we have to make it up as we go. You brought up a very good point. I dess agree that this deals with anything with impeachment but if theyre going to apply, we need to point out the inconsistencies here. I appreciate the gentlemans amendment and yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I recognize myself. Mr. Buck mr. Chairman, i yield back also. Mr. Nadler thank you. [laughter] i recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment essentially says that the chairman can designate the full committee, a full Committee Hearing for purpose of presentation and impeachment investigation. But a subCommittee Hearing cannot. Whereas the Resolution Says the committee or subCommittee Hearing, the amendment would say only a full Committee Hearing. I would make two points. Number one, there are so many instances of misconduct and allegations of misconduct that we may very well, in order to do a complete and thorough job, have to use subcommittee as well as Committee Hearings, there not be enough days otherwise for the task. Number two, there is ample precedent for subcommittees being used in this fashion and i was on the committee when we during the clinton impeachment, as was as the gentleman states. Then the committee under republican leadership, under chairman hyde, used the subcommittees to hold hearings on the subject. I remember in particular one subCommi