The chair on this vote the eas are 187, the nays are 224. He amendment is not adopted. The question is on the committee amended in the nature of a substitute. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Accordingly, under the rules the committee rises. The speaker pro tempore mr. Chairman. The chair the committee of the whole on the state of the union has had under consideration h. R. 3624 and pursuant to House Resolution 629, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. The speaker pro tempore the chair of the committee of the whole on the state of the Union Reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h. R. 3624, and pursuant to House Resolution 629 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. Under the rule, the previous question ised odd. The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Third reading. The clerk a bill to amend the securities and exchange act of 1934 to require the disclosure of the total number of domestic and foreign employees of certain public companies, and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore the question is on o passage of the bill. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. It mr. Mchenry mr. Chair ms. Waters request the yeas and nays on the bill. 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 arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned 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 226. The nays are 184. The bill is passed. Le without objection, the motion is laid upon the table. For what purpose does the for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that congresswoman Sheila Jackson lee be removed as cosponsor of h. R. 4603. The speaker pro tempore without objection. He house will be in order. He house will be in order. For what purpose does the gentleman from nming new jersey eek recognition . I seek recognition to make a unanimous consent request. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman will state the request. I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of h. R. 860, the Social Security 2100 act. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise . Mr. Scalise i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring into next weeks schedule. And i move to extend my remarks. I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule. Mr. Hoyer madam speaker, the use will meet at monday at 12 00 and 2 00 for legislative business. On tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10 00 a. M. On thursday the house expects to meet at 9 00 for legislative business. Last votes of the week will be expected no later than 3 00 p. M. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, madam speaker, the house will consider the corporate transparency act. This bill is a part of legislation coming to the floor to crack down on Money Laundering and shine a light on the cor owes i have impact of dark money from russia and other governments. A Serious National Security threat that must be addressed. The house will consider h. R. 4617, stopping harmful interference in elections for a lasting democracy, known as the shield act. Clearly we believe it is extraordinarily dangerous to be having foreign governments particularly those that are hostile to the interest of democracy and United States and participating in any financial way. This bill will prevent foreign interference in our elections and safeguard our democracy. There may be additional items that are possible to be brought forward and we will notify the house and the minority as soon as we have made such decisions. And i yield back to my friend. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding and i know we all continue to mourn the loss of our colleague, Elijah Cummings, i still see the flowers sitting in the spot where elijah used to sit. And yesterday, we had a very appropriate remembrance of our colleague and remembering who he was, the special person he was, the giant that he was, the very both sometimes in a boisterous way and sometimes in a gentle way, but his wife and three children are in our prayers and will continue to be as we remember that great loss that we experienced and will continue to remember, and i yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer i was going to mention elijah at the end of our colloquy, it was an extraordinary sad day yesterday to hear of the loss yesterday morning, very Early Morning of a colleague who was gentle, decent, honest, high intellect, High Integrity and mr. Mccarthy spoke beautifully, i thought, about the sentiments from both sides of the aisle about Elijah Cummings, respected known as a man of intellect and great civility and kindness. And yes, he could be tough. He was the son of sharecroppers and became a member of the congress of the United States. What a wonderful american story nd what a decent, good human being. Elijah cummings. And he will be remembered as such. And i thank the minority leader and i thank so many members who have served with elijah on the minority and obviously on a committee as the minimum minority leader. Who served with him spoke so highly of him. He was a very dear friend of american first african peaker pro tempore, and served with such great distinction for 23 years in this house and we will miss him. And i thank the republican whip for mentioning his passing and how sad all of us are at that passing. And i yield back to my friend. Mr. Scalise as we all remember him, it is that style. Shows the example for all of us, you can be tough and fight for the things we believe in and we all ought to do that. He always treated People Fairly and the fact that even as he had some tough confrontations with people like chairman gowdy and jim jordan, those people that went toetotoe with him, respected him and mourn his loss equally as we all do and says a lot about his character that he is leaving a strong legacy for the things he believed in and the adversaries that he fought with on the other side hold deep regard for the kind of person he was. Again a great example for all of us to try to emulate as we move forward with some of the other challenges we are facing and i want to ask the gentleman about the latest efforts to try to get some kind of fair process and where we are with this impeachment inquiry. And there are hearings going on behind closed doors. Many of my colleagues have tried to attend some of those hearings and have been turned away if they are not on the committees of jurisdiction, colleagues that have tried to read things like the volcker testimony and have been turned away, denied the ability to do that. There is a real concern that there is an attempt to impeach a president of the United States, remove a president who was dualy elected using a process of secrecy behind closed doors where one person is setting the rules, breaking with the tradition that weve always had with the only three other times in our countrys history where an impeachment inquiry began in the house. They laid out rules of fairness where people were able to ask questions on both sides, people were able to call witnesses on both sides, even the president would be able to have an opportunity to have somebody there to also question people. Its always been the case and yet its not the case here. And so very serious questions of fairness have been raised and i would ask the gentleman are we going to finally get beyond this secret closeddoor star chamber process of impeachment and go to something that is rooted in fairness. And i would yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding, i reject wholly and fully the premise underlying the whips representation. There is no unfairness in this process. The republicans are like the wyer who neither has the facts, if he has the facts, he pounds on the facts or if he has the law on his side, he pounds on the law, but if he net they are has law or facts on his side, he pounds on the table, madam speaker. He makes noise. The republicans talk about process, not the substance. And the process, quite interestingly enough, is much of what the republicans put in the rules that we included in our rules when we adopted them. And as the whip clearly knows, one of the strongest advocates and defenders of the president of the United States sits there in the hearing, asked questions and can review documents and to go right back to the white house and to all your members and say this is what happened. There is no unfairness in this and no requirement that we have a vote. The committee is doing its job of fact finding. Frankly, the white House Counsel wrote a letter filled with eight pages that clearly miss concxds con truce miss concxds con struse the status of this process. We do not conduct a trial, madam speaker. The senate cuggets the trial. And just as in our legal due process system, when that occurs, the president will have all those due process im sure extended to him. Thats not what this proceeding is. This proceeding is to decide whether there is probable cause to think that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. We have not made that conclusion yet. We may not do it if the facts dont lead us there. As mr. Schiff pointed out in his letter to all the members, there is a very definite reason why rand juries and this committee is doing its process with full participation by the republican members of the select committee on intelligence, full participation. It is because witnesses ought not to be forewarned of what somebody else has said. Why . So they dont par on the the other witness, but tell the truth as they know it to be. And i will tell the gentleman the other reason grand juries are in secret is to protect the innocent so there is no probable cause, there will be no assertion that somebody alleged that somebody did something wrong. But the republicans have been pounding on process. And the reason they have, madam speaker, they dont want to discuss the substance. The acting chief of staff did discuss subtans, on the front page of the Washington Post. Of course we do this. So i would tell my friend, this process is fair, its consistent with the rules, its consistent with the constitution of the United States, its consistent with the laws of this country. And it is about one of the most serious matters we can deal with and we dont want to make it a circus. Yes, the committee is doing its work in camera, so to speak. Deducing the facts. And your members and particularly one of the president s strongest supporters, defenders and collaborateors is sitting in the room every time the hearing occurs. Unless he absences himself. And the members of that committee that you have appointed, not personally you, but your caucus, are sitting in the room. Ual time, asking questions so this hearing is fair, judicious, thoughtful. Smurch the empt to be chairman of the committee is shameful. He is a fair and experienced member of this body who has onducted himself as he should. But it is our constitutional responsibility, madam speaker, behind conduct of a may rise to the level gh crime and a mid misdemeanor. We dont know if that is the case, but if it is, we will meet our duty to the constitution, to the laws and the American People. I yield back. Mr. Scalise with all due respect, you can talk about process and facts, and the facts point out this process is shrouded in see verycy. You literally had a chairman who was running around for two years during the whole Mueller Investigation saying he had, quote, more than circumstantial evidence there wasco lution between the president and russia. And the Mueller Report comes out and there was were no charges. There was no collusion. The chairman never showed his secret evidence. If he had evidence, more than circumstantial, his quotes, then he should have showed it to the American People, but he didnt. Because there was no he. Those were the facts. And if the facts were there, you know he would have shown that evidence. It didnt exist. So instead of moving on and taking care of the work of the people of this country, its another witchhunt. Its another fishing expedition. In secret. So you talk about fairness, why is it that voting members of congress are being denied access to the room . The press doesnt have access to these hearings that you call fair. You call them fair. There was never even a vote of this house to start an impeachment inquirery. It was a decree from the speaker. And the Washington Post in september, quote, therefore today i am announcing the speaker of the house, i am announcing the house of representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. Thats a decree by the speaker of the house. Thats never happened before. The other three times where there was n impeachment inquiry it was started with a vote of the full house. Everybody was accountable. No starr chamber, no one or two people in this country that think they could run the entire process and deny the people the right of a duly elected president to serve because they just dont agree with the results of the 2016 election. They never showed high crimes and misdemeanors. Your side has never shown high crimes and misdemeanors. You are just looking around for something. And you are calling witnesses and you talk about fairness. Who is in the room . Our side cannot call witnesses. You think thats fair . Our side president s own counsel the gentleman will have an opportunity. Mr. Hoyer that is your rule. Mr. Scalise this is your rule. Are you in charge of the house. This is my time. Ill yield to you in a moment. But if you want to talk about fairness, lets lay out the facts because these are the facts. Our side cannot call witnesses. You can change that rule today and i would ask the gentleman would you be willing to change the rule to let our side call witnesses . To let the president s counsel be able to question witnesses who are in secret making charges against him to try to literally undo the results of a duly elected press . Would you be willing to change the rules to do that . I would yield to the gentleman. Mr. Hoyer fine, we are going under your rules. Mr. Scalise these are your rules. Mr. Hoyer when we are in the minority we were not allowed to do what you were requesting to do. Mr. Scalise we never tried to impeach a president. In all three cases mr. Hoyer ask your counsel if those were your rules. Ask your counsel if those are your rules. Mr. Scalise you being able to control everything and not letting the other side participate. Madam speaker, i claim the time. The speaker pro tempore gentlemen, please. Lets have some order. You can proceed. Mr. Scalise lets look at the process. Lets look at the facts. Yes, if you think its fair that you can control everything and deny the ability for members of congress to go in and see whats happening behind closed doors in that room, if you think its fair to deny the ability for both sides to call witnesses, hey, you get to call your witnesses and you think thats fair and you dont want anything to be disclosed. Talking about incense. Everybodys innocent until proven guilty. You think the president s should have to prove his incense time and time again. With anonymous sources. Many cases citing things that are inaccurate. That have been disproven. But you can lay false claims and the chairman can lay false claims out and the president has to go prove his incense and time and time again we see even with these selective leaks coming out of your committee, which shouldnt happen, many of those are disproven, too. But the damage is done. Just like when the chairman opened up the Committee Hearing with a parity, stating things that were false, not part of the phone call between President Trump and president zelensky, giving his own version of it which was false. While the public was watching on tv thinking that was the transcript. Thats disingenuous. That is not a fair process. Thats what happened. Just today and yesterday and every day we have had members of our party, dont know if any members of your party have tried, members of our party who wanted to go down there and read the volker testimony or sit in the hearings were turned away because the process is going on in secret. This is not fairness. This is not how its always been done. If you really think its unfair and you think the rules should be changed, you do get control over that, ail write the rule with you and well vote for it together. We could pass that rule today. I filed a rule change with Ranking Member cole of the rules committee to allow members access to these hearings. Would you be willing i would ask the gentleman, would you be willing to sked this rule for the floor so we could have more fairness in this process . I would yield. Mr. Hoyer does the gentleman not trust mr. Nunes . Apparently there is no answer to that question. Mr. Nunes is the ranking republican. A very close friend, associate, and defender of the president of the United States. He is there to hear every word. My presumption is he also can tell every word to his colleagues. Mr. Scalise let me ask the gentleman would he allow mr. Hoyer he yielded to me. Is he reclaiming my time hi