Resolution is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. I would begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power. This committee has already covered the central findings of the special counsels investigation. The president s 2016 Campaign Asks for and received the assistance of the russian government. Key figures from the campaign then lied to federal investigators about it. The special counsel found that at least ten times the president took steps to interfere with the investigation. In at least five of those incidents, the special counsel concluded that all of the elements necessary to charge obstruction of justice had been met. Our investigation is not only about obstruction. Our work must also extend beyond the four corners of the mueller report. We have a responsibility to consider allegations of federal election crimes, selfdealing, violations of the constitution, and failure to defend our nation from current and future attacks by foreign adversaries. Of course this committee and others have gone to court to secure evidence thats been withheld from congress on indefensible legal grounds. Former white House CounselDonald Mcgahn is not, quote, absolutely immune, unquote from appearing before this committee. We require his testimony for our obstruction investigation, but the president has vowed to, quote, fight all the subpoenas, unquote, and this, too, is conduct that requires a congressional response. As members of congress and in particular as members of the house Judiciary Committee, we have a responsibility to investigate each of these allegations and to determine the appropriate remedy. That responsibility includes making a judgment about whether to recommend articles of impeachment. That judgment cannot be based on our feelings about President Trump. It should not be about personal behavior. It must be a decision based on the evidence before us, the evidence that keeps coming in. Now, theres been a good amount of confusion in the press and elsewhere about how we should talk about this work. Some have said that absence in grand moment from which we passed dramatically concerned about the president s conduct to actively considering articles of impeachment, its hard to know exactly what the committee is doing here. Others have argued that we can do none of this work without first having an authorizing vote on the house floor. But a house vote is not required by the rules of the house or by the constitution. There should be no doubt about our purpose. We have been open about our plans in this committee for many months. The record is recounted in the preamble of the resolution before us now. On march 4th, 2019, we sought information from many sources related to, quote, alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump. On may 8th, we recommended that the household attorney general barr in contempt. As part of that remgcommendatio the committee was clear that our work include, quote, whether to include articles of impeachment with respect to the president , close quote. On june 11th, the house approved hres 430, authorizing this kmee committee to enforce subpoenas in court. The Committee Report stated explicitly that our work includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with reference to the president. Pursuant to that resolution on july 26th, we asked the federal court for access to grand jury information. We told the court that it falls to this committee to, quote, exercise a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of articles of impeach close quote. On august 7th, we filed suit to enforce our subpoena from mr. Mcgahn. There again, we told the court that we require his testimony in order to help decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment. In each of these documents, we have been explicit about our intentions. This committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Thats what were doing. Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. Theres no legal difference between these terms, and i no longer care to argue about the nomenclature, but let me clear up any remaining doubt. Conduct under investigation poses a threat to our democracy. We have an obligation to respond to this threat, and we are doing so. Under the procedures outlined in this resolution, we will hold hearings that allow us to further consider the evidence against the president. At those hearings, in addition to member questioning, well allow staff counsel to participate for one hour per witness, evenly divided between the majority and the minority. This will allow us to develop the record in ways that the fiveminute rule does not always permit. We will also allow the president to respond to the evidence in writing and on the record. No matter how we may disagree with him, President Trump is sbie entitled to respond to the evidence in this way. And well treat certain sensitive evidence, such as grand jury information, as being received in executive session. Under these procedures, with when we have finished these hearings and consider as much evidence as were able to gather, well then decide whether to refer articles of impeachment to the house floor. We have a constitutional, historical, and moral obligation to fully investigate these matters and to make that decision. Let us take the next step in that work without delay. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution, and i yield back. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate this. Welcome to everybody here who is expecting one thing and getting another. Last week i was driving to a great event. It is the opening of football season at the university of georgia. Were going between the hedges. The day was starting, our first home game. My wife and i are driving down the road, and shes looking at her phone, bored, shes looking and shes in her instagram account. She looks over at me and she shows me this picture of a person, its a family member, a close family member. She looks over and she says and a friend who was staying with us, she said, megan told me about filters that you can use to make your appearance look better. And i said, yeah, what are you talking about . She said, look at this picture. This looks nothing like our family member. What did she do . I said, well, i dont know. I said, undoubtedly, she used one of the filters. Whats happened today is great. The Judiciary Committee has become a giant instagram filter. To make you appear that somethings happening thats not. Its really interesting. I hope hell come back at this. The difference between formal impeachment proceedings and what were doing today is a world apart no matter what the chairman just said. What were looking at here is a filter. Its great, though, because i love this. Im not saying this much press up at 8 00 in the morning in a long time. Lets look at the facts. Nothing we have here is anything that could not have been handled five minutes before a hearing of any time that we have. The filter may make you think something is happening, but really, what we have is a walk down the yellow brick road. In fact, you want to see the yellow brick road . The emerald city is impeachment, and my colleagues are desperate to get there. They have been desperate since last november when they won the majority. They started this path. They walked. Look at the whereas clauses on what theyre doing and how theyre doing it. In fact, whats interesting, its very disturbing to me is the whereas clause in the second paragraph when it admits the russian government interfered in the 2016 election. Weve had no hearings and no bills brought forward in this committee that deals with that issue. Undoubtedly, we acknowledge it like weve done a lot of things in this committee. But we dont want to solve it because wed rather talk about it. So we continue the whereas clauses. We continue the whereas this, the yellow brick road. Whats interesting is all along they thought people were coming along with them and that the public was happy with this and that other members in their own party were happy with this. Somewhere down the yellow brick road, they looked around and said, theres not all of us here. People arent following anymore. Then we come to today. The resolve part, which is actually the real part of this resolution. For all the folks covering this, this is not anything special. In fact, lets talk about it. Number one, the chairman may designate a full committee or subCommittee Hearing for the purpose of presentation of information of this committee. Oh, my goodness. You can do that any time you wake up. The chairman could wake up this morning and say, this is what were doing today. Why do we need a resolve clause for that . I didnt know we needed to define the chairmans authority into saying what were going to do today. Hes made it clear all year this is what he wants to do. The second one, if a witness is called to testify, the Committee Staff here we are again. Because we know it looks more impeachment like if we have staff answering questions. I dont know what its like on the other 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 do something. Ive never seen this with a brand of lawyers that you have on your side of the aisle. I am amazed that you just dont ask for more member questioning and let some of these brilliant lawyers go at it because theyre good. But yet, undoubtedly, like i said, im not sure whats happening on that side, but this desperation to get staff to be in the spotlight to ask questions is just something that is, again, instagram filter. Lets put it in there to look like something that its really not. For some lawyers, im looking at one right here, mr. Raskin, its amazing. I dont understand this one. But this could have been done at any hearing, at any hearing we do. The chairman just has to bring it up as a motion. Its in the rules. We dont have to be doing this as a resolution. But it looked really good over the weekend. Were going to start inquiries into impeachment and put regulations in place to do that. Then it went off the track completely through the wheat because even leadership didnt know what they were doing. Then number three. This one is a problem. It talks about executive session and how theyre going to handle information because heres a problem. They already promised in Court Filings that they had these procedures in place. In fact, i wrote a letter to the chairman saying, no, you really dont. In the copy of the letter i have here, you dont have these in place. Maybe this is a time maybe they thought the judges would miss it. Right now the tv camera is on. Judges, you might want to look at this. They didnt have the procedures in place. You may have a filing saying you did, but you dont. And also, let me also state for anybody listening here, this cant be kept strictly in this rule cannot contradict house rules. Any member of the house can see this material. Any member. The last one, this one is the most amazing. Weve been building up one, two, three, four. I am so happy that this resolution presenting the committee in open seg aftssion the fact. Everybody in this room, everybody in this country, everybody outside this country can do this. Anybody who has an email address, anybody who has a pen and paper can write a letter to this committee. Were now telling him he can do this. As if this president has a hard time expressing himself. I think he understands this in his counsel. Then the chairman after consultation with me can invite the president to review. This is again, this shows you how frankly, unfortunately silly weve gotten today. To actually put in number four resolution to say that the president in his counsel can write a letter to this committee. Have we gotten to that point yet . Really . So look, the instagram filter is applied. Make sure it looks good. Spruce up the parts. Make your story look good. The press is here. Weve been you know, i wanted a long time to be able to say this. Welcome to fantasy island. Because were here. It may all look good. The unfortunate part is when the screen goes down, you just see a simple procedure issue, a simple procedure issue that doesnt deal with impeachment, doesnt deal with anything else. It simply gives another press release for whatever were doing now. So its early. Its 8 00. The popcorn is on. As ive said, let the show begin. I yield back. President trump announced that his administration would take action to ban flavored ecigarettes from the market in an effort to protect children against addiction. He was joined by health and Human Services secretary alex azar and fda acting commissioner dr. Norman sharpless afterwards, President Trump answered reporter questions. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It strikes the word subcommittee from the first procedure of this investigation. Impea impeachment is a serious matter, mr. Chairman. The American People deserve to have these proceedings play out in the full committee where we can more fully examine the evidence and charges brought against the president , not shoved away in some special subcommittee where only a few members can gather evidence and question witnesses. This matter is so serious, in fact, that the full house has historically authorized the Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry provided this committee with the specific instructions for opening the inquiry. In fact, as law fair notes in an article from earlier this week, quote, a major difference between this resolution and prior procedural documents in connection with the last two impeachment proceedings is that this resolution is not connected to a vote by the full house directing the committee to begin a formal impeachment inquiry of the president , end quote. The historical precedent is clear. On february 6th, 1974, the whole house voted to approve resolution 803, which authorized the committee to investigate whether to impeach president nixon. This resolution also detailed how the Judiciary Committee could accept information and granted specific funds for the investigation. Then only after the full house had spoken, the Judiciary Committee unanimously adopted its procedures to handle material gathered during the inquiry on february 22nd, 1974. The committee then unanimously adopted procedures for presentation of evidence during the impeachment inquiry three months later on may 2nd, 1974. This Committee Also received instructions from the full house before leaping into the clinton impeachment inquiry. On october 5th, 1998, the Judiciary Committee adopted impeachment inquiry procedure and reported a resolution authorizing the inquiry to the full house. The full house then affirmed the committees decision to open an inquiry, approving House Resolution 581 on october 8th, 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 the court brief dated july 22nd, 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 the house isnt opening an impeachment inquiry. Mr. Chairman, having been here during the clinton impeachment mr. Chairman, having been here during the clinton impeachment proceedings, i would have expected you would understand the gravity of this inquiry and not cut this houses knees out from under it or potentially keep members of this committee from being involved in the proceedings by sequestering proceedings 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 the this amendment, and i yield back. Gentleman yield . Sorry, i yield to the Ranking Member. I appreciate it. You just brought up an interesting point. I have right here the chairman was here and was very vocal in the clinton era impeachment issues on how this is supposed to go about and how you actually are supposed to do this. Its ream interestilly interest what was needed back then is not needed now because frankly theres a serious problem. They dont have the votes to go to the floor. So now were having to make up the as we go. But you brought up a very good point. I got like eight, nine pages of the contradictions of where were at today. You bring that up, i disagree that this is anything with impeachment. If theyre going to imply it, we at least need to point out the inconsistencies here. I appreciate the gentlemans amendment. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize myself mr. Chairman, i yield back also. Thank you. I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment essentially says that the chairman can designate the full committee. A full Committee Hearing is being for the purpose of presentation and impeachment investigation but a subcommittee hear cannot. 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, not being enough days otherwise for the task. Number two, theres ample precedent for subcommittees being used in this fashion. I was on the committee during the clinton impeachment, as the gentleman states. The committee under the