Skip to main content

tv   Articles of Impeachment House Hearings House Rules Committee Debates...  CSPAN  December 18, 2019 6:26am-7:00am EST

6:26 am
okay the rules committee will come to order. at this time, the chair will entertain motion from the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you. i move the house resolution seven 85, impeaching the president, donald trump. a
6:27 am
closed rule. it provides the immediately upon adoption of this resolution without intervention of any point of order the, house will proceed with the consideration of house consideration 7:55, it provides six hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary, or their respective designates. the rule provides that they admit even in the nature of a substitute recommended by congress -- sorry, the committee on the judiciary shall be considered as adopted. the rule provides that the question of adoption of the resolution shall be divided between the two articles the rule provides that during consideration of house resolution 7:55 only the president should be admitted to the hall of the house leading there to. a, members of congress, would be the delegates and the resident commissioner, see the, president and vice president of the united states. the other persons as designated by the speaker, section. three
6:28 am
provides for consideration of a resolution appointing in authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of donald trump, president of the united states, if offered by the chair of the judiciary or his designate. it provides ten minutes of debate on the resolution, equally divided controlled by the chair, and ranking minority member of the judiciary committee. it weighs all points of orders against consideration of the resolution specified in section three. the rule provides that no other resolution incident still to impeachment relating to our resolution 7:55 shall be privileged during the remainder of the 116th congress. the rule provides that the chair of the committee on the judiciary may insert in the record such material as he made him explanatory of house resolution 7:55 and specified in section three, not later than the date that is five legislative days after adoption of each perspective resolution. i yield
6:29 am
back. >> is there any amendment or discussion? >> thank you. i'm an amendment to the role, i moved to provide 12 hours of general debate, equally divided between the chair and ranking members of the committee on the judiciary. because the democratic hasty timeframe to impeach the president, it's imperative that we have ample time to debate the file. we should strive to become as close as possible to be a lot at the time for debate in the clinton impeachment. members should have efficient time to explain to the american people their position on these impeachment amendment. providing 12 hours of debate will allow each member of this congress a mere one minute and 40 seconds to debate, the impeachment article, but i demand that on both sides they have an opportunity to state their positions who had asked
6:30 am
for the 12 hour. >> i thank the gentleman, we provided six hours of debate plus an hour of debate, that seven hours total. it seems like a reasonable amount of time we're dealing with fewer hours or couples of impeachment with president trump, than we were the president clinton, and i think it's a fair amount of time, i respect the gentleman but i will urge a no vote on his amendment. >> any other persons requesting time? >> i would speak in favor of the amendment. not every member of congress has the privilege that we do of serving on the rules committee. we have enjoyed a limited time today, flew so we've all had ample time to talk. i think every member of congress should be urged to take the time to explain to their constituents, this is not a trivial matter that we are taking, up this is
6:31 am
a matter of great importance for the future of our country, and we've all talked about our allegiance to the constitution. we should provide members an opportunity to explain themselves. i say the amendment is well reasoned and considered. if i would urge us to take this up, they provided an opportunity, and i think they should take it. >> i think seven hours of debate will extend to 12 hours, when it's all said and done. >> i just note, for the record, it's not often we support every amendment, so i just like to shout out my friend. >> call the roll. >> mr. hastings
6:32 am
>> i have an amendment to the rule to amend section one that waves all points of order in the resolution, except for those in violations of clause 11. the rule waves all points of order, in the house rule 11, we spend so much time talking about today, which. is a rights for a hearing on december 4th. mister chairman, as you know, minority members of the house
6:33 am
judiciary committee did exercise their rights under that section, and asked for a day of hearing, but as of today that hearing is not been scheduled, he responded to polls of concerns on that issue, and as i read during the hearing today, it concluded that because mr. nadler has appropriately said he will work with the minority to schedule that hearing, after our vote on impeachment does he believe that section had been satisfied, you stated that you -- that the intent of the rule was to provide false invoice, i don't think that would allow for that voice. it could well be that the house parliamentarian and the speaker tomorrow will agree with you that having consulted
6:34 am
with chairman nadler and agreed to hold a hearing after the fact that it does satisfy the section how the rules, i think it would be mid meaningless, if that is true. but by allowing and exposing this point of order tomorrow we will at least make clear to the american people only one of two things is true, either the house of representatives has a process and on the day we accused president trump of breaking the, rules reached who's to follow our own. or, we will choose to waive those rules, and leave the impression that somebody of my colleagues have talked about today, that the rules do not apply to everyone, and do not exist to serve everyone. i know that is not the intention, as his letter makes it clear, i just ask my colleagues, because this has been a source of great debate and disagreement, that we expose this point of order, and if it turns out, as the chairman beliefs it will, that
6:35 am
this requirement has been satisfied, then no harm, no foul. but if it turns out that this requirement has not been satisfied, we would do the american people a great service by satisfying it and then moving forward. i think by chairman. >> any other discussion? >> if i can just add one more thing. to read that section makes it clear that there is no ambiguity in this request. if the minority acts, the request must be granted. it is not up to the discretion of the chair that absence of discretion was intentional, as we crafted this section on minority rights. i just put that out there for my colleagues because one day we will all be indifferent places
6:36 am
and the president today will matter. >> we've been in your seat but there is no where in that role is to say when the chairman must schedule that hearing. we've had this discussion before and i don't think this is something to a point of order. the standard for any measure to be provided against points of order. 86 blanket waivers were provided by the republican majority and we have not been advised that any points of order lie against the resolution so the waiver is out of an abundance of caution in keeping with modern rules and practices. even though they did not lie against the resolution, they could be brought up that would be have to be argued against and ruled on, needlessly delaying the floor. that is why it reflected waiver is included in every single roll that we report out of here under republicans and democrats,
6:37 am
so i disagree with you on how you interpret the minority day rule, i responded to you,, asked my opinions but, look we need to make sure this resolution moves forward, so with that the gentlelady from arizona? >> i would like to speak in favor of mr. woodall's amendment, i think the american public would think that it is really ridiculous to grant a minority hearing date after we vote on the articles of impeachment. any person with any common sense knows that it's really, in my opinion, outrageous. so, if you go forward with this, as i assume you are, i think we are going to make hay out of it, for sure. >> you can make it whatever you want. as i said before, the whole point of this resolution was to ensure that the minority
6:38 am
at any right to a witness during committee procedures. that has not granted in the judiciary committee. it's just to protect chairman or chairwoman who basically allow no minority witnesses. i will also say that we received a letter from 17 members of the party, saying that they will use every military tactic within their means to try to delay and derail this process. i do not want this to turn into a circus, this is a serious matter that it will be considered an orderly and respectful way. so we just disagree on that. mr. woodall? >> as we heard, on one for their point, i may not have explained my motion appropriately. i agree with you in the nations of the rules
6:39 am
committee, our standard practice of waiving all points of orders, to allow the majority to conduct its business without dilatory tactic. i want to keep that section that waves all points of orders with the one exception of this minority witness. if i can read from the house practice manual, whenever a hearing is called on a measure or matter, minority members may have a right to call witnesses of their own choosing. that has not happened here. that has not happened here, as has been said so often today, those facts are undisputed. undisputed. >> five witnesses that have testified, to in the judiciary committee and three by the republican minority, that at
6:40 am
least five witnesses and the president was invited to present a case, which he refused to do. >> i appreciate my friend raising that but, what you heard from the ranking member is that he was given choices by the chairman, take it or leave it. you can invite a professor of your own choosing but you cannot indict a witness of your own choosing. you can bring the fact witnesses to this hearing. that is what this section -- >> so the gentleman is making a distinction between the examinations and depositions that were taken in the intelligence committee, versus what was done in the judiciary committee, is that how that until man is proceeding? >> no. i would say i am taking the rule on its face, minority members to have a right to call
6:41 am
witnesses of their own choosing. that right was not offered or granted, and it goes on to say the chair may set the day under a reasonable schedule. it could well be that the chairman is absolutely right. and when we decided that the schedule must be reasonable, we decided that scheduling the hearing after the bill has already been passed and sent to the senate was reasonable. but i don't believe that we believe that. i believe none of us knows that is not what we intended. there are bills on which it moving and playing fast and loose may be appropriate. impeaching the president of the united states cannot be, by any definition be one of those resolutions, it cannot be. it cannot be. the rule is clear, we have the
6:42 am
right to waive the rule for suggest that the rule has been satisfied as the chairman's letter does, i think creates a very dangerous precedent that future chairman are going to be much more liberal with and much less enthusiastic about protecting minority rights then the chairman would be. the chair may set the day under a reasonable schedule. is the day after we passed a bill reasonable? >> that's the best case scenario. the chairman has been very indulgent. >> i think you're misinterpreting what the rule actually states and we do not agree and what we're doing its standard operating procedure and we are going to follow that. >> to be fair, i am not trying to mistake the rule, i'm reading it out of the house practice manual.
6:43 am
>> i answer to you in a lengthy letter how based on president and how it was interpreted -- the idea that somehow if it worked away, the minority would have it move belief as if there were a superpower calling a witness anytime or scheduling a hearing whenever they want to two or delay legislation, there would've been a whole lot more hearings last congress, call by democrats. so we just disagree. and we can continue this if we like but i don't agree with your assumption. >> i know that in this committee as the chairman if you don't agree with me that means i'm going to lose, i understand. that >> you can ask for a vote. >> mister chairman this is not a rule of this committee, this is a rule of the united states. >> is there a point of order to
6:44 am
be made? >> when i raised that point of order on the floor of the house it will be denied. >> i'm not exposing this bill to any point of order. i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the what all amendment, all those in favor say aye. oppose? no. the nose have it. >> (inaudible) (laughs). >> call the roll. >> mr. casings? >> no. >> it's facing snow. >> mr. torres for no? >> mr. raskin, now. >> mr. raskin. no >> miss scanlon? >> no. >> the scandal, and no?. >> mr. morally? >> no. >> this morally, now. >> mister just don't? >> now. >> it's just tony, know. --
6:45 am
i'd like to yield to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> this is a sad day, i don't think anybody on this panel that came here with the expectation that voting on impeachment for the president i think they all regret this. i think we all do. i want to tell you force that i'm very proud of this committee and very proud that the discussion has been civil and professional. i think the points have been fair by all sides and i think that's a credit to this community. i'm very proud of you, i think you
6:46 am
have presided over this process which is a difficult one and one very clearly disagree and there is not much opportunity for agreement to arrive but you've given everybody an opportunity to half their say and allowed every question to be asked every, point to be made, we've made decisions at your prerogative as chairman and we respect that. but i think you've done so in a very fair and open and transparent matter, personally, i am very grateful. i do think that as a congress were on an awfully dangerous and divisive horse. i thought about this quite a bit, i think all of us are. i've been around this business for a long time, and i have watched the last impeachment process, were not a member of congress, but i was associated with congress at the time. and i thought, probably where we went wrong in that process is that i don't think that most of the
6:47 am
republican members of the nineties ever regarded president clinton as a legitimately elected president. i would caution my friends i think you're making precisely the same mistake now. no question we can quibble about votes many many members of congress on your side have been trying to impeach the president from the very first day. no question about that. under testimony about that, and you are going to impeach the president in this case if we go ahead tomorrow for something that looked it'll happen this dispute have been about aid to the ukraine and ukraine in aid was given it was withheld at least 55 days and with it delivered within the time legally testified within the end of the fiscal year. with no investigations undertaken under the ukraine, in exchange for that aid or, an exchange for a time at the white house will
6:48 am
visit for the president, and both the principles involved in critical conversations president trump and president zelensky, all said everything is fine. no pressure was intended, none was felt. this process that were engaged in mister chairman is going to fail. will have a vote tomorrow it may succeed i, occupy the majority here i respect that. but we're here because the speaker did not follow the very conditions she laid down at the beginning. she said we will not go down the road of impeachment, unless it's bipartisan, this is not bipartisan, we will not go down this road unless there is a consensus of the country, there is no consensus of the country, and we are precisely a year, less than now 11 months from election, where the american people can, and will make this decision. i want to conclude, mister chairman and now more optimistic note. a lot of people say this congress is
6:49 am
broken. we focus, the public should focus, on this measure today, but we ought to reflect about what's happened this week. what happened in this committee, what we saw last night. we had a major bipartisan agreement on funding the the government for the remaining of the year, by which the president was pretty in trickle in that process as well, he participated. he's not willing to negotiate, he certainly did. we are going to have major tax changes, three major items to found the aca were eliminated today, i'm very pleased with that, the president was involved in that, we have the tax exchanges package, that we all stayed a little later but that's because the principles on all sides were actually negotiated. that tells me that things are going in a workable fashion, and were going to have a usmca votes on vote on thursday again this
6:50 am
committee was involved, and i think it will be bipartisan. well i'm very disappointed about what's happening, i don't think that's good for the country, my friend mr. collins made some very good points about lowering the bar for impeachment and setting us up for engage in this again, i am pleased to say that i've been offered many bipartisan manner. and mister chairman that's in part because the way unit which you've operated, a very divisive process, but one again you've been open and fair and transparent, we have agreed with you all your decisions, we have the opportunity to fantastic amendments, but the reality is that you allow those amendments to respect fairly, and so for that i extent my sincere appreciation and look forward to seeing you on the floor tomorrow and, appreciate the manner in which you discharge are dirtiest in this
6:51 am
committee. i want to thank >> the gentleman from oklahoma for his kind words democrats and republicans, and all the staff that have put in the long hours during this week, but it we sat here all day, and we definitely have a very serious and thoughtful manner i did i had a number of people say that they were surprised that despite the difficult topic before us, what they have observed lay out on tv was relatively civil. i'm proud of this committee to. and we have strong disagreements over the matter at hand, i think the president behaved in a way that is reprehensible quite frankly, and yet he did the age did go to ukraine, but only after he got caught withholding it. while this committee was gathering this afternoon, the president of the united states sent the speaker of the house a
6:52 am
letter on the impeachment process, and miss asked unanimous consent to put in the record, i'm not sure how many of you read it. but it's six pages long, and it essentially a sent a sense to one long twitter round. he calls impeachment a legal coup. says that more due process were a afforded to the salem witch trials trials. innocent people were thrown in shallow grades, 80 rolled and farmer name giles cory was placed between rocks and crushed to death, to say that he's been treated worse than the salem witch trials is enhanced. so like so many of them dips missives on impeachment. i know a little bit about the silhouette shrubs because i'm from massachusetts. and here's a little bit more history about massachusetts. it was our forebears who were killed in the mosque boston
6:53 am
massacres. and who fired the shot heard of a around the world. it was our commonwealth that stood up to a tyrannical king and insight insisted that rights come from the government not the whims of a monarch. in his letter the president even rights and i quote that the president will hold you accountable in the 2020 election and. quote the president doesn't get it. if this is not about his reelection. it's not about anyone's political future. our founder handed us to the fragile thing more than 200 years ago, an experiment earnest self government. fledgling democracy unlike anything we've ever seen at a time. a republic of by and for the people. this is whether we the people say to congress, are willing to stand up and protect that fragile ideal that has been interested to all of us. we shape the stomach received by day by day vote by vote some votes are more cane than others, but each and everyone helps to side the type of country were
6:54 am
gonna be voting on impeachment is particularly important, it will define our democracy from here on out. not a single republican today even hinted that the president did was wrong. it was wrong. it was wrong. and for me, i will leave here today with a clear conscience. i don't know if president trump is watching right now, but if you were i would say, mister president this is not about you. this is about all of us. what kind of behavior you're willing to tolerate whoever sits in the oval office. and whether we live in the government by for the people. our republic if you can keep it, i quote those famous words by benjamin franklin. no one wanted to be here today. but i am proud that when history called upon us, we fought to keep the vision of our founders alive and our time. we fought to keep this republican tact. so this says
6:55 am
been a long day, i tomorrow promises to be a long day. even though we had disagreements in this committee, as i said before i'm proud of each and every member of this committee. i think showed that we can have difficult discussions, and be civil, and be serious, and i think that no matter where we fall on this issue, i think that's all we should be proud of. i think everybody, and now i ask that way we questions now and the motions for the gentleman from pennsylvania, all those unfavorable say i. and the opinion of the chair the ayes have a. the yays the nays have been wrist were requested. roll call mrs. stars i mr. promoter i mr. raskin i
6:56 am
mr. i >> miss finn i missed most morally >> i missed i mr. to sony mr. sonia i >> mr. call >> mr. coal >> mister mrs. lesko >> missed mister chairman the clerk report the total 90s for nays. the ayes have it and i will just rule for the majority. again i think everybody unaware that, absolutely. >> we talk about democracy in the federal system -- even before, >> i you. without objection the committee is adjourned. >>
6:57 am
6:58 am
>> follow the house impeachment process and administrations response on the span. watch live unfiltered coverage. stream anytime on-demand at or listen everywhere you are on the c-span radio app. here's a look at what is live on when they the c-span networks. the housemates at 9:00 a.m. eastern to take up the resolution to impeach president trump. members will have one hour to debate a rule that is up six hours of general debate of equally divided before a final vote on to the articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. that's live on c-span. considers, the senate judicial nominations starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. then in the evening, president trump holds a campaign rally in battle creek, michigan.
6:59 am
then c-span3, the justice department's inspector general, michael horowitz, testifies before the senate homeland security committee about his report on the origins of the f.b.i.? >>s russia investigation. that gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern. ♪ >> the house will be in order. c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white court, andsupreme public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, the span was brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. coming up on washington journal, we'll get your reaction to the house debating and voting today on articles of


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on