Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 41 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a closed rule, House Resolution 41, providing for consideration of H. Res. 24, impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The rule provides 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides that upon adoption of H. Res. 24, H. Res. 40 is hereby adopted.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through February 11, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating this historic measure at an actual crime scene, and we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the President of the United States.

On Wednesday, January 6, Congress gathered here to fulfill our constitutional duty, tallying the electoral college victory of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris after a free and fair election.

This is largely a ceremonial role for the Congress, one that sends the message to the world that democracy in the United States persists. But at a rally just a mile and a half down Pennsylvania Avenue, Donald Trump and his allies were stoking the anger of a violent mob.

A Member of this very body proclaimed on that stage: ``Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.''

Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, called for a ``trial by combat.''

Then Donald Trump told the crowd: ``We are going to have to fight much harder . . . you will never take back our country with weakness.''

Even though, according to his own administration that this election was the most secure in our history, Donald Trump repeated his big lie that this election was an egregious assault on democracy.

He said Vice President Pence ``was going to have to come through for us.''

Trump then told this mob to ``walk down to the Capitol.''

The signal was unmistakable: These thugs should stage a coup so Donald Trump can hang on to power. The people's will be damned.

This beacon of democracy became the site of a vicious attack. Rioters chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence,'' as noose and gallows were built a stone's throw from the Capitol steps. Capitol police officers were beaten and sprayed with pepper spray. Attackers hunted down lawmakers to hold them hostage or worse. Staff barricaded doors. People sent text messages to their families to tell them they loved them. They thought they were saying good-bye, Mr. Speaker.

This was not a protest. This was an insurrection. This was a well- organized attack on our country that was incited by Donald Trump.

Domestic terrorists broke into the United States Capitol that day and it is a miracle more people didn't die. As my colleagues and I were being evacuated to safety, I never ever will forget what I saw when I looked into the eyes of those attackers right in the Speaker's lobby there. I saw evil, Mr. Speaker. Our country came under attack not from a foreign nation, but from within.

These were not protesters. These were not patriots. These were traitors. These were domestic terrorists, Mr. Speaker, and they were acting under the orders of Donald Trump.

Some of my colleagues on the other side have suggested that we just move on from this horror. But to gloss over it would be an abdication of our duty. Others on the Republican side have talked about unity. But we can't have unity without truth and without accountability. And I am not about to be lectured by people who just voted to overturn the results of a free and fair election.

America was attacked and we must respond, even when the cause of this violence resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Each of us took an oath last week. It wasn't to a party and it wasn't to a person. We vowed to defend the Constitution. The actions of Donald Trump have called each of us to fulfill that oath today. I pray that we rise to this responsibility because every moment Donald Trump is in the White House, our Nation and our freedom is in danger. He must be held to account for the attack on our Capitol that he organized and he incited.

I solemnly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying article. The damage this building sustained can be repaired, Mr. Speaker; but if we don't hold Donald Trump accountable, the damage done to our Nation could be irreversible.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the powerful statement by Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who is the chair of the House Republican Conference, titled ``I will vote to impeach the President.''

Cheney: I Will Vote To Impeach the President

January 12, 2021.

Washington--Wyoming Congresswoman and House Republican

Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) released the following

statement ahead of votes in the House this week:

``On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United

States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and

stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This

insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most

sacred space in our Republic.

``Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but

what we know now is enough. The President of the United

States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the

flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing.

None of this would have happened without the President. The

President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to

stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater

betrayal by a President of the United States of his office

and his oath to the Constitution.

``I will vote to impeach the President.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about just one thing: If we vote to impeach the President today and we send it over to the Senate, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from taking it up immediately if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decides that he wants to proceed, number one.

Number two, we all want to talk about unity. I can't think of anything

that would unify this country more than if there was a big bipartisan vote in favor of impeachment. Every second that this President remains in office is a danger to this country and to the world. We have no idea what he is capable of doing, whether he will pardon these terrorists or whether he will go to war.

So I urge all my colleagues on both sides to support this rule and the impeachment resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of my colleagues that what happened on Wednesday would not have happened if it weren't for the occupant in the White House. If we want to put the people first, we all ought to vote to impeach him and remove him from office as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, some of us objected 4 years ago as a protest vote to raise concerns about what all of our intelligence agencies had stated clearly, which was that Russia had interfered in our election.

What the gentleman fails to acknowledge is that we all acknowledged that Donald Trump was the President the day after the election. Hillary Clinton conceded the day after the election.

And none of us push conspiracy theories like some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been doing, and this President, that somehow the President won in a landslide. Give me a break.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I asked the gentleman from Ohio if he would just say five simple words. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that he was talking about healing. The five simple words that one could say that would help heal this Nation are that: ``The election was not stolen.'' That is it, five simple words. He refused. He said he never said the election was stolen. Well, the evidence shows otherwise. Let me reference this Dana Milbank piece titled ``Five pesky little words keep stumping Jim Jordan.''

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this. This Capitol was stormed. People died because of the big lies that were being told by this President and by too many people on the other side of the aisle.

Enough. People should be outraged as to what happened. It was unforgivable, unconscionable. Coming up on this floor and talking about whataboutism and trying to make these false equivalencies, give me a break.

The President of the United States instigated an attempted coup in this country. People died. Everybody should be outraged, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. If this is not an impeachable offense, I don't know what the hell is.

This President is not fit to remain in office.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, when my friends talk about the President being committed to a peaceful transition, I just point to what happened on Wednesday when his words launched a violent attack against this Capitol where five people lost their lives and many more were injured. So give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article published January 9 titled `` `Our President Wants Us Here': The Mob That Stormed the Capitol.'' It is another example of why our country cannot risk even one more day of Donald Trump.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 9, 2021]

Our President Wants Us Here: The Mob That Stormed the Capitol

(By Dan Barry, Mike McIntire and Matthew Rosenberg)

It was the table setter for what would come, with nearly

2,000 people gathering in Washington on Tuesday evening for a

``Rally to Save America.'' Speaker after angry speaker stoked

stolen-election conspiracy theories and name-checked sworn

enemies: Democrats and weak Republicans, Communists and

Satanists.

Still, the crowd seemed a bit giddy at the prospect of

helping President Trump reverse the result of the election--

though at times the language evoked a call to arms. ``It is

time for war,'' one speaker declared.

As the audience thinned, groups of young men emerged in

Kevlar vests and helmets, a number of them holding clubs and

knives. Some were aligned with the neofascist Proud Boys;

others with the Three Percenters, a far-right militia group.

``We're not backing down anymore,'' said a man with fresh

stitches on his head. ``This is our country.''

That night reflected a disconcerting mix of free speech and

certain menace; of everyday Americans supporting their

president and extremists prepared to commit violence for him.

All had assembled in answer to Mr. Trump's repeated appeals

to attend a march to the Capitol the next day that he

promised would be ``wild.''

It was. By Wednesday afternoon, a narrow group of Trump

supporters--some exuberant, some hellbent--had been storm-

tossed together into infamy. A mob overran the nation's

Capitol, as lawmakers hid in fear. Wholesale vandalism. Tear

gas. Gunfire. A woman dead; an officer dead; many injured.

Chants of ``U.S.A.! U.S.A.!''

But the insurrection failed.

It had been the culmination of a sustained assault by the

president and his enablers on fact-based reality, one that

began long before the November election but took on a fevered

urgency as the certainty of Mr. Trump's defeat solidified.

For years, he had demonized political opponents and the media

and egged on thuggish behavior at his rallies.

Since losing to Joseph R. Biden Jr., he had mounted a

campaign of lies that the presidency was being stolen from

him, and that marching on the Capitol was the last chance to

stop it. To many Americans, it looked like one more feel-good

rally to salve Mr. Trump's wounded ego, but some of his

supporters heard something altogether different--a battle

cry.

Now, dozens of them have been arrested--including an armed

Alabama man who had Molotov cocktails in his car and a West

Virginia lawmaker charged with illegally entering the

Capitol--and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is asking

for help in identifying those who ``actively instigated

violence.'' Many participants in the march are frantically

working to erase digital evidence of their presence for fear

of losing a job or being harassed online.

Mr. Trump, meanwhile, has been broadly condemned and cut

off from his social media megaphones, as a new administration

prepares to take power.

Kevin Haag, 67, a retired landscaper from North Carolina

who ascended the Capitol steps as the crowd surged forward,

said he did not go inside and disapproved of those who did.

Even so, he said he would never forget the sense of

empowerment as he looked down over thousands of protesters.

It felt so good, he said, to show people: ``We are here. See

us! Notice us! Pay attention!''

Now, back home after several days of reflection, Mr. Haag,

an evangelical Christian, wonders whether he went too far.

``Should I get down on my knees and ask for forgiveness?'' he

said in an interview. ``I am asking myself that question.''

But the experience seemed to have only hardened the resolve

of others. Couy Griffin, 47, a Republican county commissioner

from New Mexico, spoke of organizing another Capitol rally

soon--one that could result in ``blood running out of that

building''--in a video he later posted to the Facebook page

of his group, Cowboys for Trump.

Couy Griffin, a Republican county commissioner from New

Mexico and organizer of the group Cowboys for Trump, said a

future Capitol rally could have ``blood running out of that

building.'' ``You want to say that that was a mob? You want

to say that was a violence? No, sir, no, ma'am, no. We could

have a Second Amendment rally on those same steps that we had

that rally yesterday. You know, and if we do, then it's going

to be a sad day, because there's going to be blood running

out of that building. But at the end of the day, you mark my

word, we will plant our flag on the desk of Nancy Pelosi and

Chuck Schumer and Donald J. Trump, if it boils down to it.''

Couy Griffin, a Republican county commissioner from New

Mexico and organizer of the group Cowboys for Trump, said a

future Capitol rally could have ``blood running out of that

building.'' CreditCredit . . . Cowboys for Trump via YouTube.

``At the end of the day, you mark my word, we will plant our

flag on the desk of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer,'' he

said. He paused before adding, ``And Donald J. Trump if it

boils down to it.''

Plans take shape online: `Pack a crowbar'. The advance

publicity for the ``March for America'' had been robust.

Beyond the repeated promotions in tweets by the president and

his allies, the upcoming event was cheered on social media,

including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

But woven through many of the messages to stand up for Mr.

Trump--and, if possible, block the congressional

certification of the election he claimed he had won--was

language that flirted with aggression, even violence.

For example, the term ``Storm the Capitol'' was mentioned

100,000 times in the 30 days preceding Jan. 6, according to

Zignal Labs, a media insights company. Many of these mentions

appeared in viral tweet threads that discussed the possible

storming of the Capitol and included details on how to enter

the building.

To followers of QAnon, the convoluted collection of

conspiracy theories that falsely claims the country is

dominated by deep-state bureaucrats and Democrats who worship

Satan, the word ``storm'' had particular resonance. Adherents

have often referred to a coming storm, after which Mr. Trump

would preside over a new government order.

In online discussions, some QAnon followers and militia

groups explored which weapons and tools to bring. ``Pack a

crowbar,'' read one message posted on Gab, a social media

refuge for the far right. In another discussion, someone

asked, ``Does anyone know if the windows on the second floor

are reinforced?''

Still, the many waves of communication did not appear to

result in a broadly organized plan to take action. It is also

unclear if any big money or coordinated fund-raising was

behind the mobilization, though some Trump supporters appear

to have found funds through opaque online networks to help

pay for transportation to the rally.

``Patriots, if you need financial help getting to DC to

support President Trump on January 6th, please go to my

website,'' a QAnon adherent who identified himself as Thad

Williams, of Tampa, Fla., posted on Twitter three days before

the event. He said he had raised more than $27,000. (After

the Capitol assault, the money transfer companies PayPal and

Stripe shut down his accounts. Mr. Williams did not return a

phone message, but the website for his organization, Joy In

Liberty, said it had given out $30,000 to fund transportation

for ``deserving patriots.'')

Other rally goers set up fund-raising accounts through the

online service GoFundMe; Buzzfeed News cited at least a

dozen, and GoFundMe has since closed them.

One of the most conspicuous figures in the Capitol

assault--a bare-chested man with a painted face, flag-draped

spear and fur hat with horns--was linked to the online fund-

raising. A familiar presence at pro-Trump rallies in Phoenix,

Jacob Anthony Chansley, a 33-year-old voiceover actor, is

known as the Q Shaman. He started a GoFundMe account in

December to help pay for transportation to another Trump

demonstration in Washington, but the effort reportedly netted

him just $10. Mr. Chansley retweeted Mr. Williams's funding

offer on Jan. 3, but it is unclear whether he benefited from

it.

On Tuesday, the eve of the march, a couple thousand people

gathered at Freedom Plaza in Washington for ``The Rally to

Save America'' event, permitted as ``The Rally to Revival.''

The disparate interests of those attending were reflected by

the speakers: well-known evangelists, alt-right celebrities

(Alex Jones of Infowars) and Trump loyalists, including his

former national security

adviser Michael Flynn and the self-described Republican dirty

trickster Roger Stone, both of whom he had pardoned.

The speakers repeatedly encouraged the attendees to see

themselves as foot soldiers fighting to save the country.

Americans, Mr. Flynn said, were ready to ``bleed'' for

freedom.

``The members of the House of Representatives, the members

of the United States Senate, those of you who are feeling

weak tonight, those of you that don't have the moral fiber in

your body, get some tonight,'' he said. ``Because tomorrow,

we the people are going to be here and we want you to know we

will not stand for a lie.''

Inside the Capitol descends into chaos. It was President

Trump's turn. At about noon on Wednesday, he emerged from a

viewing party in a tent, strode onto a stage set up in a park

just south of the White House and, for more than an hour,

delivered a stream of inflammatory words.

He exhorted the crowd of more than 8,000 to march to the

Capitol to pressure lawmakers: ``Because you'll never take

back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and

you have to be strong.''

Even before he had finished speaking, people started moving

east toward the Capitol. The crowd included supporters who

had come by caravan from across the country, Trump flags

rippling in the wind, as well as people so moved by the

president's appeal for support that they had jumped into

their cars and driven for hours.

They traveled from various corners of resentment in 21st-

century America. Whether motivated by a sense of economic

disenfranchisement or distrust of government, by bigotry, or

conspiracy or a belief that Mr. Trump is God's way of

preparing for the Rapture, they shared a fealty to the

president.

Now the moment had come, a moment that twinned the

thrilling with the ominous.

``I'm happy, sad, afraid, excited,'' said Scott

Cyganiewicz, 56, a floor installer from Gardner, Mass., as he

watched the throngs of Trump loyalists streaming through the

streets. ``It's an emotional roller coaster.''

American flags and Trump paraphernalia mingled in the

crowd. Credit . . . Pete Marovich for The New York Times. Mr.

Cyganiewicz said he was on his way out of town. He did not

want to be around if violence broke out. Only a portion of

the broader crowd continued onto the Capitol grounds.

Soon word spread that Vice President Mike Pence--who would

oversee the pro forma count by Congress of the electoral

votes for certification--had announced he would not be

complicit in the president's efforts to overturn the

election.

``You can imagine the emotion that ran through people when

we get that word,'' said Mr. Griffin, the county commissioner

from New Mexico, in a video he posted on social media. ``And

then we get down to the Capitol and they have all the

inauguration set up for Joe Biden.''

He added, ``What do you think was going to happen?''

Many in the crowd spoke portentously of violence--or even

of another Civil War. A man named Jeff, who said he was an

off-duty police officer from York County, Pa., said he didn't

know what would happen after he and his wife Amy reached the

Capitol. But he felt ready to participate if something were

to erupt.

``There's a lot of people here willing to take orders,'' he

said. ``If the orders are given, the people will rise up.''

By the time the bulk of the crowd reached the building, its

leading edge had metastasized into an angry mob. A man barked

into a megaphone: ``Keep moving forward! Fight for Trump,

fight for Trump!''

``Military Tribunals! Hang them!'' shouted someone wearing

a cowboy hat.

Arrest Congress!'' screamed a woman in a flag scarf.

People surged past a few Capitol Police officers to bang on

the windows and doors. Many eyewitness accounts and videos

have since emerged that convey the pandemonium as hundreds of

people overwhelmed the inadequate law-enforcement presence.

In several instances of role reversal, for example, rioters

are seen firing what appeared to be pepper spray at police

officers trying to prevent mobs from getting closer to the

Capitol Building.

After a few minutes, the crowd broke through and began

streaming into an empty office. Glass shards crunched under

people's feet, as the scene descended into chaos.

Some stood in awe, while others took action. As one group

prepared to break through an entryway, a Trump supporter

raised a wine bottle and shouted, ``Whose way?'' To which the

crowd responded, ``Our way!''

Confusion reigned. ``Hey what's the Senate side?'' said a

tall man in camouflage and sunglasses.

``Where's the Senate? Can somebody Google it?''

All the while, members of The Oath Keepers, a self-

proclaimed citizens' militia, seemed to be standing guard--or

the transgressors. They wore olive-drab shirts, helmets and

patches on their upper-left sleeves that said, ``Guardians of

the Republic'' and ``Not on Our Watch.''

American flags flapped beside ``Trump 2020'' flags, and

people wearing ``Make America Great Again'' regalia moved

beside people wearing anti-Semitic slogans. Chants of ``Hell

No, Never Joe'' and ``Stop the Steal'' broke out, as did

strains of ``God Bless America'' and ``The Star-Spangled

Banner.''

Derrick Evans of West Virginia, who just two months before

had been elected as a Republican state delegate, wandered the

halls of the Capitol Building, filming himself and joining in

the occasional chant. At one point he shouted, ``Derrick

Evans is in the Capitol!''

Outside the building, Mr. Griffin, who was once

photographed wearing a 10-gallon hat and sitting across from

President Trump in the Oval Office, was now gleefully

addressing the camera from atop one of the crowded terraces,

declaring it ``a great day for America.'' Asserting that ``we

came peacefully,'' he was interrupted by a man wearing a

jacket with a hand-grenade logo, who said, ``Believe me, we

are well armed if we need to be.''

Amid the cheers and whoops of excitement were questions of

what to do next. Some can be heard hunting for specific

members of congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,

whose office was broken into by several people. She and other

lawmakers were hiding for fear of their safety.

One image showed a trim man moving through the Senate

chamber in full paramilitary regalia: camouflage uniform,

Kevlar vest, a mask and baseball cap obscuring his face. He

carried a stack of flex cuff--the plastic restraints used by

police. The image raised a question yet to be answered: Why

carry restraints if not to use them?

Several rioters wielded fire extinguishers. One stood on a

balcony on the Capitol building's west side, spraying down on

police officers trying to fend off the crowd. Others carried

them into the building itself, one into Statuary Hall and

another onto the steps outside the Senate Chamber, spraying

in the direction of journalists and police officers.

Our president wants us here,'' a man can be heard saying

during a livestream video that showed him standing within the

Capitol building. ``We wait and take orders from our

president.''

Despite his followers' hopes and expectations, President

Trump was missing in action as rioters rampaged through the

halls of Congress. It would be hours before he eventually

surfaced in a somewhat subdued videotaped appeal for them to

leave.

``We have to have peace,'' he said. ``So go home, we love

you, you're very special.''

Some of Mr. Trump's supporters expressed frustration, even

disbelief, that the president seemed to have given up after

they had put themselves on the line for him.

Mr. Haag, the retired landscaper, was among the

disappointed. Still, he said, the movement will continue even

without Mr. Trump.

We are representing the 74 million people who got

disenfranchised,'' he said. ``We are still out here. We are a

force to be reckoned with. We are not going away.''

One man wandered away from the Capitol in the evening

gloom, yelling angrily through a megaphone that Mr. Pence was

a coward and, now, Mr. Trump had told everyone ``to just go

home.''

Well, he can go home to his Mar-a-Lago estate,'' the man

shouted, adding, ``We gotta go back to our businesses that

are closed!''

As some rioters face fallout, others mull a repeat. In the

aftermath of what Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority

leader, called a ``failed insurrection,'' scores of those who

responded to the incendiary words of the president now face a

reckoning.

A chief target of investigators will be whoever struck

Brian Sicknick of the Capitol Police with a fire

extinguisher; the 42-year-old officer died Thursday after

being injured in the riot. At the same time, authorities are

investigating the fatal police shooting of Ashli Babbitt, 35,

an Air Force veteran who had joined those breaching the

Capitol.

Among those charged so far with federal crimes are Mr.

Chansley, the so-called Q Shaman; Mr. Evans, the West

Virginia lawmaker--who resigned on Saturday; and Richard

Barnett, an Arkansas man who was depicted in a widely

circulated photograph sitting with his foot on a desk in Ms.

Pelosi's office.

Meanwhile, Mr. Griffin, the commissioner from New Mexico

who runs Cowboys for Trump, saw his group's Twitter account

suspended and calls for his resignation.

The anger, resentment and conspiracy-laced distrust that

led to Wednesday's mayhem did not dissipate with Thursday's

dawn. Along with the smashed furniture in the Capitol

Building, there were smashed expectations of a continued

Trump presidency, of lawmakers held to account, of holy

prophecies fulfilled.

Signs of potential violence have already surfaced. Twitter,

which terminated Mr. Trump's account on Friday, noted that

``plans for future armed protests have already begun

proliferating'' online, including ``a proposed secondary

attack on the U.S. Capitol and state capitol buildings on

January 17.''

The urge for more civil unrest is being discussed in the

usual squalid corners of the internet. Private chat groups on

Gab and Parler are peppered with talk of a possible ``Million

Militia March'' on Jan. 20 that would disrupt the

presidential inauguration of Mr. Biden.

There is chatter about ride shares, where to find lodging

in the Washington area--and what to bring. Baseball bats,

perhaps, or assault rifles.

``We took the building once,'' one commenter posted, ``we

can take it again.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he may have?

We have exhausted all of our speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole, for his friendship and for the way he conducts himself in this Chamber. I know he has great respect for this institution.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to fully capture the reverence that I have for the United States Capitol. I worked on these grounds starting back when I was a college intern working for Senator George McGovern back in 1977. No relation. Great last name.

Since that time, I have done everything from working as a staffer for Congressman Joe Moakley of Massachusetts to being elected to the United States House of Representatives myself.

But that internship will always be a high point of my life: Coming here for the first time, walking these hallowed Halls, and seeing the glory of American democracy up close.

The idea that someone would incite an out-of-control mob of homegrown fascists and domestic terrorists to desecrate the people's House fills me with a deep sadness for our country. The contempt that these people had for our democracy and our freedom fills me with horror.

What Donald Trump did, encouraging them, fills me with rage not just on behalf of all of those serving here, but all of those who work in these Halls. And I am talking about the reporters, the cafeteria workers, the custodians, the Clerks, the Parliamentarians--I can go on and on and on--and the staff, the Democratic staff, the Republican staff, the nonpartisan support staff, who were terrorized, some hiding under their desks and barricading in their offices.

I was in the Speaker's chair the day this unfolded, and many of the people who are sitting up there now were present at that time. What a horrifying thing for anybody to have to experience.

Now, some of my Republican friends have been trying to lecture us about unity here today after they voted to overturn a free and fair election of the United States of America, but also preaching unity and not acknowledging that, for 4 years, many of them gave oxygen to Donald Trump's conspiracy theories, to the big lies. They have turned the other way in the face of racism and bigotry and how he embraced some of the most intolerant voices in this country. They just let it go.

I will remind everybody here that words have consequences, and ignoring words that are wrong also have consequences. What happened would never have happened if everybody stood up in unity and called out the President when he was not telling the American people the truth, when he was pushing a big lie. We will never have unity without truth and also without accountability.

This week in Congress, we saw the best of us and the worst of us. Some of my colleagues have shown that they will defend this President no matter what he does. There is nothing that he could do that would dissuade them from all-out support. But some are standing up and doing the right thing under tremendous pressure, and I am proud of that and I honor them for their courage.

This impeachment resolution outlines the truth of what Trump did. It is time that this Congress now holds him accountable for his words and for their devastating impact.

Last week, we took an oath to protect this Nation. As history calls on us today, I pray that we all have the moral clarity to uphold it here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 8.

Madam Speaker, a rules package is one of the most consequential things we will consider in this entire Congress.

As we stand here in the opening days of this Congress, I am proud that the reforms before us represent a collaborative process that began many months ago. We asked Members on both sides of the aisle for ideas; we listened to our many caucuses and coalitions; we spent hours in the Rules Committee listening to input during our Member Day hearing; and we spoke with the outside groups that study these issues.

Weeks and weeks of thoughtful discussion got us to this point. That process made the final product an even stronger one--not for one party or the other, but for this institution and for all those Americans counting on us to represent them; not the special interests or the monied interests, but our workers and those struggling to get ahead.

This is a rules package that encourages us to tackle the most pressing issues facing our Nation today, like climate change, through the continued work of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

I want to thank Chairwoman Castor for her leadership, along with Chairman Pallone and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, who have encouraged us to think big when confronting the threat of climate change.

We are confronting the pandemic without any waste or fraud. That is through the ongoing work of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, under the stewardship of Chairman Clyburn.

It makes reforms to our budget rules so we can deal with these dual challenges through an all-hands-on-deck approach, while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

I want to recognize the many Members, especially the Blue Dogs, the Progressives, and the New Democrats, who worked together to make this compromise happen.

We are also focusing on those who have traditionally been left behind through the creation of a new Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for her commitment to making sure that our policies lift up every single American.

This new select committee will sharpen our focus on the income and wealth disparity crisis that plagues our Nation today.

This package honors all gender identities by changing pronouns in the House rules so they are gender neutral.

Look, we made this change for the sake of inclusion, not exclusion. But I have got to be honest with you. I heard the distinguished minority leader say that this rules package was canceling Mother's Day. I mean, are you kidding me?

He also claimed that these rules make it so Members can no longer say ``father,'' ``mother,'' ``son,'' or ``daughter.'' Madam Speaker, has he even read these rules? That is just not accurate. That is not how this works.

And, by the way, our Founding Fathers are still our Founding Fathers.

Madam Speaker, maybe this is meant as a distraction. Maybe if we can create a controversy, then we are not talking about the ongoing pandemic, from which over 350,000 people have already died due to mismanagement and incompetence, or maybe we are not talking about the attempted coup being planned down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But the bottom line is what has been said is just not accurate.

I love this. Someone just handed me this. A Member on the other side from, I think, Arizona, for instance, tweeted:

If I stand up and I say that I am a proud husband of my

wife of almost 40 years now, then they would say that I

violated the rules because you can no longer use any version

of husband or father or gender reference between man and

woman.

I don't know what the hell he is talking about, Madam Speaker. Oh, my God; that is my response to this.

I mean, Madam Speaker, this is why people really are frustrated with Congress and with Washington. I think we, in this Chamber, need to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to facts and reality. Unlike the White House, this should not be a fact-free zone; we ought to focus on facts.

If my Republican friends want to disagree on policy, we can disagree on policy. There are lots of issues that separate us, and we should debate those issues. That shouldn't be a radical idea. But people shouldn't make things up just to create a controversy. Accuracy matters, and it should come before saying whatever helps you get another hit on FOX News.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, for those who insist on trying to disparage what we have done in the written rules, I want you to bring the bill to the floor and show me where it says, in writing, that we are canceling Mother's Day or that you can't refer to yourself as a husband or father or mother or grandmother.

Give me a break. Enough is enough. We have to stop this. We have to focus in on solving the problems that face the American people.

This rules package also requires that oversight plans from committees include how they intend to combat race, gender, and other inequities. It makes the Office of Diversity and Inclusion permanent. This will commit our institution to creating a diverse workforce for many years to come.

As we tackle these issues, Madam Speaker, this rules package creates a more transparent process for ideas to be considered. It makes permanent the requirement that all bills that come before the Rules Committee get a hearing and a markup first. It preserves the motion to recommit, while making reforms so that it can no longer be used to hijack the legislative process for political gamesmanship.

We are also continuing temporary rules changes that have ensured we completed the people's work as safely as possible during this coronavirus pandemic. I am impressed with how this Congress was able to adapt and find a way to function in the midst of this worldwide health emergency. During the pandemic in 1918, Congress was not able to adapt, but we did.

I would just say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we need to listen to the Speaker's recommendation that we all continue to follow the best and most current health and medical guidance.

Madam Speaker, we acted. While we can and we should do much more for Americans struggling today, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in the last year. It is no small part due to the implementation of remote voting by proxy and the development of virtual committee proceedings.

Admittedly, Congress isn't always known for being on the cutting edge of the digital world. This rules package, however, seeks to change that even further. It contains many reforms designed to help us better embrace technology so that we can get our work done as efficiently and as transparently as possible.

Congresswoman Eshoo and the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Kilmer, were instrumental in these new changes.

Madam Speaker, now, I just want to speak candidly for a moment.

As important as these reforms are and as proud of them as I am, I know there is something even more important, and that is the foundation that they are built upon.

Ethical leadership must be the bedrock principle of this and every Congress. If the American people do not begin to trust their fundamental institutions again, then division, conspiracies, and mistruths will continue to fester.

This body, each of us, must do our part. No matter what side of the aisle you are on or who you vote for, we must hold ourselves to the highest standard of leadership. People can and should question our positions on the issues, but we should never act in a way that invites anyone to question our motivation. That is why this rules package doesn't just tinker at the edges, it breaks new ground through transformative reforms.

It removes floor privileges for formers Members convicted of crimes related to their House service or election. This will ensure that we can do our work here without the undue influence of law breakers. We task the Ethics Committee to come up with a bipartisan plan to handle ``deepfakes,'' because we need to stop the spread, intentional or unintentional, of manipulated media that is created to mislead the public.

I will note that we initially plan to go even further, amending our Code of Conduct with this rules package, but we heard some of our colleagues' concerns. We agreed to take a little bit more time to get the language just right, and we will do that through our bipartisan Ethics Committee.

Thanks to the leadership of Congresswoman Porter of California, we strengthen Truth in Testimony disclosures for witnesses that testify before Congress. Now the public and all Members will have more information about those who appear before congressional committees.

Our rules will further protect whistleblowers. This package prevents retaliation. It also makes permanent an office dedicated to ensuring congressional offices know how to handle whistleblower complaints in a responsible and secure way.

I want to recognize the tremendous work of many people, from Majority Leader Hoyer and Congresswoman Speier to members of the Progressive Caucus that made these reforms a reality. In short, we are holding ourselves to a higher standard, Madam Speaker, not by changes developed in a vacuum just among ourselves. We also spoke with outside groups and experts and included their feedback. This is how the package was developed, through conversation, collaboration, and consultation.

My Rules Committee colleagues, including Ranking Member Cole, offered input that was invaluable. Our committee chairs and their excellent staffs worked with us early in the morning and late at night as this package took shape. I am deeply grateful for the work of all of our caucuses, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition, the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the Congressional Asia Pacific American Caucus, and the Blue Dog Coalition.

The Problem Solvers Caucus was, once again, involved with crafting this package. I always appreciate the chance to work with Congressman Gottheimer and Congressman Reed. We even got to work with a new member of the Problem Solvers this Congress, Representative Van Taylor. And I could go on and on.

Input from the nonpartisan staffs across this institution made this package stronger. That includes those with the offices of the Parliamentarian, the Congressional Budget Office, the Clerk, the General Counsel, the Congressional Research Service, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, just to name a few. Many staffers worked through the holidays on this, and I am deeply grateful for their efforts, especially the incredible staff on the Rules Committee.

Democrats have been entrusted by the American people to lead this institution, but the rules package is about more than party. It is about making this Chamber work at its best for the people we represent. These reforms will do that. They will hold us to a higher standard so we can get it done for them and in a way that makes the public proud.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support in passing this package, and let's implement real reforms so we can quickly get to work on behalf of the American people.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I just want to take one second, Madam Speaker, to thank my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee. We don't always agree on everything, but they are up in the Rules Committee diligently at every meeting making the case for their side of the aisle.

I especially want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Cole, who cares deeply about this institution. And while we probably will not agree on this rules package, we agree that we need to make this a better place, and we need to hold it to the highest standards in terms of integrity, and to make sure the American people have trust in what we do here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, I will put him down as undecided on this package.

I am sure we will hear more about the motion to recommit throughout this debate, but I do just want to point out for the record, to be historically accurate, that the motion to recommit has had many different forms since its first inception. In fact, it was very, very different when I first ran for Congress.

But having said all that, I would tell the gentleman that if those who initiated the motion to recommit way back when saw how it was being used today, I think they would object very strongly to it. They didn't see it as a tool to play political gotcha games to undermine legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would also remind the gentleman that, you know, quite frankly, most of the motions to recommit that passed, all the Republicans voted against final passage of whatever bill it was. So the issue is not one of being a constructive legislator. It has turned into a political gotcha game.

I think that we all talk about reading the bill. The problem with the motion to recommit is you don't get to see what it is you are proposing until a few minutes beforehand. I just want the Record to reflect that.

On the issue of paygo, I would just remind the gentleman that when the Republicans were in charge, they had this thing called CutGo, and they exempted all kinds of things from CutGo. They exempted efforts to gut the Affordable Care Act. They exempted tax cuts for billionaires and corporations.

So I think what we are talking about is a modest exemption for two international emergencies, the COVID pandemic and the climate crisis. Most people, except for a few in Washington, actually believe that it is not only a national emergency, but an international emergency.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a section by section of the changes H. Res. 8 will make to the standing rules of the 116th Congress and the separate orders taking effect for the 117th Congress.

H. Res. 8

Adopting the Rules for the 117th Congress

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is interested in honest debate, I hope he will inform us where in the rules package it says that you can't refer to yourself as a father, a son, a grandfather, a wife, I mean, whatever. There is nothing in the rules package that says that. This is not reality.

I would also remind the gentleman that when he was in charge, this was the most closed Congress in the history of the United States Congress.

And if we are worried about protecting our democracy, I hope the gentleman and others will join with us in protecting the will of the American people, the millions and millions of voters who cast their votes for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris, and vote to make sure we have a smooth transition to the next administration.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I don't even know where to begin.

Look, let me repeat, what we are doing is building in an exemption to deal with two worldwide emergencies: one is the coronavirus pandemic, which, unfortunately, this White House mismanaged terribly; the second is to deal with the issue of the climate crisis, which everybody but a few Members in this Chamber believe is a crisis.

Madam Speaker, I will remind the gentleman that he has voted for exemptions when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and corporations; he has voted for exemptions when it comes to taking people's healthcare away from them. So, obviously, we don't share the same values here, but I am very proud of what is in this package.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the admonition here, and I wish the distinguished minority leader would have remained because he talked a lot about debate, and then he gave a speech and ran off the floor.

But I would be careful, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, about using words like ``hypocrisy'' because I was here when you were in the majority. You presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, more closed rules than any other Congress.

The motion to recommit, arguably, is a procedural motion, but when you closed rule after rule after rule after rule, any substantive amendment, you blocked. But my friends had no problem with that at the time, and now, all of a sudden, they do.

Again, I would just say to the distinguished minority leader, who keeps talking about mind control and people banning him from being able to say that he is a father or a son, I don't know what he is talking about. Please show me in the rules package where he can't say all of those things. There is nothing--nothing--in the rules package.

I would just urge my colleagues--as I said at the beginning, I get it. The White House is a fact-free zone, but we have to aspire to be different. We can have our policy disagreements, but we shouldn't be making things up. I mean, I would like to think we are better than that, no matter how much we disagree on substantive issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

Madam Speaker, let me just refer the gentleman to the Office of the Attending Physician to get the most up-to-date medical guidance.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think this is a good rules package. As I said at the beginning, it reflects consultation with Democrats and Republicans; almost every caucus that you can think of was consulted on this. I think the end product is a quality product.

I am particularly proud of the ethics reforms banning Members who have been convicted of corruption, protecting whistleblowers and making sure that their identities can't be revealed.

I am proud of the creation of the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth. One of the things this pandemic has demonstrated is that there are great disparities in this country, and those disparities existed even before the pandemic. We need to address that issue.

In terms of the exemptions for paygo, I mean, we are talking about two international, worldwide emergencies: the coronavirus pandemic and the climate crisis. I think every country in the world has recognized that they are emergencies, that we need to think big and boldly in how we deal with these issues.

The unfortunate thing is we have had an administration that has not handled the pandemic appropriately, and as we gather today, well over 350,000 people, fellow citizens, have perished.

Let me just say, also, Madam Speaker, that I was also inspired by the remarks of our Republican colleague Don Young, yesterday, when he talked about the need to work together. I was dismayed by the tone of the minority leader's comments on the opening day. In all of my years here, I have never heard anything quite so negative and combative.

But here is the deal: We need to figure out a way to work together to get things done. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. The something we agree on, we ought to move forward. We can fight about the other stuff.

If we are going to get things done, facts have to matter.

I have got to be honest with you: In listening to the critiques of this rules package, one of the things that I found particularly disheartening was the distortions and, quite frankly, the falsehoods with regard to getting our rules language to be more inclusive. I don't understand why it was necessary for some to try to make things up. It does not entice the kind of collaboration and the kind of cooperation to get that something done.

I am a great fan of my ranking member, Mr. Cole. This will probably get him in trouble, but I think he is one of the finest Members of this institution. We work together very well in the Rules Committee, notwithstanding some very, very difficult debates. But at the end of the day, I know he cares deeply about this institution. I know people like Don Young care about this institution, and there are good Members on the other side who care about this institution.

We have a slim majority here. If we are going to get anything done, if you are going to get anything done, we are going to have to find a way to work things out. But we have to all agree that we want to get things done.

So it is in that spirit that I hope that this rules package will cultivate the kind of atmosphere in which we can get some important things done. Whether it is on the climate crisis, whether it is on economic disparity, whether it is fighting to end hunger in this country, whether it is to make sure we can expand healthcare protections for people, whether it is about justice and fairness in this country, we have a lot of work to do.

I hope, with the new administration coming in, that maybe there will be a different tone. Maybe it will be less combative. Maybe the discussions will be based more on fact. I hope and I pray that that is the case. But we have to come together, and we have to get things done for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move that the motion to postpone consideration be tabled.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to address my remarks to you notwithstanding the fact that you ruled against me just a little while ago on a vote, which excited some.

I am an institutionalist. I believe in this body, I believe in democracy, and for your information, I believe in the free enterprise system.

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the minority leader. I listened to the outrage that he expresses. I share the view of the Rules Committee chairman that he was a principal leader in the most closed Congress in which I have served, which was, of course, presided over by my Republican colleagues. He talked about free speech. Nothing in this rule undermines the free speech of any Member in this House-- nothing.

When they had closed rules, I didn't get up and say: You are muzzling my speech.

You muzzled my ability to make legislation, but you did not muzzle my

speech. The First Amendment is sacrosanct, hopefully for everybody in this body. But I will tell you I have been in this body when Republican Members, Madam Speaker, rose to their feet demanding that people do something in the galleries.

Madam Speaker, I am going to show hypocrisy--not from me. The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, mentioned that the minority leader mentioned hypocrisy. I presume his assertion was that somehow we were being hypocritical. I intend to speak a little bit of time and I intend to show hypocrisy.

First of all, the gentleman is wrong in his facts. The motion to recommit was taken from the British Parliament and was present at the first Congress in 1789. Interestingly enough, the motion to recommit was used to correct something that had not been included in the bill and was considered a friendly amendment and remained that way for a very, very long time.

In 1934, it was ruled that instructions in a motion which were present from time to time was not necessary, and that is the way the rule maintained essentially for the next 20 years--actually, excuse me, 60 years, until 1995.

The gentleman is correct. When the Republicans took office for the first time in a very long time under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, Madam Speaker, they changed the rule. They said that you have to have a motion to instruct, as if they were giving us something, as if they were giving us something. Remember that phrase because I am going to show it meant nothing. It was an illusion. It was a pretense.

Madam Speaker, I am going to first go through, of 34 examples, about 10 of the examples of what our Republican friends, Madam Speaker, said about the motion to recommit.

First of all, the minority leader--I read from the Wichita Eagle of May 12, 2013: ``The political book on McCarthy is that he does a good job at counting votes, of knowing where the 233 House of Representatives Republicans are at any given time. He points out that Republicans, unlike Democrats in a previous Congress, haven't lost certain procedural votes''--procedural vote. Let me underline procedural vote. Not substance of the First Amendment and not substance of free speech. Procedural vote--``called a motion to recommit, that are a test of floor control.''

That is what the minority leader was bragging about: floor control. He was not in the minority at that point in time. He was in the majority. I believe he was the whip.

A subsequent--or previous to the present minority leader, Eric Cantor went on to amplify the Republican perspective on the motion to recommit. Majority Leader Eric Cantor publicly went on the defensive about an MTR, stating that the MTR was simply a gimmick. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republican Party in 2012.

Mr. Bishop, one of the ranking members, he is no longer here. He left. He retired last year. Referring to an MTR, he said: ``Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion.''

Madam Speaker, Mr. Bishop went on to say that it is just ``another delay tactic.'' Just a delay tactic. He didn't say anything about the First Amendment. He didn't say anything about substantive consequences of the MTR. He said that it was a delaying tactic.

Referring to the MTR, Representative Conaway said: ``To come in here now and pull this procedural trick. . . . When we are in the minority, we do it.''

He is correct. When we are in the minority, we do it.

Madam Speaker, very frankly, I will tell you--and you can take my words down for the future--if this never came back, ever, it wouldn't bother me because it is a charade of substance. It is a pretense of legislating.

Representative Goodlatte, who was then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe, or at some subsequent point chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: ``This is simply a dilatory tactic. . . . `'

That is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--I am not sure if he was at that point in time in 2015. I think he was.

Madam Speaker, a dilatory tactic is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side of the aisle called the MTR. It ``seeks to distract from the urgent needs. . . . `'

Representative Lamborn said: ``Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a procedural motion. . . . `'

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Chamber is not full. It can't be full. I would have liked to speak to all the Members of the Congress, and they can judge on the hypocrisy of the arguments that are being made.

This motion to recommit is a procedural motion designed to slow down consideration of this important bill. It is purely, purely procedural. Not a little bit procedural and a little bit substantive; it is purely procedural.

Representative Olson, in 2019, referring to it, said: ``It fits a pattern of delay and obstruction that we simply can't afford.''

Hypocrisy. He didn't say anything about its having to do with free speech. A motion that we were offering as an MTR that we thought, like you think--excuse me, Madam Speaker, as the Republicans think, is a gotcha amendment. It is politics on both sides. It is not substantive and it is not about free speech. It is about politics and gotcha. Yes, I am an institutionalist and, yes, I think we ought to not be doing gotcha in a nonsubstantive way.

Madam Speaker, obviously, we disagree on issues. And when we offer an issue and they don't vote for it, we think that is politically helpful to us because we think it is for the people. They do the same thing and they think it is for the people. So no party is free of its gotcha actions. Mine is not, nor is theirs.

Representative Upton, one of the institutionalists in this body, former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican from the State of Michigan, being kind, as Fred Upton is kind, said: ``I appreciate the motion to recommit, and I would just say to all my colleagues: Our side certainly views that as a procedural issue, not a real amendment.''

Madam Speaker, I would say to the ladies and gentlemen of the Congress: Who is hypocritical? Who is hypocritical when their Member, a valued senior chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, says that this is a procedural issue, not a real amendment?

My goodness gracious, the Rules Committee is taking away not a real amendment.

Isn't that horrific?

How could they do that, Madam Speaker, when the Republicans say that it is not a real issue, it is not substantive, it is a gimmick, and it is a delaying and obstruction tactic?

Now, let me say that the Republicans uniformly vote against the MTR.

Mr. Woodall was a member of the Rules Committee. He is no longer here. He is from the State of Georgia. Mr. Woodall said, after being here for about 10 years of the motion to recommit, that he was told by the leadership when he started in this body that it is a procedural motion aimed to obstruct and delay, we always vote ``no.''

Now, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what they always vote ``no'' on. On April 7, 2011, an MTR was offered, a motion to recommit that would ensure that our troops would get paid. The Republicans defeated that motion overwhelmingly. Only one person on the Republican side voted for it, Walter Jones. He is no longer in the Congress. He was pretty iconoclastic when he was here, and he did what he darn well pleased irrespective of the directions of the leadership who said: Always vote ``no'' on the MTR.

So what they are complaining about, Madam Speaker, is the preclusion of doing something they always opposed. And, very frankly, when they won those MTRs from time to time--very few--they then voted against the bill. There was no substance.

A little while later, about a month later, the motion to recommit that we offered ensured that our top priority in funding our intelligence services is the campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

Raise your hand if you are opposed to that. Madam Speaker, not your hand. But our colleagues ought to reflect on whether they are opposed to that premise. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR--this substantive assertion that our campaign and intelligence services ought to be not disrupted in their fight against al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

A short time later we offered another MTR. The motion to recommit provides our troops with a $100 per month increase in combat pay.

As you sit in your chairs in this House, or you are watching these proceedings on television, I want you to say to yourself: Am I against $100 for our troops who are at risk?

Because if you are, voting against the MTR was justified. Every Republican save--except--one more time--Walter Jones, voted against that amendment, that substantive amendment that we are stealing away from them, which they say we never vote for.

Madam Speaker, if Mr. McCarthy were here, I would ask him: Have you ever voted for an MTR?

I ask him rhetorically. Perhaps, at some point in time, he will tell us. Maybe he was against the substance of all of these amendments that I am speaking about.

In 2012, the following year, the motion to recommit would prohibit the issuance of leases to any entity that is in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act or the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act.

Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that amendment. The substantive amendment that they are so aggrieved--and by the way, energizing their party to be more partisan than they ought to be doing. We ought to all praise Don Young, the dean of the House. He served here longer than anybody else. He said yesterday that we ought to come together and reach out our hands to one another and make this place work for the people.

Another motion to recommit would prohibit export of helium from the Federal Helium Reserve to Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that MTR. Why? Because it is procedural. It is a gimmick. It is obstructing. That is what we are taking away that you are so aggrieved at.

Now, I have about 35 or 40 of these. The good news is, I am not going to read them all. But in 2014, the motion to recommit would ensure that the intelligence community continues to protect the United States--hear me--from Chinese and other state-sponsored computer theft. I am sure all of you will say, ``Well, I am against that. That is an awful thing to do.'' But everyone on that side of the aisle in the Congress today voted against that amendment. Our new Members didn't vote against it, obviously, but people who were here, every Republican that was here, voted ``no'' on protecting ourselves from the Chinese, the theft of our computer technology.

Madam Speaker, the next year, 2015--and I am just taking a couple from each year--the motion to recommit would deter terrorist cyberattacks, homegrown terrorist attacks, and strengthen America's cybersecurity by increasing prevention efforts to stop the recruitment and travel of homegrown terrorists by ISIL, al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations.

Now, I know you are going to be shocked because you are probably thinking, ``Oh, of course we voted for that.'' Not one. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR.

So, this aggrieved rhetoric that we hear about taking something away, the only thing being taken away is their gotcha opportunities and ours.

Now, in the majority, you don't have the motion to recommit. I get that. But we may be in the minority at some point in time. Don't give it back to us because it is a political game that undermines the integrity of this institution, and it is covered as a gotcha game, for the most part, by the press and media that knows what that is--a game.

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the motion to recommit would require the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize protection and technical assistance to stop cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid and nuclear power plants.

By now, you know what I am going to say. Only one Republican voted for that. It won't surprise you that it was Walter Jones because Walter Jones really did treat it as a substantive piece of legislation.

But the party that is so aggrieved today instructs their Republican freshmen and all of their Members: Vote ``no'' on the MTR.

Madam Speaker, I am available to yield to anybody who is going to tell me that is not the truth. Nobody has propounded that question to me.

In 2015, again, a month later, the motion to recommit would protect troop pay, guaranteeing a pay increase of 2.3 percent for our servicemembers and ensuring no lapse in troop pay in the event of a government shutdown. And there was my friend, standing tall--Walter Jones, alone but standing tall. Not a single other Republican voted for that.

Just three left.

Madam Speaker, in 2017, I am bringing you up to date because this has been a consistent pattern. This is not some ``one person said this; one person said that.'' It is a consistent pattern of Republicans dismissing the motion to recommit as not of substance, only a delay tactic, a gimmick, if you will, according to Mr. Cantor.

The motion to recommit, in November 2017, to ensure rural communities have adequate funding for educational services, conservation projects, and fire prevention programs.

Madam Speaker, now, Walter Jones got a friend on this one, Rod Blum, who is no longer here. And, tragically, Mr. Jones died too early. They are not here, but they thought that was a good idea. No other Republican thought that was a good idea.

In 2018, just 2 years ago, the motion to recommit would amend the underlying bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from chartering a private plane or flying any class above coach. That was because a couple of Secretaries clearly did not meet their responsibilities to the American taxpayer in the expenditures of moneys in their Departments.

Again, Mr. Blum and Mr. Jones thought that was a good idea, but the Republican leadership had instructed them, you will recall, according to Mr. Woodall, to vote ``no'' because this is just a delaying tactic. This is just a game. Vote ``no.'' It is procedural. It is not substance.

Lastly--and people are now saying amen--the motion to recommit would ensure, in this case, that we would: protect students and children from a person who has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor; secondly, prevent domestic violence; thirdly, prevent rape or sexual assault; or four, require criminal background checks for schools or other employment.

Rod Blum and Walter Jones stayed true to themselves and did not follow the instruction: This is a game. This is an obstruction. This is a gimmick. This is a way to delay and defeat.

Madam Speaker, I have taken some time to discuss this because I don't like hypocrisy. I don't like wasting time. I don't like not respecting one another and playing a gotcha game to see if you guys are afraid of this amendment. And then when we adopt the amendment, if we adopt, a very few--vote against the bill because, after all, it was just a political game. We don't like the bill, no matter what you have in it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Madam Speaker, the people who are watching this debate may not have the knowledge that all of us have. Almost invariably--almost invariably--this is a partisan vote. The Republicans will vote against our rule, and we will vote against their rule. And, invariably, we will find some problem with it that we can rationalize our vote on.

Madam Speaker, I regret that we are starting this Congress--and I am going to look at Mr. Ryan's speech. I am going to look at Mr. Hastert's speech on the opening day. I am going to look at all the Speakers with whom I have served and see what their comments were on the opening day.

I regretted the minority leader's opening statement. I regretted it because, as Don Young said, we need to come together. We are at a time of pandemic. We are at a time of economic distress. We ought to be acting not for ourselves, not for our politics, but for our people.

Madam Speaker, I would urge every Member to vote for this rule. And as they do so, be assured they are not denigrating or denying anybody's free speech any more than the Republicans denied free speech in the most closed Congress in our history just a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to ask for God's blessing and protection on you; on my friend, Mr. McGovern; for all who come to this Chamber today to speak and to vote; for our wonderful staff that make this possible; and most especially for the men and women of the Capitol Police and the other affiliated law enforcement agencies that are here to protect everybody and to make sure that this proceeding can go forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for all of us, for me personally, for the Rules Committee, for the entire House of Representatives, and most certainly for the American people.

For the second time in 13 months, we are meeting to discuss the impeachment of the President of the United States. Our meeting today does not arise in a vacuum and comes at what I hope and pray is the end of a tumultuous period for our country.

Less than 1 week ago, Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election. What started out as peaceful protests, turned into a riot as an untold number of individuals stormed the Capitol Building. Six people died as a result of this mob. It is only by the grace of God and the brave acts of the U.S. Capitol Police; the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police; the FBI; the ATF; and other responding agencies that there was not more bloodshed.

Violent acts such as these have no place in our Republic. These shocking and sobering events rest high on our minds today, as well they should. Certainly, January 6, 2021, will live in my memory as the darkest day during my time in service as a Member of this House.

After these grave events, we, as a nation and as an institution, have an opportunity to come together. President Trump has conceded the 2020 election. Congress has certified the results of the election, and next Wednesday, President-elect Biden will be sworn in as the President of the United States.

Congress and the Nation can move forward knowing that the political process was completed as designed and that the constitutional framework that has governed our Republic since 1789 held firm. But instead of moving forward as a unifying force, majority in the House is choosing to divide us further.

With only 1 week to go in his term, the majority is asking us to consider a resolution impeaching President Trump, and they do so knowing full well that even if the House passes this resolution, the Senate will not be able to begin considering these charges until after President Trump's term ends.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no action the House can take that is more likely to further divide the American people than the action we are contemplating today. Emotions are clearly running high and political divisions have never been more apparent in my lifetime.

We desperately need to seek a path forward, healing for the American people. So it is unfortunate that a path to support healing is not the path the majority has chosen today. Instead, the House is moving forward erratically with a truncated process that does not comport with the modern practice and that will give Members no time to contemplate the serious course of action before us.

In every modern impeachment inquiry, an investigation and committee action has preceded bringing an impeachment resolution to the floor. In part, this is to ensure that members have the full facts, the opportunity to engage expert witnesses, and have a chance to be heard. It also provides due process to the President of the United States. Again, in every modern impeachment inquiry, the President has been given an opportunity to be heard in some form or another.

This is necessary in order to ensure that the American people have confidence in the procedures the House is following. It is also necessary, not because of the President's inappropriate and reckless words are deserving of defense, but because the Presidency itself demands due process in the impeachment proceedings.

Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to race to the floor with a new Article of Impeachment, forgoing any investigation, any committee process or any chance for Members to fully contemplate this course of action before proceeding.

Professor Jonathan Turley is correct when he called this ``a dangerous snap impeachment--an impeachment that effectively would go to a vote without the deliberation or inquiries of a traditional hearing.''

Professor Turley also noted that ``the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous. However, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, if the majority is seeking consensus, this is hardly the way to create it.

The majority is failing to provide the House with an opportunity to review all the facts--which are still coming to light--to discuss all the evidence, to listen to scholars, to examine the witnesses, and to consider precedence. This is not the type of robust process we have followed for every modern impeachment, and the failure to do so does a great disservice to this institution and to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I could think of nothing that will cause further division more than the path the majority is now taking. Rather than looking ahead to a new administration, the majority is again seeking to settle scores against the old one. Rather than seeking to heal America, they are seeking to divide us more deeply, and rather than following the appropriate processes the House has used in every modern impeachment, the majority is rushing to the floor, tripping all over themselves in their rush to impeach the President a second time.

What is worse, though, is the majority seems to believe this course of action is self-evident, and that is simply not the case. I have to tell them: it is not. Members have reviewed the same conduct and have come to dramatically different conclusions. Legal scholars like Professor Turley and Professor Alan Dershowitz, both of whom condemn the President's statements, believe that his statements are not impeachable. I know other scholars have different points of view.

Given this difference of opinion, shouldn't we have a better process than this?

Shouldn't we have a chance to examine witnesses, discuss the matter with legal scholars, and consider this in committee?

On a matter as grave and consequential as impeachment, shouldn't we follow the same process we have used in every modern impeachment rather than rushing to the floor?

On behalf of generations of Americans to come, we need to think more clearly about the consequences of our actions today. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to rush forward like this, other than the very obvious fact that there are only 7 days left until the new President takes office. But what is worse, as Professor Dershowitz has pointed out, because of the Senate's rules, the case cannot come to trial in the Senate until 1 p.m. on January 20, 1 hour after President Trump leaves office.

This is an ill-advised course, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. Even Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, agrees. Senator Manchin is quoted this week as having said, ``I think this is so ill-advised for Joe Biden to be coming in, trying to heal the country, trying to be the President of all the people when we are going to be so divided and fighting again. Let the judicial system do its job.''

So what, then, is the point of the rush to impeach?

We are coming off a horrific event that resulted in six deaths. We have an opportunity to move forward, but we cannot if the majority insists on bringing the country through the trauma of another impeachment. It will carry forward into the next President's term ensuring that he will struggle to organize his administration. What is worse, it will continue to generate the bitterness so many of us have opposed.

Why put us through that when we can't actually resolve this before the end of the President's term?

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues in the majority need to think about this more soberly. We need to recognize we are following a flawed process. We need to recognize that people of goodwill can differ. We need to recognize that, while the House may be done with this matter after today's vote, it will not be done for the country. It will not be done for the Senate, and it will not be done for the incoming Biden administration. The House's action today will only extend the division longer than necessary.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that there are other remedies that can be pursued. The President is expected to face litigation over his role in last Wednesday's events. There will be criminal proceedings against the perpetrators, and I hope all of those who stormed the Capitol will be brought to justice. And some Members have proposed an alternative procedure--censuring the President--which could garner significant bipartisan support in the House.

I do not think impeachment is a wise course, Mr. Speaker. I would urge my friends in the majority to reconsider. There is still time to choose a different path, one that leads to reconciliation and hope for better and brighter days.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up a resolution establishing a bipartisan national commission on the domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. This proposed bipartisan commission will be tasked with examining and reporting upon the terror attack upon our Capitol that occurred last Wednesday. The commission will be bipartisan in nature, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, and will fully be empowered to undertake a full investigation and make recommendations to the President and to Congress.

I can think of no more appropriate path for Congress to follow than by ensuring a bipartisan commission reviews all evidence and reports back to us on this horrific event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who is the ranking Republican member on the House Administration Committee, for a further explanation of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), one of our new Members, and note this is her first speech on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the distinguished Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), a new member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I advise the Chair that I have additional speakers on the way, but they are having a difficult time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), who is my very good friend.

Whenever the gentleman is prepared to close, we will close. We were hopeful that one of our speakers would arrive, but they are having a difficult time getting here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for presiding over these difficult proceedings today. I thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. And I thank everybody who came to the floor and had something to say at an important moment.

I think the debate, while spirited, reflected the civility and decency of the institution that we are all privileged to be part of. I am very proud to have been part of it. I am very proud of all the Members and the manner in which they participated.

I want, again, to thank the staff and thank those who kept us safe in the process, particularly the Capitol Police.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose the majority's actions today. After the traumatic events of last week, the majority should be taking steps to unite us. Instead, they are only dividing us further.

They are rushing to judgment, in my opinion, and bringing up impeachment after failing to follow any meaningful process whatsoever. No hearings have been held, no witnesses heard, no process or opportunity to respond was provided to the President. No Members had an opportunity to review or amend this article before it came to the floor. This is hardly the way the House should undertake such a serious act.

Mr. Speaker, there is still a way to unite the country. Let us look forward, not backward. Let us come together, not apart. Let us celebrate the peaceful transition of power to a new President rather than impeaching an old President. And let us affirm and reaffirm with one united voice that the House does not rush to judgment on the most consequential action we can take. Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that and the American people deserve better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, as they reflect on this minute and we move into our next stage of debate, to remember that we are all privileged to represent a great and a good people. We have gone through a horrifying and tragic time, and we owe them the opportunity to reflect and we owe them our best efforts to bring everyone together.

I know people on this floor feel very passionately about this subject with different points of view. I honor each one of those points of view and I honor the people that voice them. Let's remember when we are through this that we are one people and that we have one purpose, that we are free through the grace of God and millions of brave Americans over centuries of time and we will remain that way, and we will move forward together once we settle this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I really think that my good friends in the majority need more time to present a fair rules package. So I move to postpone consideration of H. Res. 8 until January 5, 2021.

Motion to Table

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to address the majority's proposed changes in the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 117th Congress.

These changes are some of the harshest and most cynical that I have experienced during my time in Congress. Democratic leadership is suppressing minority rights and paving the way for the Green New Deal by intentionally removing budgetary checks that have been in place for over a decade.

The most egregious of these changes is the complete gutting of the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit, or the MTR, is the minority's right to propose a final amendment before moving passage. This is a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for well over a century.

With today's changes, the majority is seeking to silence views they are afraid of with no regard for this institution or the American people's trust in our constitutional responsibility to govern and govern well. They are taking away the ability to debate a motion to recommit and the ability to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. This completely guts the minority's ability to offer a last amendment on the floor prior to passage of legislation.

I would remind my colleagues that during the many years Republicans were in the majority, we never even thought to deny the minority this motion. And the only reason Democrats are doing so today is out of embarrassment. They are embarrassed that the

Republicans were able to pass eight motions to recommit in the 116th Congress. But rather than acknowledging that Republicans sometimes have good policy ideas that should be incorporated into legislation, the majority is instead seeking to completely cut off this key right, and that, Madam Speaker, is simply reprehensible.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit has been around since the beginning of the House as an institution, and it has been in its present form since 1909. In fact, in 1919, Representative Abraham Garrett of Tennessee, noted that ``the motion to recommit is regarded as so sacred it is one of the few rules protected against the Committee on Rules by the general rules of the House.''

And when Speaker Pelosi was herself in the minority, she equated the motion to recommit with the right of free speech enshrined in our Constitution. How this majority can now decide that a procedure that is so important it is on par with the guarantee of free speech must be eliminated is beyond my understanding.

Madam Speaker, it is simply shocking that Democrats are so afraid of Republican ideas that they feel the need to rig the system against us. They don't want the House to work its will. They only want the Speaker's will. And we all know why that is. It is because the majority cannot effectively defend its policies against competing ideas.

Eight times in the last Congress a majority of the House agreed that the Republican policy idea had merit and should be included in the final bill. But that state of affairs is evidently so embarrassing to Democrats that they can't stand it, and now they have to completely shut down minority rights lest they be embarrassed further, especially after the November election dealt them a harsh blow and they lost seats in their own ranks.

Madam Speaker, I want to offer my friends on the other side of the aisle a word of warning: Majorities do not last forever. If there is one certainty we can take away from the history of American politics, it is that the party in power in the House of Representatives today will not hold that position forever. I can also guarantee you that your efforts to shut us down will not shut us up.

So instead of having bills that pass with slight improvements made through an MTR, bills will fail here on the House floor. And for that reason, among others, I am sure Democrats will regret making this egregious change in the very near future. Republicans are proud to debate our policies and proposals, unlike the majority today, whose record of promised openness and fulsome debate is an abject failure.

Now, Madam Speaker, while gutting the MTR may be the worst piece of this rules package to many, I want to applaud my friends for removing an almost equally egregious piece of this rules package. When the majority released this package over the weekend, there was a particularly noxious provision that would have empowered the Speaker of the House to censor the free speech of Members and employees of the House. What is worse, it would have empowered the Speaker to act as the sole judge, jury, and executioner, and included no clear guidelines for how this would be enforced. This proposed rule was downright un- American.

Fortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have listened to reason and removed that provision from this package. I wish they had further listened to reason and removed the provision taking away the minority's right to an MTR, which is why I offered a very reasonable motion to postpone for one day.

Madam Speaker, I could go on all day about the MTR, but there are other changes in this rules package that need to be highlighted. Slipped into the package is another change that will effectively eliminate the paygo rule. Paygo is a useful budgetary control measure that essentially says that we can't spend money that we don't have. But if the majority gets their way, paygo will be eliminated for a broad category of topics, including for measures relating to climate change. This is doing nothing more than removing a key barrier to the Green New Deal and other liberal tax-and-spend policies.

But never before has the majority tried to lift budgetary rules on something as absurdly expensive as the Green New Deal, which is estimated to cost as much as $100 trillion over the next decade, should it be enacted.

It is clear that the majority doesn't even want to have a conversation about the cost of the Green New Deal, and instead wants to ensure that the American people never find out about the cost of their extreme plans.

There are other measures in this rules package that are just as absurd. Not content with having investigated President Trump throughout his Presidency and subjected him to pointless impeachment, now Democrats are including provisions allowing them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, and former White House staff, long after their administration has ended.

This provision is a continuation of the Democratic majority's obsession with investigating President Trump and his administration, and ensures they will be able to keep their investigation gravy train rolling along long after the President leaves office.

There is a similar provision which will allow certain committee chairs to reissue subpoenas prior to the committee organizing for the 117th Congress, thus ensuring that existing investigations into President Trump, no matter how silly or pointless, will not have to slow down or even let the new Congress consider their current merits or legislative justification.

Allowing a chair to issue subpoenas without any consultation with membership or with the minority is nothing less than an abuse of power. But I suppose I should not expect any less given the other provisions in this package.

Madam Speaker, despite my affection for my friend on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell him that this package stinks. It is deeply cynical and deeply short-sighted. It tramples on minority rights and it ensures a power grab by Democratic leadership. It will change the nature of this institution, and not for the better.

Madam Speaker, today, I call on all Members to vote ``no'' on this rules package. I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to reject these radical and, at times, ridiculous changes. I call on all my colleagues to protect minority rights. The future of this institution depends on it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend.

I remind my friend that you accepted eight MTRs, or eight were approved, because Democrats decided the Republican proposals were good proposals and made the bill better. We couldn't have done it on our own. So, you are actually limiting the choices in front of your own Members.

We might not feel so strongly about the MTR if we got more amendments approved anyway. We only get about 18 percent of the amendments. When we were in the majority, we gave you 45. We got 38. You now get 68. So, you are taking a tool away that is important to us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend and the distinguished ranking member on the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my very good friend and the distinguished Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend.

Ms. Scanlon said the eight MTRs that passed this House were poison pills. By definition, they weren't. They passed the House. Democrats voted for them. Things like fighting against anti-Semitism is hardly a poison pill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my very good friend and a former member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and ranking Republican member of the Committee on the Budget.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished new Member from the great State of Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who will be making her first address on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately amend the rules package to strike the complete gutting of the MTR. My amendment will restore this sacred right to the minority to offer a final amendment to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, to discuss this critical amendment in more detail.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), one of our new Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rules package. The majority's proposed package will only continue the ongoing assault on minority voices.

The changes in this package completely gut the MTR. With all due respect to my friends, we disagree on that. I am sorry you have a hard time handling it or getting your Members to where you want them to go, but the fact is, eight times in the last Congress, Democrats joined with Republicans in deciding that the Republican proposal improved the bill. It is that simple.

We shouldn't be taking that away, particularly when the record, I think, is so bad in the last Democratic Congress in granting amendment opportunities to the minority.

I remind my friends, when we were in the majority, you got 45 percent of all of the amendments made in order in the Rules Committee; the Republicans got 38 percent; the remainder were bipartisan. Last time, you got two-thirds of the amendments, we got 18 percent, and the remainder were bipartisan.

When you are removing the MTR, on top of not giving us very many amendments to begin with, we look on that as an effort to limit our ability to participate openly and effectively in debate. This rules package moves us in another direction.

I am sorry that the traditional rules of the House that have been here over 100 years are inconvenient to the Democratic majority. Sometimes it is good to be inconvenienced when you are in the majority.

You are limiting our ability to participate. Frankly, it will find other outlets; it always does. I think that is a tragic mistake I think that you will live to regret.

In addition to that, obviously, we disagree in the proposed rules package with eliminating paygo in some critical areas. We think you could drive a truck through those. It is a critical budgetary tool, and we do think it will be missed, and its absence will be used to pave the way for the Green New Deal.

In addition, the desire to continue to subpoena Presidents, Vice Presidents, and White House staff that are no longer in office strikes us as clearly an effort to just continue to harass the departing administration. I regret that. I think you will, too. I think people want us to look forward, not backward.

So we don't see much use in that, nor do we see the automatic ability to resubmit subpoenas from the last Congress as a good thing. Again, it is looking in the rearview mirror.

Madam Speaker, I urge rejection of the package, and I yield back the balance of my time.