mr. collins: i reserve, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: madam speaker, i'm proud to yield to the gentlelady from florida, mrs. demings, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. demings: madam speaker, we live in the greatest democracy in the world. and i am convinced that the overwhelming majority of americans are good, decent people who work hard and play by the rules. but then we have people who have no respect for the law. people who have little regard for the rules. people who spend a lot of their time trying to figure out how to game the system. law enforcement officers call them habitual offenders. and the more they get away with, the more likely they are to engage in misconduct. some say it takes courage to hold powerful people accountable. but i see it differently. i see it as a sense of duty. a regular part might have job as member of congress. however, habitual offe

mr. collins: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. nadler. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: mr. nadler, you are advised that you have 156 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 157 minutes remaining. divide that by 60. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. escobar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. escobar: our country faces a great tragedy and moment of truth. we have witnessed the president of the united states abuse his public office for personal political gain and invite foreign governments to interfere in our election, putting the integrity of a government of, for, and by the people at great risk. the evidence is overwhelming and clearly shows that president trump will continue to abuse his office and obstruct congress if left unchecked. the intelligence committee conducted a robust investigation into th

mr. collins: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i would remind the gentleman that president obama provided thousands of pages of information to congressional requests, that attorney general holder and others testified. unlike now. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kelly: madam speaker, today is a solemn day in america. a day that none of us hope for when we came to congress. but the events of today are something that each of us swore that we were prepared to execute and de-- in defense of the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. this is the oath that binds the men and women of the 116th congress as our democracy implores we defend her. a clear and present threat to american democracy is what brings us here. the arc tect, a president who asks that a foreign nation interfere in our election. this was our founding fathers' gre

mr. collins: reserve. mr. nadler: a president to corrupt our elections who would abuse the great powers of his office to ensure his own re-election, the impeachment inquiry is not an effort to overturn an election. it is a reaffirmation of the simple truth that in the united states of america, no person, not even the president, is above the law and our democracy cannot allow a duly elected president to abuse the power of his office for personal and political gain. and i now yield 2 1/2 minutes the gentlelady from it -- the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. i hate no lee: woman or man. today, the marn people should receive clarity and -- the american people should receive clarity and truth. the constitution is the highest law of the land. the president breached and violated the constitution of the united states of america. the president committed constitutional crimes. the president's crimes are impeachable. john f. kennedy said if t

mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walorski: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my opposition to these articles of impeachment. mr. collins: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i'm proud to recognize the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis, for 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. make avis: madam speaker, no mistake. we are not impeaching this president. he is impeefing himself. -- impeaching himself. if you are the president and you obstruct justice, try to bribe a foreign leader and threaten national security, you're going to get impeached. nd of story. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i recognize the gentleman from north carolina for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: t

mr. collins, but another statement mr. raskin said earlier that there was no evidence that trump tried to root out corruption prayer to joe biden becoming candidate or something to that effect, and i just, from what i heard that's absolutely false, and i wanted to hear what you said. i was told that trump actually had a meeting with a former ukrainian poroshenko concerned about corruption in ukraine prior to giving him aid and also that two of the witnesses, democrat witnesses testified that all along, trump was concerned about corruption in ukraine. is that accurate? >> that was the testimony of the witnesses, yes. >> thank you. >> and also another thing that i want to clear up for the record, mr. ras kin said previously that the same process that we're doing now, it's the same process that was used in the clinton impeachment, mr. collins, do you agree with that, because i sure don't. >> no, i do not. >> would you care to expand? >> i think there are a lot of different things and it goes back to the inherent nature of wha

mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. i'm back. also noted some changes around here since we left. i notice i have a new manager on the other side who as i came back in noticed gave an eloquent defense of his side of the story we are telling. i wish we could have have that had before the judiciary committee where we could ask questions instead of giving one side. with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. keller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. keller: thank you. madam speaker, today will forever be remembered as a stain on our republic. these impeachment proceedings are not based upon facts, evidence, reason, or any inappropriate or impeachable actions by our president. instead, the actions being taken by those favoring impeachment are a product of their disdain for president trump, his america first agenda, and particularly disdain by the other party for the 63 million americans that elected him as president. again, these articles of imp

mr. collins and mr. raskin, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include my statement on these articles of impeachment into the record. >> without objection. >> and mr. chairman, i also ask to unanimous consent to include president trump's letter to speaker pelosi into the record. >> without objection and i was going to do it at the end, but you beat me to it. >> i beat you to it. >> i think it's important to have that a part of the record after having just read it. >> all right. before i -- brefore i get into y questions i thought it was very interesting. i had staff look up votes on impeachment and chairman mcgovern, at the beginning, in i believe opening statement you said something to the effect that no democrat congressmen or women on the rules committee has voted for the articles of impeachment before. >> yes. >> i think that's what you said, right? >> i did. boy, i think that's a little disputable or many a little misleading, i'm not sure, but i can tell you i have here the final vote result f

mr. collins and mr. raskin, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include my statement on these articles of impeachment into the record. >> without objection. >> and mr. chairman, i also ask to unanimous consent to include president trump's letter to speaker pelosi into the record. >> without objection and i was going to do it at the end, but you beat me to it. >> i beat you to it. >> i think it's important to have that a part of the record after having just read it. >> all right. before i -- brefore i get into y questions i thought it was very interesting. i had staff look up votes on impeachment and chairman mcgovern, at the beginning, in i believe opening statement you said something to the effect that no democrat congressmen or women on the rules committee has voted for the articles of impeachment before. >> yes. >> i think that's what you said, right? >> i did. boy, i think that's a little disputable or many a little misleading, i'm not sure, but i can tell you i have here the final vote result f

mr. collins was testifying. i don't know whether there's something that you wanted to respond to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my friend mr. collins speaks very fast so it's hard to keep up with everything he's saying. >> [ inaudible ]. >> it's all right, i'm from massachusetts and people say the same thing about my accent. >> you have to give me credit, that was as slow as you've ever heard me. >> they accuse me of the same. he raises some really important points and i would love the chance to briefly address them. one thing that we've been hearing is that we didn't charge crimes. and in some sense that just duplicates a basic confusion that people have about what the process is. we are not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal definite in cou defendant to send him to jail. we're talking about high crimes and misdemeanors, that is, constitutional offences against the people of the country. lots of the conduct we plead in our specific articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of congress themselves co

mr. collins: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. collins: lt: -- mr. mr. johnson of south dakota. 30 seconds. mr. johnson: madam speaker, i'm voting no. impeachment is not in the best interest of this country and in fact has only deepened the partisan divide that truly plague this is country. when the sun comes up tomorrow i pray with all my heart that the anger and division in this chamber will give way to an honorableness and a productivity and a time of working together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: let's go back to

mr. collins was testifying. i didn't know if there was something you wanted to respond to. >> thank you, mr. chairman, but my friend mr. collins speaks very fast so it's hard to keep up with everything he has to say. [ inaudible ] >> i'm from massachusetts and people say the same thing about my accent. >> you got to give me credit. that was as slow as you've ever heard me talk. >> you were making an effort in the beginning, and so was i. they accuse me of the same. he raises some really important points, and i have the chance to briefly address them. one thing we've been hearing is that we didn't charge crimes. in some sense that just duplicates a basic confusion people have about what the process is. we are not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal defendant in court to send to jail. that's not what we're doing. we're members of congress. we're working to protect the country against a president who is committing high crimes and misdemeanors that is constitutional offenses against the people of the country.

mr. collins point about the clock being the master. mr. nadler, chairman nadler, has put in months of work on this. not as much time as chairman schiff has put in on this. but put in months of work and we have neither of the two committee chairman who have done all of the work here be forced to answer our questions. i have no doubt that mr. raskin is exasperated because he is an answerer. he's a fact provider. he educated this committee on a regular basis on matters of the law. but it offends my sense of fairness that my ranking member can't have a witness of his choosing. i'm not talking ant 100 witnesses. i'm talking about a witness of his choosing to come. the process gets described over and over again, the white house had plenty of opportunity and everybody had an equal chance to question. nonsense. nonsense. and to let that record stand perpetuates the myth that this is supposed to have been a fair process. i would argue it couldn't have been a fair process. it wasn't. mr. collins? >> just so we're clear here. the operative word that

mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. joyce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. joyce: i rise on this dark day in the united states house of representatives to voice my opposition to the shameful impeachment process that has occurred in the people's house. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like president trump. we know this because they proudly boasted about their intention to impeach our president before he was even sworn into office. out of disdain for the president and for those of us who elected him, the house of representatives is considering two articles of impeachment that are so very weak that they even fail to include specific crimes. the people that i represent in south central and southwestern pennsylvania know the truth. the american people know the truth. this impeachment circus has never been about the facts. this process has always been about seeking revenge for the pre

mr. collins. it's my solemn responsibility this morning to present for your consideration house resolution 755 and the accompanying report concerning the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states for high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the people of the united states. i'm appearing, as you said, mr. chairman, this morning in place of chairman nadler, who could not be with us. i'm sure i speak for all the members of both the judiciary committee and rules committee sending strength, love and prayers to chairman nadler's wife joyce and all our hopes for a speedy recovery. the judiciary committee along with other committees which investigated president trump's offenses, the permanent select committee on intelligence, the committee on oversight and reform bring these articles with a solid purpose and heavy heart but in active faith with the constitutional oaths of office we have all sworn. investigating committees conducted 100 hours of deposition testimony with 17 swor

mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. shabbot votes no. mr. gomer votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliff votes no. ms. robe votes no. mr. gaetz votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock votes no. ms. lesco votes no. mr. cline mr. no. mr. armstrong votes no. mr. stubie votes no. >> every member voted who wishes to vote? >> chairman, may i ask how i'm recorded? >> how is the gentleman recorded? >> mr. gomer, you're reported as no. >> i wanted to make sure. >> clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes. >> the articles are agreed to. impeaching president donald j. president trump for obstructing congress. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler votes aye. ms. jackson lee votes aye. mr. cohen votes aye. mr. johnson of georgia votes aye. mr. deutsche votes aye. ms. bass votes aye. mr. richmond votes yes. mr. jeffries votes aye. m mr. swalwell votes aye. mr. lu. mr. craskin votes aye. ms. jaipol votes aye. ms. demings votes aye. mr. carrera votes yes. ms. scanlon votes aye. ms. gar

mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner votes no. avetz votes no. ohmert votes -- g no. mr. radcliffe votes no. ms. robie votes no. votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock votes no. ms. lesko votes no. er votes no.hal mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong votes no. votes no.-- steube >> is that every member of the committee who wishes to vote? clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 no's. >> members will have two days to submit views. the resolution will be a single amendment in the nation are -- nature of a substitute. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. pursuant to clause -- intent to file dissenting views. >> notice is heard. the committee is adjourned. >> after the house judiciary committee voted along party lines to approve two articles of impeachment against president trump, some republican committee members spoke to reporters followed by brief remarks from chairman jerry nadler. >> i will start off. this is really a sad day. a big show, everybody got dressed up, really no place to go. provision, an allegation of abus

mr. collins. i think that's what you're telling me. it doesn't serve neatly into the speaker's impeachment at christmas timeline, to borrow your way of looking at it. we're not really engaged. this is a normal give or take where both sides manage to avoid an exchange where they might lose something. but all of that has been set aside. we haven't had any process like that, have we? >> no. mr. cole, i want to point out something i disagree with, which is mr. mcgahn. it shows you the process doesn't work as fast as they want it to work. that's what we have to go back to in this whole process. the ones the administration contested, they withdrew because they just didn't want to deal with it. >> i know mr. raskin would have a different view. if he wants to respond, he can, but i want to ask you specifically, mr. collins. is there any actual evidence that the pause on the ukranian systems was for the president's positive and political benefit, or could he have other objectives? >> i'm sorry. >> is there

mr. collins. i certainly would not want that to become the pattern for all future presidencies. >> i think the interesting thing here, mr. chairman, if i could, i don't want this to be the pattern for future impeachments. this is the problem i have. the understanding here is, i guess it's okay, though, to get involved in a 2016 election when you pay a third party to pay for a dossier. these are the things we can talk about. the interesting issue that's just discussed here is exactly where we are right now in a question and comment because what mr. raskin just brought up is an interesting point. so, is it okay if you're running for president that you can't be investigated? even if you did something overseas? if you're running for president and you did something overseas, it would be off limits, according to mr. raskin's argument for the united states government to investigate that. that's the argument he just set up. i think you need to be very careful with that argument. >> i appreciate -- i guess

mr. collins, same thing. do you think it's unusual for an administration to push back against congressional subpoenas? >> no. it's common. >> if it's pretty common, do you believe it's a high crime or misdemeanor to assert privileges in response to congressional requests for subpoenas? >> i want to go back an give a little history since we've had history lessons. even in our own committee what's been interesting, there's been a total just walk toward impeachment. what was interesting in our committee we would send subpoenas or sent out letters and stuff and we never followed up on, but also one of the interesting things, we never engaged for the most part with the agencies for documents. what i thought was interesting, mr. schiff and the intelligence committee, while still struggling, mr. schiff negotiated with the department of justice and got documents released our committee couldn't. eliot engel one of the quieter chairmans but more effective across the aisle had engaged all year with administration on way

mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. gomer votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliffe votes no. ms. robie votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock votes no. ms. lesko votes no. mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong votes no. mr. steube votes no. chair nadler: as every member voted he wishes to vote? >> chairman. may i ask how i was recorded? >> you are recorded as no. >> i want to make sure. chairman nadler: the clerk will report. >> there 17 a -- chair nadler: the article is agreed to. the question now is an article two. impeaching president donald trump on obstructing congress. the cleric will call the role. >> mr. nadler votes ay. ms. lofgren votes ay. ms. jackson lee votes ay. mr. cohen votes ay. mr. johnson of georgia votes ay. mr. deutch votes ay. ms. bass votes ay. mr. richmond votes yes. mr. jeffries votes ay. mr. cucillini votes ay. mr. swalwell votes ay. mr. lou -- mr. raskin votes ay. ms. demings votes ay. mr. correa votes ay. ms. scanlon votes ay. ms. garcia votes ay. mr

mr. collins and see if you agree with mr. raskin's or if there's anything you would disagree with their home what's been impact of this process from a domestic politics since it has been partisan in nature? >> i will cut some slack that he was trying to answer for the chairman's own words and i get that, but i think there are several things, let's just talk for a minute, let's unpack what has happened here because the only thing i appreciate out of the last few minutes as the chairman trying to bring that in about impeachment. i agree this is about impeachment here to what i disagree is that it's not about abuse of power and it would come a lot better from the majority if they had not had a long history and written record, this is something you love to see because it's a written record of motive. you've seen it since the day he was elected. you've seen it in this whole process working out, he saw it last year when my chairman ran for the job because he would be the best for impeachment. a mueller report that didn't give them

mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. a final statement, a statement of administration policy, it says this, in sum several provisions of h.r. 4 violate principles of federalism and exceeds powers granted to congress by the constitution and they would likely be found unlawful if challenged and the administration would oppose h.r. 4. i ask this statement be added to the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. collins: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: i am so proud today to stand here to support h.r. 4, the voting rights advancement act. and i want to congratulate my incredible colleague, congresswoman sewell, for her leadership. when congress passed the voting rights act of 1965, it was a recognition that systemic discrimination based on race continued to deny peop

mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i wish, as the gentlelady just said, i wish they would examine the factual conduct but i guess that's not going to happen. i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the founders of this country warned us against a single party impeachment, because they ar it had would bitterly and irreparablely affect our nation. in the years of this republic, there has never been a single impeachment than the one being used today. our colleagues have weaponized to nullify the votes of 63 million americans who elected president donald j. trump this is not about a phone call or ukraine or use of executive privilege. you have to remember that 95 of the democrats on this floor today voted to impeach donald trump before the july 25 phone call ever happened between president trump and president zelensky and not only is this a single party impeachment, it's also evidence-free. after all their herculean eff

mr. collins. it says that not to worry, in this case, however, it says, chairman nadler has appropriately said that he will work with the mirpt to schedule their hearing. >> will the gentleman yield. >> be happy to. >> maybe he wasn't here when i refrpsed mr. nadler's response before. but i'm quoting here he says i'm willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing. >> my friend -- my friend from massachusetts misconstrues my statement. i stipulate what you are saying is absolutely true. >> interinterject. >> i was going to ask my friend from georgiaway what good it would to do to hold the minority hearing tu days or three weeks after we voted to goech. >> what he is did it matter if you say the innocence probability will come around and clear him? that's not happening here. if chairman nadler said urine april 1st next years looks like a great day for the minority day hearing? what good does it do? none. it goes to the basic fairness. one thing if you will lou me. >> please. >> there i

mr. collins. is there any evidence that the paws on the ukrainian assistance was for the president's improper personal, political benefit or could it have had other objectives? that is directed to you, mr. collins. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. >> that's all right. i have thrown a lot of questions that you. is there any actual evidence of the paws on ukrainian assistance was for the president's improper political personal benefit or might he have had other reasons for withholding aid? >> he had plenty of other reasons. the law itself says it was the president's call to make sure there was no corruption. other countries during that time were aid was withheld. you understand this aid wasn't scheduled to go out. it had to be done by september 30. it went out early. from that time frame. there was a recent poll and we talk about this a little bit from our side, the corruption in the ukraine was so prevalent, recent poll said 60% of every day ukrainian said they bribed a public official in the past year.

mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. a half to inute and the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. you, mr. thank speaker. i rise in strong opposition to he process and to the resolution. when congress sees fit to of ine its solemn power impeachment, it is imperative hat it does so in genuine pursuit of justice, fairly, objectively. and anything less is unacceptable. his partisan impeachment has fallen far short of that. adly, alexander hamilton's prediction in federalist number 65 has come true where he warned that, in many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions and will nlist all their animosities, partialities and interests on one side or the other and in such cases there will always be danger that the decision will be regulated more

mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. i thank the gentleman for giving me this moment. years - or, mr. speaker, from now history books will tell of this day. it will tell of a purely remove the ort to president of the united states. an effort not built on a high misdemeanor, not on a process and keeping with the igh american standard of due process and equal treatment. in effort is rooted only the governing party's hatred of a man elected president of the states. members on the other side of the aisle have been in pursuit of 2016.oment since they are consumed by it. one of in this debate, our colleagues referred to our enemy.nt as a domestic our founders warned us about this day. hat is why our nation has entrusted the future of the country with the outcome of

mr. collins: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. the house will be in order. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i recognize myself for the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: madam speaker, my colleagues, after eight hours, let us return to where we began with the articles themselves. article one charges the president of the united states with abusing the power of his office by coercing an ally into cheating in a u.s. election on his behalf. it charges the president of the united states -- it charges the -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman has the right to be heard. mr. schiff: it charges -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman may resume. mr. schiff: it charges the president of the united states with abusing his power by with holding official acts, by with holding a white house meeting that the president of ukraine desperately sought, to establish the support of his most important benefactor, the united states

mr. collins: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. braidy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: 21 years ago this week i spoke here on impeachment. in this sadly history will not treat democrats well. they'll be forever remembered as the senator joe mccarthys of our time. so blinded by their hatred of president trump they abandoned american rights of due process and fairness and just decency. reminiscent of joe mccarthy they assaulted the constitution, took secret hearings, blocked evidence and switched charges like rogue prosecutors. ultimately they chose abuse of power because they practice it so well. president trump committed no crime or impeachable offense. none. his legacy won't be stained. democrats' will. they'll look back at these days in shame because trump haters in congress like red haters of the past are willing to plunge america into darkness for raw

mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. the right to vote is of paramount importance in democracy and its protections from discriminatory barriers has been grounded in federal laws it. a supreme court decision called shelby county will be mentioned here many times today and i want to say it's been mentioned many teams the supreme court directed this body to do something. they did not. what they did say if congress wants to they can revisit this, as we could on most anything we are revisitting to say. to say we were directed to is an overstatement and needs to be clarified. it's important to remember that the supreme court decision only struck down one outdated provision of the act. an outdated formula based on decades old data that doesn't hold true. describing which jurisdiction has to get approval from the department of justice before their voting rules went into effect. it's important to point out that every -- other very important provisions of voting rights act remain in place and were not changed. including section 2

mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. at this time it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. chabot: madam speaker, today is a sad day in our nation's history as house democrats are poised to approve on a strictly party-line vote arkteles of impeachment based on what constitutional kohl lar jonathan turley called wafer thin evidence. this will set a dangerous precedent where impeachment becomes the norm rather than the exception. that's not what our founding fathers intended. they wanted impeachment to be rare. they set a high bar for impeachment, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. alleged abuse of power, the first article is not a high crime and misdemeanor. in fact, it's not even a crime. since there is no concise legal definition of abuse of power, the majority party in the house can designate nearly any disagreement with the president from now on an impeachable offense. the second article alleged

mr. collins: it's my pleasure to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from michigan, mr. mitchell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. mitchell: today, the house of representatives votes on two articles of impeachment for president trump. members and all americans must recognize that impeachment was intended to be a safety valve, rarely used, only when a president acts in such an immoral and blatantly unlawful manner as it threatens the very base of our republic. as we cast votes on these articles, the future tone of this house and politics in this nation must be carefully considered. this is not whether we agree with or like the president's rhetoric, political tactics, use of twitter, policy choices or his political rallies. one of our founders, alexander hamilton, warned that the risks of becoming -- impeachment becoming a solely partisan act in the federalist papers. this impeachment inquiry and

mr. collins, to talk more about the hearings tomorrow. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. as you'll find out tomorrow, the sideshow of the schiff report now is coming to the judiciary committee, where it should have been to start with. if you're going to do impeachment, it should have been in our committee to start. with but the committee failed miserably on so many counts this year it was taken away from us. it's coming back tomorrow. we're coming back not what you've always seen in impeachment, you go back to clinton and nixon, it had weight and gravitas, it does not anymore. how are we going to start it? we start with, let's talk about what an impeachable offense is. most of the committee on the democrat side have said we need to impeach him. if they already know they need to impeach him why are we wasting time? i'll tell you why. because they have a problem. they're having problems dealing with the facts that came out of public hearings and private depositions. they're having a problem buzz that will be the first impeachment we've had disputed facts on why to impeach t

mr. collins. i think that's what you're telling me. it doesn't serve neatly into the speaker's impeachment at christmas timeline, to borrow your way of looking at it. we're not really engaged. this is a normal give or take where both sides manage to avoid an exchange where they might lose something. but all of that has been set

mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. you know, again, my chairman, again, i think hears us. he doesn't want to acknowledge it. when you have nothing but a process that was completely amuck, you talk about the process. let's do it one more time. no pressure by either mr. trump and mr. zelensky. what horrifies me is the continuation to say that mr. zelensky, who is the supposed victim here, who said many times there was no pressure. the majority of democrats are calling him a liar or weakening him in his own country. has no conditionality in the transcript or after that. five meetings prove that. all high level meetings. no conditionality. two of those meetings were when the ukrainian knew their aid was being held. after, there was nothing done to get the money, guess what they got the money. that's the fact. that's what they don't want to deal with. that's where we're at today. so let's continue to see how the sham was perpetrated. that's what many of our members are talking about. with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bergman.

jordan marceau for purposes of this investigation on the shared staffer with the judiciary committee mr collins and the house permanent select committee on intelligence mr nunez it sure is a typical for a staffer to be presenting but again thanks for having me the purpose of this hearing as we understand it is to discuss whether president donald trump's conduct fits the definition of a high crime a misdemeanor it does not such that the committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office and it should not this case in many respects comes down to 8 lines in a call transcript let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no the record in the democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show the president drug abuse the power of his office or obstructed congress to impeach a president who's 63000000 people voted for over 8 lines in a call transcript is boni. of serious misconduct democrats have been searching for a set of facts on which to impeach president trump since his inauguration when january 20th 2017 just 27 minutes after the president

mr. collins, do you know? >> i know that all the witnesses testified this was a clear and accurate transcript. >> mr. raskin, do you know whether a verpt imtranscript -- purveyed him transcript exists? exists?tim transcript >> i've never seen a verbatim transcript. >> there is no witness that testified or contradicted the statements in that in any of the testimony. >> excuse me? >> they did not. they said that the transcript was accurate. >> well, what about all the people that testified before the committee that discussed matters that they thought were wrong that the president did? >> well, mr. hastings, i wish we had all those people testify before my committee, but they didn't. >> ok. let me turn to the footnote on this unclassified document that's in the record. it says a memorandum of a telephone conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. the text in this document records the notes and recollections of situation room duty officers and nsc policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the

mr. collins, his opening statement. >> mr. chairman, may i make a parliamentary inquiry? >> it is not in order for parliamentary inquiry. i recognize the rarcnking membe for an opening statement. >> i thank the chairman. and it is interesting that parliamentary inquiries are not in because some of the things we're discussing today are in a different arena, this is a new room, new rules, it's a new month. we've even got cute little stickers for our staff so we can come in because we want to make this important and it is impeachment. because we've done such a terrible job of it in this committee before, but what's not new is basically what's just been reiterated by the chairman. what's not new is the facts. what's not new is it's the same sad story. what's interesting, before i get into my -- part of my open statement, what was just said by the chairman. we went back to a redo of mr. mueller. we're also quoting him saying the attention of the american people should be on foreign interference. i agree with him completely. except i guess the american people did not include th

mr. collins. >> i growth everything she said about changing the safety culture. when administered dixon talked about was all hands meetings, and things. i think he needs to get down in the working level more. talk to groups of people. i was a union representative, the union reps feel little more free and protected in discussing issues than most employees. talk to them and the offices to see, i'm, i want to talk about the conversation of resources. you could use more aerospace engineers, and maybe manage resources better. but the lesson i would like to leave is that when you have those resources and they identify safety issues, that really concerns me. the ones that are missed, you can do better oversight, but when managers are aware of safety issues, compliance issues, i wish serbia culture shift so they would be more credibility and more thought to compliance versus production schedules and things. >> thank you. and finally mr. pearson. >> congressman iselin to keep it simple. first on the investigation, the detailed investigation of the production facility is d