Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share my deepest appreciation for my Deputy District Director, Frazier Payne, for his 17 years of service to Alabama's First Congressional District. Today marks Frazier's final day serving the people of Southwest Alabama. After graduating from the University of Alabama, Frazier jumped headfirst into politics working for the successful campaign of my predecessor representing Alabama's First District, Jo Bonner. Frazier faithfully served Congressman Bonner during his entire tenure in office, and I and the people of Southwest Alabama were very fortunate when Frazier agreed to join my staff as well. As Deputy District Director, Frazier has been invaluable as my representative in communities throughout our district. Few people know Southwest Alabama better than Frazier. He is well-known by constituents, local leaders and elected officials. More importantly, he has their trust. And they know he has mine too. People are drawn to Frazier not only because of his likability but because he is trustworthy. His reputation for integrity and as someone who can be relied upon has been so valuable to me and my staff. He has always had my full trust, and I have been better able to serve my constituents because of his wise counsel. Next week Frazier will begin his next chapter as Regional External Affairs Liaison with the Alabama Community College System, covering southwest Alabama and its three community colleges. I am so pleased he will remain in Mobile, and I am confident he will continue as an engaged leader in our community. I thank his wife Lesley and children Lula and Corrine for allowing their husband and father to serve the people of the First District for 17 years. We've scored so many significant victories for Southwest Alabama during this time, and we are all better for his service. On behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I congratulate Frazier for beginning an exciting new opportunity and thank him for his years of hard work, commitment, and service to Southwest Alabama.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for weeks, we were told that we couldn't wait, we had to go forward with impeachment before Christmas, that the Republic was at stake. And then this House passed a purely partisan impeachment yesterday, and the Speaker has decided to hold the Articles of Impeachment. That underscores the word ``sham.'' That puts an exclamation point after the word ``sham.'' That shows what a ridiculous exercise we just went through. We can't dictate to the Senate how they handle their trial. They get to pick that. This shows that they got cold feet on the other side. They don't have a case. They can't win a fair trial in the Senate, and they know it, and they are afraid to send the articles over there where it will get the fair trial and not the kangaroo court we had here.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying resolution to impeach President Trump. When the Framers granted the House the power to impeach, they feared that it would be abused. Today, those fears are realized. In record speed, this majority has assembled hearsay, speculation, and presumptions for the purpose of overturning the 2016 election. We are not here today, days before Christmas, because the majority has assembled a case against President Trump. No. We are here today because the Democrat majority believes getting impeachment done now will provide their vulnerable Members time to distance themselves from their vote. But I assure you, Madam Speaker, the American people are watching. Many of my colleagues have, from day one, rejected the people's choice of President Trump, but another President will come along more to the majority's liking. Our actions here today will be remembered and will set the standard. The second Article of Impeachment seeks to remove President Trump for failure to produce certain requested witnesses and documents, but as the majority knows, every President in history has asserted executive privilege. The House has a legal avenue to challenge the President: the courts. But the majority has skipped this step, showing that this is about impeachment as fast as possible, however possible. Most of my friends on the other side of the aisle had no problem backing President Obama when he stonewalled the House for years to block our quest to find out the truth in the Fast and Furious investigation. That is why I filed an amendment to the resolution, rejected by the Rules Committee, saying, based upon the Democratic majority standard, they should have written Articles of Impeachment against President Obama and Eric Holder. I wish my colleagues would think about the standard being set. I predict that they will very soon regret it.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, in 3 months, we have gone from receiving an unsubstantiated, hearsay, and discredited whistleblower complaint to the production of Articles of Impeachment against a President of the United States. Not since Andrew Johnson has the House engaged in such a partisan political stunt. From the beginning, this has been a sham, and this House has been nothing but a star chamber. The Democratic majority literally locked themselves in the basement of this building, hiding from the American people. When my colleagues and I refused to stand for it, Democrats moved to public hearings but denied us questions, denied us witnesses, and denied the President any meaningful opportunity to defend himself. With this complete abuse of process, the Democratic majority has produced the flimsiest and most legally unsound Articles of Impeachment in the history of this Nation. Never before has the House reported an Article of Impeachment that does not allege an underlying crime, yet this majority will do so today. Read the transcripts. There was no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion, no crime, and no abuse of power. They don't even allege a crime in their Articles of Impeachment. The President raising Ukrainian corruption is not an impeachable offense. If the dealings of Hunter Biden were so aboveboard, you would think the majority would be just fine looking into this matter. Yet, they haven't moved my resolution asking for an investigation, and our subpoenas for Hunter Biden have all been denied. Hunter Biden doesn't get a pass because his dad was Vice President. I am proud to have fought against this charade every step of the way, and I will proudly vote ``no'' today.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with sadness in my heart to honor Officer Bill Clardy III of the Huntsville Police Department. Officer Clardy, a decorated 14-year veteran of the department who also served with distinction in the Iraq war, was tragically shot and killed recently during a drug investigation. Officer Clardy was assigned to a strategic counterdrug team called the STAC Team, leading a task force of Federal and local law enforcement agencies to make drug busts across north Alabama. Sadly, the Clardy family knows well the sacrifices of service. Officer Clardy's father, Billy Clardy, Jr., was killed in a car crash while on duty in 1978. We owe it to Officer Clardy not to forget him or his sacrifice. Officer Clardy's reputation for service and for caring for his community is unmatched. Officer Clardy was a Huntsville hero, and he is an American hero. He will be greatly missed. Our thoughts, our prayers, and our support now are with the Clardy family. We embrace you with our love. We offer you our support. In the days to come, we pledge to you, we will not forget his sacrifice.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me be clear: protecting workers from workplace violence is a policy priority that Republicans and Democrats see eye to eye on. American workers should be kept out of harm's way on the job so they can return home to their families every day healthy and safe. Republicans and Democrats appreciate the hard work and empathy that healthcare workers and community caregivers demonstrate every single day on the job. Their dedication to caring for the most vulnerable members of our communities is extraordinary. And these workers deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our commitment to ensuring that they are safe on the job. Today, we can do right by them by working together to address the critical need for protection and the prevention of violence in the workplace. Impactful legislation is possible in an effective and bipartisan manner, but I echo Ranking Member Foxx's observation that this bill is simply the wrong approach. While H.R. 1309 stands no chance of becoming law, I believe we have a real opportunity here to advance legislation that could be enacted and provide the protections for workers we all desire. The amendment that I am proposing today recognizes that OSHA, having noted the hazards and risks that exist with healthcare workers, is currently advancing the rulemaking process to address this important issue. This amendment would ensure that the regulated community has an opportunity to provide meaningful comments on a workplace violence prevention standard which will inform an effective and workable final regulation before the agency begins enforcement, and it calls on OSHA to convene the already planned Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act panel before proceeding with the rulemaking process to allow small businesses the opportunity to comment on regulatory text. Finally, the amendment would require OSHA to conduct an educational campaign on workplace violence prevention in the healthcare and social service industries. This commonsense amendment acknowledges and supports the work already underway and protects this progress so that they can further propel solutions to workplace violence. Addressing workplace violence prevention is crucial. The Obama administration delayed action on this issue and first made moves to initiate a rulemaking process in the final year of President's Obama's 8-year tenure. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor is working on workplace violence prevention rulemaking as we speak, and as I said, has initiated the panel scheduled for January. We agree there is work to be done, but H.R. 1309 is not the answer. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment so we can make real, meaningful steps toward protecting American workers in this industry, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I return the gentleman's respect, and I know that he has worked long and hard on this. I agree with him that this is a real problem that is getting worse, but we are not going to make it better if we pass something in this House that will not get up on the floor of the Senate and won't be signed by the President. We know it won't. I would suggest to the gentleman that this vehicle is how we actually get something passed and do something for the workers that we care so much about. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I close by saying this. We need to do something. If we don't enact my amendment, we are going to end up doing nothing, and I think something is better than nothing. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must rise again because, like so many times before, the goalposts for impeaching President Trump have moved. At this rate, Nancy Pelosi must be any field goal kicker's worst nightmare. Since literally day one, it has been abundantly clear that the far- left members of a so-called squad have been moving this Democratic majority closer to impeaching the President. They don't care why or how. They don't care what evidence, real or imagined, is used. They care only about the end result: impeaching President Trump so that he will not win reelection. As this radical faction gains dominance in the Democratic Party, Speaker Pelosi has tried every justification in the book to impeach this President. We were told for years that we would get to impeachment from the Mueller report. They said just wait, wait till the report. It is going to show Russian collusion. Well, 2 years and millions of dollars down the drain, Mueller showed no collusion. The Democrat narrative quickly turned towards ``obstruction of justice,'' but that, too, fell flat. But then, Mr. Speaker, the majority got a new gift, the whistleblower. Never mind he had no firsthand knowledge of what he blew the whistle on; never mind he is a partisan Democrat; never mind he worked with Adam Schiff on his new allegations against President Trump. It was campaign finance violations. Well, that didn't work. So then it was quid pro quo. For weeks, that is all the majority talked about. Not anymore. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, some highly paid political consultants warned Speaker Pelosi that quid pro quo did not resonate with the American people. So now it seems they have moved on to another version of impeachment that tested best in their focus groups, the nefarious-sounding ``bribery.'' It is bribery. That is what we will impeach President Trump on. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my friends on the other side need to dust off their law books because, unfortunately for their latest impeachment fantasy, bribery isn't just some word. It is a real crime with a real definition, and it is one this majority cannot prove. You see, bribery occurs when an individual ``corruptly'' links receiving something of value in exchange for an official government action. I say to the majority, show me how asking Ukraine to look into the 2016 election and into the sketchy dealings of Hunter Biden is acting corruptly. Because I will tell you what: I will show you evidence that Ukrainian officials were working to boost Secretary Clinton, and I will show you evidence that the Obama administration itself was concerned about Hunter Biden's deals. I think most Americans will say maybe the President of the United States should be looking into these things. I think they will say we want the President looking into possible corruption in our government and interference in our elections. More importantly, I say to the majority, show me how President Trump linked aid to these investigations. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's phone call with Ukraine's President Zelensky--you know, the one that the whistleblower blew the whistle on--it is on the internet. Everyone can read it, and I hope that they will, because nowhere in that call did President Trump ever link any aid to Ukraine in exchange for anything. The President did not one time--not one time--even mention any kind of hold on the aid, not once. This is not bribery. This is not impeachable conduct. Yet here we are trying to remove the President of the United States, the leader of this country, the man chosen by the voters, over these newest allegations. Mr. Speaker, the American people see past this charade. They know that this is a partisan political scheme. And at this point, I think most people who are paying attention, those who haven't tuned out, know this is just the latest effort by Democrats to throw something at the wall and see it if sticks. President Trump has committed no ``bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors'' the only offenses that the Constitution says warrant impeachment. I ask the majority, when do we stop and get back to the business of the American people?

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives has been the scene of serious chaos, not only today, but for weeks. Unfortunately for the American people, we have nothing to show for it. We have issued more subpoenas from this House than we have had bills that have actually been signed by the President. We haven't been working on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement that President Trump worked so hard to negotiate. We haven't been working on funding the military or bipartisan legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs. No, 100 percent of the energy of this place has been devoted to the impeachment of President Trump. There has been a lot of noise, a lot of rumors, and a lot of confusion about exactly what has happened and what is going on, where we are and how we got here. There is a reason for that. You see, Madam Speaker, by House rules, impeachment is under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee has a great big hearing room just across the street. That is where an impeachment inquiry is supposed to take place. But we aren't holding hearings there because Speaker Pelosi doesn't want them there. Instead, the impeachment charade has been taking place in a small, restricted room, two floors underground, below this Chamber, deep in the bowels of the Capitol. That room is known as the SCIF. The SCIF is a very important room because it is where Members of Congress hear about our country's great secrets. You can't bring a cell phone in there. You can't bring a camera in there. Most importantly, the public can't go in there. Democrats made a big spectacle about holding their first public hearing today. They act as if they are making some great, virtuous action to bring forth transparency, as if they are operating with the utmost integrity. The truth is that today's hearing is little more than a public showcasing of witnesses they have already interrogated and vetted in that little room to ensure they will only say what the Democrats desire. You see, Madam Speaker, by conducting impeachment in that little room, Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff knew that the American people wouldn't know what was going on, what was being said. But right outside the SCIF, that tiny room, you will find dozens of cameras and news people. Here they are, you can see, talking to Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff and his staff have been feeding these reporters bits of information for weeks. For weeks, we have been flooded with reports of so-called explosive things that supposedly have been said in this small, secret room. Madam Speaker, there is a rule of the House that every Member of Congress has the right to at least watch a committee hearing. A couple of weeks ago, some of my colleagues and I decided that we wanted to know what was really going on in that small, little room. So, we entered the SCIF, that little room, simply to watch. Adam Schiff immediately stopped the proceedings, and he refused to proceed until we left. There is another rule of the House that says the records of committees are the property of the House, and every Member is entitled to review them. There is a reason for this rule. Those records don't belong to Adam Schiff. They don't belong to Speaker Pelosi. They don't belong to me. They belong to the American people. So, again, I went back to the SCIF, back to that little room. I showed them that House rule and informed them that I wanted only to read the transcripts from these secret proceedings. But Chairman Schiff's staff said no. They would not follow the rules of the House. They would not let me read them. They said: You will get them later, along with everybody else, when we say so. Finally, they started releasing the transcripts--in a way that fit their agenda. Madam Speaker, I have been reading these transcripts as they come out. I have also been reading what the mainstream media has to say about them. Would you believe it? The mainstream media is saying exactly what Adam Schiff wants them to say. Almost none of them are talking about the other side, about President Trump's defense. To make sure the American people have the facts, I felt compelled to come down to the floor tonight to talk about the things that, if you are not reading these thousands of pages of materials, you might have missed. There have now been about 3,000 pages of testimony released. Despite many different opinions of those pages, there is universal agreement that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. You see, Madam Speaker, Ukraine, like many former Soviet countries, is controlled by oligarchs. These guys have almost all the wealth, most of the industry, and pretty much all the political power. Corruption is so bad in Ukraine that many American businesspeople refuse to do business there because they don't want to deal with the notorious oligarchs. It has been the policy of Republican and Democrat Presidents, for nearly 30 years, that Ukraine must end corruption, must adopt the rule of law, and must take away power from the oligarchs. You have had Ukrainian Presidents come and go but, time and time again, things seem to stay the same. During the 2016 Presidential election, we know that senior members of the Ukrainian Government were very much on Secretary Clinton's side. Don't take my word for it. You can pull this article, which was written in the final days of President Obama's Presidency. You can look at it yourself. That is not some rightwing website. That is Politico. It might be a little hard to read, but here it says Ukrainian ``officials are scrambling to make amends with the President-elect''--President Trump-- ``after quietly working to boost Clinton.'' The Ukrainian Government was boosting Secretary Clinton. Thanks to Adam Schiff's Star Chamber rules, we still have not gotten to hear the President's side of the story. But it should come as a surprise to no one, as some Democrats have pretended, that President Trump did not want to devote his valuable, limited time by doing things like holding an Oval Office meeting with the President of Ukraine after facing stuff like this. Of course, a President not offering a rare Oval Office meeting is not the same thing as not providing United States support. As most people know, Ukraine has been at war with Russia for about 5 years. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine and still has forces there today. President Obama rightly began to give nonlethal aid to Ukraine to help in that war. But President Obama would not sell weapons to Ukraine because he was scared that it would upset the Russians. It actually was, would you believe it, President Trump who began selling real weapons to Ukraine to help them actually bring the fight to the Russians. That decision has had an enormous positive effect on Ukraine. Even those testifying in Adam Schiff's hearings who don't like the President have praised President Trump for that. But, again, it appears that most of the issues that the Democrats are raising started with a few individuals in the administration trying to convince President Trump that we should forget Ukraine's past, embrace the new President of Ukraine, and put a serious amount of his time into that country. They began, in their own words, working to change President Trump's mind on Ukraine. For weeks, we have been going back and forth about what these individuals may or may not have been doing. We have a mound of bureaucratic gossip. We have been calling it hearsay, but it is gossip about what was going on, who was doing what. We have a lot of conflicting testimony, speculation, and, yes, hearsay--gossip--but the Democrats have provided zero, and I mean no, direct evidence showing President Trump ordered some kind of quid pro quo. In fact, they quit talking about quid pro quo because they don't have any evidence of it. With all of this testimony, with all of these rumors, it is easy to forget that this all goes back to the whistleblower. Of course, we know that the whistleblower also lacked firsthand knowledge of what he reportedly blew the whistle on. He was, according to the inspector general, a partisan individual. So a partisan individual who has no firsthand knowledge filed a whistleblower complaint and that is what we are dealing with. The whistleblower made allegations that President Trump made demands on President Zelensky in a phone call that occurred in the White House on July 25, but very few people in the media have reported that President Zelensky has publicly, clearly, and repeatedly denied any demands were made on him. They also have not reported that the Justice Department, the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, reviewed this allegation and declined to pursue a criminal investigation. They found no crime. Nevertheless, President Trump took the extraordinary step of releasing the transcript of this supposedly extraordinary call. You can read the entire transcript online. I hope the American people will do so because they won't find one demand in there. Not one. Read the transcript. Madam Speaker, the other issue that has been swirling downstairs in that little room is this hold that was placed on security assistance to Ukraine and apparently some other countries as well. We know that somewhere around July 10, the Office of Management and Budget placed a hold on certain foreign aid going to Ukraine. That is not a cancellation of funds. That is a process allowing the funds to be reviewed. Importantly, Madam Speaker, that hold was placed before the phone call that President Trump had with President Zelensky, the call that the whistleblower raised. But, Madam Speaker, something interesting in the transcript was that neither President Trump nor President Zelensky said one word about the hold on that call. One would think that if President Trump were trying to use the aid for extortion, he would have at least mentioned it. One would have also figured that President Zelensky would have mentioned the issue himself, given how important this aid was to his country. The truth is, the reason President Zelensky did not mention the funds was because he did not know the funds were on hold and President Trump never told him. Madam Speaker, this would be a very strange quid pro quo where President Trump did not tell President Zelensky and President Zelensky did not know that the funds were on hold. In fact, it appears that the Ukrainians first found out about the hold when it was reported in the press on August 29, over a month after the phone call; never mind that the funds were released 11 or 12 days later at the latest, unconditionally. But let's talk about that hold. Many of the witnesses have speculated about why OMB placed a hold on the aid. But when pressed, in all those thousands of pages, they have all said some version of: I don't know why the aid was placed on hold, or I think it was for this reason, but I don't really know. Let's just look at the facts. It seems that most everybody has somehow forgotten that President Trump ran a campaign on deep skepticism of foreign aid. He asked some tough questions that the American people appreciated. Are we getting our fair share? Are the Europeans freeloading off of us? Should we be taking a second look at this? So we have a new President, a new parliament in Ukraine. Is it really that surprising that an administration run by President Trump would say: Let's take another look at this before we send another $250 million out the door. I think the American people would find that pretty reasonable. Again, Madam Speaker, we have a lot of bureaucratic gossip here, a lot of people standing around the water cooler somewhere in the White House; a lot of speculation. But not one person has testified they had any direct knowledge that President Trump ordered the aid be held in exchange for some kind of political favor. Not one person. In fact, the only witness who had any form of serious contact with President Trump, Ambassador Sondland, testified that he called President Trump and asked him what was going on with this aid. Almost nobody has reported it, but here is a direct quote from that exchange. In this exchange, Sondland talks about one of the Democrat witnesses raising the rumor of quid pro quo with him. So Sondland called the President, and here you see the President directly told him: ``There is no quid pro quo. No quid pro quo.'' That is the evidence that is being introduced today and before today. On top of that, we have Vice President Pence meeting with President Zelensky on September 1, and about 3 weeks later, you have President Trump, seen right here in this picture, you have President Trump with President Zelensky. So, Madam Speaker, in closing, let's review. We have got a total sham process, a real Star Chamber. The Star Chamber, by the way, it actually was something that grew up in the 17th century in Great Britain, so that the king, in order to squash his political opponents, could have a closed hearing, have his own rules, and then do whatever he needed to take the people who were dissidents and squash them. That is the Star Chamber that Adam Schiff has been running. We have no evidence that President Trump ordered any kind of quid pro quo. None. No evidence. And the Democrats have stopped talking about quid pro quo because it isn't working for them. Because they don't have the facts. The call transcripts show no demand. President Zelensky says there was no demand. And no evidence shows President Trump ordered a demand. The Ukrainians got the aid money within days of even finding out it was on hold. And, finally, Madam Speaker, they got the high-level meeting, not only with the President of the United States, but also with the Vice President that they wanted. But here we are, Madam Speaker, so many important issues falling by the wayside with nothing getting done for the American people. We are going to run out of money to run the government in about a week and we have done nothing about it. The Constitution makes clear that impeachment is an acceptable redress only for, let me quote it: ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Nothing less. I think my friends on the other side, unfortunately, they get up here in Washington, and they forget that although they may not like this President, he was chosen by the American people as the leader of this country. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, they must do much better than offering the American people some hearsay and bureaucratic gossip if they want to take this President down. The truth is this about removing the President: They know that the votes in the Senate aren't there for that. The Senate is not going to remove President Trump from office. It is not happening. This is about satisfying the Democrat's desire to play to their resistance base, the people who said the day after the election in 2016 that they wanted to impeach Donald Trump. The whistleblower's lawyer wrote that he wanted a coup in January of 2017. This is also about trying to build up a case for defeating President Trump in the 2020 election. The impeachment process is not supposed to be used for that. We have campaigns for that. We raise money to do that. We don't use this body for that. This entire process from its very inception has been a hypocritical, shameful exercise in partisan political opportunism. There is no substance here. None of President Trump's actions even approach anything remotely near impeachable conduct. But Democrats have made a critical error in orchestrating their scheme. If you watched what happened today, most of it was boring, and the reason it was boring is because there is no there there. The Democrats have misunderstood and underestimated the resolve of the American people that elected this President. The facts are on the President's side, and we will rise to the occasion and fight back against this radical scheme to remove President Trump. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, there are crossroads in the history of every great nation so historically significant, so fraught with dramatic consequences, that those in position to influence that nation's direction are compelled to do all they can to ensure it does not fall to the dustbin of history. We have arrived at one of those moments. That is why, last week, my colleagues and I demanded this majority end their secret impeachment proceedings and bring them into the light of day. Impeachment of the President of the United States is, next to the declaration of war, this body's most solemn, important authority. Impeachment begins the process of removing the duly-elected Executive of the United States, who was chosen, not by this House, but by the American people. In the past, this body has always treated that authority with the solemnity and respect that it demands. Certainly, during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments, this House respected our obligation. In this House, under this majority, no longer. In the secretive, closed proceedings in the basement of the Capitol, the majority party has monopolized all power, withheld pertinent facts, denied the accused the right to participate, and offered the minority party little more than token rights, all outside the public eye. The American people, and even most elected Members of Congress, like myself, have been able to glean only whatever lies, leaks, and misinformation the majority disseminates. During Watergate, this House specifically wrote in our rules that we cannot shut out the public, absent extraordinary circumstances, and for over 40 years our rules prohibited the exclusion of Members from attending hearings on investigations. Yet, this majority has put an end to those practices, using secret depositions to get around the sunshine rules of this House. Everything is carefully, reprehensibly designed to obscure reality. This is a watershed moment of monumental, historic significance. For the sake of our constitutional Republic, we must start over and do it the right way. Unfortunately, today the Rules Committee will meet to mark up a resolution that does absolutely nothing to change our dark course. Don't listen to Democrat talking points. This resolution is political cover disguised as good will. This is not a vote to authorize impeachment but a vote to validate and continue the committee's disgraceful, improperly-conducted proceedings. This resolution permits the majority to continue holding proceedings in secret whenever the majority arbitrarily decides to do so; and, unlike previous impeachment proceedings, this majority's empty assurance to offer the minority the right to issue subpoenas is a sham. In fact, the minority is only authorized to issue subpoenas if Adam Schiff and the Democrats on his committee agree with them, the exact same situation the minority currently faces in all but name. It gives the President no right of due process and, instead, instructs the chair of the Rules Committee to determine, down the road, what the procedures will be for participation of the President of the United States and his counsel. In the resolution presented by the majority, the President is given no right to see evidence, present evidence, call witnesses, have counsel present at all hearings and depositions, cross-examine witnesses, make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, or respond to evidence and testimony. How can President Trump defend himself if he cannot see the evidence against him? Just as importantly, how can the American people make an informed judgment? Under this resolution, the House would deputize Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, handpicked by Speaker Pelosi, to be prosecutor, judge, and jury. The majority chooses what is seen and unseen by the American people. This is a Star Chamber proceeding reminiscent of some of the most egregious practices of tin-pot dictators. Political coups are often shrouded in patriotic overtones. Look past the talking points and empty promises from Democrats. We must expose what this resolution really does and the calamitous consequences for due process and separation of powers it will unleash. Silence in this matter is complicity. We must rally together to fight back for the sake of the country we hold dear. The fate of our Nation depends on it.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, today the Democratic majority is not judging the President with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the investigation of the President, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously violated, and why? Because we are here today because the Democrats in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Trump, and until the Democrats free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer. Now, if that sounds familiar, you have got a longer memory than the Democrats. Those same comments, but addressing Republicans' actions towards President Clinton, were made by Nancy Pelosi in 1998. Could there be a clearer indication of the hypocrisy that fuels the Democratic sham impeachment process currently taking place behind closed doors? If Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats truly care about, in Pelosi's own words, ``the fundamental principles which Americans hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances,'' they will restore transparency and integrity to this process.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my Alabama colleagues in remembering the extraordinary life of Alabama's great public servant, the late Congressman Jack Edwards. Jack served Alabama's First Congressional District in Washington for 20 years. He was a great friend and mentor to me and countless others, and he was a true leader here in Congress where he led the rebuilding of our military under President Reagan. Jack's service continued after Congress. He was chair of the Mobile Chamber of Commerce during a period of remarkable renaissance. He also served as chair of the board of trustees for the University of Alabama. Jack was a born leader who loved his country and never failed to answer the call of service. Jack helped create the America we know today, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude. In remembering Jack Edwards, we all should emulate his example and the principles he stood for: unquestioned integrity, commitment to others, and respect for all. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members and guests of the gallery rise for a moment of silence in honor of the late Jack Edwards.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mayor Arthur Holk upon his 94th birthday. Arthur has a decorated career as a public servant that began in 1952. Arthur served as the mayor of Foley from 1976 to 1996 after serving on the Foley City Council for 24 years. While Mayor, Arthur was elected President of the Alabama League of Municipalities, President of the Alabama League of Municipal Insurance Corporation, and Chairman of the State of Alabama Aeronautics Commission. Outside of office, he remained an engaged leader in his community. During Arthur's long tenure in public office, Alabama incredibly had nine different governors. Outside of public office, Arthur served his hometown as an insurance agent for over 60 years with State Farm Insurance and Baldwin Mutual Insurance. Arthur is a 1949 graduate of Auburn University. He and his late wife, Fannie Jo, had two children, Frances and Andy. Their children and grandchildren have continued Arthur's legacy of community service and civic involvement. I congratulate Mayor Holk, on his 94th birthday, and thank Kim for all he has done for Southwest Alabama.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) both for giving me this time, but also for her leadership on this and other issues. Mr. Speaker, beside me is a photograph of myself; Avi Zimmerman, who is the head of the Judea and Samaria Chamber of Commerce, an Israeli Jew; Sheik Ashraf Jabari, a Palestinian businessman; the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers); the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner); and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe). Mrs. Wagner and Dr. Roe joined Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and me on this incredible trip. We are standing in the Sheik's home in Hebron. The Sheik is a former security adviser to the Palestinian Authority, an incredible businessman. Now, before I get back to that meeting, I want to make sure that we begin to make clear to everybody in America that much of what we have learned or believed we have learned about what is going on in Israel between Israelis and Palestinians is not true. What we learned, both from Sheik Jabari and from others, is that something new and exciting is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Israel. There is this idea out there that the Israelis and the Palestinians have been fighting one another for years. That is not true. The truth of the matter is, after the Romans expelled most of the Jews from Israel in the first and second century AD, there remained a small number of Jews in what was known as Israel and then later on as the Province of Palestine. Then over the years, some would creep back in, but there was a relatively small number of Jews in that land, and they lived in peace with their Arab neighbors. It wasn't until the 20th century, when large numbers of Jews began to move into that area from Europe and the U.S. and other places, that we began to see some clashes between the Arabs that lived in that area and the Jews that were moving there. In 1948, when Israel proclaimed itself to be a State, there was an unfortunate war between them, their Arab neighbors, and many of the Arab countries that surrounded them. As a result of that, a State was formed with true territories, but there was a problem between Israel and Jordan, which was one of the countries that they fought, and in order to decide who lived where, they took a green pen and wrote on a map a line, and it was called the Green Line. Jordan existed, or had control, on the east side of that Green Line, Israel on the west. A second unfortunate war occurred in 1967, the Six-Day War, which many of us remember. As a result of that war, Israel was able to take control of all of the area that is now within Israel on the east side of the Green Line. Those two wars and what came out of them is where a lot of the problems between the Palestinians and the Israelis started. It is not ancient, it is not built into their genes. It is not something that can't be overcome. So let me go back to this picture. Avi Zimmerman, as I said, is an Israeli Jew, and Sheik Jabari is a Palestinian Muslim standing next to one another in his home in Hebron. We actually heard from them and other Israelis and other Palestinians about their desires and their efforts to work together in business and industry and economics. It is bringing people together. The day before we visited the Sheik, we were in a town in the northern part of Israel--in what Israel calls Samaria--called Ariel. In Ariel, there are two parts, two industrial parts, that have 209 different manufacturing companies in them. Most of the people working in those manufacturing factories are Palestinians, and they make on average four times as much as they could make if they were working somewhere else in what we, unfortunately, call the West Bank, but is really not the West Bank. It is good for those Palestinians to make that much money. It is good for them to be able to take advantage of the miracle of the Israeli economy. Giving them that opportunity so that they can have a better life for themselves and their families is hope. Sheik Jabari and what he is trying to do is hope. What the people in Israel need more than anything else is hope. Perhaps our struggles over the last 20 years to create a two-state solution there has blinded us from the fact that this is really about people. It is not about lines drawn on a piece of paper that we can't seem to get a resolution to. Those people, if they are allowed to live and work together as they want to, maybe they will find peace on their own without some push from the rest of us, which seems to be getting us nowhere. At any rate, I hope that we, in this country, and we, in this Congress, can do everything in our power to help these good people grow economically in their businesses, but also find that peace that only people-to-people actions can find for us all. I thank the gentlewoman, and I am looking forward to hearing the rest of this Special Order.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Tuscaloosa Police Department Investigator Dornell Cousette. Officer Cousette was tragically killed in the line of duty Monday night. He was only 40 years old. He leaves behind two young children and his fiance. As a 13-year veteran of the Tuscaloosa Police Department and a veteran of the United States Army, Officer Cousette was loved and respected in the Tuscaloosa community. This awful event reminds us that the men and women of law enforcement do not get the appreciation they deserve. Not only are they public servants in the truest sense, but they have wives and husbands. They have children that they care for. They are active members of their communities. They put their lives on the line to protect. They deserve our thanks and gratitude and our prayers. I offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Officer Cousette. We can all be proud of the record of service and sacrifice he leaves behind. Dornell Cousette will not be forgotten.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 582. This bill would cause disruptive job losses and harm entry-level workers in many regions around the country, effectively knocking the bottom rung off the career ladder and especially hurting young workers. Last Monday, CBO issued a long-awaited study, which estimates that up to 3.7 million jobs would be lost from a $15 minimum wage, with a median estimate of 1.3 million jobs lost. That includes 44,000 jobs that would be lost in my home State of Alabama, and those under 21 will suffer half those job losses. When comparing those numbers with the report's estimate that only 1.3 million individuals would be lifted out of poverty, H.R. 582 would cost at least one job to be lost for every person who moved out of poverty. In the CBO's high-impact scenario, as many as three jobs would be lost for every individual moving out of poverty. This is not a tradeoff that Congress should ask America's workers and small businesses to make, and I especially don't think we should ask our young workers to make it. Significantly, CBO has also found there would be a reduction in real family income by 2025 of $9 billion, effectively reducing pay for many American families. Remember, wages are currently on the rise thanks to a booming economy, the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and President Trump's focus on eliminating wasteful regulations. With 7.3 million unfilled jobs nationwide, job creators know they must offer competitive wages and benefits to attract and retain workers, and 29 States already have a minimum wage higher than the Federal floor. Instead of providing tangible benefits to working class Americans, H.R. 582 would cause the most harm to the very people its supporters claim to help. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Mr. Jack Greer. Jack passed away last week after a long life of personal and business achievement and service to his family and to his community. So many people in south Alabama knew Jack from shopping for groceries at Greer's grocery store, a business which has been operating in our area for over 100 years. But it was through his civic involvement that Jack truly left his mark. His civic contributions are too many to list. It was his role as an environmental advocate that he perhaps was most proud of. He was a founding member of Mobile Baykeeper and remained engaged throughout his life in protecting the waters in and around Mobile Bay. Jack was an active member of Dauphin Way United Methodist Church, and he proudly served his country as second lieutenant in the United States Army. I knew Mr. Jack. I have known the Greer family my entire life. My deepest condolences to his wife of 70 years, Janice, and his many surviving children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Please know that Mr. Jack lived a life you can all be proud of. He will be, and is, sorely missed.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, a bill that would protect innocent children, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mel Showers upon his retirement from WKRG in Mobile, Alabama, after a remarkable 50-year career. Mel holds a special place in the hearts of many in southwest Alabama and the Florida panhandle. So many grew up watching his reporting and grew to trust him over the years. Mel's career is notable not only because of its length, but also because of the barriers he overcame to become one of the first African American reporters and, later, anchors in the Deep South. A man of lesser perseverance and integrity could not have overcome these obstacles with such grace. Mel deserves our utmost respect, and we will miss seeing him every evening. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mel. I offer my heartfelt thanks for his many contributions to our community over the years, and I wish him the best of luck in his retirement. Remembering Billy Middleton

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of the longtime mayor of Loxley, Alabama, Billy Middleton. After a long, hard- fought battle, Mayor Middleton succumbed to cancer last week at 78 years old. Billy was first elected mayor in 1988, and before his passing, he was serving a remarkable seventh term. His longevity was no accident. A former marine, Mayor Middleton was a true public servant whose dedication to his community extended far beyond his official duties and endeared him to the people of southwest Alabama. His community is better because he was a part of it. Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincerest condolences to his wife, Lilly, and the many family and friends he leaves behind. Billy's memory and service to the close-knit town of Loxley will last long beyond his death.