Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate those who shared their thoughts on this matter, and I want to just cover a couple of things that I think are absolutely critical to remember. They have been touched on, but not emphasized enough for me, and that is this: when we start looking at how this began and we look at the timeline, you will see that this began before President Trump was elected, it proceeded after he was elected but before he was sworn into office, and then the day he was sworn in, the media said: Let the impeachment begin. Ten days later the attorney for the whistleblower said: Let the impeachment begin, let the coup begin, more power to the attorneys. That is what they were talking about, a search, as one of my colleagues said earlier, for a modus vivendi for impeachment. That is really what this was about. Or you get in a phone conversation, and in that phone conversation there is an amicable discussion of numerous things. That phone conversation has been misquoted, and it has been deliberately fabricated by the person who no doubt will be one of the House managers going over to the Senate. This is the chairman who basically out of whole cloth created a dramatic reading that was not representative in any way of the actual transcript. This is the same individual who promised us we would get to interview and depose the whistleblower because where this engine got started is with the whistleblower. That never happened. So along the way, as witnesses were subpoenaed to talk and the President exercised his executive privilege, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we do not have time to go to the court and determine whether that executive privilege is being exerted in an overly broad manner, whether we can narrow it, or whether it is completely inappropriate. We just don't have time. Because do you know why? We have got to impeach this President tomorrow because it is as if he is an absolute destructive force and an immediate danger to this Republic. The reality is they got their vote, and here we sit. Here we sit, a total of 27 days since the day of the vote. That day was there. We were told it was going to go tomorrow. My colleague from Virginia has very ably explained that there is a distinction between informing the Senate procedurally and having the vote on House managers. But the point he was making, and I wish to also join in, is this: you simply have seen a process that has been devoid of the normal rules of precedent in this House. When we see these amorphous charges, these articles, passed by this body, it tells you two things that make this a supreme danger to the Republic going forward. All I am pointing to is what my colleague from Florida said, is the danger that the impeachment process will be misused for political purposes. And that is this: Number one, process matters. Process always matters. It is why we have these wonderful folks who sit in front of us to make sure that we are following the rules of the House and to make sure that we are following the rules of precedent. It is not unlike international law, quite frankly, where all you are relying on is precedent, and you just change it very simply. If you don't have those rules and you don't have integrity to the rules, then the minority rights are abused. When the minority rights are abused in this place, that means the right of representation of tens of millions of Americans is diffused and abused. So you have that problem. Then you have the fundamental idea of trying to impeach on things like obstruction of Congress. Well, I just told you how Congress was not obstructed. Congress had a remedy. You cannot have obstruction if you have a remedy. The remedy was to go to the other branch and resolve it. They chose not to. These are the two problems in the most virulent way. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, my eloquent friend so ably made his case, and I would suggest that it is undercut in some respects when one introduces and discusses impeachment the day after the election in 2016, before President Trump even came to office. That isn't protecting the country, is it? What that is suggesting is that one knows more than the voters of this country. I am also always intrigued when the complaint comes up about the majority in the Senate, when the majority in the Senate is going to determine the rules for the trial in the Senate because the Constitution says that the Senate holds the trial. We just heard that there have to be 51 votes over in the Senate. Oddly enough, I didn't hear complaints when the majority in the House controlled the inquiry. In fact, the term ``coverup'' was used preemptively regarding the Senate, but what I saw in the House was a coverup. We didn't get to introduce all of our witnesses. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. Who did we get as witnesses? We got three or four law professors who came in. That is who got to come in to testify before the Judiciary Committee. We didn't have the witnesses who had factual evidence come in. We requested. We gave lists. We were told we couldn't have them. That is part of the problem. Adding to this hypocrisy, we heard over and over again that we must impeach the President of the United States because it is an imminent danger for him to continue in his office. But once that vote was taken, the Speaker held the Articles of Impeachment and would not transmit them. Here we sit, 27 days following that vote, with no transmittal. We hear that there is going to be a transmittal tomorrow. I am interested to see if that really takes place. Madam Speaker, I am joined today by a number of my colleagues, and I am grateful to have them here. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. BIGGS. I would ask the Speaker how much time is remaining.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues across the aisle have said, ``Hey, where are the facts?'' as if we have the burden of proof. Madam Speaker, it is their burden of proof. It is the Democrats' burden of proof. But the facts are unchanged. Ukraine received aid that they were promised and appropriated for. The aid was lawfully disbursed. In fact, it was disbursed within the time limits set by this Congress. If you wanted it sent to them before September 30, 2019, you should have put that in the legislation. You did not. The Ukrainians gave nothing in return. The Ukrainian President said he felt no pressure, no coercion, no duress, no conditionality. What changed? On the day that the aid was released, two anticorruption measures were signed into law by the Ukrainian President, President Zelensky. Democrats have manufactured this sham and then argue that refusing to cooperate is impeachable. The Supreme Court is currently considering the extent of executive privilege when fighting dubious subpoenas. But instead of taking their process to court or waiting for the Court to rule on the pending case, the Democrats chose to press forward because, simply, they said: ``We don't want to wait.'' ``We don't have time,'' they say. But failing to do so is an abuse of power of this institution that will have grave consequences for our Republic. When the other side claims they proceed with soberness, I am bemused by media reports that indicate they have been admonished not to do a jig today when they win the vote, which we know they will. I am struck that solemnity of process shouldn't need to have an admonition against levity. This process has been partisan, vindictive, dishonest. In this impeachment, Democrats have lied about the content of the July 25 call; met secretly with the whistleblower; held Soviet-style hearings behind closed doors where the Committee on the Judiciary, the committee of jurisdiction, could not attend; and blocked the President's counsel from participating in the factfinding portion of the inquisition. Madam Speaker, it has been a sham from start to finish.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, in its current form, H.R. 5038 would subject growers to a new private right of action in Federal court. As a result, these employers would face countless frivolous lawsuits and higher costs in the form of damages and other litigation costs. The bottom line is that many American farmers and other agricultural employers would be sued right out of business. This provision is one of the main reasons that, arguably, the biggest agricultural group in the world, the American Farm Bureau, does not support this bill. Our motion to recommit would simply strike sections 204(a) and (b) of the bill. This motion to recommit is supported by the American Farm Bureau, and I ask all Members to support it as well. As a technical matter, Madam Speaker, we seek to recommit this bill to the Judiciary Committee. And that is interesting to me, and I think it should be of interest to all of us here because, in just a few hours, that committee is going to meet on a completely bogus Articles of Impeachment, where we will consider that there. Over a week ago, every Republican member of the Judiciary Committee signed a letter to request a minority day hearing. We are going to have the markup in 2 hours, and we haven't had the minority hearing yet, with no intention, I guess, of allowing the minority its rights under the rules. Specifically, clause(2)(j)(1) of House rule XI states: ``Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.'' And here we sit. We sit, and we are going to be going in, in 2 hours or so. We are going to have our opening statements, and then we will proceed to vote on the Articles of Impeachment offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. To what end? It is this obviation of the rule that is consistent with how we have seen this whole process play out. We have written the chair of the Rules Committee to remind all chairs of their obligation to adhere to the rules of the House. Unfortunately, the hearing is yet to be scheduled. I would suggest that the Democratic case for impeachment is not nearly so strong as they would have us believe. Otherwise, they would be affording us a simple minority hearing day. When one considers it, and I wish everyone would consider it, we are being afforded more procedural rights on this bill, which is dead on arrival in the Senate, than we are in the impeachment proceeding of the President of the United States. That is simply wrong, Madam Speaker. One day, I suggest, we will be beyond this mania, this hysteria that has set in here, and the other shoe will drop. I know that many in this body do not care for this President, and I understand that. But I think we all should have respect for this institution, and we should take care of this institution. We should respect the due process rights of the minority. That is all we are asking. We want that minority hearing day. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS. I am in its current form.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Many of us have heard from farmers and agricultural suppliers around the country about their need for labor to ensure their products can be harvested, processed, and sold. I have heard time and time again from business owners who prioritize hiring American workers but repeatedly find themselves without the labor necessary. This problem is worthy of a broader conversation in Congress, including how we address the root of the problem and any relation to the welfare state that we have created here. My main concerns today, however, go beyond addressing true labor shortages and, instead, focus on the rewards this legislation provides to employers who have chosen to use illegal labor and to aliens who have chosen to work illegally in the United States. This bill creates a new pathway to legal status for illegal aliens who have been working in the agricultural industry in the United States. Any alien who merely applies for legal status under the program, whether truly eligible, immediately receives work authorization, protection from removal, and the ability to travel outside the United States. Those who meet the requirements will be rewarded with a pathway to lawful, permanent resident status and, ultimately, citizenship. Foreign nationals around the world wait years and spend thousands of dollars to receive those same benefits. This legislation is an unacceptable slap in the face to all those who follow our immigration laws. Worse still, this legislation does little to root out fraud, instead, blatantly incentivizing it. The ability to receive work authorization and other benefits upon application will likely lead many individuals to submit applications even if they are not eligible, but they will have no fear of doing so because there are no penalties attached. Aliens can withdraw their fraudulent application without prejudice to any further application. This legislation also condones and turns a blind eye to instances of immigration fraud by waiving inadmissibility for aliens who previously tried to fraudulently gain legal status or falsely claimed to be U.S. citizens. There are several other concerning provisions with this legislation: It creates a new grant program to assist eligible applicants--illegal aliens--in applying for this newly created immigration status. It prohibits use of E-Verify to check a new hire's employment eligibility until that person is actually hired and requires use of the program in a way that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of the E-Verify system. It allows aliens to prove work history with only a sworn affidavit from someone who ostensibly has direct knowledge of their work history. It fails to impose any real penalty for months and years of illegal work, and it fails to impose any real penalty on employers who knowingly violated U.S. law for their own benefit. At a time when our immigration system is rampant with illegality, when we have little control over our southern border and there are crisis levels of individuals trying to illegally immigrate, we should not be promoting legislation that rewards years of illegal behavior. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I have heard today how much my colleagues on the other side wish to make this an open and transparent process and ``this is for we, the people.'' I would really like to believe that. Yet, after they introduced the resolution, they have another full week of hearings behind closed doors, and they have scheduled another full week of hearings behind closed doors. If this is about transparency, then open it up. If you want the American people to see it, open it up. Give Members access to the transcripts. Let the media into the room. Let us participate. Failing to do so denies transparency.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas President Trump released the transcript of a call between him and the President of Ukraine; Whereas President Trump subsequently released the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019; Whereas, in a September 26, 2019, hearing on the whistleblower complaint, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff purported to relay the content of the phone call to the American people; Whereas, instead of quoting directly from the available transcript, Chairman Schiff manufactured a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky; Whereas this egregiously false and fabricated retelling had no relationship to the call itself; Whereas these actions of Chairman Schiff misled the American people, bring disrepute upon the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this Chamber's most solemn constitutional duties; Whereas, for more than 2 years, Chairman Schiff has spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia; Whereas, on March 20, 2017, then-Ranking Member Schiff read out false allegations from the Steele dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia; Whereas then-Ranking Member Schiff falsely claimed in a March 2017 interview to have ``more than circumstantial evidence'' of collusion with Russia; Whereas then-Ranking Member Schiff negotiated with Russian comedians whom he believed to be Ukrainian officials to obtain materials to damage the President of the United States politically; Whereas, according to a New York Times article on October 2, 2019, Chairman Schiff's committee staff met with the whistleblower prior to the filing of his complaint, and staff members communicated the content of the complaint to Chairman Schiff; Whereas Chairman Schiff concealed his dealings with the whistleblower from the rest of the Intelligence Committee, and when asked directly in a television interview whether he had any contact with the whistleblower, he lied to the American people and said, ``We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.''; Whereas members of the Intelligence Committee have lost faith in his objectivity and capabilities as chairman, with every Republican member on the committee having signed a letter calling for his immediate resignation as chairman; and Whereas Chairman Schiff has hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to fulfill its oversight responsibilities of the intelligence community, an indispensable pillar of our national security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the House of Representatives censures and condemns Representative Adam Schiff for conduct that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the House of Representatives; (2) Representative Adam Schiff will forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure; and (3) Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker.

Mr. BIGGS. Yes.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, today, I will make the motion regarding H. Res. 630, a motion to condemn and censure the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff. I am going to let some of my colleagues explain further, but I want to explain to you what the rules are designed to do in the body that we serve in. They are designed to protect the voice and the rights of the minority. That is the way it is. The majority does not need the rules to protect its rights because it has the power to vote at any time what it wants to happen. But we follow rules so that all Americans can be represented, even when they are represented by the minority party. That is not happening today. That is why we have to introduce this motion to censure. No more secret proceedings. No more Soviet-style proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I urge all to vote for my motion to censure.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: House Resolution 630. Condemning and censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of California's 28th Congressional District. Whereas President Trump released the transcript of a call between him and the President of Ukraine; Whereas President Trump subsequently released the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019; Whereas, in a September 26, 2019, hearing on the whistleblower complaint, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff purported to relay the content of the phone call to the American people; Whereas, instead of quoting directly from the available transcript, Chairman Schiff manufactured a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky; Whereas this egregiously false and fabricated retelling had no relationship to the call itself; Whereas these actions of Chairman Schiff misled the American people, bring disrepute upon the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this Chamber's most solemn constitutional duties; Whereas, for more than 2 years, Chairman Schiff has spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia; Whereas, on March 20, 2017, then-Ranking Member Schiff read out false allegations from the Steele dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia; Whereas then-Ranking Member Schiff falsely claimed in a March 2017 interview to have ``more than circumstantial evidence'' of collusion with Russia; Whereas then-Ranking Member Schiff negotiated with Russian comedians whom he believed to be Ukrainian officials to obtain materials to damage the President of the United States politically; Whereas, according to a New York Times article on October 2, 2019, Chairman Schiff's committee staff met with the whistleblower prior to the filing of his complaint, and staff members communicated the content of the complaint to Chairman Schiff; Whereas Chairman Schiff concealed his dealings with the whistleblower from the rest of the Intelligence Committee, and when asked directly in a television interview whether he had any contact with the whistleblower, he lied to the American people and said, ``We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.''; Whereas members of the Intelligence Committee have lost faith in his objectivity and capabilities as chairman, with every Republican member on the committee having signed a letter calling for his immediate resignation as chairman; and Whereas Chairman Schiff has hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to fulfill its oversight responsibilities of the intelligence community, an indispensable pillar of our national security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- One, the House of Representatives censures and condemns Representative Adam Schiff for conduct that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the House of Representatives; Two, Representative Adam Schiff will forthwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure; and Three, Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker.