Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just for informational purposes. There is no way my friend from Massachusetts could have known this, but last night the Republican members were formally named to the Ethics Committee. We expect them to be approved today so the committee could function immediately. But, again, my friend would have had no way of knowing that. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my very good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we have better alternatives, and I urge that we empower the Committee on House Administration to look at that. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of the rule.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished Member from Texas, for yielding. Today's rule sets in motion a process for considering H. Con. Res. 11, a shell budget for fiscal year 2021. I understand that the majority's stated intent in bringing forward this resolution is to pave the way for using budget reconciliation to push through a partisan COVID-19 relief package. Unfortunately, I think the majority's intent is misguided. I want to remind us all that the only reason we are here today is that the majority failed to pass a budget last year. As of today, we are nearly 9\1/2\ months overdue for the passage of the budget for fiscal year 2021, and fiscal year 2021 is already a third of the way over. Hardly an auspicious start for an item as serious as the annual budget for the United States Government. But the lack of expeditiousness that characterized the budget in the 116th Congress has been replaced by hastiness. The majority is now, in the 117th Congress, rushing forward with a new budget despite never bothering to convene the Budget Committee. Indeed, the Budget Committee has yet to meet in this Congress, much less conduct normal hearings that pave the way for the markup of the annual budget. Rather than undertake the normal process through the Budget Committee, the majority is instead air-dropping a budget straight from leadership offices directly onto the floor. This is hardly the kind of process considered to be regular order, and it fails to give Members a chance to have their ideas considered in committee or to offer amendments on the floor. Indeed, as a longtime member of the Budget Committee myself, I looked forward to our hearings on the budget and the markup. Through this process, Members had the opportunity to consider the budget, consider expert testimony, offer ideas, and propose amendments to be considered by the whole committee. That the majority is failing to do so makes a mockery out of the entire budgeting process. Over the past year, Congress has shown it can work together to produce bipartisan legislation. In the last Congress, we actually passed five COVID-19 relief bills that appropriated nearly $4 trillion in relief funds. Not all of these funds have yet been spent. Not even close, Mr. Speaker. And the $4 trillion number is right around the annual budgetary outlays of the Federal Government in a normal year, covering both mandatory and discretionary spending. Yet, the majority is moving forward with yet another bill and seems determined to ensure that this bill enshrines as many partisan policy priorities as possible. To make matters worse, from looking at the actual budget before us, we do not know what these partisan priorities are. We know the budget includes instructions to committees to increase spending by certain amounts, but it does not offer any guidance on how they should do so. Will it encompass only COVID relief matters, or will they enact progressive policy goals like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal? We have no way of knowing. We do know that Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist leader of the Senate Budget Committee, wants to use reconciliation to ram through a $15 minimum wage, a measure that would be a disaster for workers and businesses alike in my home State of Oklahoma. But what else may be included in the bill is a mystery. Mr. Speaker, this process hardly befits the bipartisanship that we were promised by President Biden. It has been less than 2 weeks since the new President was inaugurated, and already we are seeing the majority abandoning any pretense at bipartisanship. The House majority has failed to even propose a bipartisan COVID relief bill or to engage Republicans in serious negotiations. Instead, they have simply predetermined the outcome and are moving forward with their own partisan bill without even pretending to try to work with those of us on my side of the aisle. This is hardly what we were promised, Mr. Speaker. It is hardly what the institution was promised. And on a matter as important as the annual budget of the United States, and during a pandemic as deadly and serious as the one we are currently living through, I know the institution can do better. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this course and work together and pass real bipartisan legislation that will benefit all Americans. Today's rule also adds a change in the House rules, imposing serious fines on Members who fail to go through the new magnetometers around the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, as I told my colleagues on the Rules Committee a short time ago, I don't disagree with the additional security measures to keep Members and staff safe. However, I do have concerns over how the new measures are being implemented. Earlier this afternoon, I offered an amendment to this rule which would have instructed the House Committee on Administration to review the matter and make appropriate recommendations. I have no issue whatsoever with Members being subjected to the same requirements as staff and our constituents when they enter the Capitol, but I have serious concerns that the majority's proposed solution is untenable. Requiring Members to pass through a magnetometer each time they enter the House Chamber, even if they haven't left the area, is a sure recipe for chaos. It is impossible for Members to socially distance when they are stacked up in a line to await their turn at passing through the metal detectors. When Members need to leave the Chamber to make a phone call right outside the doorway, they have to reenter and pass through security again. And there are hardworking staff members who work just a few feet away from the House Chamber but must pass through these same magnetometers every time they need to run to their offices and then back to the floor. This is a clear recipe for disorganization and gridlock. But this need not be the only option, Mr. Speaker. There are already existing metal detectors and X-ray machines at entrances to the building. Why can't Members be screened at those entrances instead? Why must it be right on the way to the very cusp of the Chamber in a location guaranteed to stack up Members outside the door waiting to get in?

Mr. COLE

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for presiding over these difficult proceedings today. I thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. And I thank everybody who came to the floor and had something to say at an important moment. I think the debate, while spirited, reflected the civility and decency of the institution that we are all privileged to be part of. I am very proud to have been part of it. I am very proud of all the Members and the manner in which they participated. I want, again, to thank the staff and thank those who kept us safe in the process, particularly the Capitol Police. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose the majority's actions today. After the traumatic events of last week, the majority should be taking steps to unite us. Instead, they are only dividing us further. They are rushing to judgment, in my opinion, and bringing up impeachment after failing to follow any meaningful process whatsoever. No hearings have been held, no witnesses heard, no process or opportunity to respond was provided to the President. No Members had an opportunity to review or amend this article before it came to the floor. This is hardly the way the House should undertake such a serious act. Mr. Speaker, there is still a way to unite the country. Let us look forward, not backward. Let us come together, not apart. Let us celebrate the peaceful transition of power to a new President rather than impeaching an old President. And let us affirm and reaffirm with one united voice that the House does not rush to judgment on the most consequential action we can take. Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that and the American people deserve better than that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, as they reflect on this minute and we move into our next stage of debate, to remember that we are all privileged to represent a great and a good people. We have gone through a horrifying and tragic time, and we owe them the opportunity to reflect and we owe them our best efforts to bring everyone together. I know people on this floor feel very passionately about this subject with different points of view. I honor each one of those points of view and I honor the people that voice them. Let's remember when we are through this that we are one people and that we have one purpose, that we are free through the grace of God and millions of brave Americans over centuries of time and we will remain that way, and we will move forward together once we settle this debate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up a resolution establishing a bipartisan national commission on the domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. This proposed bipartisan commission will be tasked with examining and reporting upon the terror attack upon our Capitol that occurred last Wednesday. The commission will be bipartisan in nature, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, and will fully be empowered to undertake a full investigation and make recommendations to the President and to Congress. I can think of no more appropriate path for Congress to follow than by ensuring a bipartisan commission reviews all evidence and reports back to us on this horrific event. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to ask for God's blessing and protection on you; on my friend, Mr. McGovern; for all who come to this Chamber today to speak and to vote; for our wonderful staff that make this possible; and most especially for the men and women of the Capitol Police and the other affiliated law enforcement agencies that are here to protect everybody and to make sure that this proceeding can go forward. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for all of us, for me personally, for the Rules Committee, for the entire House of Representatives, and most certainly for the American people. For the second time in 13 months, we are meeting to discuss the impeachment of the President of the United States. Our meeting today does not arise in a vacuum and comes at what I hope and pray is the end of a tumultuous period for our country. Less than 1 week ago, Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election. What started out as peaceful protests, turned into a riot as an untold number of individuals stormed the Capitol Building. Six people died as a result of this mob. It is only by the grace of God and the brave acts of the U.S. Capitol Police; the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police; the FBI; the ATF; and other responding agencies that there was not more bloodshed. Violent acts such as these have no place in our Republic. These shocking and sobering events rest high on our minds today, as well they should. Certainly, January 6, 2021, will live in my memory as the darkest day during my time in service as a Member of this House. After these grave events, we, as a nation and as an institution, have an opportunity to come together. President Trump has conceded the 2020 election. Congress has certified the results of the election, and next Wednesday, President-elect Biden will be sworn in as the President of the United States. Congress and the Nation can move forward knowing that the political process was completed as designed and that the constitutional framework that has governed our Republic since 1789 held firm. But instead of moving forward as a unifying force, majority in the House is choosing to divide us further. With only 1 week to go in his term, the majority is asking us to consider a resolution impeaching President Trump, and they do so knowing full well that even if the House passes this resolution, the Senate will not be able to begin considering these charges until after President Trump's term ends. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no action the House can take that is more likely to further divide the American people than the action we are contemplating today. Emotions are clearly running high and political divisions have never been more apparent in my lifetime. We desperately need to seek a path forward, healing for the American people. So it is unfortunate that a path to support healing is not the path the majority has chosen today. Instead, the House is moving forward erratically with a truncated process that does not comport with the modern practice and that will give Members no time to contemplate the serious course of action before us. In every modern impeachment inquiry, an investigation and committee action has preceded bringing an impeachment resolution to the floor. In part, this is to ensure that members have the full facts, the opportunity to engage expert witnesses, and have a chance to be heard. It also provides due process to the President of the United States. Again, in every modern impeachment inquiry, the President has been given an opportunity to be heard in some form or another. This is necessary in order to ensure that the American people have confidence in the procedures the House is following. It is also necessary, not because of the President's inappropriate and reckless words are deserving of defense, but because the Presidency itself demands due process in the impeachment proceedings. Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to race to the floor with a new Article of Impeachment, forgoing any investigation, any committee process or any chance for Members to fully contemplate this course of action before proceeding. Professor Jonathan Turley is correct when he called this ``a dangerous snap impeachment--an impeachment that effectively would go to a vote without the deliberation or inquiries of a traditional hearing.'' Professor Turley also noted that ``the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous. However, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment. . . .'' Mr. Speaker, if the majority is seeking consensus, this is hardly the way to create it. The majority is failing to provide the House with an opportunity to review all the facts--which are still coming to light--to discuss all the evidence, to listen to scholars, to examine the witnesses, and to consider precedence. This is not the type of robust process we have followed for every modern impeachment, and the failure to do so does a great disservice to this institution and to this country. Mr. Speaker, I could think of nothing that will cause further division more than the path the majority is now taking. Rather than looking ahead to a new administration, the majority is again seeking to settle scores against the old one. Rather than seeking to heal America, they are seeking to divide us more deeply, and rather than following the appropriate processes the House has used in every modern impeachment, the majority is rushing to the floor, tripping all over themselves in their rush to impeach the President a second time. What is worse, though, is the majority seems to believe this course of action is self-evident, and that is simply not the case. I have to tell them: it is not. Members have reviewed the same conduct and have come to dramatically different conclusions. Legal scholars like Professor Turley and Professor Alan Dershowitz, both of whom condemn the President's statements, believe that his statements are not impeachable. I know other scholars have different points of view. Given this difference of opinion, shouldn't we have a better process than this? Shouldn't we have a chance to examine witnesses, discuss the matter with legal scholars, and consider this in committee? On a matter as grave and consequential as impeachment, shouldn't we follow the same process we have used in every modern impeachment rather than rushing to the floor? On behalf of generations of Americans to come, we need to think more clearly about the consequences of our actions today. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to rush forward like this, other than the very obvious fact that there are only 7 days left until the new President takes office. But what is worse, as Professor Dershowitz has pointed out, because of the Senate's rules, the case cannot come to trial in the Senate until 1 p.m. on January 20, 1 hour after President Trump leaves office. This is an ill-advised course, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. Even Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, agrees. Senator Manchin is quoted this week as having said, ``I think this is so ill-advised for Joe Biden to be coming in, trying to heal the country, trying to be the President of all the people when we are going to be so divided and fighting again. Let the judicial system do its job.'' So what, then, is the point of the rush to impeach? We are coming off a horrific event that resulted in six deaths. We have an opportunity to move forward, but we cannot if the majority insists on bringing the country through the trauma of another impeachment. It will carry forward into the next President's term ensuring that he will struggle to organize his administration. What is worse, it will continue to generate the bitterness so many of us have opposed. Why put us through that when we can't actually resolve this before the end of the President's term? Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues in the majority need to think about this more soberly. We need to recognize we are following a flawed process. We need to recognize that people of goodwill can differ. We need to recognize that, while the House may be done with this matter after today's vote, it will not be done for the country. It will not be done for the Senate, and it will not be done for the incoming Biden administration. The House's action today will only extend the division longer than necessary. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that there are other remedies that can be pursued. The President is expected to face litigation over his role in last Wednesday's events. There will be criminal proceedings against the perpetrators, and I hope all of those who stormed the Capitol will be brought to justice. And some Members have proposed an alternative procedure--censuring the President--which could garner significant bipartisan support in the House. I do not think impeachment is a wise course, Mr. Speaker. I would urge my friends in the majority to reconsider. There is still time to choose a different path, one that leads to reconciliation and hope for better and brighter days. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who is the ranking Republican member on the House Administration Committee, for a further explanation of this amendment.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up a resolution establishing a bipartisan national commission on the domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol. This commission, modeled on the 9/11 Commission, will be charged with examining and reporting upon the facts and causes relating to the attack that occurred on January 6 of 2021 and with providing appropriate findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures. I can think of no more appropriate path for Congress to follow, Mr. Speaker, than to ensure that a bipartisan commission reviews all evidence and reports back to us on this horrific event. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.