Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my very good friend, a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee and a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my very good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee and member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my very good friend, also a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today is a very sad day for all of us--for me personally, for the Rules Committee, for the entire House of Representatives, and, most importantly, for the American people. For the second time in my life, the House of Representatives will be voting to impeach a President of the United States. But unlike in 1998, the decision to have this vote is not the result of a bipartisan process nor an open or fair process. Instead, it is going to be a deeply partisan vote, coming at the end of an unfair and rushed process prescribed solely by Democrats to ensure a predetermined result. Impeachment of a President is one of the most consequential acts the House of Representatives can undertake, and it should only be done after the fullest and most careful consideration. Yet, today, after a truncated investigation that denied the President due process and cherry-picked evidence and witness testimony to fit their narrative and trampled on Republicans' minority rights, Democrats in the House are pressing forward with a partisan impeachment vote. Doing so contradicts Speaker Pelosi's own words back in March of this year when she said that an ``impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.'' But if we are really being honest, Democrats have been searching for a reason to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. In December of 2017, a current member of the majority forced a vote to impeach the President; and even then, long before there was even an impeachment investigation, 58 Democrats voted to impeach the President. Those Members have only grown since then, to the point where the majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment, heedless of where it takes the country and regardless of whether or not they have proven their case. If my colleagues in the majority believe they have proven their case, let me be clear: They have not. The entire premise of these Articles of Impeachment rests on a pause placed on Ukrainian security assistance, a pause of 55 days. The majority has spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the motive of this pause, alleging the President demanded a ``quid pro quo,'' but with no factual evidence to back it up. Security aid to Ukraine was released. The administration did so without Ukraine ever initiating an investigation into anyone or anything. It is even more startling to me that the majority wants to move forward with this resolution given how substantially flawed and procedurally defective the entire process has been. The Judiciary Committee, which drafted these Articles of Impeachment, engaged in an abbreviated process, hearing from no witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events in question. They did not conduct their own investigation and only held two hearings on this topic before drafting the articles, one with staff and one with constitutional law scholars. That is hardly the type of lengthy and serious consideration a topic as grave as impeachment demands. The committee actually charged with an impeachment investigation was the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Judiciary Committee, but that committee, too, followed a primarily closed process. Republicans were denied the right to call witnesses or subpoena documents, and the President was denied the right to representation in the committee's hearings. Without respecting minority rights and without respecting due process rights of the President, how can anyone consider this a fair process? Madam Speaker, it gets worse. The Articles of Impeachment we are considering today are based on the Schiff report, the final document produced by the Intelligence Committee and transmitted to the Judiciary Committee. But the Schiff report includes unsubstantiated allegations. It includes, in some cases, news reports as the only evidence supporting so-called factual assertions, and it includes at least 54 different hearsay statements as assertions of evidence without any firsthand information from witnesses to corroborate those statements. The author of the report, Chairman Schiff, was never questioned by the Judiciary Committee, and he refused to sit for questions or to explain how his committee conducted its investigation. In fact, during the staff presentation of evidence at the Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Collins asked how the investigation was conducted that resulted in the drafting of the Schiff report, but he never received an answer. During the Rules Committee consideration of H. Res. 755, there were numerous times when the members on both sides of the aisle posed questions to our witnesses, questions they could not answer because they sit on the Judiciary Committee and were not the author of the report that brought about H. Res. 755. The author has never appeared before members of the minority to explain a single thing in the report or to provide factual information supporting the many assertions it contains. Madam Speaker, this is no way to go about impeaching the President of the United States. The articles before us are based on very limited information. They are based on hearsay, on news reports, and on other unsupported allegations. They are based on a report written by a Member of Congress who refused to answer questions about it; and I do not believe the allegations, which are subject to interpretation, actually rise to the level of an impeachable offense. To make matters worse, when Republicans attempted to exercise one of their rights under House rules, they were shut down by Chairman Nadler. Under clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, the minority is allowed to demand a minority hearing day. On December 4, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly exercised that right and transmitted a demand to Chairman Nadler for a hearing day at which the minority could call their own witnesses. To be clear, Madam Speaker, a minority hearing day is not subject to the chair's discretion. It is a right, and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly demanded the exercise of that right; yet, Chairman Nadler declined to allow a minority hearing day to be held before the voting of these articles. I think we can all agree that it would have been better for the institution and for the American people to allow all voices to be heard and all witnesses to be questioned before proceeding to a vote on something this consequential; yet, the majority trampled on that right. But I suppose I should not be surprised by any of this. When the House passed H. Res. 660, the resolution setting up the official impeachment inquiry less than 2 months ago, I warned the House that what the majority was doing was setting up a closed, unfair process that could only have one outcome. Today, we are seeing the end result of this closed and unfair process: a quick rush to judgment forced through not one, but two committees in short order, with minority rights trampled, witnesses left unquestioned, and due process ignored. It is also disappointing that Members are not being given more time to debate this issue on the floor. Last night at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to double the amount of floor time debate from 6 to 12 hours. This would have allowed for roughly the same amount of debate time used in the Clinton impeachment, and it would have been ensured that all Members could have the opportunity to speak on the floor. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. While I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, did the best he could, I do think it is ironic that, when all is said and done, the 13 members of the Rules Committee spent more time discussing H. Res. 755 in committee yesterday than we will spend debating it on the House floor for every Member today. I think that is a disservice to the Members of this body and to the American people. Madam Speaker, we deserve better than the flawed process that led to this flawed outcome. The House of Representatives deserves better than that. The President certainly deserves better than that. More importantly, the American people deserve better than what we are doing here today. I oppose proceeding any further; I oppose the rule; I oppose this limited and unfair process; and I certainly oppose impeaching the President of the United States. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the rule, I urge support for the two appropriations measures we are considering today. Frankly, to be fair, there are many concerns that my friend, Mr. Roy from Texas, expressed that I agree with, but this is the product of real compromise. Frankly, in that compromise, each side actually reduced its spending. The spending in this bill for defense, while it is a robust $19 billion increase, is $10 billion less than the President asked for in his original budget. That was the compromise on his side. The spending on the Labor-H bill, while certainly an increase, is $11 billion less than my friends introduced in the original House bill. So there are a lot of give-and-takes in this. Frankly, as an appropriator, I would not be unhappy to see major provisions like the repeal of ACA taxes and tax extenders brought under their own legislation here. That would be better. But repealing those tax increases and extending those tax extenders are real victories for the American people and prevent massive tax increases that, frankly, bipartisan majorities have opposed in this House from the very beginning. The flaw in the ACA bill was funding it with things that even my friends on their side did not support and have not supported. They are not for the medical device tax. They are not for taxing people's insurance plans. They are certainly not for the taxes on so-called Cadillac healthcare plans, which are nothing more than good healthcare plans that American people and workers have bargained for. So I consider these, however imperfectly achieved, real victories for the American people, real bipartisan compromises. The most important part of this bill is actually the underlying appropriations process, and there we achieved what we failed to achieve last year, as regular governance working for most of the fiscal year: no government shutdown, thoughtful increases, and, frankly, reductions in places that, on a bipartisan basis, we were able to agree. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the two appropriations measures we are considering today. The two bills will fully fund the government for fiscal year 2020 and represent a truly bipartisan and bicameral compromise. I want to applaud all of the Members for the work they have accomplished on these bills which show what we can do when we set our partisan differences aside and truly focus on governing our great Nation together. We will ensure that the government remains open and operating for our constituents and will ensure that the government resources are going where they are needed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, obviously, to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, but I urge strong and enthusiastic support for the underlying legislation, which I think achieves many victories for the American people and does so to the credit of both parties. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, since my friend is prepared to close, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the first thing is, I want to serve notice that, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up the bipartisan bill H.R. 1869, the Restoring Investment in Improvements Act. With 288 cosponsors, H.R. 1869 would ensure that any improvement to the inside of a commercial building would be treated in the same way that they have historically been treated. That puts capital back in the pockets of job creators, which can be used to expand facilities, create new opportunities, and hire more workers. H.R. 1869 is a bipartisan solution to a real problem facing American businesses. Passage will immediately boost job growth in communities across the country by reviving investment in communities that have been sitting on the sideline. If we defeat the previous question, we can pass this bill and send it on to the Senate today. 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 want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I also want to thank him for his very generous remarks. The fact that he was noted for his civility in New York, that is one of the reasons he was a leader there, and it is one of the reasons he is becoming a leader here. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here at the beginning of what is likely to be a very eventful week. We are considering two items today as part of this rule, both of which are bipartisan, full-year appropriations bills. Today's bipartisan appropriations packages are the culmination of many months of hard work by both parties and in both Chambers. Though this was a long road, I am pleased that the negotiations were ultimately successful. I have often said that funding the government and keeping it open is one of the most fundamental duties as Members of Congress that we have. Together, both packages cover full-year funding for all 12 appropriations bills. This is significant. By advancing full-year appropriations, that means we are not relying on another short-term continuing resolution. While funding with the CR is certainly better than shutting down the government, doing so also abdicates Congress' ability to adjust spending and policies to reflect the country's changing needs and priorities. It is important to remember that, at the end of July of this year, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which set budgetary levels for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. This bipartisan and bicameral compromise was the result of a good faith negotiation between the President and the congressional leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell in the Senate, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the House, and Minority Leader Senator Schumer in the Senate. That compromise achieved many wins for the American people, including a significant and desperately needed increase to support and rebuild our national defense. Though the budget agreement was enacted, the authorized spending could not be realized without full-year appropriations. Fortunately, that is exactly what we have here today. I want to highlight a few key provisions, Mr. Speaker. The bills fulfill the top-line spending numbers Congress agreed to in the budget deal earlier this year. H.R. 1158 provides an increase of $19.5 billion for our armed services over fiscal year 2019, which will allow us to continue rebuilding America's military. The additional funds will enable us to remedy our readiness crisis, allow our servicemembers to secure the valuable training time they need, and give those same brave servicemembers the largest pay raise they have had in a decade. On the domestic side, the appropriations package boosts the funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2.6 billion. This is the fifth straight year of sustained increases for the NIH. The increased funding places the United States as the unquestioned global leader in biomedical research, which will lead to continued efforts to cure diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. The bill also includes a significant increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, America's frontline defense against pandemics, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and other deadly diseases. The bill includes substantial increases for various federally funded education programs like IDEA, title I, Impact Aid, and early childhood education. There is also a significant increase in funding for Head Start. Close to my heart are TRIO and GEAR UP, two programs that help disadvantaged students, low-income students, or first-generation college students to succeed. These programs will receive a $35 million increase over fiscal year 2019, ensuring that still more students are able to achieve academic excellence. We are also increasing spending for career and technical education by an additional $20 million. Perhaps most critically for rural areas, we are providing a robust increase for a medical student education program to ensure we are training more primary healthcare providers who want to work in rural areas. The bill also includes critical tax extender provisions that have either lapsed or are due to be reauthorized at the end of the year. This important end-of-the-year package ensures that these important provisions will be maintained in law, provisions like the Indian lands tax credit and the Indian employment tax credit, which are both of critical importance in my district. Typical tax credits provided to individuals who have been affected by disasters will also be extended under this legislation. I am also pleased that three additional provisions of ObamaCare are permanently repealed in these appropriations bills: the so-called Cadillac tax, the medical device tax, and the health insurance tax. These provisions served two insidious purposes, driving up the cost of healthcare and forcing people to give up good healthcare plans that they enjoyed. I am thankful that my friends in the majority finally recognize this and included these overwhelmingly bipartisan solutions in the legislation before us today. Finally, the bill maintains important pro-life protections that have been in previous appropriations bills. The so-called Hyde and Weldon amendments remain intact. Maintaining these protections are important to securing bipartisan support for these bills. Though there is a lot to like in these bills, Mr. Speaker, there are also some things I would change if it were solely up to me. I don't think any of us here, Republican or Democrat, would view either of these bills to be perfect. But what we have achieved here is a bipartisan compromise. I think all of us in this Chamber can be proud of the work we have accomplished here, especially in times of divided government and in an ever more polarized political environment. Finding compromise across party lines and between Chambers of Congress and the administration is no small feat. That we have done so here today is a testament to the House of Representatives and a reminder that the things that unite us are more powerful than those that divide us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge opposition to the rule. And while I am encouraged that we are considering a continuing resolution to keep the government open and operating until December 20, our work for this fiscal year is not done. It is not going to be done until we pass all 12 appropriations bills into law. While the House is focused on other areas, we have neglected some of our key responsibilities in both Chambers, quite frankly, for funding the government for fiscal year 2020. Our constituents demand that we get our job done. So, Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate my commitment. I know the commitment of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to work diligently to come to an agreement so we can we can bring before this body compromised legislation between a Republican Senate and a Democratic House, legislation that we can all, frankly, send to the President with a great deal of pride. This underlying legislation gives us the time to do that. I thank my friend for cooperating, and I look forward to working with him on that measure, as well as the eventual completion of the appropriations process. So, Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the rule, I support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Chairman McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here on a bill that represents one of the most fundamental roles of the United States Congress, and that is to fund the government, and to keep it open. This continuing resolution ensures critical government funding will remain in place through December 20. While short-term measures are never ideal, this extension of funding is necessary to ensure that the House and the Senate can continue to negotiate and reach agreement on a full-year appropriation for fiscal year 2020. As Members of Congress, we are obligated each year to pass legislation that funds the government and keeps it open so that it can continue to provide services that many of our constituents are counting on. With today's bill, we ensure that the government remains open until December 20, which will give Congress time to reach an agreement funding the entire government for the rest of the fiscal year. This continuing resolution not only maintains government funding, but it also rightly extends authorizations for some key programs that otherwise would expire, programs like community health centers, a special diabetes program, and the special diabetes program for Native Americans. And we are also adding an adjustment to raise pay for our members of the armed services by 3.1 percent. Even though it is good news that we are preventing a government shutdown with this continuing resolution--as my friend knows, I certainly plan to support it when it comes to the floor--today's measure sadly represents a missed opportunity for the House of Representatives. The fact that we are here today on our second continuing resolution of this fiscal year is a reminder that Congress is not getting its work done, at least when it comes to appropriations. Last year, despite the fact that we were in the midst of an election cycle, Congress still managed to get appropriations bills covering 80 percent of full-year spending passed into law by the start of the fiscal year. Today, by contrast, we have passed exactly zero appropriations bills into law, despite being almost 2 months into the fiscal year. This state of affairs is disappointing, and while I recognize that this is certainly not entirely the fault of the House of Representatives, we still have yet to pass all 12 bills out of our own House. The job won't get any closer to completion until we pass all 12 appropriations bills for this fiscal year. The American people deserve no less from us and our full attention on this pressing matter. Again, I share my friend's frustration at this process, but I am actually somewhat optimistic that in the next 30 days we can get that job done and get out of this cycle of continuing resolutions and actually have a fully functional government with 12 appropriations bills. Certainly, I intend to work to achieve that aim. I know my friend and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Appropriations Committee will do that, and I sincerely hope we can be successful. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, but support for the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

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

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

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the resolution to ensure transparency for the American people. My amendment will do three very simple things: First, it will require the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to publicly release the transcripts of all depositions and interviews in a timely manner to allow any necessary redactions to protect classified or sensitive information. My colleagues on the other side have been operating in secret and behind closed doors. They have been violating standing House rules by preventing Members access to documents, let alone sharing anything with the people who elected them to serve. Second, my amendment requires the Intelligence Committee chairman to transfer all records or materials, including exculpatory records or materials, to the Judiciary Committee. The chairman is instructed to, again, make the necessary redactions to protect any classified or sensitive information. In contrast, the Democratic majority's resolution lets the chairman choose what information he will share. Finally, my amendment requires the Intelligence Committee's records and reports, as well as any material received from any other committee involved, be made available at least 72 hours prior to the Judiciary Committee considering any Articles of Impeachment or other recommendations. The resolution before us today does absolutely nothing to guarantee that the American people will see this vital information. The procedures my Democratic colleagues set up for this impeachment inquiry are fundamentally unfair and fundamentally partisan. They reject due process. They reject minority rights, and they reject adequate public disclosure. The American people will not respect a process that is not fair, Madam Speaker. I urge the House to reject this measure, and I urge the House to insist on bipartisan procedures that respect the rights of the minority and the right of due process. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire from my friend if he has additional speakers.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, in that case, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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