Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for a speaker to come. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.

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

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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my good friend, the distinguished Conference chair for the Republican Party.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my good friend and ranking Republican member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), my good friend, the distinguished Republican ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, before I proceed, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend, Mr. McGovern. We are debating process here because that is what this is. This is a process resolution to impeach the President of the United States. You didn't accept a single amendment last night. You didn't confer with us when you did it, so that is why we are talking process. It is an unfair process. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), my good friend and distinguished Republican ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking my friend for his kind words and for the professionalism with which he handled last night's hearing. But before I begin, Madam Speaker, I would ask the chairman if he would withdraw his resolution, at which time I will ask unanimous consent that the House immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 668 instead, which provides for consideration of H. Res. 660, under a rule. Madam Speaker, this would in no way prevent consideration of the resolution before us today; however, it would provide us with an opportunity for all Members to participate in the process. My proposed rule would provide for 4 hours of general debate on H. Res. 660, allow for amendments under an open process, and provide for a motion to recommit. On an issue as important as this, Madam Speaker, 1 hour of debate on a resolution written in the dark of night and marked up in a process where no Republican amendments were accepted is simply insufficient. Additionally, it would allow all Members to offer amendments to improve the process to get to the truth, which I am sure is the goal of all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Madam Speaker, with that, I would ask the chairman to accept my request. I yield to my friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on H. Res. 660 be expanded to 4 hours so every Member could participate.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by echoing my friend's words. It is a sad day for all of us, for me personally, I am sure for all of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, and for the institution as a whole. Today's resolution sets forth a process for impeaching the President of the United States. It is not a fair process; it is not an open process; it is not a transparent process; but, instead, it is a limited and a closed process with a preordained outcome. Impeachment of the President is one of the most consequential acts that the House of Representatives can do, and it should only be done after the fullest consideration. Yet, over the last month, without a vote and with only the Speaker's say-so, committees have been engaged in a closed impeachment inquiry on what amounts to nothing more than a partisan fishing expedition. At least today the majority is admitting what we have known all along: that the House was not following an appropriate process for impeachment. But I do not think the process we are setting forward in this resolution is a fair one either. It is not fair to the President of the United States; it is not fair to the House of Representatives; and it is not fair to the American people. The process laid out in the resolution before us is different from the process used for both President Nixon in 1974 and President Clinton in 1998. Today's resolution provides fewer process protections and fewer protections for minority rights than what we have seen in previous impeachment efforts. At our markup yesterday, Republicans tried to change that. We tried to offer constructive amendments that made the process more fair, that would give rights to the minority, that would give rights to the accused, and that would ensure due process for everyone. Republicans offered 17 amendments, and not one--not one, Madam Speaker--was accepted. Not one. We offered amendments that would align the subpoena powers in this resolution with the subpoena powers used for President Clinton. Unlike the Clinton inquiry, today's resolution does not provide for coequal subpoena power. Instead, it grants the minority the right to subpoena witnesses and materials only with the concurrence of the chair, with no such limitation on the rights of the chair to issue subpoenas. We offered amendments that would change that, but the majority rejected each of them in turn. We offered an amendment that would allow all Members the right to fully access committee records. This is common sense. If you are doing something as serious as impeaching the President, then Members should have the right to see what records the committee produced so that they will know what they are voting on. Yet the majority rejected that. We offered an amendment that would require the chairman of the Rules Committee to promulgate procedures to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel in proceedings of the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight and Reform Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee. This right was granted to President Clinton in 1998, yet it is not present here. And the majority, again, rejected the amendment. I think the difference is clear: Today's resolution fails to give the minority the same rights as were present during the Clinton impeachment, and it fails to offer the same due process protections that were given to Presidents Nixon and Clinton. And, in the latter case, I note those rights were given by a Republican House to a Democratic President. Today's resolution shows a Democratic House failing to give these same protections to a Republican President. Madam Speaker, the unfairness is clear. This is not a fair process, nor was it ever intended to be. It was preordained from the beginning. Without due process and without a fair process that respects minority rights, I do not believe the American people will regard that process as legitimate. A legitimate process is one that offers protections for everyone involved. Without those protections, this will be seen as just another partisan exercise, one the majority has been pushing since the very first days of the 116th Congress. We can do better than that, Madam Speaker. The Rules Committee should have done better than this. But since the Rules Committee didn't, the House must. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the distinguished ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds to close.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the distinguished ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow Oklahoman and Native American, Gary Batton, for receiving the Global Citizen Award from the Happy World Foundation. After receiving a bachelor's degree from Southeastern Oklahoma State University in 1989, he accepted the position of Deputy Director of the Choctaw Nation Housing Authority. He then went on to serve his tribe as Executive Director of health and later appointed Assistant Chief in 2007. On April 28, 2014, Gary Batton became the 47th Chief of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Through his career, Chief Batton has represented the Choctaw Nation and the State of Oklahoma through numerous national boards and committees. Currently, he serves on the Oklahoma Hall of Fame Board, the State Chamber of Oklahoma Board, the Texoma Medical Center Board of Directors, among other roles. As a proud Oklahoman and member of the Chickasaw Nation, I have always been passionate about advocating on behalf of Native Americans here in Washington, D.C. Therefore, I am very grateful that there are Oklahomans like Gary Batton who have committed themselves to promoting Native American heritage. He has rightfully earned recognition for his role as an ambassador for Native Americans, and I hope that he continues his great work in the years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Dennis Gary Batton and his lifelong work to promote and preserve Native American culture.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the distinguished ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to begin by thanking my very good friend from Florida for what we always get, which is always a thoughtful debate, always professional, always civil. And even when we disagree, I always enjoy the exchange, so I thank my friend for that. I will disagree vehemently, though, that the process in terms of impeachment that we are going through right now is remotely transparent. The American people can't get in there. And, frankly, I can tell you, Members, under the rules of the Intelligence Committee, all of us, as long as it is not classified, are supposed to be able to get transcripts. We haven't been able to get those things. So we will watch as this unfolds. But my friends would have been far better to do what has been done in previous impeachments; that is, to hold a formal vote, to set up a process. I do remind my friend, when we went through this during the Clinton years, the President, President Clinton, had the right to have counsel there, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses. Our friends who were then in the minority had the right to subpoena witnesses. None of that exists now. There is no process. It is very one-sided, very opaque, very obscure, and extremely partisan. But back to the legislation at hand. The tragedy here is that we could work together on a variety of things that we both agree would make good law. My good friend, the ranking--excuse me--the chairwoman on the House Administration Committee, Ms. Lofgren, mentioned that last night. There are actually elements in this bill which, I agree with my friend, are things we could work on together. There are other things that, whether we are right or wrong, my friend knows we will disagree with and we will not accept and, frankly, the United States Senate will not accept and the President will not accept. So it is a classic legislative dilemma: What do you want to do? Do you want to make a point or do you want to make law? If you want to make law, you get to the things that you agree on and that can pass the other Chamber and be signed by the President. So far in this area of election security, I think my friends have been more interested in making a point than actually in making law. So I urge opposition to the rule on H.R. 4617 because it is deeply flawed and a partisan bill that will not solve the underlying problems. It will not prevent foreign interference in our elections. It will only make it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy. It applies inappropriate regulatory schemes to online advertisement. It applies overly inclusive definitions that could make almost any advertisement a political advertisement and expands the power of the Attorney General at the expense of the States. My friends seemed, over and over, to want to federalize State elections. We don't want to do that. That is a big mistake. One of the best securities we have is that we have multiple jurisdictions, and the people close to the people make the laws under which our elections occur. We can work together in a bipartisan manner and find real solutions to real problems, and I hope and I believe some day we will, Madam Speaker. But in the interim, I urge the House to reject both this rule and this bill so that we can actually advance, together, on something that can pass and become law. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.