'You're Not The Chairman Anymore!': Mike Johnson Loses It With Jerry Nadler

Mr chairman there are 13 eyes and nine nose the table Mr chairman it passes yeah I see to strike the last I strike move to strike the last word the ranking members recognize Mr chairman in this last amendment by Miss Scanlon that was just ruled out of order it uh you ruled it out of order because it references a specific date in my parliamentary universe adding a specific date is considered a limiting Amendment it limits the scope of the underlying Amendment it does not expand it therefore it cannot be a grounds for uh holding it holding a uh an amendment out of order because it limits it it doesn't expand it it's called in parliamentary terms a limiting Amendment which is always permitted so this is just another example of Republicans using obviously specious reasoning because you're afraid to vote and anything to do with January 6th you're afraid to vote on all the things we've talked about before because your constituents might hold you responsible so I would ask you why this is not a limiting Amendment why this EX in what way this expands the scope of the amendment and I'll yield to you for the purpose I'll be I'll be happy to answer we will belabor the point further I've already explained this that by making by presenting this amendment it changes the purpose of the bill and makes it about January 6 on its face by your explanations by all the comments that have been made you want this to be about January 6. you just said it again you emphasize the same point that's not what the underlying legislation in my time reclaiming my time you asked me to respond response okay so on its face the amendment violates house rule 16 Clause 7. now you can disagree with me but you're not the chairman anymore I'm sitting in the chair now reclaiming my time I certainly did do disagree with you and I again I repeat that the motives of the Republicans today are shameful as seeking only to avoid voting on all these different subjects that have been raised today I yield back the gentlemen with the gentleman you the gentleman has yielded back does anyone else seek recognition and then I'll get to you Ms Johnson I have an amendment so I think Mr Johnson wants to speak with respect to this so I'm happy to defer to him John was recognized thank you the blatant hypocrisy on display throughout this hearing is mind-numbing Mr chairman it's very disappointing that the intellectual dishonesty that is on display is it's it's shockingly abusive to the process I mean you can't tell the American people who are looking at this that to ex to include federal law enforcement officers in a resolution honoring the service of local and state law enforcement officers is irrelevant or non-germaine or out of order in some way the American people understand that law enforcement is law enforcement they understand that January 6 Capitol Hill police officers died they understand that federal law enforcement officers over the years have died over actually 650 have died from gunfire over the years 650 have died from gunfire federal law enforcement officers not to mention the seven fallen officers of the U.S Capitol Police Department two of whom have passed away within the last two years due to the insurrection and so we've had Law Enforcement Officers federal law enforcement officers who've given their lives to protect us they were the ultimate displays of Courage but yet this committee doesn't have the courage to vote up or down a germane amendment that simply seeks to add federal law enforcement officers to this resolution it's simple the American people understand it they're not getting thrown off track by uh talking about uh crime and by the way the crime that you speak of is caused by your policies in opening the floodgates for more guns on the street this is a failed experiment more guns does not mean more safe more guns means less safe but yet the response to the Republicans is always more guns we should be instead of a resolution to honor police today just state and local we should actually be using our time to make our police officers and to make the citizens of this country more safe by limiting guns by reversing the trend that you all have started and that you continue to adhere to that makes us less safe it's it's ridiculous that we would honor police officers at a time when we're making them less safe and refusing to do anything about it other than to offer prayers and to talk about how Brave they are when they respond to the next mass casualty event which could be taking place right as we speak and could be confronted by federal law enforcement officers coming to the aid of state and local officers every mass shooting that we have seen has involved a response by the FBI an ATF but yet you want to defund those two agencies so we've been doing a lot of talking today the American people see through it if we're going to honor police let's honor our state local and federal police moreover let's get past these messaging messaging bills and let's start doing what the American people want us to do and that is past some gun reform legislation to keep our communities safe Democrats have been making our communities safer voting on legislation to make our communities safer while Republicans have been stopping the legislation either in the house or in the Senate it's time for it to end it's time for the killing to stop it's time for the philosophy of more guns means more safety to go by the wayside less guns will make us more safe and with that I yield back gentleman yields back the chair is going to respond to the outrageous claim that there's hypocrisy hypocrisy going on here all the clutching of pearls is so far out of order and I'm going to clarify the record here for anyone who's watching at home high school students who are studying Civics and some on this committee who should understand the rules the rule is again let me State very simply what the rule is house rule 16 Clause 7 says that an amendment cannot introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us let me tell you why the last amendment by way of example was ruled out of order I've already explained this again but I'll give you further detail Miss scanlon's Amendment says on page 2 strike all that follows in the underlying bill after the resolving clause and insert the following that Congress acknowledges the United States capital attack on January 6 2021. the underlying bill says something very different it says be it resolved that Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our communities safe and two condemns and condemns calls to defund disband and dismantle or abolish the police the reason everybody watching at home the reason that they're so anxious to change the language of the underlying legislation is because the last sentence that I just read you that last Clause because this resolution condemns calls to defund disband dismantle or abolish the police they're all on record including the ranking member who just clutched his pearls and told me that I was out of order here he is on record saying that he wanted to defund the police I'm not going to yield you guys have talked enough and you've all accused us of abusing the rules this re this amendment just like the ones before it is a blatant violation of house rule 16 Clause 7 it is not germane because it wants to talk about January 6 and it wants to get rid of the condemnation of the call to defund police which was their Mantra here until just recently because now we've seen the results I will yield if you have an amendment no I'm not going to yield to a question no you've talked enough Mr sicilina you don't get to decide that Mr chairman you don't get to decide it's my time and I'm not yielding okay then I asked recognition I'll yield back the gentleman's recognized thank you so I haven't talked enough apparently uh first of all Mr chairman this notion that the claim you just made that because you've concluded the amendment changes the purpose of the bill as a basis for rolling it not Germaine is just wrong there's no such test it's not whether or not you think it changes the purpose of the bill if God knows how we determine what the purpose of the bill is we thought the purpose of the bill was in fact to praise police to praise the local police but now you secretly let out what the real purpose of it is it's to claim that Democrats want to defund the police that's not the purpose of the bill this is a this is for Police Week to praise local law enforcement and support it's my time don't try it The Jig Is up you've been exposed we have ladies and gentlemen on the Democratic side sorry we've been laboring under the assumption that this was about praising local law enforcement because that's not what it's about so I'm going to give you one more chance Mr chairman yet again to redeem yourself and these rulings and offer an amendment oh the gentleman hasn't oh no I'm happy to yield to him just briefly I mean the the Chairman's comments that we were you know scared of that language I mean the amendment I offered maintained all of that language in fact you guys blocked or voted down I think four amendments that maintain the same language so that's clearly wrong but your Amendment did other things that would be on the scope as well no and look I imagine answered it's I'm not raising that again that's clearly not correct but you know I just wanted to point out that the statement you made about we're scared of the no it was in the language that you blocked us from offering to vote on thank you Mr Ivory excellent point okay I I reclaim my time I now have an amendment Mr chairman which is at the desk procedurally though yield back and then I'll I'll recognize you for the amendment purpose okay I yield back all right and the gentleman has an amendment at the desk the clerk report amendment to H con res 40 offered by Mr sicilini of Rhode Island without objection the amendment be considered as read in a zero point order the point of order is reserved by Mr Bach and the gentleman's recognized to explain his Amendment thank you Mr chairman I think this should finally withstand this effort to have all Democratic amendments declared not germane because you've already accepted the language uh in the Su um swallwell Amendment this simply uh adds language that says whereas gunvans continues to be the leading cause of line of duty deaths uh 64 on law enforcement officers were shot and killed while severing their communities uh guns violence continues to pose a serious threat to law enforcement children families in our communities and where whereas the law enforcement deaths by Gunman's reflect a 21 increase of historical average of firearms related deaths between 2010 and 2020 and just to avoid any concern we omit reference to state police agencies and just refer to local police agencies and in the final paragraph again say local police officers I think we finally fit through the eye of the needle it's all about local law enforcement language you've already accepted with respect to the swallow Amendment so I look forward to not only a ruling that it's Jermaine but also your support and I yield back the underlying resolution the underlying bill is to praise police and to condemn the effort to defund the police the it is not about January 6th it is uh it is not about uh strategies to address gun violence it is about praising the police plain and simple I will read if I can find it underneath all these amendments you want the underlying yeah thank you I will read the resolved two paragraphs again Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our communities safe and condemns calls to defund disband dismantle or abolish the police that is the purpose of this and the offered amendment is not germane does the sponsor of the amendment uh wish to be heard on the point of order yes I I don't know how this one to watch Mr chairman because you've already ruled that the amendment offered by Congressman swalwell was Jermaine and that this amendment that I offered today again speaks about protecting police officers uh and I will just read it whereas police officers face increasing dangerous guns proliferate across our nation whereas the police organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police the International Association of chiefs of police and major City Chiefs have supported legislation to curb gun bonds by expanding background checks and enacting extreme risk protections while opposing bills that would require states to recognize all concealed carry prints from other states whereas despite the objections and safety concerns expressed by local police agencies organizations and officers right-wing state legislators have eliminated permit and training requirements to carry handguns in public and whereas high-powered Farms with armor-piercing bullets pose a continued risk to police officers you have already ruled that language that really just strengthens the underlying purpose of the resolution is in order so I don't know how you can now determine other than you like Eric swallow and you don't like me which uh I'll which I hope is not the case but I'll yield to Mr Nadler certainly not thank you I do I agree with everything that uh Mr sicilinia said I just want to tell you the hypocrisy here uh we've been in contact with a former uh parliamentarian to the house has been watching these proceedings on TV and he says every single amendment was in order because striking a clause in the Preamble is per se Jermaine neither Edge nor subtract and police by definition means all police and that includes the January 6th police it includes anything else so I just want to tell you that's just another confirmation of your hypocrisy are you back to Mr and I I yield uh as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from uh North Carolina thank you Mr sicilini just want to remind the committee that last time we took up bills during for National Police um appreciation week we took up the actual bills that the police asked us to take up um and we did pass them through the house and this amendment involves the actual bills that the police would like us to take up um including all of my local law enforcement and I just want to thank Mr sicilini for the second year in a row for listening to local law enforcement and bringing before this committee the things that local police actually care about and I yield back to Mr Sicily thank you and I would just say Mr chairman to conclude that this amendment is not your main you would have to conclude that recognizing the dangers that local law enforcement faced from gun violence is wholly unrelated to any resolution which recognizes their heroism and thanks them for their service to our communities that just is impossible to reconcile unless you are make a complete mockery of the dangers that the men and women who serve in local law enforcement face every day the two are completely connected and so this one I want to watch as you roll does that mean the gentleman yields back and I would just say finally that you specifically talk about putting local law enforcement in particular danger in the very language of the underlying resolution so how is it possible when my Amendment simply amplifies another danger that law enforcement faces every single day that somehow it is wholly unrelated so as to be a different subject matter not properly considered during this markup and I yield back gentleman yields back does anyone else seek recognition on the point of order cheers prepare to rule Mrs Sicilian you pay attention you want to hear this you want to see it um the amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental purpose test before you ball wait let me explain explain because you you cut out the second resolution Clause the important sentence about defunding police that the sponsor of legislation just said was was Central to his this is not a warehouse Clause it's the resolution you're changing the scope of the legislation by striking that out Mr chairman you can always limit the scope of a bill by an amendment you can always limit it this that's not that doesn't go to its it changes the purpose of the gentleman's business there's no such thing that says you can't change the purpose of the thing and should be voted on you don't get to decide what the purpose of the underlying resolution is Mr chairman so it's when do we have argument while the chair is making a ruling I'm in a chair started being so absurd I mean oh wait a minute hold on wait a minute Mr ranking member I sat under lots of absurd decisions from you all right let me read you section seven under house rule 16 is Clause 7 fundamental purpose another chest used by the chair in determining germainus is one in which the fundamental purpose of the bill is compared with the fundamental purpose of the amendment see manual section 933 if the purpose or objective of an amendment is unrelated to that of the bill and which is offered the amendment may be let me finish uh that's eight Canon section 2911. the test is particularly applicable to an amendment in the Nature's substitute okay if the purpose well it gives lots of examples all right let me let me say this the parliamentarian who's watching by on television who is I'm sure a Democrat parliamentarian or would not have had Mr nadler's cell number let me tell you that this does in the view of this chair and this parliamentarian expand or change the purpose of the bill before us and so our interpretation of house rule 16 Clause 7 is that it is not germane now the other side is going to disagree but that's the beauty of our system we the majority party is in the chair makes decisions it's appealable it's subject to table we've gone through that process here this is this this is the way this works and always has and there are thousands of of uh of examples of this and precedent that has been set in a Judiciary Committee and its storied history so Mr chairman for no you're no I'm not you're not recognized so for all of the um of the drama here um that is the ruling of the chair and I yield back I appeal the ruling of the chair the appeal the ruling is appealed this gentleman seeks table motion to table the appeal is made and the uh clerk will call the role Mr Jordan Mr Jordan Mr Jordan votes yes Mr Isa Mr Buck Mr Buck votes yes Mr Gates Mr Johnson of Louisiana yes Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes yes Mr Biggs Mr Biggs votes yes Mr McClintock Mr Tiffany aye Mr Tiffany votes aye Mr Massey Mr Roy Mr Bishop Miss spartz Mr Fitzgerald Mr bence Mr Klein Mr Klein votes aye Mr Gooden Mr van Drew Mr van Drew votes yes Mr Nels Mr Nels votes yes Mr Moore Mr Moore votes yes Mr Kiley Miss Hagerman Miss Hagerman votes yes Mr Moran Miss Lee Mr Hunt Mr Hunt votes yes Mr Frye Mr Fry votes yes Mr Nadler no Mr Nadler votes no Miss Lofgren Miss Jackson Lee Mr Cohen Mr Johnson of Georgia Mr Johnson of Georgia votes no Mr Schiff Mr Schiff votes no Mr sicilini Mr sicilini votes no Mr swalwell Mr swallow votes no Mr Lou Miss jayapal Mr Correa Miss Scanlon Mr nagoos Miss Macbeth no Miss mcbath votes no Miss Dean Miss Escobar Miss Escobar votes no Miss Ross Miss Ross votes no Miss bush Mr Ivy no Mr Ivy votes no remember gentleman from California yes Mr Gooden Mr good I'm good on votes yes okay I think uh I think any member Mr Biggs gentleman from Arizona you voted okay I think the clerk can report Mr chairman there are 14 eyes and nine nose uh the motion to table it prevails um reporting gentleman from California is recognized Mr chairman of an amendment at the desk clerk will report amendment to H Conrad

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 2,983,830

Keywords:

Id: UwUi9XKMQNI

Length: 25min 0sec (1500 seconds)

Published: Sun May 14 2023