[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7921-H7928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE WITH RESPECT TO WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT 
          MADE TO INSPECTOR GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 577, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 576) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives with respect to the whistleblower complaint of August 
12, 2019, made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the 
amendments to the text and preamble specified in section 11 of that 
resolution are adopted and the resolution, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 576

       Resolved, That--
       (1) the whistleblower complaint received on August 12, 
     2019, by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community 
     shall be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
     of Representatives should be allowed to evaluate the 
     complaint in a deliberate and bipartisan manner consistent 
     with applicable statutes and processes in order to safeguard 
     classified and sensitive information.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution, as amended, shall be 
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Nunes) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amended resolution, which 
demands provision to the congressional intelligence committees of a 
whistleblower complaint, which the Acting Director of National 
Intelligence has withheld. The law, however, required the Acting DNI to 
submit it to the committees.
  This is a serious matter, Madam Speaker, for IC whistleblowing, 
congressional oversight, and the rule of law.
  Before turning to it, let me express my deep gratitude for the 
actions of a courageous and anonymous individual in the intelligence 
community. That person wanted to report urgent, credible allegations of 
serious wrongdoing and did the right thing by acting in strict 
accordance with proper whistleblower procedures. These permit 
classified disclosures to be made to the intelligence committees while 
protecting national security.
  Using that mechanism, in August, the whistleblower made a complaint 
to the inspector general of the intelligence community. According to 
the Justice Department's legal opinion regarding the complaint, which 
it today released to the public, the whistleblower's allegations 
concerned the content of a telephone call between President Trump and a 
foreign leader.
  The inspector general determined the complaint to be urgent, meaning 
that the matter met important statutory criteria, and that its 
allegations appeared to be credible.
  The inspector general, months later, would write that the complaint's 
allegations not only fell ``within the DNI's jurisdiction,'' but that 
they ``relate to one of the most important and significant 
responsibilities to the American people.'' That is protecting the 
United States from foreign interference in our elections.
  In strict accordance with the statutory rules, the inspector general 
passed the complaint and his determination to the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence. The Acting Director was obligated to forward 
this material to the congressional intelligence committees within 7 
days of receipt, but, in contravention of the law, he refused to do 
that.
  There can be no misreading of the provision imposing that obligation. 
It says that the DNI ``shall'' forward the materials to the House 
intelligence committee and also to our colleagues at the Senate 
intelligence committee.

                              {time}  1445

  ``Shall,'' of course, means ``shall.'' It does not mean ``can if you 
want to.''
  Despite this unambiguous, categorical directive, the Trump 
administration interfered with the time-tested process for IC 
whistleblowing. It would need to resist that process forcefully 
because, as public reports have suggested, the complaint potentially 
concerned the same craven abuse of power by President Trump which the 
public learned about this morning.
  I won't recite all the details of this sordid episode. But suffice it 
to say that documents released today plainly show the President of the 
United States shaking down his Ukrainian counterpart for a ``favor''--
an investigation by Ukraine's authorities, with close coordination by 
Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Bill Barr, into the son of former 
Vice President Joe Biden, the former Vice President himself being a 
candidate for the U.S. presidency.
  So the administration got the Justice Department's Office of Legal 
Counsel involved, it got the White House Counsel involved, and, without 
invoking national security or making a claim of executive privilege, it 
managed to get a staggeringly flawed legal opinion from the Department 
of Justice.
  The opinion's reasoning is specious on its face. According to the 
Department of Justice, the whistleblower statute did not apply to the 
complaint, and the complaint therefore did not have to be forwarded to 
the committees because the complaint's allegations do not relate to an 
urgent concern, meaning the funding, administration, or operation of an 
intelligence activity under the DNI's authority and responsibility.
  In this regard, the DOJ observed that the alleged conduct was 
committed by the President, who is outside of and above the IC. I will 
point out that that is irrelevant under the statute. All that is 
required is that the allegation ``relate to'' an intelligence activity 
within the DNI's purview.
  The DOJ also faulted the IC IG, the inspector general, for not citing 
a statute or policy that gave the DNI operational responsibility to 
prevent foreign interference in our elections.
  Think about that for a second. Have in mind what our country went 
through in 2016 when Russia undertook covert as well as overt measures 
to warp the U.S. Presidential election and to sow discord which the 
Trump campaign welcomed with open arms.
  With that recent history in mind, to say nothing of the rules on the 
books, we can easily dispose of the claim that the intelligence 
community, as captained by the acting DNI, has no operational role in 
keeping adversary governments from meddling in our democratic 
processes. That assertion is ignorant. It is wrong. And it bespeaks a 
serious misunderstanding about the DNI's authorities and the activities 
of the United States intelligence community.
  The DOJ's cramped view would come as news to President Trump, I 
suspect, given the executive order he issued in September of 2018 
regarding foreign interference in our elections, which requires the 
DNI, after every Federal election in this country, to assess whether 
such interference has taken place and to report his assessment to the 
rest of the executive branch. That sounds a lot like a serious role for 
the DNI to me.
  I imagine the Department of Justice's view would also come as a shock 
to the acting DNI himself. After all, by statute the DNI is the head of 
the U.S. intelligence community and the principal intelligence adviser 
to the President and the National Security Council, among other things. 
As the inspector general correctly noted, one mission of the 
intelligence community, among its core missions, is to protect the 
United States against hostile intelligence activities directed against 
it. That would include any hostile foreign intelligence activities 
associated with efforts by foreign adversaries to interfere in our 
elections.
  So I am stunned that the acting DNI would accept legal advice like 
this,

[[Page H7922]]

which strains to minimize or ignore the functions and responsibilities 
that the DNI carries out--or at least I hope--routinely.
  I am also stunned that the ODNI would acquiesce in advice that, if 
permitted to stand, would do such extraordinary damage. By conferring 
on the DNI the discretion to opt out of what is plainly mandatory, the 
Department of Justice neutered a statute governing intelligence 
community whistleblowing; overturned years of consistent practice; and, 
most damaging of all, called into doubt important protections from 
reprisal on which this whistleblower relied and other lawful 
whistleblowers in the IC have relied.
  I can only imagine the chilling effect that the Department of 
Justice's approach will have on lawful IC whistleblowing and thus on 
the intelligence committees' ability to conduct oversight of 
intelligence activities.
  Madam Speaker, let me end with a note about the state of play, which 
is fluid, to say the least. I understand that the executive branch may 
make some of the whistleblower's materials available to the committee 
this afternoon, but the details remain sketchy, and the committee may 
not yet receive, in complete and unredacted form, all the information 
that the acting DNI is obligated to furnish by law, and that we have 
sought by subpoena. The committee will settle for nothing less.
  However, the situation is resolved, Madam Speaker, the House has no 
choice but to denounce the extraordinary lengths to which the White 
House and Justice Department have gone to cover up and obstruct.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support the resolution, as amended. I urge 
my colleagues to join me, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 576, as amended.
  This resolution, which mirrors a resolution passed by the Senate 
yesterday, expresses the sense of the House that the whistleblower 
complaint received by the intelligence community inspector general 
should be immediately transmitted to the congressional intelligence 
committees.

  Madam Speaker, this complaint has given rise to fevered speculation 
and frenzied media reporting, much of which is based on a transcript of 
the President's phone call released today. It appears to be 
exaggerated, misleading, or outright false. It is also serving as a 
linchpin of a longstanding attempt by the Democrats to impeach 
President Trump and finally achieve their goal of overturning the 
results of the 2016 election. The media coverage and the Democrats' 
hysterical and politicized response to it is reminiscent of countless 
episodes during the course of the Russia collusion hoax. Thus, 
Republicans look forward to actually reading the material on which the 
Democrats, from a position of ignorance, are basing their unrestrained 
accusations.
  I should make the House aware that it is roughly 3 o'clock in the 
afternoon here in Washington, D.C., and at 4 o'clock this afternoon, in 
fact, the DNI is going to transmit the complaint to the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence spaces where all the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence members will have an opportunity to read it.
  So, therefore, we have to ask ourselves: Why are we voting on a 
resolution that is asking for the very documents that are being sent 
over?
  They are probably on their way right now, if they are not already 
here.
  So, with that, I guess it gives an opportunity for the Democrats to 
come down and bash the President, which I know they enjoy doing, but in 
the meantime, we have no problem with this H. Res. 576, as amended. We 
appreciate the majority's accepting our amendment so that it mirrors 
exactly what the Senate passed last night.
  Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Madam Speaker, this is a sobering moment in 
our Nation's history, when the rule of law and constitutional duty 
requires Congress to move swiftly to protect our national security and 
the integrity of our democracy.
  In my time on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I 
have been amazed and grateful for the work our intelligence community 
performs every day. We hold these men and women accountable to the rule 
of law and expect them to adhere to the principles of our Constitution.
  In return, those great Americans expect their elected leaders to be 
held accountable to the same standard--above all, their Commander in 
Chief. President Trump's refusal to adhere to the whistleblower statute 
and his unwarranted attacks against one of these professionals flies in 
the face of that compact.
  The statute is clear, Madam Speaker. The Director of National 
Intelligence shall provide the intelligence committee with all 
whistleblower complaints, especially those that the inspector general 
finds credible and of urgent concern.
  It should not take this resolution or the threat of impeachment to 
convince the President to uphold the law he swore to obey.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 576, honor our 
oaths, and do the right thing.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), and I ask unanimous consent that he 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate this, and I am glad we are having the 
opportunity to bring this resolution to the floor.
  At this time I am pleased that we are going to be able to get to the 
documents that are being requested in this resolution. I am pleased 
that if there is going to be a resolution that it is the one that the 
Senate put forward in a bipartisan fashion. This is what we asked for 
in the Rules Committee last night, and I am glad that it has come 
forward today.
  The question in hand--and we have heard lots of comments, some of it 
rehashing old history, some of it rehashing history that was disproven 
by the Mueller Report--but at the same time we are questioning what the 
DNI's authority is in this situation, according to statute. I think it 
should be discussed.
  In this situation where the DNI determined that this should not be 
sent to Congress, but also did not, in review of the complaint--because 
the complaint was given to DOJ for appropriate review, DOJ officials 
reviewed the complaint in light of legal issues identified by the IC IG 
in his cover letter and determined that no further action was 
warranted.
  Tomorrow we are going to hear from the DNI in the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, which I think is appropriate.
  As I pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, I don't think 
that the other side would be happy if we only heard from the DNI and 
not the IG. So it is appropriate that we do that.
  He talked about the timely fashion of it. I think it is appropriate 
that you go through the Department of Justice and make sure you are 
doing everything right, and we need to hear from the DNI tomorrow.
  We also have received the transcripts of the conversation between the 
President of Ukraine and the President of the United States. The 
President made supposedly, and is being accused of making, a mysterious 
promise to Zelensky in return for Ukraine reviving an investigation 
against Joe Biden and his son. In fact, there was no such promise. The 
President wanted allegations of corruption potentially involving an 
American official to be investigated.

[[Page H7923]]

  What I see in this transcript is the President of one country 
speaking to a President of another country about trying to eliminate 
corruption within their government.
  The other comment that had been made is the President offered a quid 
pro quo related to military aid for Ukraine. There is no quid pro quo 
in that conversation. There is no mention of an aid package to Ukraine 
at all. It is not in there at all. So while one might want to keep 
saying that, it is not in there.
  Another myth, the President urged President Zelensky to work with 
Rudy Giuliani to investigate Biden's involvement in securing the firing 
of a Ukrainian prosecutor eight times.
  Fact: The President mentioned Rudy Giuliani in that conversation only 
after Zelensky mentioned him first and referred to Biden in only one 
exchange.
  I, myself, have some confusion on what the rules are within the 
intelligence community and involving the executive branch. A couple of 
years ago in an open hearing, when we were discussing with John 
Brennan--this was in an open hearing--the former CIA director, 
obviously an expert in intelligence, when I asked him about the 
conversation between President Obama and President Medvedev where it 
was caught on tape where he said:

       I'll have more flexibility after my election.

  Medvedev said:

       I stand with you, and I will let President Putin know.

  I asked him if that was a red flag. His answer was:

       I am not going to comment on a private conversation between 
     two heads of state.

                              {time}  1500

  Since that time, I have wondered what the rules are within the 
intelligence community. Are conversations between two heads of state 
completely off-limits within the IC? I don't know. I have asked that 
question time and time again. I have asked some high-ranking officials 
who should know the answer to that, and I have gotten no answer.
  What I have heard in the testimony here today, I heard someone say, 
``favor,'' ``favor,'' in response to the potential of this President 
asking for a favor. I did not see that, and I don't know who made the 
quote. I would like some clarification on that.
  Where we stand right now is kind of a recurring playbook. It is 
always moving the goalpost, right?
  We want to see these documents.
  Okay. The President has given you the documents.
  Okay. We are going to see what the whistleblower had to say.
  And now, what do we hear? Well, I am concerned that there may be more 
out there that we are not getting.
  It is always moving the goalpost.
  Listen, I speak in favor of this resolution. We should get to it, 
move on with the business of the country.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 576.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today because, over a month ago, a 
courageous employee or detailee or contractor within the intelligence 
community brought to the inspector general a complaint that the 
inspector general reviewed. He had 14 days to review that complaint.
  The inspector general found that complaint credible, found that 
complaint urgent, and found that that complaint should be provided to 
Congress, as the whistleblower intended.
  That complaint then went to the Director of National Intelligence, 
who had 1 week to review it. Then the statute says that complaint shall 
be provided to the committee--not ``may,'' not ``might,'' not ``if the 
DOJ doesn't write an opinion,'' not ``if the White House doesn't like 
it.'' It says ``shall'' transmit to the committee.
  The reason Congress wrote the statute that way is that, particularly 
in the intelligence community, we are reliant on whistleblowers. 
Through the vast majority of our hearings, there are no witnesses. They 
are not conducted in open session. There are not outside stakeholders 
who can tell us that what this agency represented or that agency said 
is not correct.
  We are reliant on the intelligence community to self-report, and most 
of the time they do. When they don't, we are completely reliant on 
whistleblowers. If the whistleblower process doesn't work, if the 
subject of a complaint by a whistleblower can be held up by the subject 
of that complaint--that is, if the whistleblower says that the 
impropriety that they have evidence of was committed by X person, and X 
person is given the discretion to decide whether Congress ever sees 
that report--that system is broken. That is certainly not how Congress 
intended it.
  Presuming that this complaint involves the conversation that we are 
now witness to because some readout of that conversation was made 
public, that whistleblower may have been trying to communicate to 
Congress that the President of the United States was pressuring a 
foreign President to manufacture dirt on his political opponent for 
help in his Presidential campaign and doing so at a time when the 
President of the United States was withholding military support that we 
approved on a bipartisan basis.
  Now we see that readout says that, after the Ukraine President 
expressed the need for further arms to the United States, our President 
said: We are doing a lot for Ukraine. We are doing more for Ukraine 
than other countries. But you know something? There is not much 
reciprocity here. I have a favor I would like to ask. I want you to 
investigate my opponent, and I am going to have my Attorney General and 
my personal lawyer follow up with you.
  This was the constant theme of the President's request to the 
President of Ukraine. It wasn't, what are the national security needs 
of Ukraine? It wasn't, what are the economic needs of Ukraine? It 
wasn't, what are the separatists doing in Ukraine?
  It was: This is what I want from you. I have done so much for 
Ukraine. We have done so much for Ukraine. This is what we want of you.
  The idea that a complaint with these allegations, if indeed this 
complaint is about this call, would be withheld from Congress and would 
be withheld on the basis of an opinion written by the Attorney General, 
someone who was mentioned in that very conversation, screams of 
conflict of interest, if not far worse.
  When we brought this resolution up a month after this complaint was 
filed, and we brought it up in the Rules Committee last night, the 
argument was that this is premature. The argument here today is that 
this is postmature. I guess this is never mature. It is never mature 
for the Congress to insist that the Director follow the law.
  Apparently, we need second opinions on whether ``shall'' really means 
``shall.'' That is why we are here.
  If we don't validate the whistleblower process, if we leave the 
whistleblower unprotected, even as the President suggests that the 
whistleblower has somehow betrayed his or her country, that system is 
broken, meaning corruption will not be exposed. The corruption here 
involves the suborning of our national security to our President's 
political needs. That is what is at stake here.

  Madam Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the renowned minority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Wenstrup) for yielding.
  As we are talking about this resolution, and as my colleagues from 
Ohio and from California earlier talked about, as we speak, the White 
House is actually transmitting the documents that are mentioned in the 
resolution.
  The White House has been going overboard, doing more than has been 
done before, to make sure that Congress has all the information it 
needs about this issue.
  I think what really is at question is where this all leads to, and I 
think we know where it all leads to. This all started with an intention 
by many in the majority. When they took the majority, it was that they 
were going to

[[Page H7924]]

try to work to impeach the President. Many of them talked about it. 
They didn't even have the gavels in their hands yet, and they were 
talking about impeaching the President.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said he wants to bring 
Articles of Impeachment to the House floor by the end of this year. 
Keep in mind, there is not a single Article of Impeachment that they 
have listed because there have been no crimes.
  They thought the Mueller report was going to give them the crimes. It 
turned out it showed there was no collusion. Instead of wrapping it up, 
they move on to look for something else.
  It is not the job of a prosecutor, by the way, to hope to go indict 
somebody and then look around to see if they find evidence. They are 
supposed to follow facts. If the facts lead them there, that is where 
they go. That is not happening here.
  When you saw the Speaker of the House yesterday saying that the 
President committed crimes, please name one crime that has been listed.
  We have seen the report now, the transcript of a conversation between 
President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine. There are a lot of 
niceties here, the President congratulating him on winning an election. 
There is not a single quid pro quo, which we were told there would be. 
There is not an exertion of pressure, which we were told there would 
be.
  Now, they bring up Joe Biden. Joe Biden, himself, has said that he 
exerted pressure on the Ukrainians, bragged about the fact that he 
withheld $1 billion in aid from the Ukrainians.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  Again, when we talk about something as serious as impeachment, and 
obviously, that is where they have said they would go, the Speaker said 
she wants to get the committee working toward an impeachment inquiry.
  Why? Why, Madam Speaker, haven't they brought a vote here on this 
House floor to start an impeachment inquiry? They are scared to death 
of having a vote on this House floor on impeachment. Yet, they keep 
moving down that train track.
  It is a reckless track, when they say that they are going to bring 
impeachment. Even the people who have read this, not one of them has 
pointed out a high crime or misdemeanor that is in here.
  The quid pro quo that they promised doesn't exist. These are the same 
people who promised that there was collusion, with the Mueller report, 
and there was no collusion.
  Instead of moving on, they keep going down the impeachment path. 
People are sick and tired of the constant harassment of the President.
  Go read the transcript, and you will see, again, a President 
congratulating another President who was elected on a platform to root 
out corruption, and he is working to root out corruption. We ought to 
cheer that.
  Instead of doing this, we ought to be focused on things like USMCA, 
lowering drug prices, solving real problems. Let's move on.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, with respect to my colleague, the only 
corruption the President seems to be concerned about is corruption that 
he is not involved with, and that seems to be an increasingly narrow 
category.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
resolution demanding that the administration release the whistleblower 
complaint to Congress.
  Every American ought to be extremely concerned by circumstances 
surrounding this urgent complaint and outraged that this President and 
members of his administration are hiding it.
  Congress has a constitutional duty, Madam Speaker, to obtain this 
information by the deadline required by law. The administration is 
blocking our ability to gather the information necessary to respond to 
the public's needs. In this case, these needs are inseparable from our 
security, our safety, and the well-being of our Nation.
  Congress is entitled to the full complaint, not only for the sake of 
national security, Madam Speaker, but to ensure that our ability to 
hold public servants accountable remains.
  This isn't about partisan politics. This is about protecting our 
democracy and its people.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Spano).
  Mr. SPANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
at what the House is devoting its time to this afternoon. It is 
certainly not the issues that my constituents elected me to come to 
Washington to advocate for on their behalf.

  We are not on the floor today talking about how we can improve care 
and services for veterans. We are not talking about how to fix the 
crumbling infrastructure, how to fix the broken immigration system. We 
are not talking about how to modernize and personally tailor 
healthcare. We are not on the floor talking about how we can continue 
to implement policies to further strengthen our booming economy.
  Instead, we again find ourselves on the House floor talking about 
President Trump and his administration.
  Sound familiar? This morning, in the interest of full transparency, 
the Trump administration released the complete memorandum outlining the 
telephone conversation between the President and the Ukrainian 
President, just as the President promised he would do yesterday. But 
before reading the transcript, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle prejudged the memo and called for impeachment.
  Did the Speaker wait to see and review this information? No. Instead, 
she went before the American people to announce that the House would 
begin the formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
  Well, I read the transcript, and I don't see the bombshell that the 
Democrats promised. There is no quid pro quo, no this for that. Nowhere 
does the President say that he will withhold military aid unless the 
Ukrainian investigation continues. It is simply not there.
  Rushing to judgment and overpromising, if it sounds familiar, that is 
because it is. We waited nearly 2 years for Special Counsel Mueller to 
finish his report on the 2016 election. Over and over, we heard 
Democrats promise the report would lead to President Trump's 
impeachment. After a disappointing report and an even more 
disappointing appearance by the special counsel before Congress, they 
went fishing for new reasons to attack the President.
  What happened to the standard of innocent until proven guilty in this 
country? I learned that in law school. How have we strayed so far from 
this fundamental principle?
  The Democrats are operating under the presumptive belief that the 
President is guilty. They believe if they look long enough and hard 
enough, maybe, just maybe, they will uncover something, anything, that 
they can impeach him for.
  This is wrong, and I will not support their efforts. I will not stand 
by silently while it happens. If my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle truly believe that this warrants impeachment, and if they are not 
willing to wait 1 day to read the transcript, then why are they sending 
us back to our districts for the next 2 weeks?
  The majority leader said this morning there are no plans to cancel 
the recess because it is important Members go home to their 
constituents and explain what we are doing. In other words, they still 
need to convince the American people that today's revelations, which 
didn't live up to their promises, should lead to President Trump's 
removal from office.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an 
additional 1 minute.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SPANO. Madam Speaker, I call on the Democrat leadership to keep 
us in session the first 2 weeks of October, if this is as urgent and as 
serious as they are telling the American people.
  I will not support the political impeachment that Democrats are 
incessantly pursuing. I implore this House

[[Page H7925]]

and its leadership to put this behind us once and for all and get to 
work, get to work and do the important work that the American people 
sent us here to do.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, a point of clarification: Quid pro quo 
exists on its face in what we reviewed just today. But, for the record, 
criminal conduct does not have to be quid pro quo.
  The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political 
rival and interfere in our election.
  The response by my friends across the aisle has also confirmed 
something else I have had a suspicion about: They have an extraordinary 
sense of humor. They imagine that this administration would have 
released this whatever it is this morning relating to a transcript, the 
complaint, and allowed the DNI to formally testify and the complaining 
witness to testify just because the President thought we should know, 
not because there was a complaining witness.
  Without the complaining witness, no one knows about this--without 
their courage. That emphasizes the point of how important complaining 
witnesses are, because, without their courage, we don't know about 
wrongdoing or there are further leaks, both of which put our country at 
risk.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me make a few comments, if I can.
  This was reviewed by the criminal division of DOJ today that found no 
violation whatsoever.
  Let me make another point, because I have heard accusations along the 
way that certain entities here in Congress don't care about 
whistleblower protections.
  We do care. We care about the whistleblower process. We care about 
their protections. Let's be perfectly clear on that. As Republicans, 
and sitting on the intelligence committee, we recognize the value of 
this process. We are for it.
  We have heard a lot of comments, yesterday especially, that were made 
that would imply guilty until proven innocent when we haven't even seen 
the whistleblower claim. We just got the transcripts of the President 
with the President of Ukraine today, and we don't even know the 
circumstances of the claim.
  I don't know if anyone on the other side has had contact with the 
whistleblower, but I know nothing about this whistleblower except that 
there is a whistleblower. And I have not seen the complaint, and I look 
forward to seeing it.
  We have been through a lot as a country. Time and time again, our 
country gets challenged--challenged from outside, challenged from 
within. We have been through a lot.
  As Mr. Spano alluded, we are about ready to go home. Yet we have got 
an urgent matter on our hands, we have been told; yet leadership is 
saying: But just go home.
  Well, if this is such an urgent matter, why are we going home?
  And I also will bring up the point again that tomorrow we are 
scheduled to hear from the DNI. Let's give that process its due, and 
let's know facts before we speak and before we pass judgment. That is 
all we are asking to do.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the committee for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is a powder keg. This is not as my colleagues on 
the other side are trying to suggest it is, but they are dealing with 
alternative facts.
  As co-chair of the Whistleblower Caucus, I can point to the fact that 
$54 billion has been returned to the taxpayers of this country because 
men and women had the courage to stand up and point out tax evasion, 
fraud, abuse, and waste.
  Now, we have a whistleblower here who was defined as not being a 
whistleblower by the Attorney General, and now we are all saying he is 
a whistleblower. He doesn't even have the protections of a 
whistleblower based on the analysis by the Attorney General.
  One thing is very clear here, Members: But for the fact that this 
whistleblower came forward, but for the fact that the inspector general 
found that it was both credible and urgent, and but for the fact, after 
the DNI did not deem it to be sent to the committee, it was the 
inspector general who had the courage to contact the chair of this 
committee to inform him that there was a whistleblower pending that 
brought this all to the fore.
  So let's be very clear: There was a concerted effort by the 
administration to shut down this whistleblower, to restrict the money 
that was supposed to go to Ukraine on June 18--or July 18.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
commend him for his great patriotism, for the equanimity that he brings 
to all that he does with great wisdom and judgment.
  Madam Speaker, just over a week ago, when our Nation observed the 
anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution, on that very day, news 
broke of great allegations which were a threat to our Constitution.
  On that day, the intelligence community inspector general formally 
notified Congress that the administration was forbidding him from 
turning over a whistleblower complaint that he found to be of ``urgent 
concern'' and ``credible.''
  The administration's refusal to turn over the full complaint is a 
violation of the law, which is unequivocal, stating that the DNI, the 
Director of National Intelligence, shall provide Congress with the full 
complaint.
  I repeat, that obligation is mandatory.
  Shortly thereafter, the American people learned of a phone call from 
the White House calling upon a foreign power to intervene in the 
upcoming election. Today's release of the notes of the call by the 
White House confirms this behavior, which undermines the integrity of 
our elections, the dignity of any Presidency, and our national 
security.
  Let us repeat the facts:
  The intelligence community inspector general, who was appointed by 
President Trump, determined that the complaint was both of ``urgent 
concern and credible,'' and its disclosure ``relates to one of the most 
significant and important of the Director of National Intelligence's 
responsibilities to the American people.''
  I want to talk a moment, Madam Speaker, if I may, about 
whistleblowers.
  First, let me say what an asset the intelligence community is to the 
security of our country. We talk about our men and women in uniform, 
and we praise them. We could never thank them enough. Our intelligence 
community personnel are a significant part of the national security of 
our country.
  Whistleblowers, in any part of the government, are important, but 
whistleblowers can be defined as an act of reporting waste, fraud, 
abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the 
wrongdoing.
  The intelligence community has publicly recognized the importance of 
whistle blowing and supports protections for whistleblowers who conform 
to guidelines to protect classified information.
  This is a very important balance, and when laws were written--and I 
was there for it as a member of the committee and as ranking member and 
part of the Gang of Four, before I even became part of the leadership. 
I saw the evolution of these laws and then the improvements on them, 
with further protection for whistleblowers.
  I was also there for the creation of the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence and the relationship between the two, and it is a 
careful balance of protecting whistleblowers but also protecting our 
national security and our intelligence--our intelligence.
  So, in any event, one of the bills we wrote was the Intelligence 
Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The law plays a vital role in 
our democracy. It enables our system of separation of powers to 
maintain the rule of law by making sure that the abuses of unlawful 
actions are known, first through

[[Page H7926]]

the inspector general of the intelligence community, and then the 
congressional intelligence committees, House and Senate, which can act 
upon it.
  The statute does not permit the DNI to second-guess the inspector 
general's determination of any complaint he finds to be ``credible.'' 
At no point in the history of this law has a DNI ever refused to turn 
over a whistleblower's complaint that has been found by the IG as 
``credible.'' Refusing to do this is a violation of the law.
  Our national security depends on this framework. This vote today is 
about more than just any one President. This resolution is about the 
preservation of our American system of government.
  Once we pass this resolution--and I acknowledge that we are joining 
the Senate, which passed it without objection yesterday, unanimously--
the DNI will be faced with a choice: to honor his responsibility to 
help preserve our Republic or to break the law.
  This resolution passed by unanimous consent--I repeat--in the Senate. 
Every Member, Democratic and Republican, should join us in passing this 
in the House.
  While we await the release of the full complaint, we reiterate our 
call for the release of the full transcript of the call between 
President Trump and the Ukrainian President and reiterate our call to 
protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a bipartisan vote to defend our national 
security and to protect our democracy.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio 
had asked earlier: Where does it say in the President's notes--and 
these are notes; this is not a transcript--the word, ``favor''?
  Page 3, I would direct the gentleman: ``I would like you to do us a 
favor,'' the President of the United States says.
  And the problem with this mob-like tactic is that, when you ask 
someone to do a favor, you owe that person something in return. And, 
when that person is a foreign leader, that means, as President of the 
United States, one day you will have to put a foreign leader's 
interests ahead of America's interests.

  This is only the tip of the iceberg, this note that the President has 
released, and that is why it is important that we hear from the 
whistleblower.
  It is also important to note that Ukraine depends on the U.S. 
economically, militarily, and the credibility we afford to them when we 
support them. So, you don't need to be explicit with them when you tell 
them that you need a favor and you are withholding military funds.
  In this case, the whistleblower did everything right; so now it is 
time for the Acting Director of National Intelligence to do the same.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Madam Speaker, I, too, look forward to reviewing 
the whistleblower's complaint, shortly.
  I want to start by saying thank you to the whistleblower. We don't 
know if it is a man or a woman, the person's identity, yet, but I want 
to say thank you for having the courage and the bravery to come forward 
and reveal--at least in terms of what we have seen from the 
transcript--abuse of power by the President of the United States.
  We must protect a whistleblower who comes forward and puts himself or 
herself and their career on the line. I hope that this Congress will be 
committed to doing that.
  These are very serious charges, an abuse of power that includes 
coercing a foreign leader into digging up dirt against a political 
rival for the President's political gain, to win reelection; asking a 
personal lawyer, his personal lawyer, to go along with this.
  It appears as though the State Department and, perhaps, the Secretary 
of State may also be implicated in this scandal.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to passing this resolution. I hope all 
will support it.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this resolution really raises a question to 
each one of us who is a Member of Congress; and that question is: Do we 
believe in the separate, independent authority of the legislative 
branch to conduct oversight?
  The contents of this resolution and the whistleblower report, to be 
sure, are extremely explosive and important. But the question that we 
have to ask, as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, is: Are we 
willing to stand up for the constitutional authority of the House as a 
representative branch of government?
  That is the constitutional question. This resolution goes to the 
heart of our responsibility. We must pass it in order for us to be a 
coequal branch of government.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, if I understand, 
the Republican argument is that the document doesn't contain an 
explicit quid pro quo.
  Well, let me remind my friends, you don't need to state an explicit 
quid pro quo to break your oath. You don't need to state an explicit 
quid pro quo to break the law. You don't need to state an explicit quid 
pro quo when you have conducted the quid pro quo, when you have 
withheld the military aid.
  You don't need to state an explicit quid pro quo when you have 
launched a cover-up by violating the law by refusing to produce the 
whistleblower complaint as you are required to do.
  All of these actions are contained in the recent statements of the 
President and in the plain language of the White House document. And 
the idea, the idea that we can't wait a day to get the transcript 
ignores the fact that, for three weeks, they have ignored the law in 
producing the whistleblower complaint; and we would not have it ever if 
it weren't for the actions of the Democrats in this House.
  And the talking point that this issue should hinge on the 
explicitness of the quid pro quo is nothing more than a smokescreen to 
hide the fact that the President's conduct is a violation of the law, 
and a violation of his oath, and more than justifies the production of 
the whistleblower complaint and the launching of an impeachment 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Wenstrup) for yielding the time.
  I listened to what my friend just came to the well to say, and it 
sounds as if we are not working on a nonbinding House Resolution today. 
It sounds as if we are working on Articles of Impeachment today. If 
folks want to get on to Articles of Impeachment, get on with it.
  I want to associate myself with my friend from Vermont who said this 
is an Article I, Article II question. And I want to ask my colleagues, 
again, if you are ready to get going with impeachment articles, bring 
them, and let's have that debate on the floor.
  This is a nonbinding resolution that says to our coequal branch of 
government, we have an oversight responsibility, and we want to see 
some paperwork. Now, the Senate already passed the same nonbinding 
resolution yesterday. We are not breaking any new ground here.
  But, yes, if the Intelligence Committee wants to review documents in 
a closed session, they ought to have access to those documents. That is 
not a complicated question.
  I want to ask my colleagues how we are advantaged as an institution 
by turning this into an us against them.

[[Page H7927]]

  Again, when you get ready to go down the Articles of Impeachment, it 
is going to be an us against them. I have seen no crimes and lots of 
hearings. I have heard lots of promises and absolutely no there, there.
  But we have an opportunity, I dare say, an obligation, to conduct 
ourselves in a way that, forbid the thought, should one day our Nation 
have to go down that path, we have the credibility to lead that 
discussion.
  You have an hour of debate here that we can absolutely use, and the 
Speaker can continue to admonish Members not to engage in personalities 
with the President. We can absolutely conduct ourselves in that way if 
that is what we would like.
  Or we could follow the pathway of the United States; do this in a 
bipartisan way to say we have got a coequal branch of government that 
has a right to see these documents and be done with it.
  I will remind my colleagues who are raising their constitutional ire 
today that this institution held President Obama's Attorney General in 
both civil and criminal contempt, and we got no support, save 17 
Members, to make that happen.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for 
the majority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Demings).
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt 
said that ``patriotism means to stand by the country.'' It does not 
mean to stand by the President at any cost.
  The whistleblower is a patriot who stood up for their country. It is 
time for Americans of good conscience, starting with every member of 
this committee, to follow in that patriot's footsteps and unite behind 
the belief that no one is above the law.
  The President has abused the powers of his office. Perhaps he is 
afraid of losing the next election. Perhaps it is just who he is.
  When the President of Ukraine brought up a request to buy military 
equipment from the United States, the President said--and yes, it is 
quite clear--``I would like you to do us a favor.''
  But even worse, press reports indicate that the whistleblower's 
complaint was far more extensive than any one call.
  The ongoing cover-up by this White House has prevented us from 
immediately reviewing the report that is required by law.
  Further, the administration must immediately move to ensure that the 
whistleblower is fully protected as required under law.
  To my colleagues, history is about to be written at this moment. I 
ask you to think about your place in that history. Decide whether you 
want to defend and stand up for corruption or abuse of power or stand 
up for the country we all swore to protect.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It may turn out that this resolution is unnecessary. I understand 
procedures are being made to provide the complaint, I hope, the full 
whistleblower complaint, to the Congress and, specifically, to the 
Intelligence Committee. If that is true, that is a good first step. It 
is a step, of course, that is remedying the blatant violation of law 
that this administration engaged in when they chose to stop the 
transmittal of that complaint to the Congress.
  But I do want to take this opportunity to just clear up some things 
that were said, because these are serious matters, and it is important 
that the American people understand the truth.
  Mr. Scalise came before this body and ridiculed the majority, saying 
that we had promised a quid pro quo, a statement that is, of course, 
absurd on the face of it. We made no such promise. In fact, we have 
spent the day explaining that a quid pro quo is not necessary for the 
kind of extortion that is evident in the so-called transcript that we 
received today.
  Bribery requires a quid pro quo; if you do this, I will pay you that. 
Extortion is simply saying you better do me a favor, or else.
  So there was no promise of a quid pro quo. Neither is it necessary 
for this behavior to be well beyond the pale.
  And I would remind my friends in the minority that we did not bring 
this moment upon the Congress. The inspector general came to this 
Congress of his own volition and, I would add, at significant personal 
risk, because of his concern over the actions of the administration.
  It emerges today that the Acting DNI perhaps threatened to resign his 
position unless the Department of Justice gave a legal justification 
for his stance.
  So we are not here because we want to be here. The Speaker of the 
House, as every Member of this Chamber knows, has resisted, until 
yesterday, even using the word impeachment because she is that focused 
on the sentiment of the American people and the consequences of that 
dramatic step.
  So I do not want to hear from my friends in the minority that this 
has been a train that we have been barreling down.
  We are not here because we are happy. We are here because there is a 
genuine threat to this republic and to this democracy. We were brought 
here by members of the administration who raised their hand and said 
something is not right.
  So this resolution and its contents may be remedied later this 
afternoon; I certainly hope so. But let's be clear about what really 
happened and how we got here, because I suspect this is not the final 
word in this discussion, and the American people deserve to know the 
truth.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I heard something before, that no one asks for a favor 
that doesn't want something in return. You know, when my wife asks me 
for a favor, I don't ask for something in return, I have got to tell 
you.
  And I have to say, I agree with what Mr. Welch had to say today. I 
thank the gentleman for his words. We do have an oversight, but we also 
have a process in our country.
  So I am very curious to hear tomorrow, fortunately, in an open 
hearing, what the DNI has to say, and how he may have interpreted the 
law differently, or DOJ did. And I think that the American people 
deserve that, and I am glad it is going to be in an open hearing.
  There is a lot we can talk about. We can go back and forth on this. 
But I will tell you, amongst my constituents, what I hear at home is 
that there is a lot of hypocrisy out here.
  When you talk about having oversight, or quid pro quo, and you are 
only willing to look at one side of it, or one event of it, or one 
possible event of it, I should say, only willing to look in one 
direction, you lose the trust of the American people. You lose the 
trust of the American people.
  When I was a child, I watched the Watergate hearings. Do you know 
what I was impressed with?
  You had both sides of the aisle seeking the truth, regardless of who 
was in power or who was in question.
  We haven't seen that for 3 years. So, let's get this resolution on 
the floor. It is a foregone conclusion. We are all in agreement. This 
is something we want brought forward. Half of it already has been, and 
the other half is being delivered at 4:00.
  That is what we were here to debate today, this resolution. You 
wouldn't know it was a resolution we were all in favor of. So let's 
have our vote and move on.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 576--
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the Inspector 
General of the Intelligence Community.
  Allegations that the President of the United States sought to enlist 
a foreign government to interfere in our democratic process by 
investigating one of his political rivals, and may have used the 
withholding of Congressionally appropriated military aid, days earlier 
as intimidation, is a clear problem. We must have all

[[Page H7928]]

of the facts so that we can do what is required under law and get to 
the bottom of what actually took place. This is not a partisan matter. 
It is an American matter that must be investigated so that we can 
continue to protect our democracy against outside attacks.
  This resolution expresses the sense of the House that the 
whistleblower complaint received on August 12, 2019, by the Inspector 
General of the Intelligence Community should be transmitted immediately 
to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
  Our Constitution demands respect for the rule of law. As a Member of 
Congress, I will continue to uphold our American principles and values. 
I urge passage of this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________