[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 173 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8683-H8698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DIRECTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO CONTINUE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO
WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD JOHN
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up H. Res. 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 660
Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services,
Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and
Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing
investigations as part of the existing House of
Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist
for the House of Representatives to exercise its
Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President
of the United States of America.
SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described
in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as
the ``Permanent Select Committee'') is authorized to conduct
proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall
designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this
section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the
chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any
hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee
shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified
periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the
chair. The time available for each period of questioning
under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the
ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for
multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of
questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate.
Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent
Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or
ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such
periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning
pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with
questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause
2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness
requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the
chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony
relevant to the investigation described in the first section
of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for
the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any
such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written
justification of the relevance of the testimony of each
requested witness to the investigation described in the first
section of this resolution.
(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair,
to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation--
(i) by subpoena or otherwise--
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a
proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to
subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question
whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair
shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision,
subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be
signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by
any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in
electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by
the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the
investigation described in the first section of this
resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and
other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a
report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and
appending any information and materials the Permanent Select
Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the
investigation described in the first section of this
resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and
appendices, along with any supplemental, minority,
additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l)
of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such
report publicly available in electronic form, with
appropriate redactions to protect classified and other
sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph
shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight
and Reform.
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of
any other committee having custody of records or other
materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first
section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation
with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or
materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to
conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry
referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant
to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such
procedures as to allow for the participation of the President
and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to
promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for
the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held
pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional
procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures
referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and
the Rules of the House.
(c)(1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of
the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed
necessary to the investigation--
(A) by subpoena or otherwise--
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a
proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to
paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question
whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair
shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision,
subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be
signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by
any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the
House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of
impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the professionalism that my
friend from Oklahoma has demonstrated throughout this process. We don't
see eye to eye on this impeachment inquiry, but he has always conducted
himself with integrity and defended this institution.
[[Page H8684]]
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon, the Committee on
Rules marked up and favorably reported H. Res. 660, directing certain
committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the
existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient
grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its
constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the
United States of America.
Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for our country. Over 230 years ago,
when the Founders of our country wrote the Constitution, they entrusted
us with the gift of self-government, but they knew the persistence of
this gift was not assured.
It may be taken for granted today, but having just shaken off a
tyrant, the Founders knew better. They understood that the very
foundations of our country are dependent on safeguarding against one
branch of government encroaching on the others. That is what the idea
of checks and balances is all about.
Within that system, the Framers gave only this Congress the power, if
need be, to impeach a President over possible wrongdoing. This fact--
that no one is above the law--is what separates this country from so
many others.
Because of its seriousness, the impeachment process has been rarely
used for Presidents. For just the fourth time in our Nation's history,
Congress is now investigating whether to impeach a President of the
United States. Our authority to do so under Article II, Section 4 of
the Constitution of the United States and the Rules of the House of
Representatives is clear, and the courts have recently agreed.
For all the disagreements I have with President Trump, for all of his
policies, his tweets, and his rhetoric that I deeply disagree with, I
never wanted our country to reach this point. I do not take any
pleasure in the need for this resolution.
We are not here in some partisan exercise. We are here because the
facts compel us to be here.
There is serious evidence that President Trump may have violated the
Constitution. This is about protecting our national security and
safeguarding our elections. That is why the Intelligence Committee has
been gathering evidence and hearing testimony.
Like any investigation, reasonable confidentiality has been
paramount. Witnesses should not be able to coordinate testimony in
advance. The truth must be allowed to prevail.
Republicans have been a part of every single proceeding conducted so
far. Republicans conducting these depositions, along with their staffs,
have had an opportunity to question each and every witness.
Now, Madam Speaker, we are entering the public-facing phase of this
process, and I commend the investigative committees and their staffs
for the professional manner in which they have conducted themselves.
I would also like to commend the courageous public servants that have
bravely come forward to tell the truth. Without their courage, this
possible wrongdoing would never have seen the light of day.
The public should not be left in the dark. They should see the facts
about the President's conduct firsthand.
That is why I introduced this resolution. It establishes the next
steps of this inquiry, including establishing the procedure for public-
facing hearings conducted by the Intelligence Committee and the process
for transferring evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It is about transparency, and it is about due process for the
President. Some on the other side will never be satisfied with any
process that uncovers the truth of what the President did.
Madam Speaker, none of us know whether or not President Trump will be
impeached or convicted. Only the facts, and how we respond to them,
will dictate the outcome. But I truly believe that, 100 years from now,
historians will look back at this moment and judge us by the decisions
we make here today.
This moment calls for more than politics. It calls for people
concerned not about the reactions of partisans today but of the
consequences of inaction decades from now. If we don't hold this
President accountable, we could be ceding our ability to hold any
President accountable.
At the end of the day, this resolution isn't about Donald Trump. It
isn't about any of us. It is about our Constitution. It is about our
country.
I urge my colleagues to not just think about the political pressures
of the moment. These will pass. Please consider the heavy
responsibility you have today to this institution, the Constitution,
and to our country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
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. McGOVERN. No, I do not.
Request to Extend Debate Time
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has yielded all time for debate only. The gentleman from
Massachusetts would have to yield for that request.
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.
[[Page H8685]]
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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say, briefly, that this resolution provides better
protections for the President than those Presidents Nixon and Clinton
received. And just like under Nixon and Clinton, in the Judiciary
Committee, the President's counsel can submit additional testimony or
evidence for the committee to consider. The President and his counsel
can attend all hearings and raise objections. They can question any
witness.
This is going beyond Nixon and Clinton. This resolution allows the
President's counsel to ask questions at the presentation of evidence.
Under our procedures, the ranking minority members of the Judiciary
Committee and the Intelligence Committee may issue subpoenas if
authorized by a committee vote. These are the same subpoena powers that
the ranking minority member was given during Clinton and Nixon.
Our resolution allows for greater Member participation than under
past impeachment procedures, including a robust process for the
minority to propose witnesses and even issue subpoenas if authorized by
committees.
And let me just say, I think the fact of the matter is I don't think
there is any process that we can propose that Republicans who prefer to
circle the wagons around this President and prevent us from getting to
the truth would accept.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record H. Res. 581 from the 105th
Congress, the Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution that contains the
same minority subpoena powers as this resolution.
Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to
investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the
impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the
chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the
rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to
investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds
exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its
constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States of America. The committee
shall report to the House of Representatives such
resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other
recommendations as it deems proper.
SEC. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation,
the committee is authorized to require--
(1) by subpoena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee);
and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information;
as it deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting
jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting
alone, except that in the event either so declines, either
shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision
the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and
the committee shall be convened promptly to render that
decision, or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.
Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued
over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority
member, or any member designated by either of them, and may
be served by any person designated by the chairman, or
ranking minority member, or any member designated by either
of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any
member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any
deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person
authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths
to any witness. For the purposes of this section, ``things''
includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence,
logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings,
drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions,
recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations
from which information can be obtained (translated if
necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable
form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record H. Res. 803
from the 93rd Congress, the Nixon impeachment inquiry resolution, which
also contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the
chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the
rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to
investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds
exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its
constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President
of the United States of America. The committee shall report
to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of
impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation,
the committee is authorized to require--
(1) by subpena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee) ;
and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information;
as it deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting
jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting
alone, except that in the event either so declines, either
shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision
the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and
the committee shall be convened promptly to render that
decision; or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.
Subpenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued
over the signature of the
[[Page H8686]]
chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member
designated by either of them, and may be served by any person
designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or
any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or
ranking minority member, or any member designated by either
of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to
interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to
administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For
the purposes of this section, ``things'' includes, without
limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals,
memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs,
charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes,
transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which
information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through
detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible
objects, and other things of any kind.
Sec. 3. For the purpose of making such investigation, the
committee, and any subcommittee thereof, are authorized to
sit and act, without regard to clause 31 of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, during the present
Congress at such times and places within or without the
United States, whether the House is meeting, has recessed, or
has adjourned, and to hold such hearings, as it deems
necessary.
Sec. 4. Any funds made available to the Committee on the
Judiciary under House Resolution 702 of the Ninety-third
Congress, adopted November 15, 1973, or made available for
the purpose hereafter, may be expended for the purpose of
carrying out the investigation authorized and directed by
this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Assistant Speaker.
Mr. LUJAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution
on the floor.
We are here today because of the rule of law. This resolution, the
inquiry, is Congress upholding the oath we pledged to the Constitution.
We are here because of the President, his actions, his jeopardizing
our national security for his own political gain.
We are here because we know the White House and the President
admitted that President Trump used the power of the Presidency to
pressure and strong-arm the President of a foreign country for his
political gain. He called it ``a favor.'' ``Do us a favor,'' he said.
But it wasn't a favor. It was a coordinated attempt to undermine the
rule of law.
Because of those actions, Congress is compelled to be here to uphold
the rule of law; to make sure Americans hear the truth; to say that no
one, not even a President, can abuse the system without fair and just
consequences.
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. NUNES. Madam Speaker, we are not here to run a show trial in an
effort to impeach the President of the United States.
It is clear that, since the Democrats took control of the House of
Representatives, they have always intended to transform the
Intelligence Committee into the impeachment committee. Every one of
their actions, from the staff they hire to the Trump conspiracy
theories they investigate, their willful neglect of our basic oversight
duties, demonstrate that this has been their plan from day one.
And now this is further confirmed by the adoption of these rules,
which simply give the House approval for the Intelligence Committee
Democrats to continue pursuing their bizarre obsession with overturning
the results of the last Presidential election.
Nevertheless, after spending 3 years trying to manufacture a crime
they can attribute to President Trump, they have come up empty.
First, they insisted that the President is a Russian agent. Then they
claimed he is a money launderer and a tax cheat and a fraudulent
businessman. And now they have decided they don't like the way he talks
to foreign leaders.
But they have no evidence and no argument to support impeachment. All
they have is the unconditional cooperation of the media to advance
their preposterous narrative.
If they had a real case, they wouldn't be wasting time spoon-feeding
ridiculous attacks that include defamation and slander on both current
and former Republican staff of the Intelligence Committee.
What we are seeing among Democrats on the Intelligence Committee down
in the SCIF right now is like a cult. These are a group of people
loyally following their leader as he bounces from one outlandish
conspiracy theory to another.
And the media are the cult followers, permanently stationed outside
the committee spaces, pretending to take everything seriously, because
they, too, support the goal of removing the President from office.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15
seconds to close.
Mr. NUNES. After today, The House Intelligence Committee ceases to
exist. Oversight is not being done, and we now have a full-fledged
impeachment committee in the basement of the Capitol.
Think about that, America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the House impeachment inquiry has
discovered a substantial body of evidence that the President of the
United States has violated the Constitution by placing his political
interests above the interests of the country, thereby putting both our
democracy and the Nation's security in jeopardy.
In light of this evidence, the House of Representatives must fully
investigate. We have sworn a sacred oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. We will honor our oath by countering all high crimes and
misdemeanors committed against the American people and our
Constitution.
Today's resolution sets the table for the next phase of the inquiry.
This phase includes open hearings, led by the Intelligence Committee,
to allow the American people to hear from witnesses who have personal
knowledge of the President's actions. Relevant materials will then be
transferred to the Judiciary Committee so we may fulfill our solemn and
time-honored duty to determine whether to recommend Articles of
Impeachment.
The majority has conducted hearings up to this point in a
scrupulously bipartisan way, giving professional staff counsel for both
the majority and the minority precisely equal time to question
witnesses and equal opportunities for members of the majority and the
minority to question them, too.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 20
seconds.
Mr. RASKIN. We will afford the President all the due process
protections that were afforded to his predecessors in a similar
situation. That includes the ability to attend hearings, question
witnesses, and submit evidence.
As recently as Friday, the Federal courts have reaffirmed that the
House is the sole judge of impeachment, and we set the rules here.
These rules are fair and strong and will make sure that we can and we
will defend the Constitution of the United States.
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. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, trying to put a ribbon on a sham process
doesn't make it any less of a sham. Never forget how this whole thing
started.
Democrats are trying to impeach the President of the United States 13
months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no
firsthand knowledge, who has a bias against the President and who
worked with Vice President Biden.
The day after the now famous phone call between President Trump and
President Zelensky, the so-called whistleblower gets a readout from
somebody on that call, writes a memo. In the memo, he uses terms like
``this call was scary,'' ``frightening.''
But what does he do? He waits 18 days before he files a complaint.
And who is the first person he goes to see, the first people he goes
to see in that 18-day timeframe? Chairman Schiff's staff. Chairman
Schiff's staff.
[[Page H8687]]
Madam Speaker, 435 Members of Congress and only one individual, one
Member of this body, knows who this person is who started this whole
darn crazy process: Chairman Schiff.
And what does this resolution do? It gives him even more power to run
this secret proceeding in a bunker in the basement of the Capitol.
{time} 0945
This resolution continues the unfair and partisan process. Just 2
days ago, 2 days ago, we were prevented from having the witness answer
our questions in one of these depositions. And this resolution is going
to give more power to the person who made that decision in the bunker
in the basement of the Capitol.
We have less than 13 months before the next election. Americans
understand that this is unfair. Americans get fairness. They
instinctively know this is an unfair and partisan process. They will
see how unfair and partisan it is today when the vote happens on the
floor of this House. We can do a lot better than this. We can do a lot
better than this, and the American people see through it.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I thank the gentleman on
the Rules Committee for his work and his leadership.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times
article entitled ``Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported
Concerns'' in which Colonel Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who was
on the call, said, ``I did not think it was proper to demand that a
foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,'' and ``This would all
undermine U.S. national security.''
[From the New York Times, October 28, 2019]
Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported Concerns
(By Danny Hakim)
The top Ukraine expert at the White House will tell impeachment
investigators he twice reported concerns about President Trump's
pressure tactics on Ukraine, acting out of a ``sense of duty.''
Washington--A White House national security official who is
a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment
investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal
to Ukraine's president to investigate one of his leading
political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging
to American interests that he reported it to a superior.
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine
expert on the National Security Council, twice registered
internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle
were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a ``sense of
duty,'' he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of
his opening statement obtained by The New York Times.
He will be the first White House official to testify who
listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump
and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the
center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked
Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R.
Biden Jr.
``I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign
government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried
about the implications for the U.S. government's support of
Ukraine,'' Colonel Vindman said in his statement. ``I
realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the
Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a
partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine
losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.''
Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr.
Biden's son served while his father was vice president.
``This would all undermine U.S. national security,''
Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump's comments in
the call.
The colonel, a Ukrainian-American immigrant who received a
Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb
and whose statement is full of references to duty and
patriotism, could be a more difficult witness to dismiss than
his civilian counterparts.
``I am a patriot,'' Colonel Vindman plans to tell the
investigators, ``and it is my sacred duty and honor to
advance and defend our country irrespective of party or
politics.''
He was to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House
Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform
Committees, in defiance of a White House edict not to
cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
The colonel, who is represented by Michael Volkov, a former
federal prosecutor, declined to comment for this article.
In his testimony, Colonel Vindman plans to say that he is
not the whistle-blower who initially reported Mr. Trump's
pressure campaign on Ukraine. But he will provide an account
that corroborates and fleshes out crucial elements in that
complaint, which prompted Democrats to open their impeachment
investigation.
``I did convey certain concerns internally to national
security officials in accordance with my decades of
experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to
operate within the chain of command,'' he plans to say.
He will testify that he watched with alarm as ``outside
influencers'' began pushing a ``false narrative'' about
Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American
national security officials, and harmful to United States
interests. According to documents reviewed by The Times on
the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was
concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the
president's personal lawyer, was leading an effort to prod
Kiev to investigate Mr. Biden's son, and to discredit efforts
to investigate Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul
Manafort, and his business dealings in Ukraine.
His account strongly suggests that he may have been among
the aides the whistle-blower referred to in his complaint
when he wrote that White House officials had recounted the
conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky to him, and
``were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone
call.''
Colonel Vindman did not interact directly with the
president, but was present for a series of conversations that
shed light on his pressure campaign on Ukraine.
He will also testify that he confronted Gordon D. Sondland,
the United States ambassador to the European Union, the day
the envoy spoke in a White House meeting with Ukrainian
officials about ``Ukraine delivering specific investigations
in order to secure the meeting with the president.''
Even as he expressed alarm about the pressure campaign, the
colonel and other officials worked to keep the United States
relationship with Ukraine on track. At the direction of his
superiors at the National Security Council, including John R.
Bolton, then the national security adviser, Colonel Vindman
drafted a memorandum in mid-August that sought to restart
security aid that was being withheld from Ukraine, but Mr.
Trump refused to sign it, according to documents reviewed by
the Times. And he drafted a letter in May congratulating Mr.
Zelensky on his inauguration, but Mr. Trump did not sign that
either, according to the documents.
Colonel Vindman was concerned after he learned that the
White House budget office had taken the unusual step of
withholding the $391 million package of security assistance
for Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. At least one
previous witness has testified that Mr. Trump directed that
the aid be frozen until he could secure a commitment from Mr.
Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens.
While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of
other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was
in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along
with his family when he was a child and is fluent in
Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from
him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they
typically communicated in English.
On two occasions, the colonel brought his concerns to John
A. Eisenberg, the top lawyer at the National Security
Council. The first came on July 10. That day, senior American
officials met with senior Ukrainian officials at the White
House, in a stormy meeting in which Mr. Bolton is said to
have had a tense exchange with Mr. Sondland after the
ambassador raised the matter of investigations he wanted
Ukraine to undertake. That meeting has been described in
previous testimony in the impeachment inquiry.
At a debriefing later that day attended by the colonel, Mr.
Sandland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with
investigations into Mr. Trump's political rivals.
``Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that
Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election,
the Bidens and Burisma,'' Colonel Vindman said in his draft
statement.
``I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were
inappropriate'' and that the ``request to investigate Biden
and his son had nothing to do with national security, and
that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was
going to get involved in or push,'' he added.
The colonel's account echoed the testimony of Fiona Hill,
one of his superiors, who has previously testified behind
closed doors that she and Mr. Bolton were angered by efforts
to politicize the interactions with Ukraine.
The colonel said that after his confrontation with Mr.
Sandland, ``Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to
Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.''
Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and
Russian affairs, also reported the incident to Mr. Eisenberg.
The colonel went to Mr. Eisenberg a couple of weeks later,
after the president's call with Mr. Zelensky. This time, the
colonel was accompanied by his identical twin brother,
Yevgeny, who is a lawyer on the National Security Council.
The picture painted by Colonel Vindman's testimony has been
echoed by several other senior officials, including William
B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who
testified last week that multiple senior administration
officials had told him that the president blocked security
aid to
[[Page H8688]]
Ukraine and would not meet with Mr. Zelensky until he
publicly pledged to investigate Mr. Trump's political rivals.
While the White House has urged witnesses subpoenaed by
Congress not to participate in the impeachment inquiry,
failing to comply with a congressional subpoena would be a
risky career move for an active-duty military officer.
As tensions grew over Ukraine policy, the White House
appears to have frozen out Colonel Vindman. Since early
August, he has been excluded from a number of relevant
meetings and events, including a diplomatic trip to three
countries under his purview: Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus.
Colonel Vindman said he had reported concerns up his chain
of command because he believed he was obligated to do so.
``On many occasions I have been told I should express my
views and share my concerns with my chain of command and
proper authorities,'' he said. ``I believe that any good
military officer should and would do the same, thus providing
his or her best advice to leadership.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Over the last month, the impeachment inquiry has built a powerful
body of evidence around President Trump's call with President Zelensky
of Ukraine when he told a foreign leader, ``I'd like you to do us a
favor, though.'' We have learned so much about that call and things
that followed it because some dedicated public servants have
demonstrated patriotism to this great country by coming forward and
testifying and giving us the information as they know it.
These brave patriots, career diplomats, have been called ``radical
unelected bureaucrats.'' They have been called that by a group of
people who Thomas Paine would call summer soldiers and sunshine
patriots. He warned us that these people will, in a ``crisis, shrink
from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now,
deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is
not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the
harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.''
We are here today because brave, dedicated public servants and
patriots are standing up for their country.
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. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Yesterday the Rules Committee reported an impeachment resolution that
was hastily drafted without Republican input with just 24 hours' notice
for review. Last night we offered, on the Republican side, 17
amendments. Unsurprisingly, none were adopted.
Despite assurances that all Members will have access to materials
supporting the Articles of Impeachment, to date, Chairman Schiff has
ignored 72 bipartisan requests to view Ambassador Volker's transcript,
but pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(e)(2), committee records are the
property of the House, and thus, Members of the House should have
access.
Last night at the Rules Committee, it was stated that perhaps
Republicans were not requesting the information at the right time, so
we have to ask: When is the right time to ask to view our own House
records? Republicans requested an authorizing vote, and now we will
have one. However, this process has not been open and transparent, and
it diverts from precedent set in the two most recent Presidential
impeachment investigations. As a result, this investigation will be
conducted with no minority input.
A Presidential impeachment investigation is a national trauma. All
Members must take this constitutionally vested power seriously, and
Americans deserve to be represented in this process. Unfortunately,
neither serious nor equal consideration, nor full access to records
appear to be a criteria under which the Democrats are willing to
conduct this investigation. That is a shame, and it renders this
process a sham.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I take no joy in contemplating the
impeachment of a President because, in contemplating it, we must
acknowledge a threat to our Constitution and the values that bind us
not only as Members of Congress but as Americans.
We have tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom
of serious allegations of misconduct so that we can deliver the truth
to the American people. Committees have called witnesses and requested
evidence, only to be stonewalled. The President's defenders have tried
to distract the American people by falsely claiming to have been
excluded from the investigation while their stunts and smears have
hindered the constitutional process.
This resolution outlines ground rules for the House as we move
forward, granting the same or greater due process rights to the
President and the minority as they themselves drafted when they were in
the majority. We will have open hearings. They can question witnesses.
They can propose subpoenas. They can present evidence.
I am proud to sponsor this resolution. Our Constitution requires it,
and our democracy depends on it.
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. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, no matter what is said by the
other side today, this is a dark day, and a cloud has fallen on this
House. It has been falling for 10 months, and it is showing itself
today.
What we are seeing is this: If the gentleman, who is a friend of mine
from the Rules Committee, would actually have wanted to talk about
whether these are the same rules as Clinton and Nixon, then we would
have had a much longer period of debate, because he knows and I know it
is not. There are similarities--some better, some not--but they are not
the same. Let's get that out of the way first.
The problem I am having here is the resolution before us today is not
about transparency; it is about control. It is not about fairness; it
is about winning. It isn't about following the facts. This resolution
is about delivering results. You know how I know this? Because the
resolution gives no proper way for how these abilities or transferring
of documents from the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee
will happen. It doesn't even give a timeframe.
And I have heard a lot of discussion today about maybe we didn't know
how to properly ask last night in Rules Committee. I guarantee you, my
staff and I know how to properly use rule XI 2(e) to ask for
information, and we were told yesterday by one of the committees that
we couldn't have access to that because the Parliamentarian said we
couldn't. That is just false. It needs to stop.
This House is developing and shredding procedures every day. And if
Members on the minority or the majority cannot have the rights that
they are given, then we are in a sad situation.
And, in fact, in the haste to put this together they didn't even
exempt, as was done in Clinton and Nixon, the rule XI 2(e). They didn't
exempt it out. Even in those two impeachments, it was known that maybe
we don't let every Member come see this while this is going on. We
didn't even exempt it during this time. We were so hurried to impeach
this President, we don't really give a darn about the rules.
But here is my biggest concern: As ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, I have a question. We have been here 200-plus years as a
committee, and our committee has been neutered. Our committee who
handles impeachment--we are the reason in that committee; that is our
jurisdiction--we have been completely sidelined. Our chairman and
others have been sidelined, so I have been sidelined. It is so bad that
they had to have the Rules Committee write the Presidential due process
and give it to us. This is not right.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I do not know what happened to
our committee, but we still exist. Due process only kicks in at
Judiciary
[[Page H8689]]
for the President. It does not kick in in the closed-door, secret
hearings of Adam Schiff. This is a travesty.
No one should vote for this. This is a sad day. The curtain is coming
down on this House because the majority has no idea about process and
procedure. They are simply after a President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I get it. My friends on the other side
of the aisle want to talk about process, process, process, but it is
interesting that not one of them wants to talk about the President's
conduct, and that speaks volumes.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Cole for the
manner in which you all are shepherding us through this difficult
process.
Madam Speaker, it is time for the American people to see how the
administration put our national security on the auction block in
exchange for political favors.
At the heart of this scandal is the White House's decision to slam
the brakes on nearly $400 million of military aid for Ukraine, military
aid for a vital partner, military aid that was desperately needed to
beat back Russian aggression, military aid that was key to our own
national security and essential in keeping an adversary at bay.
We know what our Ukrainian friends thought about this. They were
horrified. The facts are clear. Our top national security experts
viewed it as a grave and dangerous mistake. And as we have seen time
and time again from the Trump administration, this decision played
right into Vladimir Putin's hands.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I support pushing ahead with this
inquiry because I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against
America's enemies. The American people deserve the facts about how this
abuse of power betrayed our national security and put our country at
risk.
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.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Cole for yielding.
This impeachment process is a total sham. This resolution, which
seeks to legitimize it, misleads the American public. Section 2 of this
bill is titled, ``The Open and Transparent Investigative Proceedings by
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,'' but the process set
forth in this resolution is far from open and far from transparent. In
fact, it is the exact opposite.
The resolution continues the closed-door meetings that blocks entry
to Members of Congress and prohibits the President's due process
rights. And it merely authorizes, but does not require, Chairman Schiff
to make transcripts public.
Last night Republicans offered 17 amendments to add some fairness
into the process, but Democrats rejected them all.
I had an amendment to ensure minority witnesses could call an equal
number of witnesses as the majority. Democrats said no.
I had an amendment to require the Intel chairman to turn over
exculpatory materials to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats shot it
down.
I had an amendment to give ranking members the same authority as the
chairman to submit materials to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats
rejected that, too.
The process set forth by this resolution violates basic standards of
fairness.
I urge opposition to this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The gentlewoman wants to talk about a sham process; let's talk about
a sham process.
Instead of respecting the constitutional authority of the House of
Representatives, the White House has obstructed our investigation,
ignored our duly authorized subpoenas, withheld key documents,
prevented witnesses from testifying, and intimidated witnesses. They
have tried to disparage Members of Congress who are trying to fulfill
their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States.
Article I of the Constitution gives the House the right to
investigate the President, and we are taking our responsibility
seriously.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, the House impeachment inquiry is about
abuse of power. It is about betrayal. It is about corruption. It is
about national security. It is about the undermining of our elections.
It is about defending our democracy for the people.
The House is a separate and coequal branch of government. We don't
work for this President or any President. We work for the American
people. We have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and
balance on an out-of-control executive branch. Our job is to ask
difficult questions on behalf of the American people.
What we are doing right here is consistent with the words of James
Madison who, in Federalist 51, said the House should be a rival to the
executive branch. Why did Madison use the word ``rival''? The Founders
didn't want a king. They didn't want a dictator. They didn't want a
monarch. They wanted a democracy, and that is exactly what we are
defending right now. No one is above the law.
{time} 1000
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.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank our Republican leader of the Rules
Committee for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning already, a desire, a
desperation almost, on the part of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that the Nation take this body seriously. They need to start
acting like they take themselves seriously, Madam Speaker.
When we are here gathered, discussing this most grave and solemn
obligation we have, addressing impeachment, we know, Madam Speaker,
what a serious process would look like. We have seen it before. We have
seen Members on both sides of this aisle in the past when we have been
engaged in the impeachment of a President act in a way that is serious,
reflects the dignity of this body, and reflects the importance of the
Constitution. That is the opposite, Madam Speaker, of what we have seen
so far.
No matter what my colleagues say about this legislation, no matter
what my colleagues say about the process they have been engaged in to
date, it is absolutely the case that it has been a secret process that
has denied rights to the minority, that has involved leaking
selectively things that the majority would like to have leaked, in
which rights have absolutely been denied, and they cannot fix that.
They cannot fix what has been a tainted record and a tainted process by
now suddenly pretending they are opening it up.
Madam Speaker, let me say one other thing. Every time I hear my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about efforts to somehow
undermine national security for political gain, I can't help but think
about what they are doing precisely this morning.
When we are facing the threats we are facing as a Nation, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Speaker Pelosi, Chairman
Schiff, and others--take what is arguably the single most important
national security committee in this body, the House Intelligence
Committee, and they tell the House Intelligence Committee: Turn away
from those threats. Do not focus on oversight. Do not focus on the
challenges
[[Page H8690]]
we face. Instead, we are going to consume you in a political, partisan
process to impeach the President of the United States.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle will
be held accountable by history for what they are doing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, they will be held accountable by history
for what they are doing. They have absolutely no right to talk about
threats to this Nation if they are diverting the full attention,
resources, and focus of the House Intelligence Committee onto a sham
political process run by Chairman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, having been through this before, I know
how painful impeachment investigations can be. I also know that I am
not alone in saying that supporting this continuing inquiry is not a
decision that any of us makes lightly.
None of us ever hoped to consider investigating our own President for
compromising our national security and obstructing justice. Regardless
of political ideology, we all understand our constitutional duty.
It is with profound sadness and disappointment that we have to
continue this investigation. The accusations the House is investigating
go straight to the heart of our Constitution.
Our Constitution endows us with not only the authority but also the
duty to hold our colleagues in the Federal Government accountable if
they fail to act in the best interest of our Nation. I don't think
anyone here believes that domestic politics should interfere with
foreign policy.
I hope we will all vote to continue this investigation simply so that
we can be clear on all the facts. More than anything, I am confident
that all of us possess a capacity for fairness and a commitment to
doing what is right for the country we love.
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. BRADY. Madam Speaker, the impeachment and removal of the
President is a serious matter. At its heart, it lets a small, partisan
group in Washington overturn the will of the entire American people.
Above all, Americans believe in fairness and, when accused, the right
to due process. This sham impeachment offers neither.
It is secret. It is partisan. It is being conducted behind closed
doors to hide information from the American people, all with one goal
in mind: take down President Trump by any means necessary.
I will not legitimize this unprecedented and unfair charade with this
vote today.
Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff long ago abandoned the due process
and fairness that was guaranteed during the Clinton impeachment. I know
because I was here in Congress for it.
There is simply no cause for this impeachment inquiry--none. It is
shameful to create a constitutional crisis for purely partisan reasons.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 660.
I rise in strong support, but I do not take any pleasure in the
events that have made this process necessary. I rise in strong support
of the resolution, but I do so with an understanding that the task
before us is a solemn one.
How each Member of this Chamber approaches the vote this morning, and
the days and weeks ahead, may be the most important service as Members
of Congress we will ever pay to the country and Constitution that we
all love and have pledged to defend.
For the past several weeks, the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight
and Reform Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee have engaged in
an intensive investigation. That work, which has been conducted with
equal opportunities for both parties to question witnesses, has added a
great deal to our understanding of the President's conduct, as evident
in the July 25 call record and the events that both preceded and
followed that call.
That work has necessarily occurred behind closed doors because we
have had the task of finding the facts ourselves, without the benefit
of the investigation that the Justice Department declined to undertake.
Despite attempts to obstruct, we have interviewed numerous witnesses
who have provided important testimony about the efforts to secure
political favors from Ukraine. We have reviewed text messages among key
players which show how securing political investigations was placed at
the forefront of our foreign policy toward Ukraine.
This resolution sets the stage for the next phase of our
investigation, one in which the American people will have the
opportunity to hear from the witnesses firsthand.
We will continue to conduct this inquiry with the seriousness of
purpose that our task deserves, because it is our duty and because no
one is above the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the resolution.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Babin), my good friend.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, what began with a rallying cry of, ``We are
going to impeach the `expletive deleted,' '' to a crowd of liberal
activists and young children by my colleague from Michigan on the very
first day of this new Congress is now the majority's flagship
initiative. What a shame, and what a waste of time in the people's
House.
In my view, our President was doing his job, ensuring that if
taxpayer dollars from my constituents and yours were going to the other
side of the world, that it would be paired with a commitment to crack
down on corruption at all levels, no matter who someone's daddy is or
what their political ambitions are.
I think we all know that this was inevitable. From the moment Donald
J. Trump was elected, the ends of harassment and impeachment have just
been waiting for the means, and they think that they have found them.
They are wrong.
There is, however, one small measure we can take as one House to
bring a shred of dignity to these disgraceful proceedings. I can stand
and be counted. We can stand and be counted, one by one, and announce
our ``yea'' or ``nay'' with a vote by a call of the roll.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to begin my remarks with some of the most beautiful words in
our country's history: ``We the people of the United States, in order
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United
States of America.''
It goes on immediately to establish Article I, the legislative
branch; Article II, the executive branch; Article III, the judiciary--
the genius of the Constitution, a separation of powers, three coequal
branches of government to be a check and balance on each other.
It is to that that we take the oath of office. We gather here on that
opening day with our families gathered around to proudly raise our hand
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And that
is exactly what we are doing today.
Sadly, this is not any cause for any glee or comfort. This is
something that is very solemn, that is something prayerful, and that we
had to gather so much information to take us to this next step.
Again, this is a solemn occasion. Nobody, I doubt anybody in this
place or anybody that you know, who comes to Congress to take the oath
of office
[[Page H8691]]
comes to Congress to impeach the President of the United States unless
his actions are jeopardizing our honoring our oath of office.
I am grateful to our committee chairs for all the careful and
thoughtful investigation they have been doing as this inquiry has
proceeded.
Today, the House takes the next step forward, as we establish the
procedures for open hearings conducted by the House Intelligence
Committee so that the public can see the facts for themselves.
This resolution ensures transparency, advancing the public disclosure
of deposition transcripts, and outlining the procedure for the transfer
of evidence to the Judiciary Committee to use in its proceedings.
It enables effective public hearings, setting out procedures for the
questioning of witnesses, and continuing the precedent of giving the
minority the same rights in questioning witnesses as the majority,
which has been true at every step of this inquiry, despite what you
might hear fomenting there.
It provides the President and his counsel opportunities to
participate, including presenting his case, submitting requests for
testimony, attending hearings, raising objections to testimony given,
cross-examining witnesses, and more.
Contrary to what you may have heard today, we give more opportunity
to his case than was given to other Presidents before.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Schiff for making that point so
clearly.
These actions--this process, these open hearings, seeking the truth
and making it available to the American people--will inform Congress on
the very difficult decisions we will have to make in the future as to
whether to impeach the President.
That decision has not been made. That is what the inquiry will
investigate. Then, we can make the decision based on the truth. I don't
know why the Republicans are afraid of the truth.
Every Member should support allowing the American people to hear the
facts for themselves. That is really what this vote is about. It is
about the truth.
What is at stake? What is at stake in all of this is nothing less
than our democracy.
Madam Chair, I proudly stand next to the flag, and I thank the
gentleman from New York for providing it for us. So many have fought
and died for this flag, which stands for our democracy.
When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall--you have heard
this over and over--on September 17, 1787, the day our Constitution was
adopted, people said to him: ``Dr. Franklin, what do we have, a
monarchy or a republic?'' As you know, he said: ``A republic, if you
can keep it.'' If we can keep it.
This Constitution is the blueprint for our Republic and not a
monarchy.
{time} 1015
But when we have a President who says Article II says ``I can do
whatever I want,'' that is in defiance of the separation of powers.
That is not what our Constitution says.
What is at stake? Our democracy.
What are we fighting for? Defending our democracy for the people.
In the early days of our Revolution, Thomas Paine said, ``The times
have found us.'' The times found our Founders to declare independence
from a monarchy, to fight a war of independence, to win, to write our
founding documents--and, thank God, they made them amendable so that we
can always be expanding freedom.
And the genius--again, the genius--of that Constitution was the
separation of powers. Any usurping of that power is a violation of our
oath of office.
So, proudly, we all raised our hand to protect, defend, and support
the Constitution of the United States. That is what this vote is about.
Today, we think the times found our Founders. The times have found
others in the course of our history to protect our democracy and to
keep our country united.
The times have found each and every one of us in this room--and in
our country--to pay attention to how we protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States: honoring the vision of our Founders
who declared independence from a monarch and established a country
contrary to that principle; honoring the men and women in uniform who
fight for our flag, for our freedom, and for our democracy; and
honoring the aspirations of our children so that no President, whoever
he or she may be in the future, could decide that Article II says they
can do whatever they want.
Again, let us honor our oath of office. Let us defend our democracy.
Let us have a good vote, today, and have clarity--clarity--as to how we
proceed, why we proceed, and, again, doing so in a way that honors the
Constitution.
We must honor the Constitution in how we do this; we must respect the
institution we serve; and we must heed the further words of our
Founders, ``e pluribus unum,'' ``out of many, one.'' They didn't know
how many it would be or how different we would be, but they knew that
we needed to always be unifying.
Hopefully, as we go forward with this with a clarity of purpose, a
clarity of procedure, a clarity of fact, and a clarity of truth--it is
about the truth; it is about the Constitution--we will do so in a way
that brings people together that is healing rather than dividing, and
that is how we will honor our oath of office.
Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
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. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I would also argue that Article I does not
say you can do whatever you want to do. The Constitution says that, and
our Founding Fathers said that, as well.
Madam Speaker, for 38 days, I have objected to this impeachment probe
because it denies due process, fundamental transparency, and basic
fairness to Republicans, the White House, and the American people.
From day one, Democrats have ignored the rules and 45 years of
historic impeachment precedent.
Without any authorization, Adam Schiff has conducted a secret probe
outside of his committee's jurisdiction. He has blocked us from calling
our own witnesses. His witnesses are being interviewed behind closed
doors in the most secretive room in the United States Capitol.
That is not democracy.
He has muzzled Republicans--I have been in the room--placing a gag
order on depositions, while leaking cherry-picked facts to the press.
He refuses to even allow us to read the transcripts without being
babysat by a Democrat staffer.
He has refused to let us hear from the most important witness who
brought this entire thing: the whistleblower.
He has barred White House counsel from any participation.
And now, 38 days into the Democrats' rush to impeachment, Speaker
Pelosi claims she wants to establish ``rules'' and transparency. You
cannot make your game fair by allowing the opposing team onto the field
at the 2-minute warning.
The bipartisan precedents from Nixon and Clinton still must be
followed, and they are not being followed under this resolution. White
House counsel remains shut out of this process. This is unacceptable.
Only three times in our Nation's history has Congress exercised its
grave power of impeachment.
Our Founding Fathers, in Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton
warned us of abusing this power because they saw a future Congress
abusing it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL. They foresaw a Congress at one point in history abusing
this process for partisan political gain.
Madam Speaker, instead of overturning an entire election with a
partisan weapon, we should just allow the American people to vote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), a distinguished member of
the Rules Committee.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H. Res. 660.
Madam Speaker, impeachment is not something that we take lightly, but
[[Page H8692]]
when the President endangers our national security, he gives us no
other choice.
We now know from Trump's own call record that he pressured a foreign
government to interfere in our elections and investigate his political
opponent.
We now know that Trump potentially sought to apply leverage on
Ukraine, first with a coveted White House meeting and, second, by
withholding security assistance to fend off Russian aggression.
Today's resolution allows us to present these facts in a clear,
professional, and fair way.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of H. Res. 660 so the American people
can, too, learn the truth.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I have heard today how much my colleagues
on the other side wish to make this an open and transparent process and
``this is for we, the people.'' I would really like to believe that.
Yet, after they introduced the resolution, they have another full
week of hearings behind closed doors, and they have scheduled another
full week of hearings behind closed doors.
If this is about transparency, then open it up. If you want the
American people to see it, open it up. Give Members access to the
transcripts. Let the media into the room. Let us participate. Failing
to do so denies transparency.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a distinguished member of
the Rules Committee.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution.
Madam Speaker, from the very start of this inquiry, the White House
has obstructed the House of Representatives. The White House has
ignored duly authorized subpoenas and has tried to prevent witnesses
from testifying.
The White House has also directed other agencies to do the same. The
Department of State, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Defense, and the Office of Management and Budget all have refused to
produce a single document in response to valid subpoenas.
This is an unprecedented cover-up. The White House and its defenders
in Congress have tried to justify it with baseless procedural claims
that contradict the Constitution and historical precedent.
History will judge us all.
After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to focus on
process instead of substance. After today, there are no more excuses
for those who want to ignore the facts instead of defending the
Constitution. And there are no more excuses for those who turn a blind
eye while the President pressures foreign actors to interfere with our
democracy.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Morelle), another distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
660.
Madam Speaker, I am deeply troubled that this process has become
necessary at all, but we have no choice. We must continue to
investigate alarming allegations of misconduct by the President, and we
continue with a public process through which all Americans will have
the ability to access and to assess the evidence.
This has been and will continue to be a fair and sober inquiry.
Members on both sides will continue to have the opportunity to question
witnesses, seek evidence, and refute testimony presented during these
proceedings. Indeed, the President will have strong protections as we
weigh the evidence during our deliberations.
Our only goal is uncovering the truth: Did the President pressure
Ukrainian leaders with the threat of withholding critical military
assistance in order to serve his political interests? Has the President
endangered American interests abroad by engaging in domestic political
intrigue? These are serious issues, not of politics, but of national
security.
This inquiry is our solemn obligation, but it is our obligation,
nonetheless.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution so we may uphold our oath to the Constitution and preserve a
transparent process on behalf of our Republic and the citizens it
serves.
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. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Cole, for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
Unfortunately, we have seen, since the day that President Trump was
inaugurated, some people who made it public that they wanted to impeach
him--not because there are high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the
constitutional standard, but just because they don't agree with the
results of the 2016 election.
That, Madam Speaker, is not why you impeach a president. There is
precedent.
This has only happened three times in the history of our country.
Every time, it not only started with a full vote of the House, but it
also started with actual fairness. We are not getting that fairness
today.
When you look through this resolution, in multiple places, it gives
veto authority by the chair to literally reject any witness who is
brought forward by the minority. So no rights for the minority unless
the chair so designates.
In fact, in this resolution, it allows the chair to veto even the
ability for the President to have legal counsel in the room. If the
chair chooses, at his whim, they can literally kick out the President's
legal counsel.
This is unprecedented. It is not only unprecedented, this is Soviet-
style rules.
Maybe in the Soviet Union you do things like this: where only you
make the rules, where you reject the ability for the person you are
accusing to even be in the room to question what is going on, for
anybody else to call witnesses, when only one person has the right to
call witnesses.
And as we saw just the other day, the chairman was literally
directing the witness to not answer certain questions by the
Republicans. What kind of fairness is that?
Maybe you think it is fairness if you can run roughshod over somebody
because you have got the votes, but that is not how impeachment was
supposed to go. In fact, Alexander Hamilton himself, during the debate
on the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers, warned of days like
this, that the greatest danger is that the decision on impeachment
``will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by
the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' Alexander Hamilton
warned about days like today.
This is not what we should be doing, clearly, when you ask the
American people, who know that they are paying higher drug prices and
they see that there is legislation, bipartisan legislation, to lower
drug prices that won't come to this floor because of the infatuation
with impeachment.
We don't even have a bill to formally pay our troops and make sure
they have the tools they need to defend this country because there is
such an infatuation with impeachment.
{time} 1030
Madam Speaker, when you look through this resolution, you see how
one-sided, how Soviet-style this is running. This is the United States
of America. Don't run a sham process, a tainted process like this
resolution ensures.
It ought to be rejected, and I think you will see bipartisan
rejection of this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I support this resolution because it is
the solemn duty of the Congress to investigate the serious allegations
against the President.
[[Page H8693]]
I support this resolution because it is indefensible for any official
to demand an ally--one depending on our support in an existential
struggle with Russia--investigate his or her political adversaries.
I support this resolution because no person, Republican or Democrat,
should be permitted to jeopardize America's security and reputation for
self-serving political purposes.
I support this resolution because if, after a fair and thorough
inquiry, the allegations against President Trump are found to be true,
they would represent a profound offense against the Constitution and
the people of this country.
I support this resolution because I believe it is the duty of this
House to vindicate the Constitution and to make it crystal clear to
future Presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the
great public trust placed in him or her.
I support this resolution, not because I want the allegations to be
true--they sadden me deeply--but because, if they are true, the
Constitution demands that we take action.
I support this resolution because it lays the groundwork for open
hearings. The House and the American public must see all of the
evidence for themselves.
I support this resolution because I know we must overcome this
difficult moment for the Nation. This resolution is necessary to ensure
that our constitutional order remains intact for future generations.
I support this resolution because we have no choice.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for a speaker to come. I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and rise to support
moving forward to the next open phase of this impeachment inquiry so
that the American people can hear from witnesses, see the evidence, and
understand the troubling story of what has taken place in this
administration.
As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my priorities are
supporting American diplomats and diplomacy, working with partners and
allies, and ensuring that our foreign policy advances America's
interests.
This administration has, unfortunately, undermined all of those
priorities since its first day. But in the last month, we have learned
more and more about just how deep this goes.
The facts are clear: The White House launched a shadow foreign policy
that circumvented and undermined our normal diplomatic channels.
A distinguished career ambassador was publicly smeared and pushed
aside.
Critical military aid for Ukraine, a valued partner--locked in a
life-or-death struggle with Russia--was blocked.
The goal? Not some foreign policy priority; not an effort to make our
country safer or stronger--quite the opposite, as delaying these
resources hurt Ukraine and directly benefited Vladimir Putin.
Why, then? To pressure a foreign government to interfere in our 2020
elections. It is what the Framers feared most.
The President's own words say it best from the record of the call
with President Zelensky as he sought the tools to push back against
Russia. Mr. Trump's answer: ``I would like you to do us a favor,
though.''
Since that first damning piece of evidence came to light, the
Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees have worked to
fill in the pieces of the puzzle, thanks to the courage of public
servants who obeyed the law and testified, even in the face of bullying
and intimidation from the administration and of ugly, baseless smears
from the President's allies.
I condemn the shameful efforts to identify and harass the
whistleblower whose life may be jeopardized for coming forward to tell
the truth.
I salute all of those patriots, and I salute my fellow committee
chairs Mr. Schiff, Mrs. Maloney, and the late Mr. Cummings--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee
on Financial Services.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding.
I rise in support of H. Res. 660 and the process that is set forth
within it by which the impeachment inquiry will continue to be
conducted.
To be clear, contrary to what these desperate Republicans have
claimed, the Constitution imposes no requirement that a procedural
resolution, such as H. Res. 660, should be voted on by the House.
Claiming otherwise is but a fabrication meant to distract from the
mountain of growing evidence that demonstrates this President abused
his power for personal benefit.
However, while not necessary, this resolution provides for impartial
procedures similar to those used during the past impeachment
proceedings.
Because Republicans requested a formal procedural vote, I expect
nothing less than their full support for H. Res. 660. Anything less
would be shameful.
As chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, we have been
conducting credible investigations into the conduct of this
administration. And this work----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. WATERS.--will continue in the manner outlined by H. Res. 660. I
look forward to Democrats and Republicans alike----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The
gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, ``I would like you to do
us a favor, though.''
President Trump said those 10 words on July 25 to Ukraine's President
before asking Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate a potential
political opponent.
For the past month, the Intelligence Committee has led an
investigation into what happened around that phone call. In this early
investigative stage, we have heard powerful, corroborating evidence
that President Trump led an extortion shakedown scheme over the
Ukrainians, leveraging $391 million of taxpayer dollars to have a
foreign power assist him in his upcoming campaign.
Just as powerful as the evidence we heard is the courage of the
people who have come forward to provide it, defying lawless White House
orders to obstruct and, instead, adhering to lawful congressional
subpoenas.
The evidence, however, is not a conclusion. At this stage, we must
move now to a public process with due process protections for the
President to secure and test that evidence.
When our Founders designed the Constitution, they considered a
lawless President and how to hold that person accountable. James
Madison said the Constitution needed a provision for defending the
community against lawlessness. Now we must solemnly embark upon this
journey.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward
the President.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire from my friend if he
has additional speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we do.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, in that case, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, today is a serious and solemn day for our
country. The House's impeachment inquiry has exposed the truth and
uncovered significant evidence that the President abused his power.
To honor the oath to defend the Constitution that each of us took, we
must move forward with this impeachment inquiry. As Thomas Jefferson
once said hundreds of years ago: ``A sacred respect for the
constitutional law is the
[[Page H8694]]
vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.''
Let us honor the Constitution and defend it today by voting ``yes''
on this resolution.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I did not come
here to launch an impeachment process. However, the facts demand it.
``A Republic, if you can keep it.''
What we decide today will say more about us than it says about the
conduct of the President.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, on opening day, we take an oath of
office. We take an oath not to a king, not to a President, but to
protect and defend the Constitution. It is our solemn duty.
In fact, this resolution sets forth the procedures for the next phase
of our impeachment inquiry. We know substantial evidence has been
presented that the President abused his power, undermined our national
security, and undermined the integrity of our elections.
We are duty-bound to proceed. It is a sad day, but not because
Congress has the courage to stand up for our democracy, but because the
President's conduct has forced this action.
I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close for our side, so
I will yield to the gentleman.
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. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, elections have consequences. Our fellow Americans used
their vote to choose who will work for them. So I ask you all a simple
question--especially to my colleagues: Is that what is happening here
today?
Are we gathered in these final moments, before we depart for a week,
to fund our government or to pay our troops?
Are we gathered today to approve a new trade deal? Or are we gathered
to debate the critical national security issues regarding China or
Iran?
That answer would be unanimously ``no.'' We are not working for the
American people.
{time} 1045
Those items would resemble the achievements of a productive Congress,
a Congress that truly works for the people.
But do you know what this Congress counts?
This Congress' record is more subpoenas than laws. That is the
legacy. It is not just devoid of solutions for the American people; it
is now abusing its power to discredit democracy.
By using secret interviews and selective leaks to portray the
President's legitimate actions as an impeachable offense, Democrats are
continuing their permanent campaign to undermine his legitimacy.
For the last 3 years, they have predetermined the President's guilt,
and they have never accepted the voters' choice to make him President.
So for 37 days and counting, they have run an unprecedented,
undemocratic, and unfair investigation. This resolution today only
makes it worse.
I have heard Members on the other side say they promise rights to the
President, but only if he does what they want. That is the equivalent
of saying in the First Amendment that you have the right to the freedom
of speech, but you can only say the words I agree with. That is what
you call due process, Madam Speaker.
The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Cole, would help correct
some of the transparency concerns we have witnessed over the last few
weeks. But today is about more than the fairness of the impeachment
process. It is about the integrity of our electoral process. Democrats
are trying to impeach the President because they are scared they cannot
defeat him at the ballot box. Those are not my words. Those are the
words from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have
offered impeachment three different times.
This impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election, it
is an attempt to influence the next one as well.
This is not what Democrats promised when they entered the majority 11
months ago. In this Chamber, we heard from our Speaker. While we all
sat here, we heard what the Speaker said when she talked about words of
optimism and cooperation.
It was said that we would work together to make America stronger,
more secure, and more prosperous. We were told our mission was to
return power to the people. In fact, our new colleagues on the other
side of the aisle were sent to Washington with a mandate to do just
that.
So what has happened?
There is nothing like that today.
Not long ago, Democrats recognized that a partisan impeachment would
put politics over people and harm our Nation.
That exact same Speaker talked about cooperation and talked about and
promised the American people that they would be different if you
trusted them with the majority.
Madam Speaker, you have failed in that promise.
That Speaker said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that
unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and
bipartisan''--the word bipartisan--``I don't think we should go down
that path, because it divides the country.''
What has changed since those words have been spoken?
Alexander Hamilton wrote that:
There will always be the greatest danger that the decision
to use the impeachment power would be driven by partisan
animosities instead of real demonstrations of innocence or
guilt.
This sham impeachment by Democrats has proven Hamilton right, and it
betrays the Speaker's own words.
[[Page H8695]]
I know emotions are high. I know Members would even run for positions
of chair simply on the fact that they would be a better chair for
impeachment right after the election. But when we all stood that day
and listened to the words of the Speaker of cooperation, we all raised
our hand to uphold the Constitution.
Tomorrow is November 1. We are 1 year away from an election, not just
for this House but for the highest office of Presidency.
Madam Speaker, why do you not trust the people?
Why do you not allow the people to have a voice?
Why, in a process that America lends their voice to all of us, do you
deny us the opportunity to speak for them?
Has animosity risen that high?
Has Hamilton been proven correct again?
Madam Speaker, there is a moment in time that you should rise to the
occasion. This is that moment. This is the moment that history will
write. History will ask you, Madam Speaker, when you cast this vote to
justify something that has gone on behind closed doors, I want you to
ask the historian and answer the question: What do you know that
happened there?
Madam Speaker, have you read anything that took place that you just
justified?
What do you believe the definition of ``due process'' is?
What do you think the First Amendment is, that you have the right to
have a voice or only say the words that you agree with?
Madam Speaker, you may get elected in a primary, but in a general
election, you are elected to represent the people of America, not to
deny their voice.
This House is so much better than what is transforming today. I
believe everyone who runs for this office runs to solve a problem. But
when you go back to the American public with the achievement of more
subpoenas than laws, that is not why you ran. That is not why we are
here.
That is why I agree with my colleague, Mr. Cole, who believes in the
power of the people and people before politics, that we believe and
know we can do better, that we believed the Speaker when she spoke
about cooperation, we believed her when she said that if you trusted
them with the majority then they would be different.
Madam Speaker, I guess it is only fitting you take this vote on
Halloween.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are directed to address their
remarks to the Chair.
The gentleman from Oklahoma has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me assure the distinguished minority leader that this Democratic
majority can legislate and also fulfill our constitutional
responsibilities to hold this President to account because it is our
job. We took an oath to do that.
In terms of our legislative accomplishments, they are second to none.
When the Republicans were in the majority, they shut the government
down. Today the Education and Labor Committee just reported out the
higher education bill, we passed a bill to deal with gun violence, we
passed the Dream Act, and we raised the minimum wage. We are working on
a bill to lower prescription drugs, and we passed a bill to protect our
elections so Russia doesn't interfere in our elections ever again.
So, Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues that I am proud of
the process we are following here today that brought us this
resolution.
Madam Speaker, past Congresses under the impeachments of Presidents
Nixon and Clinton found it prudent to have a resolution in place laying
out the path forward, and that is what we are doing here today.
This resolution before us today is based on precedent. It includes
protections for President Trump. The President's counsel is given the
right to ask questions when the evidence is presented. The rules here
expressly provide his counsel the chance to be invited to offer a
concluding presentation. Neither of these things were guaranteed to
President Nixon or President Clinton.
It lays out a clear path forward so that the American people know
what to expect going forward.
Madam Speaker, the obstruction from this White House is
unprecedented. It is stunning. We don't know whether President Trump
will be impeached, but the allegations are as serious as it gets,
endangering national security for political gain.
Madam Speaker, history is testing us, and I worry, based on what we
have heard from the other side today, that some may be failing that
test.
There are no kings and queens in America. That is what separates this
country from so many other nations. No one is above the law. Let me
repeat that: No one is above the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House
Judiciary Committee and one of only 5 members and one of three
Democrats to serve on that House Judiciary Committee during the
impeachment of 1998, I rise in strong support of the Rule governing
debate for H. Res. 660, as well as the underlying legislation--a
resolution directing committees to continue their ongoing
investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry
into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives
to exercise the constitutional power, solely vested in the House of
Representatives, to impeach Donald John Trump, the current President of
the United States of America.
This is a somber and solemn time.
Today we choose our beloved nation over individual self-interest and
a political party.
We choose due process, regular order and fairness.
And as the founding fathers crafted a document, which 230 years
later, from 1789 to 2019, we can abide by, we choose the Constitution.
When the Framers of our Constitution designed our government, they
bifurcated power between the federal and state governments, and divided
power among the branches.
Indeed as the Framers debated ratification of the Constitution, they
knew of the need to remove an individual who breached the public trust.
James Madison of Virginia argued in favor of impeachment stating that
some provision was ``indispensable'' to defend the community against
``the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.''
With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose
collective nature provided security, ``loss of capacity or corruption
was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them
might be fatal to the Republic.''
They wrote Article I and vested in the Congress the capacity to make
the laws.
They wrote Article II, and in the Executive vested the power to
faithfully execute those laws.
Because the House enjoyed a natural superiority, as most
representative of the passions of the populace, the Framers vested in
the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment, and made
the Senate the judges.
In Article II, they specified the standard by which a president or
any constitutional officer is to be removed from office: for High
Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It is against that backdrop that we debate this resolution.
In support this resolution because it protects our interests, holds
us responsible, protects the American people and gives the president
ample opportunity to try to justify his conduct.
In September, members of the House of Representatives learned of a
complaint filed by a whistleblower within the Intelligence Community.
The whistleblower alleged that on July 25, 2019, in a telephone
conversation with the President of Ukraine, the American President
sought to withhold foreign military aid from the besieged and
beleaguered nation of Ukraine unless and until the Government of
Ukraine produced or manufactured produced political dirt against a
person he deemed his most formidable political rival.
The allegation suggests an effort and intent to extort the assistance
of a foreign power to help the current president retain his office.
This is similar to the allegations surrounding his 2016 election
victory, which were at the heart of the Special Counsel's Report
regarding Russian election interference.
After the whistleblower's details were made public, the White House
engaged in a series of untenable defenses, all designed to discredit
the courageous whistleblower's account, which the Intelligence
Community Inspector General found credible.
First, the White House indicated that the whistleblower should not be
trusted because it referenced secondhand information, forgetting that
much of the information in the Whistleblower's complaint was
corroborated by the White House itself.
Next, the White House claimed, without proof, that the whistleblower
was a liar.
[[Page H8696]]
Then, the White House spread a lie that it was a ``perfect'' call
between the two leaders.
Outrageously, the White House then claimed that Chairman Adam Schiff
is lying and had helped the Whistleblower draft his complaint.
That was before the President said that the whistleblower's complaint
is a lie made up by the ``Deep State.''
And that was before the President said that he made the call at Rick
Perry's urging and that the phone conversations with the Vice President
are more problematic than his.
The President and his last defenders are now trying to denigrate the
life and accomplishments of Ambassador Bill Taylor, a graduate of the
United States Military Academy at West Point, and decorated soldier,
and dismissing him as a Never Trumper, as if that is a demerit.
This past Tuesday, Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a member of the
National Security Council who immigrated from Ukraine when he was
three-years old and was dismissed by the President as insufficiently
loyal to him, before one of the President's acolytes suggested Lt. Col.
Vindman held a greater loyalty for Ukraine over the United States.
Lt. Col. Vindman has loyally served our country and our Constitution.
He was injured in the war in Iraq, for which he was awarded the Purple
Heart.
It is thus fitting that when Lt. Col. Vindman appeared to testify in
this impeachment inquiry, he did so wearing his Army class A uniform,
and had inside his leg shrapnel from the attack that wounded him, and
won him the commendation of his superior officers in the Army.
And when he began his testimony, he indicated just what service to
this nation meant.
He stated:
I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United
States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my
honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an
infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including
South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat
operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and
awarded a Purple Heart.
An immigrant to this country, Lt. Col. Vindman stated:
The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in
my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit
here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an
immigrant. My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three
and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979,
my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while
learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance
of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many
years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging
beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream.
I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and
the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred
duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country,
irrespective of party or politics.
When Lt. Col. Vindman testified, he spoke of the horror he felt when
he realized that our country's national security apparatus was being
manipulated for the president's personal and political gain.
He stated in his testimony:
On July 21, 2019, President Zelensky's party won
Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC
proposed that President Trump call President Zelensky to
congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I
listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues
from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the
transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what
was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was
proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen, and I was worried about the implications for 6 the
U.S. government's support of Ukraine. I realized that if
Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma,
it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would
undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support
it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S.
national security. Following the call, I again reported my
concerns to NSC's lead counsel.
Throughout the last five weeks, Congressional Republicans have
presented a series of strawman arguments designed to deflect but not
delve into the very serious charges against the President.
Congressional Republicans' claims that the whistleblower complaint
was hearsay are specious because its contents have been independently
and repeatedly confirmed.
Similarly, there is no merit to the claim that there was no quid pro
quo when the evidence adduced to date confirms there was.
In their perverse logic, Congressional Republicans decried the lack
of due process for a man who once suggested that the Central Park Five
should be summarily executed for a crime for which they were later
exonerated, and could shoot someone in broad daylight with impunity.
Despite these specious arguments, it is likely that these process
arguments are only made because the substance of the president's
allegations are utterly indefensible.
The American people and their elected representatives cannot be
distracted; they are paying close attention to the substantial
wrongdoing emanating from this White House.
They know what the President, which is why a clear majority support
impeachment and removal of this President.
As the House of Representatives continues its impeachment inquiry, H.
Res. 660 is an especially timely piece of legislation, which squarely
addresses the concerns of the President's most fervent supporters.
Specifically, this legislation reaffirms that the six investigating
committees--including the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a
senior member and which has exclusive jurisdiction to draft Articles of
Impeachment--announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been engaged in an
impeachment inquiry and directs them to continue their vital work.
That we have been engaged in an ongoing impeachment inquiry was
ratified by the Article III branch when Judge Beryl Howell, the Chief
Judge for the United States District court for the District of
Columbia, recently held that the House is conducting an impeachment
inquiry, which does not require a formal floor vote.
Second, H. Res. 660 authorizes the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence (HPSCI) to make public transcripts of recent
depositions with appropriate redactions made for classified or other
sensitive information.
This legislation, too, establishes procedures for all investigating
committees to transmit their evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary
for use in their proceedings.
The resolution is also prospective, as it relates to these hearings
moving from secure intelligence facilities to public view. H. Res. 660
also serves to enable effective public hearings as it permits staff
counsels to question witnesses for up to 45 minutes.
This is consistent with precedent established in 1998 of having staff
counsel conduct initial questioning, followed by Member questions, by
Republicans used to question Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in 1998.
The resolution also continues the precedent of giving the minority
the same rights to question witnesses that was afforded the majority.
This has been true at every step of the inquiry.
Additionally, H. Res. 660 also permits the President opportunities to
participate in this inquiry, in a manner consistent with past
participation by Presidents.
The resolution establishes opportunities for the President or his
counsel to participate in impeachment proceedings held by the Committee
on the Judiciary, including to present his case and respond to
evidence.
The President can submit written requests for additional testimony or
other evidence.
The President can attend hearings, including those held in executive
session, raise an objection to testimony given and cross-examine
witnesses.
But, if the President unlawfully refuses to cooperate with
Congressional requests, the Chair shall have the discretion to impose
sanctions to enforce appropriate remedies, including by denying
specific requests by the President or his counsel.
H. Res. 660 explicates the procedure that applies after testimony is
adduced in the HPSCI.
H. Res. 660 directs the Committee on the Judiciary to review the
evidence and, if necessary, to report Articles of Impeachment to the
House.
Following the precedent of every modern impeachment inquiry, the
Committee on the Judiciary will decide whether Articles shall be
reported to the House.
H. Res. 660 is important legislation that specifies the parameters
and the terms this body will follow as it undergoes its solemn and
constitutional task.
It affords equal time to the Chairman and Ranking Member to question
witnesses and it treats the President and his counsel fairly.
And, importantly, it lays out for the American people the manner in
which this inquiry will proceed to the House Judiciary Committee--the
committee of jurisdiction for impeachment and where I will bring to
bear my decades of experience on Capitol Hill, including the lessons
learned in the impeachment of 1998.
Unlike that occasion, the allegations at the heart of this matter are
serious, and damning of the president's conduct and fitness to serve
and his ability to safeguard our national security.
These allegations represent a violation of his oath, a betrayal of
our national interests, a repudiation of Americans' cherished
Democratic Values, and a violation of federal campaign finance laws.
When the President stated that Article II permits him to do whatever
he wants, he was invoking a fear of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the
Declaration of Independence.
As the author of one of our nation's enduring documents, Jefferson
was well-versed with
[[Page H8697]]
what troubles would merit the erosion of public trust in its leaders.
After all, the Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances
of a lawless King, who felt impunity.
But, almost 50 years after the adoption of the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote to another of our nation's
founders: Nathaniel Macon.
In 1821, Jefferson wrote: ``Our government is now taking so steady a
course, as to shew by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by
consolidation first; and then corruption, it's necessary consequence.''
It is clear that the consolidation that Jefferson feared--and the
corruption which he said would be its necessary consequence--has now
been realized in the actions of this President.
We will not permit this to continue and we will put a stop to it.
The President will be held to account. H. Res. 660 is the first step
towards that accountability, and I am proud to support it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 660, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Cole
In section 2, strike paragraph (5) and insert the
following:
(5) Not later than 15 days after the Permanent Select
Committee conducts a deposition or an interview in
furtherance of the investigation described in the first
section of this resolution, the chair shall make publicly
available in electronic form the transcript of such
deposition or interview, with appropriate redactions for
classified and other sensitive information.
In section 3, strike ``is authorized'' and insert
``shall''.
In section 3, strike ``to transfer'' and insert
``transfer''.
In section 3, insert after ``records or materials'' the
following: ``, including exculpatory records or materials,
with appropriate redactions for classified or other sensitive
information,''.
In section 4, strike subsection (d) and insert the
following:
(d) In the case that the Committee on the Judiciary
proceeds to consideration of a resolution, article of
impeachment, or other recommendation, the chair shall, at
least 72 hours prior to committee consideration, make
available to the public, the report received from the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and any and all
records or materials, including exculpatory records or
materials, with appropriate redactions for classified or
other sensitive information, that were transferred from the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or any other
committee involved in the inquiry referenced in the first
section of this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
October 31, 2019, on page H8697 (first column), the following
appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the
resolution.
The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro
tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 196, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 603]
YEAS--231
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--4
Hice (GA)
McEachin
Rose, John W.
Timmons
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1119
Messrs. TURNER and VAN DREW changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Miss RICE of New York changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 196, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 604]
YEAS--232
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
[[Page H8698]]
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--4
Hice (GA)
McEachin
Rose, John W.
Timmons
{time} 1127
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________