[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.

                          ____________________