[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 173 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8705-H8706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       LAW AND ORDER IMPEACHMENT

  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this is a somber and solemn time.
  I rise in support of H. Res. 660, a resolution establishing 
procedures for the impeachment of the President. I do it with a heavy 
heart.
  But today we choose our beloved Nation over individual self-interest 
and political party. We choose due process, regular order, and 
fairness. We choose this little document called the Constitution, 
lasting for over 200 years.
  We are reminded of the words of James Madison who argued in favor of 
impeachment, stating that some provision was indispensable to defend 
the community against the incapacity or negligence of the chief 
magistrate.
  We do not do this in a rush, and we do not do it eagerly.
  We are reminded of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who came here at 3 
years old. He said he had dedicated his entire professional life to the 
United States of America. And he said about the call that he was on: I 
realized that this was troubling, that if Ukraine pursued an 
investigation into the Bidens, it would be heavy and wrong. I do not 
think it is proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a 
U.S. citizen.
  Again, we stand on the Constitution. We must do it right and do it 
fairly.
  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.
  I 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.
  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.

  And 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 Zelenskyy's party won 
     Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC 
     proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy 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

[[Page H8706]]

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 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.
  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 H. Res. 660, 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.

                          ____________________