[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H12115-H12130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 755, IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN 
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 767 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 767

       Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this 
     resolution, without intervention of any point of order, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 755) impeaching Donald John Trump, 
     President of the United States, for high crimes and 
     misdemeanors. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as 
     amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question except as follows:
        (a) The resolution, as amended, shall be debatable for six 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
     respective designees.
       (b) The question of adoption of the resolution, as amended, 
     shall be divided between the two articles.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of House Resolution 755, only 
     the following persons shall be admitted to the Hall of the 
     House or rooms leading thereto:
        (a) Members of Congress.
       (b) The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner.
       (c) The President and Vice President of the United States.
       (d) Other persons as designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3.  After adoption of House Resolution 755, it shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House a resolution appointing and authorizing 
     managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, 
     President of the United States, if offered by the chair of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except 10 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. No other resolution incidental to 
     impeachment relating to House Resolution 755 shall be 
     privileged during the remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth 
     Congress.
       Sec. 4.  The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary may 
     insert in the Congressional Record such material as he may 
     deem explanatory of--
        (a) House Resolution 755, not later than the date that is 
     5 legislative days after adoption thereof; and
       (b) the resolution specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution, not later than the date that is 5 legislative 
     days after adoption thereof.


[[Page H12116]]


  



                             Point of Order

  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order for failure 
to disclose the waiver of clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, pursuant to clause 
6(g) of rule XIII, which requires the Rules Committee to specify in 
their report any waiver of a point of order against a measure under 
consideration.
  Madam Speaker, this underlying resolution violates clause 2(j)(1) of 
rule XI, which entitles the minority of the committee to have the 
ability to call witnesses to testify during at least one day of a 
hearing on any given measure. This was not afforded to the Committee on 
the Judiciary minority members during consideration of the Articles of 
Impeachment, despite numerous requests by a majority of the minority 
members.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule 
and the underlying resolution for the violation of minority rights and 
the denial of this evidence to be put into the Record and for this 
hearing, which the House rules require, which was not complied with and 
was denied.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the enforcement of this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana seeks to raise 
a point of order against House Resolution 767 on the grounds that the 
report accompanying the resolution fails to specify a waiver of a 
particular point of order and is thus in violation of clause 6(g) of 
rule XIII.
  The gentleman is stating a matter for debate rather than a proper 
point of order. Clause 6(g) of rule XIII is merely informational on any 
specified waivers ``to the maximum extent possible.''
  As elucidated by Chairman Solomon in the legislative history 
accompanying the adoption of this rule in the 104th Congress, any 
``failure of the Rules Committee to specify waivers in a rule would not 
give rise to a point of order against a special rule that waives all 
points of order.''
  The Chair would therefore advise the gentleman that he is not stating 
a proper point of order.
  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 distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. 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 pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a closed rule for House Resolution 767, providing for 
consideration of H. Res. 755, impeaching Donald John Trump, President 
of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
  The rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
or their designees. The rule provides that the question of adoption of 
the resolution shall be divided between two articles. The rule limits 
access to the House floor. It provides, at any time after adoption of 
H. Res. 755, for consideration of a resolution appointing and 
authorizing managers for the impeachment trial, if offered by the chair 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, debatable for 10 minutes.
  No resolution incidental to impeachment relating to H. Res. 755 shall 
be privileged during the remainder of the 116th Congress. Finally, the 
rule provides that the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary may 
insert explanatory material in the Congressional Record.
  Madam Speaker, 232 years ago, as he walked out of the Constitutional 
Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin stated that the Founders 
had just created ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' He understood that 
nothing was preordained, that our Nation would continue to be shaped 
decision-by-decision, vote-by-vote, not by some other leaders in some 
other time but day in and day out, both through the regular work of 
government and during historic moments like the one we face today.
  Our Founders crafted the fundamentals of government to guide us, 
passages like Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, giving this 
Chamber the sole power of impeachment. But nowhere does it list exactly 
what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.
  In their wisdom, the Founders understood they could not anticipate 
what the future would bring. They gave subsequent generations--us--the 
chance to decide precisely what our government would become, to decide 
with each passing day what a nation defined by the rule of law is 
willing to tolerate.
  That is what brings us here today, to decide nearly two-and-a-half 
centuries later whether the United States is still a nation where no 
one is above the law or whether America becomes a land run by those who 
act more like kings or queens, as if the law doesn't apply to them.
  Yes, Madam Speaker, this really is that serious.
  Over the past several months, the House of Representatives has been 
conducting an impeachment inquiry into the 45th President of the United 
States, Donald John Trump.
  Our inquiry is simply to answer the following question: Did President 
Trump and his top advisers corruptly withhold official government 
actions to obtain an improper advantage in the next election?
  We now know, through the hard work of our investigative committees, 
and because of the President's own admission, that the answer to that 
question is yes. The President withheld congressionally approved 
military aid to Ukraine, a country under siege, not to fight corruption 
but to extract a personal political favor. President Trump refused to 
meet with Ukraine's President in the White House until he completed 
this scheme.

  All the while, leaders in Russia, the very nation holding a large 
part of Ukraine hostage, the very nation that interfered with our 
elections, had another meeting in the Oval Office just last week.
  The President of the United States endangered our national security. 
The President undermined our democracy. And the President, a successor 
to the same office as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, betrayed 
his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
United States.
  These aren't opinions. These are uncontested facts.
  Now, I have read the details of the July 25 phone call with President 
Zelensky, where President Trump said: ``I would like you to do us a 
favor, though.'' I have seen the televised press conference where his 
Chief of Staff openly admitted to this deal and told the Nation to 
``just get over it.''
  Hours and hours of depositions by the Committee on Intelligence, 
Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Committee on Foreign Affairs 
have been conducted where witnesses outlined the President's direct 
involvement in this scheme.
  The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming. If a President 
undermining our national security and using the Federal Government for 
his own selfish, personal gain is not impeachable conduct, then, Madam 
Speaker, I don't know what is.
  I have heard some on the other side suggest this process is about 
overturning an election. That is absurd. This is about protecting our 
democracy.
  These facts are beyond dispute. The only question now is whether we 
are willing to tolerate such conduct, not just today by President Trump 
but, furthermore, by any President of either party. To not act would 
set a dangerous precedent, not just for this President, but for every 
future President.
  Madam Speaker, 11 months ago, many of us took an oath right here in 
this Chamber. I have had the privilege to take that oath 12 times now, 
and I believe it is not just for show. It is a contract between each of 
us and the people we represent to place the national interest above 
partisan interests and to preserve those laws that make our country 
unique. We cannot reconcile the President's abuse of power

[[Page H12117]]

and obstruction of Congress with the oath of office that we took.
  Madam Speaker, we are being tested on something greater than our 
ability to toe a party line, something more than our ability to score 
the next great television sound bite. This is a democracy-defining 
moment.
  History will judge us by whether we keep intact that fragile republic 
handed down to us by our forebearers more than 200 years ago or whether 
we allow it to be changed forever. For the sake of our country's 
future, I hope, and I pray, that my colleagues will make the right 
decision.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today is a very sad day for all of us--for me 
personally, for the Rules Committee, for the entire House of 
Representatives, and, most importantly, for the American people.
  For the second time in my life, the House of Representatives will be 
voting to impeach a President of the United States. But unlike in 1998, 
the decision to have this vote is not the result of a bipartisan 
process nor an open or fair process. Instead, it is going to be a 
deeply partisan vote, coming at the end of an unfair and rushed process 
prescribed solely by Democrats to ensure a predetermined result.

                              {time}  1015

  Impeachment of a President is one of the most consequential acts the 
House of Representatives can undertake, and it should only be done 
after the fullest and most careful consideration.
  Yet, today, after a truncated investigation that denied the President 
due process and cherry-picked evidence and witness testimony to fit 
their narrative and trampled on Republicans' minority rights, Democrats 
in the House are pressing forward with a partisan impeachment vote.
  Doing so contradicts Speaker Pelosi's own words back in March of this 
year when she said that an ``impeachment is so divisive to the country 
that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and 
bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it 
divides the country.''
  But if we are really being honest, Democrats have been searching for 
a reason to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. In 
December of 2017, a current member of the majority forced a vote to 
impeach the President; and even then, long before there was even an 
impeachment investigation, 58 Democrats voted to impeach the President.
  Those Members have only grown since then, to the point where the 
majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment, 
heedless of where it takes the country and regardless of whether or not 
they have proven their case.
  If my colleagues in the majority believe they have proven their case, 
let me be clear: They have not. The entire premise of these Articles of 
Impeachment rests on a pause placed on Ukrainian security assistance, a 
pause of 55 days.
  The majority has spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the 
motive of this pause, alleging the President demanded a ``quid pro 
quo,'' but with no factual evidence to back it up. Security aid to 
Ukraine was released. The administration did so without Ukraine ever 
initiating an investigation into anyone or anything.
  It is even more startling to me that the majority wants to move 
forward with this resolution given how substantially flawed and 
procedurally defective the entire process has been.
  The Judiciary Committee, which drafted these Articles of Impeachment, 
engaged in an abbreviated process, hearing from no witnesses with 
firsthand knowledge of the events in question. They did not conduct 
their own investigation and only held two hearings on this topic before 
drafting the articles, one with staff and one with constitutional law 
scholars. That is hardly the type of lengthy and serious consideration 
a topic as grave as impeachment demands.
  The committee actually charged with an impeachment investigation was 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Judiciary 
Committee, but that committee, too, followed a primarily closed 
process. Republicans were denied the right to call witnesses or 
subpoena documents, and the President was denied the right to 
representation in the committee's hearings.
  Without respecting minority rights and without respecting due process 
rights of the President, how can anyone consider this a fair process?
  Madam Speaker, it gets worse. The Articles of Impeachment we are 
considering today are based on the Schiff report, the final document 
produced by the Intelligence Committee and transmitted to the Judiciary 
Committee.
  But the Schiff report includes unsubstantiated allegations. It 
includes, in some cases, news reports as the only evidence supporting 
so-called factual assertions, and it includes at least 54 different 
hearsay statements as assertions of evidence without any firsthand 
information from witnesses to corroborate those statements.
  The author of the report, Chairman Schiff, was never questioned by 
the Judiciary Committee, and he refused to sit for questions or to 
explain how his committee conducted its investigation. In fact, during 
the staff presentation of evidence at the Judiciary Committee, Ranking 
Member Collins asked how the investigation was conducted that resulted 
in the drafting of the Schiff report, but he never received an answer.
  During the Rules Committee consideration of H. Res. 755, there were 
numerous times when the members on both sides of the aisle posed 
questions to our witnesses, questions they could not answer because 
they sit on the Judiciary Committee and were not the author of the 
report that brought about H. Res. 755.
  The author has never appeared before members of the minority to 
explain a single thing in the report or to provide factual information 
supporting the many assertions it contains.
  Madam Speaker, this is no way to go about impeaching the President of 
the United States. The articles before us are based on very limited 
information. They are based on hearsay, on news reports, and on other 
unsupported allegations. They are based on a report written by a Member 
of Congress who refused to answer questions about it; and I do not 
believe the allegations, which are subject to interpretation, actually 
rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
  To make matters worse, when Republicans attempted to exercise one of 
their rights under House rules, they were shut down by Chairman Nadler. 
Under clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, the minority is allowed to demand a 
minority hearing day. On December 4, the Republicans on the Judiciary 
Committee properly exercised that right and transmitted a demand to 
Chairman Nadler for a hearing day at which the minority could call 
their own witnesses.
  To be clear, Madam Speaker, a minority hearing day is not subject to 
the chair's discretion. It is a right, and Republicans on the Judiciary 
Committee properly demanded the exercise of that right; yet, Chairman 
Nadler declined to allow a minority hearing day to be held before the 
voting of these articles.
  I think we can all agree that it would have been better for the 
institution and for the American people to allow all voices to be heard 
and all witnesses to be questioned before proceeding to a vote on 
something this consequential; yet, the majority trampled on that right.

  But I suppose I should not be surprised by any of this. When the 
House passed H. Res. 660, the resolution setting up the official 
impeachment inquiry less than 2 months ago, I warned the House that 
what the majority was doing was setting up a closed, unfair process 
that could only have one outcome. Today, we are seeing the end result 
of this closed and unfair process: a quick rush to judgment forced 
through not one, but two committees in short order, with minority 
rights trampled, witnesses left unquestioned, and due process ignored.
  It is also disappointing that Members are not being given more time 
to debate this issue on the floor.
  Last night at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to double 
the amount of floor time debate from 6 to 12 hours. This would have 
allowed for

[[Page H12118]]

roughly the same amount of debate time used in the Clinton impeachment, 
and it would have been ensured that all Members could have the 
opportunity to speak on the floor. Unfortunately, that amendment was 
not accepted.
  While I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, did the best he could, I 
do think it is ironic that, when all is said and done, the 13 members 
of the Rules Committee spent more time discussing H. Res. 755 in 
committee yesterday than we will spend debating it on the House floor 
for every Member today. I think that is a disservice to the Members of 
this body and to the American people.
  Madam Speaker, we deserve better than the flawed process that led to 
this flawed outcome. The House of Representatives deserves better than 
that. The President certainly deserves better than that. More 
importantly, the American people deserve better than what we are doing 
here today.
  I oppose proceeding any further; I oppose the rule; I oppose this 
limited and unfair process; and I certainly oppose impeaching the 
President of the United States. I urge opposition to the rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that I 
sent with regard to the Members' day.
                                                Committee on Rules


                                      House of Representatives

                                Washington, DC, December 16, 2019.
     Hon. Tom Cole,
     Ranking Republican,
     House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Cole: Thank you for your letter dated December 5, 
     2019, regarding a minority day of hearings on the topic of 
     ``The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: 
     Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.'' I know 
     that it comes from a place of respect for this institution 
     and for the gravity of the matters at hand, and I share your 
     desire to ensure that this process is in compliance with the 
     House rules.
       You are correct that it is incumbent on committee chairmen 
     to schedule such a hearing, following a request of the 
     minority members of the Committee pursuant to clause 20(j)(1) 
     of rule XI. After a careful review of the legislative history 
     of the rule, the plain text of the rule, and Chairman 
     Nadler's December 12, 2019, ruling, I have concluded that 
     Chairman Nadler has not violated either the spirit or the 
     letter of the rule.
       At the hearing in question, the Judiciary Committee 
     minority requested and received a witness. The legislative 
     history of clause 20(j)(1) of rule XI makes clear that the 
     intent was to ensure the minority position is represented in 
     hearings, codifying the existing practice of honoring witness 
     requests. The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress 
     proposed this change in their 1966 final recommendations, 
     suggesting that a minimum safeguard be established for 
     ``those infrequent instances when witnesses representing the 
     minority position are not allotted time.'' The Rules 
     Committee report on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1970, which first created the rule, stated that ``by custom, 
     committees ordinarily honor requests from their minority 
     party members to call certain witnesses. Section 114(b) will 
     make this a matter of right.''
       Consistent with this original purpose, the rule has largely 
     been used as leverage for the minority to ensure they are not 
     shut out of hearings. It is standard practice across 
     committees for the minority to negotiate adding minority 
     witnesses to the main panels rather than holding a minority 
     day--not to add witnesses in addition to holding a minority 
     day. In the rare instance the minority is shut out, the rule 
     provides them a guarantee that the committee will hear from 
     their side on the topic at hand.
       The Rules Committee report specifies that in creating this 
     right, ``We do not look upon this as an authorization for 
     delaying tactics but rather as good legislative practice.'' 
     In this instance, Chairman Nadler has complied with the 
     spirit of this good legislative practice as well as following 
     modern committee practice. He accommodated the Judiciary 
     Committee minority's request to place Professor Jonathan 
     Turley on the main witness panel, ensuring minority views on 
     the constitutional ground for presidential impeachment were 
     represented.
       Chairman Nadler has also followed the letter of the rule by 
     agreeing to work with the minority to schedule a hearing. 
     According to clause 20(j)(1) of rule XI, ``Whenever a hearing 
     is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the 
     minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon 
     request to the chair by a majority of them before the 
     completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the 
     minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter 
     during at least one day of hearing thereon.''
       As Chairman Nadler correctly stated in his ruling, ``the 
     House rule does not require [him] to schedule a hearing on a 
     particular day, nor does it require [him] to schedule the 
     hearing as a condition precedent to taking any specific 
     legislative action.'' No precedent exists requiring a 
     minority day of hearings to be scheduled before a matter is 
     reported out of committee. In fact, very little precedent 
     exists regarding this rule at all, because it is typically 
     used as a negotiating tool and rarely invoked in practice.
       The recent practice of the Judiciary Committee, in 
     particular, has not been to delay business in order to 
     schedule a minority day hearing. In his ruling, Chairman 
     Nadler cited a 2018 example in which he and other members 
     properly requested a minority day hearing and never received 
     a response to their request from then-Chairman Goodlatte, let 
     alone a hearing. That was a clear violation of clause 2(j)(1) 
     of rule XI. In this case, however, Chairman Nadler has 
     appropriately said that he will work with the minority to 
     schedule their hearing.
       Chairman Nadler neither shut the minority out of the 
     hearing on the constitutional grounds of impeachment, nor did 
     he refuse to schedule a hearing. The process we set up 
     through H. Res. 660 even ensured that the President and his 
     counsel could participate in the Judiciary Committee, though 
     they chose not to avail themselves of that right.
       Impeachment is a solemn responsibility, and I appreciate 
     your concern that we undertake the process in accordance with 
     the House rules. In these partisan times, I am truly grateful 
     for the professional and collegial manner in which members of 
     this committee conduct themselves. The fact that we are able 
     to work together even when we sometimes disagree on the 
     specifics gives me hope for this institution.
           Sincerely,
                                                James P. McGovern,
                               Chairman, House Committee on Rules.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I think it is important to correct the Record that there were zero 
points of order that lie against H. Res. 755.
  We are here to talk about the President's behavior, and that is what 
I think we all should be focused on, not just process. But I want to 
just say that I am proud of the process.
  Democrats and Republicans have had equal opportunity to participate 
in the months-long impeachment inquiry. Members of both parties have 
been involved at every stage of this process, from sitting in and 
asking questions in closed-door depositions to questioning witnesses in 
open hearings.
  The committees took more than 100 hours of deposition testimony from 
17 witnesses and held seven public hearings, which included Republican-
requested witnesses. They produced a 300-page public report that laid 
out their findings of evidence.
  The Judiciary Committee then took that report and conducted two 
public hearings evaluating the evidence and the legal standard for 
impeachment before reporting out the two articles.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  President Trump was given the opportunity to participate in the 
Judiciary Committee's review of the evidence presented against him. He 
chose not to participate. And President Trump, to date, has not 
provided any exculpatory evidence but, instead, has blocked numerous 
witnesses from testifying about his actions.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today feeling the full weight of 
my duty, as a Member of this august body, reflecting upon our oath of 
office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic. It is my sincere belief that, under the 
circumstances that bring us here today, there is only one path for us 
to take to fulfill that oath.
  Thomas Paine, in the first of his series of pamphlets entitled ``The 
American Crisis,'' published 243 years ago tomorrow, intoned that 
``these are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and 
sunshine patriot will, in this 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.''
  These words were written at a time when our Founders were rebelling 
against the tyrannical rule of the British monarchy. Today, we have a 
President who seems to believe he is a king or above the law. Paine 
warned us that ``so unlimited a power can belong only to God 
Almighty.''
  My faith leads me to take very seriously the final words of our oath 
to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, ``so help me God.''
  Madam Speaker, 3 days ago, I joined with a bipartisan delegation of 
our colleagues celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the 
Bulge. We laid

[[Page H12119]]

wreaths at the memorials of Generals George Patton and Anthony 
McAuliffe. We visited foxholes that were occupied by some brave 
soldiers who fought in some of the worst winter weather ever visited 
upon a battlefield, and we visited the Luxembourg American Cemetery, 
the final resting place of thousands of them and General George Patton.
  They were not summer soldiers in their efforts 75 years ago to 
preserve the Republic, and we must not be sunshine patriots today in 
our efforts to protect the Constitution upon which this great Republic 
stands. While our fight is not in the trenches or battlefields but in 
the Hallowed Halls of this Congress, our duty is no less patriotic.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond to 
my friend.
  President Trump, for the Record, was not provided the opportunity to 
challenge the facts and still has not received the materials from the 
Judiciary Committee, as required by H. Res. 660, another example of why 
this isn't a fair process.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), 
the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend House 
Resolution 767 to provide for voting by a manual call of the roll so 
the American people can see precisely who is supporting the impeachment 
of a duly-elected President.
  Members should be required to stand and identify themselves openly 
and on camera on the question of adoption of these Articles of 
Impeachment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has been yielded for the purpose of 
debate only by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield for this unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts does not 
yield; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Smith), my good friend and the distinguished secretary of the 
Republican Conference for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
amend House Resolution 767 to provide for 12 hours of debate equally 
divided by the majority and the minority, which would allow each Member 
of the House at least 1\2/3\ minutes of debate, as opposed to currently 
50 seconds. The people's representatives deserve the right of more than 
50 seconds to be heard in this important matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has been yielded for the purpose of 
debate by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield for this unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Therefore, this unanimous consent request 
cannot be entertained.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, a distinguished member of both the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee spent 8 hours 
considering whether to bring H. Res. 755, the Articles of Impeachment, 
to the House floor. Given the four-to-nine ratio of Republicans to 
Democrats on the committee, it is no surprise that we are now 
considering the articles before us.
  Despite robust debate on the so-called facts derived from the 
impeachment investigation and the process by which they were obtained, 
Democrats and Republicans remain in opposition to each other on our 
conclusions.
  As outlined yesterday by Ranking Member Collins and several members 
of the Rules Committee through direct quotes, some Democrats have been 
seeking President Trump's impeachment since his inauguration. The rush 
to impeach first and solidify the case second threatens the credibility 
of the process and threatens the credibility of the body engaged, this 
very House of Representatives.
  In fact, it has been quoted before and it will be quoted again today, 
I suspect, Chairman Nadler recognized the gravity of impeachment when 
he stated in December of 1998, ``The effect of impeachment is to 
overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national 
election. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an 
impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political 
parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would 
lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our 
politics for years to come. And will call into question the very 
legitimacy of our political institutions.''
  On October 31, this House voted to authorize the official impeachment 
investigation in H. Res. 660. The process outlined in H. Res. 660 did 
not include the robust minority protections afforded the minority party 
in previous impeachment investigations. Even more concerning, Chairman 
Nadler and Chairman Schiff refused to comply with the very rules of the 
House in granting access to committee records for members in scheduling 
a minority hearing in a reasonable amount of time, thus preventing the 
American people from being equally represented in the process.
  Refusing to allow members to access their own records, these are 
records of the Members of the House of Representatives, and we were not 
allowed to access these records obtained down in secret under armed 
guard in the Intelligence Committee, but it is required under section 
2(e) of rule XI, and they have denied members the ability to do their 
job.
  The Judiciary Committee did not hear testimony from even one fact 
witness, not even one, after they received a deluge of materials from 
the Intelligence Committee. This reversal of responsibility is indeed 
unprecedented.
  But turning to the case upon which the argument is based, we had a 
whistleblower, not a fact witness, a whistleblower who never appeared 
before any Member of Congress that we know of, a whistleblower 
complaint concerning a congratulatory call between President Trump and 
President Zelensky of Ukraine.
  The whistleblower is known to have had contact with Chairman Schiff's 
staff while Republicans were denied any contact. The whistleblower 
complaint is not based on first-hand knowledge, and the call transcript 
that was to support impeachment reveals nothing more than a 
congratulatory phone call.
  A request for investigations as to how American foreign aid will be 
spent does not equal soliciting election interference. The evidence 
brought before us does not amount to a high crime; indeed, it does not 
amount to any crime.
  Democrats claim that we must protect the integrity of our election. 
If you really cared, then I have to ask, what are we missing while we 
have been focused on impeachment? We tied up the Intelligence 
Committee. We tied up the Judiciary Committee. And, oh, by the way, the 
Ways and Means Committee had to give up their room. They couldn't even 
meet while you were doing all of this.
  This impeachment investigation is being painted as a protection 
against future interference, when in reality President Trump's request 
looks back at the 2016 election. Russia is the winner in this exchange 
because they have disrupted the process.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is passionate about 
records. I should remind him that we have gotten no records from this 
White House, not a single document.
  At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I come to impeachment with deep sadness. 
The facts of this case are painful and indisputable. We know that the 
President illegally held up congressionally appropriated aid to 
Ukraine. We know that he conditioned the release of this aid on 
Ukrainian President Zelensky's opening an investigation based on a 
debunked conspiracy theory about his political rival and foreign 
interference in the 2016 election.

[[Page H12120]]

  We also know that the President has actively blocked congressional 
attempts to determine the extent of his misconduct by ordering 
executive branch officials to defy subpoenas and withhold information.
  Despite the unprecedented obstruction from the President, the 
evidence in this case is powerful enough that to delay this vote any 
further would risk interference in the 2020 election and the permanent 
erosion of our system of checks and balances.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a matter of politics. This is a matter of 
protecting the integrity of our democracy for the next generation.
  As we labor to pass on to future generations many of the great 
hallmarks of our society, we must also work with active stewardship and 
vigilance to pass on a vibrant and functional democracy.
  If we don't do our duty to protect the Constitution, the republic 
that we hand to our children will be less vibrant. If we do not do our 
duty to protect the Constitution, the republic that we hand to our 
children will be less resilient and less effective than the system that 
we were so fortunate to inherit.
  Democracy is fragile. Its survival depends on the strength and 
courage we display in maintaining it.
  But this fragility is also a strength. It requires our public 
servants to put our nation's interests ahead of their own and to hold 
each other accountable to the high standards democracy demands.
  That's why we take an oath to defend the Constitution. If protecting 
the Constitution were trivial, we wouldn't have to take an oath.
  For over 200 years, honesty and vigilance have won out as generations 
of public servants have adhered to their oaths of office and met the 
standards of service that our democracy demands.
  We cannot let this legacy die on our watch.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my very good friend and fellow member of the 
Rules Committee and member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, God takes us on journeys in our life, and about 30 
years ago I was married to an abusive ex-husband. When I finally left 
him, there were times in my life when I had no money and no place to 
live.
  And I tell you what, I never dreamed in a million years that I would 
be standing here today as a Congresswoman in the United States House of 
Representatives.
  And I tell you what, I never would have believed that I would be 
standing here talking about impeachment of a President of the United 
States.
  I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I also serve on the Rules 
Committee. I have spent hours and hours reading transcripts, looking at 
documents, hearing testimony, and I can tell you one thing: I believe 
this is the most unfair, politically biased, rigged process that I have 
seen in my entire life.
  Here are the facts: There is no proof, none, that the President has 
committed an impeachable offense. Not one of the Democrat witnesses was 
able to establish that the President committed bribery, treason, or 
high crimes and misdemeanors as required in the U.S. Constitution.
  And as I have said before, the Democrats are really undermining their 
own argument here because 17 out of the 24 Democrat members on the 
Judiciary Committee voted here on this floor to put forward, move 
forward Articles of Impeachment on July 17 of this year before 
President Trump's call even took place. And five out of the nine Rules 
Committee members that are Democrats did the same thing.
  So if your argument is that this phone call is the main reason for 
this impeachable offense, why did you vote for impeachment, moving 
impeachment forward before the call even took place?
  The process has been rigged from the start. Other Members have told 
you. Never in the history of the United States have we had an 
impeachment that has gone through the Intelligence Committee in closed-
door hearings where a Member of the Judiciary Committee, myself, wasn't 
even able to ask one single question of a fact witness. The whole thing 
has been rigged, been unfair.
  In the process that you had set forth you made sure that the 
President didn't have any right to have his counsel there until 
Judiciary, but by then it was too late. It was too late because there 
were no fact witnesses allowed in Judiciary. So I couldn't even ask a 
question, nor could the President.
  This is the most partisan impeachment in the history of the United 
States. Not one Republican voted for it in the Judiciary Committee, not 
one Republican voted for it in the Rules Committee, and not one 
Republican, I don't think, is going to vote for it here today.
  Madam Speaker, this is a sad day. I believe the Democrats are tearing 
this country apart. They are tearing families apart.
  May God continue to bless all of you. May God continue to bless the 
President of the United States. And may God continue to bless our great 
Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if Republicans want to defend the 
President's indefensible behavior, they can do so, but I would urge my 
colleagues to stand up for the Constitution and to stand up for this 
country and our democracy.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
DeSaulnier), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I thank the leadership of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern and Mr. 
Cole, for our civility last night. Although it was a long hearing and 
we are very much in disagreement, I felt proud to be part of that 
hearing, and I really want to recognize both the ranking member and the 
chair.
  The previous speaker is part of that Rules Committee, and I would 
just say that the passion that she demonstrated in her comments, I 
can't say how much I completely disagree with her, which is a statement 
on the environment we find ourselves in, and I, unfortunately, agree 
with some of her comments, but where the responsibility is I would put 
at the White House and the President. He is the divisive one. He is not 
trying to heal our wounds.
  The reality and urgency of this moment cannot be more consequential 
to the American democracy. This is not a hypothetical. President Trump 
violated the law and solicited foreign interference in our election. At 
the same time, objective experts have overwhelming evidence that Russia 
interfered in the 2016 election and is actively engaged in undermining 
the 2020 elections.
  Our vote today and the Senate's actions on impeachment have very real 
long-term consequences for American democracy. Where do we go from here 
if the Senate does not remove him? The President has a pattern of 
escalating behavior. The day before the special counsel testified to 
Congress that the Russian Government interfered in our election in 
sweeping and systemic fashion, President Trump made this call.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Two days before that, the President says that Article 
II of the Constitution says that he can do whatever he wants.
  As Washington warned in his farewell address, foreign interference 
tampers with domestic factions and misleads public opinion. We must 
honor the Nation that our Founders envisioned and impeach this 
president for violating the law and betraying the American people.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my very good friend, a distinguished member of the 
Armed Services Committee and a former member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
the underlying resolution to impeach President Trump.
  When the Framers granted the House the power to impeach, they feared 
that it would be abused.
  Today, those fears are realized.
  In record speed, this majority has assembled hearsay, speculation, 
and presumptions for the purpose of overturning the 2016 election.

[[Page H12121]]

  We are not here today, days before Christmas, because the majority 
has assembled a case against President Trump. No. We are here today 
because the Democrat majority believes getting impeachment done now 
will provide their vulnerable Members time to distance themselves from 
their vote.
  But I assure you, Madam Speaker, the American people are watching.
  Many of my colleagues have, from day one, rejected the people's 
choice of President Trump, but another President will come along more 
to the majority's liking. Our actions here today will be remembered and 
will set the standard.
  The second Article of Impeachment seeks to remove President Trump for 
failure to produce certain requested witnesses and documents, but as 
the majority knows, every President in history has asserted executive 
privilege.
  The House has a legal avenue to challenge the President: the courts. 
But the majority has skipped this step, showing that this is about 
impeachment as fast as possible, however possible.
  Most of my friends on the other side of the aisle had no problem 
backing President Obama when he stonewalled the House for years to 
block our quest to find out the truth in the Fast and Furious 
investigation. That is why I filed an amendment to the resolution, 
rejected by the Rules Committee, saying, based upon the Democratic 
majority standard, they should have written Articles of Impeachment 
against President Obama and Eric Holder.
  I wish my colleagues would think about the standard being set. I 
predict that they will very soon regret it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, the facts are clear. To 
quote the USA Today editorial board: ``Trump used your tax dollars to 
shake down a vulnerable foreign government to interfere in a U.S. 
election for his personal benefit.''
  The rule of law is what gives our great country its strength.
  The rule of law is what separates us from Third World countries, 
where dictators reign for decades on end.
  The rule of law is what makes us the envy of the world, the place 
that other countries look to as they grow their own democracies.
  It is the rule of law that brings us here today.
  We never want to see the rule of law deteriorate or rampant 
corruption take hold.
  We never want to see the day when future generations flee for refuge 
in another country, the way that others are seeking refuge on our 
southern border right now.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' American values 
and our Constitution are worth fighting for.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my very good friend, also a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in direct opposition to 
this rule and in opposition to the divisive partisanship that is on 
display right now in this House of Representatives.
  It is no secret Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump from 
day one, regardless of any fact.
  They knew the result they wanted; they just needed time to figure out 
how to get there.
  So they began their impeachment inquiry behind closed doors, 
selective leaks instead of transparency, no due process.
  Once they crafted their perfect narrative, they moved on to public 
hearings.
  They hoped the American people wouldn't notice that they failed to 
uncover one piece of evidence to justify impeachment.
  They failed to make the case for this drastic action, and yet here we 
are.
  For the first time in history, a President is on the brink of being 
impeached with the votes of one single party.
  But let's be clear about one thing: This impeachment obsession is not 
about accountability; it is not about justice; it is not even about the 
Constitution.
  It is about pure partisan politics at its worst, and you are watching 
it right here.
  The American people see right through this today. They have seen the 
rigged process; they have seen the lack of transparency and the 
complete absence of any supporting evidence.
  They know that Washington is broken. That is why they sent us here: 
to fix it.
  But instead, House Democrats are dividing the country and further 
shaking the people's trust in this Congress.
  It is a sham impeachment. It has been carried out at the expense of 
hardworking Americans who just want us to move forward.
  Madam Speaker, this charade should go no farther. We should stop 
wasting time and focus on what keeps our Nation moving forward: helping 
workers and families thrive, protecting the safety and security of our 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule so we 
can get back to work for the American people.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Assistant Speaker.
  Mr. LUJAN. Madam Speaker, no one came to Congress to impeach a 
President.
  We came here to solve the mighty issues that impact the lives of the 
constituents we pledged to serve.
  I am here because too many families in my district still rely on 
water trucked in from dozens of miles away.
  I am here because too many New Mexican children still go to school 
hungry.
  I am here because too many women in New Mexico drive for hours to 
find a doctor able to care for them.
  But this moment has found us. We have reached a point in time where 
our love of country compels action, where our duty to this republic 
mandates that we do what is right.
  The President's behavior is so blatantly wrong that ignoring his 
abuses of power would be abdicating the oath we made to protect this 
country and uphold our Constitution.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment on the rule that the House shall not proceed to consideration 
of the underlying resolution until six conditions are met: all evidence 
in the possession of Chairman Schiff has been made available to the 
Judiciary Committee; that Chairman Schiff appear before the Judiciary 
Committee to testify to the report that he authored; that all 
underlying unclassified evidence has been made available to the public; 
minority members of the Judiciary Committee have received their right 
to a minority hearing day; minority witnesses requested by Ranking 
Member Nunes and Ranking Member Collins are called and allowed to be 
heard in accordance with H. Res. 660; and subpoenas requested by 
Ranking Member Nunes in the Intelligence Committee are issued and 
enforced.
  Madam Speaker, to be clear, my amendment ensures that the majority 
does not proceed without providing a fair, equitable, and transparent 
process, one that respects minority rights, one that opens up the 
investigation to all Members of the House, and one that allows 
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to examine the most relevant 
witnesses.
  Perhaps most crucially, it will allow all Members to fully consider 
the information available to the committee that actually conducted the 
impeachment investigation, the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  The process the House has followed has been abysmal. It was a closed, 
unfair process that did not respect minority rights and did not give 
the President due process. But we can change that today. If we defeat 
the previous question, the House will only move forward with a real, 
thorough, and ultimately fair process that all Members can be proud of. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H12122]]

  

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Hice), my good friend.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The majority has thrown almost every allegation imaginable against 
this President, and yet these Articles of Impeachment that have been 
submitted cannot name a single actual crime.
  After all the drama, the majority has not found a single shred of 
evidence, only second-, third-, fourth-hand information, but the facts 
have remained the same. The transcript speaks for itself.
  There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian Government said multiple 
times they felt no pressure whatsoever. The aid ultimately came. And 
even Speaker Pelosi said that this whole thing would have compelling, 
overwhelming, bipartisan support.
  None of those things exist.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand against the rule and the 
forthcoming Articles of Impeachment. This is a disgrace and dangerous 
to America, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, to paraphrase one of our 
founding mothers, Abigail Adams:

       A people may let a President fall, yet still remain a 
     people, but if a President lets his people slip from him, he 
     is no longer a President.

  Just as Abigail Adams warned, Donald Trump has let the people slip 
from him. He works for himself, not us.
  He tried to extort a foreign government into investigating a 
political rival, and he has unlawfully withheld witnesses and evidence.
  If we want a democracy, today we must stand for the rule of law.
  A vote to impeach is a vote to remain a government that is of, for, 
and by the people.
  It is a vote born of great fear for our future, but also rooted in 
optimism: that if we stand for the truth, for our Constitution, we can 
continue to create a country of liberty, justice, and equality for all.
  Mr. COLE. Might I inquire, Madam Speaker, how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle throughout this whole process, their allies in the media, they 
like to say that Republicans only want to talk about process, not 
substance, even though we continue to talk about substance as well.

  They declare their facts are uncontested. They just did it again.
  So just to, maybe, recap a few for everyone watching at home, as well 
as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and hopefully they 
will listen:
  President Zelensky says there was no demand, no pressure, no quid pro 
quo.
  Andriy Yermak said on December 10 that their whole story with regard 
to the December 1 meeting with Ambassador Sondland is completely 
refuted.
  We heard from Ambassador Sondland himself, who admitted that he heard 
from President Trump that he didn't want any quid pro quo and that he 
was guessing when he stated otherwise. Ambassador Sondland, that is, 
said he was guessing and that no one on the planet had told him 
otherwise.
  Ambassador Volker tells us that President Zelensky didn't know that 
there was a hold on aid on July 25. He didn't find out until after he 
read it in Politico on July 29.
  The aid got released shortly thereafter, and Ukraine didn't have to 
do absolutely anything in order to get the hold released.
  When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the July 
25 call transcript says, ``do me a favor,'' we have to correct them 
time and again that it says, ``do us a favor.'' And if you look at that 
paragraph, it is only about Ukrainians interfering in the 2016 
election.
  Now, if you want to ignore the Chaly op-ed; Chalupa worked with the 
Ukrainian Embassy to dig up dirt; the black ledger to bring down the 
Trump campaign; whether it is Avakov's statement; or the origins of the 
Steele dossier--these are all examples. Look at Ken Vogel's reporting 
from January 2017. It is irrefutable.
  These are all substance, so stop saying that the facts are 
uncontested.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record page 69 of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's November 20 open hearing 
where Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified that 
the Department of Defense was not able to distribute all of the aid, 
with $35 million not provided, since it was released so late.
       Quick question for you.
       And I think just one question for you, Secretary Hale.
       Ms. Cooper, was DOD able to put all the security assistance 
     funds into contract before the end of the fiscal year?
       Ms. Cooper. No, sir.
       Mr. Maloney. And how much were they not able to obligate? 
     What was left unobligated?
       Ms. Cooper. I believe the figure was 35 million. It's--we 
     were able to actually obligate 88 percent, total.
       Mr. Maloney. And I think you mentioned that you were able 
     because of legislation that Congress passed, continuing 
     resolution, to do that. Is that right?
       Ms. Cooper. So the remainder we are in the process of 
     obligating--
       Mr. Maloney. Excuse me. The remainder.
       Ms. Cooper.--right now because of the provision in the 
     continuing resolution.
       Mr. Maloney. Right. So, but for literally an act of 
     Congress, you couldn't have spent all the money.
       Ms. Cooper. If we had not received the provision in the 
     continuing resolution, we would have obligated 88 percent but 
     not the full amount.
       Mr. Maloney. Right. Which, of course, would be a violation 
     of law, to not spend money that Congress appropriated.
       Ms. Cooper. Sir, I am not a lawyer, but that is my 
     understanding.
       Mr. Maloney. Sure. Thank you.
       Secretary Hale, where were you born?
       Mr. Hale. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
       Mr. Maloney. And is your family from Ireland? Am I right 
     about that?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a November 18 AP 
article entitled, ``U.S. officials knew of Ukraine's Trump anxiety.''

               [From the Associated Press, Nov. 18, 2019]

             U.S. Officials Knew of Ukraine's Trump Anxiety

               (By Desmond Butler and Michael Biesecker)

       Washington (AP)--U.S. State Department officials were 
     informed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was 
     feeling pressure from the Trump administration to investigate 
     former Vice President Joe Biden even before the July phone 
     call that has led to impeachment hearings in Washington, two 
     people with knowledge of the matter told The Associated 
     Press.
       In early May, officials at the U.S. Embassy iri Kyiv, 
     including then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, were told 
     Zelenskiy was seeking advice on how to navigate the difficult 
     position he was in, the two people told the AP. He was 
     concerned President Donald Trump and associates were pressing 
     him to take action that could affect the 2020 U.S. 
     presidential race, the two individuals said. They spoke on 
     condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic and 
     political sensitivity of the issue.
       State Department officials in Kyiv and Washington were 
     briefed on Zelenskiy's concerns at least three times, the two 
     sources said. Notes summarizing his worries were circulated 
     within the department, they said.
       The briefings and the notes show that U.S. officials knew 
     early that Zelenskiy was feeling pressure to investigate 
     Biden, even though the Ukrainian leader later denied it in a 
     joint news conference with Trump in September.
       Congressional Republicans have pointed to that public 
     Zelenskiy statement to argue that he felt no pressure to open 
     an investigation, and therefore the Democrats' allegations 
     that led to the impeachment hearings are misplaced.
       ``Both presidents expressly have stated there was no 
     pressure, no demand, no conditions, no blackmail, no 
     corruption,'' one Republican lawmaker, John Ratcliffe of 
     Texas, argued on the first day of public hearings last week.
       The central allegation in the impeachment inquiry is that 
     Trump, through his allies, demanded that Ukraine, which is 
     fending off Russian aggression, launch an investigation that 
     would benefit him politically in exchange for crucial 
     military and strategic support.
       Witnesses have detailed, in closed-door depositions and 
     public impeachment hearings, that allies of Trump pressed 
     Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son while withholding 
     military aid and a coveted meeting between the newly elected 
     Zelenskiy and Trump.
       The U.S. briefings--and contemporaneous notes on 
     Zelenskiy's early anxiety about Trump's interest in an 
     investigation--suggest that Democrats have evidence in reach 
     to contradict Republican arguments that Zelenskiy never felt 
     pressure to investigate Biden.
       The Associated Press reported last month about Zelenskiy's 
     meeting on May 7 with,

[[Page H12123]]

     two top aides, as well as Andriy Kobolyev, head of the state-
     owned natural gas company Naftogaz, and Amos Hochstein, an 
     American who sits on the Ukrainian company's supervisory 
     board. Ahead of the meeting, Hochstein told Yovanovitch, the 
     U.S. ambassador, why he was being called in.
       Zelenskiy' s office has not replied to requests for comment 
     about the May 7 meeting.
       Notes circulated internally at the State Department 
     indicated that Zelenskiy tried to mask the real purpose of 
     his May 7 meeting--which was to talk about political problems 
     with the White House--by saying it was about energy, the two 
     people with knowledge of the matter said.
       After the meeting with Zelenskiy, Hochstein separately 
     briefed two U.S. Embassy officials, Suriya Jayanti and Joseph 
     Pennington, about Zelenskiy's concerns, said the two people 
     who spoke to the AP. Jayanti and Pennington took notes on the 
     meeting, the people said.
       Hochstein told the embassy officials about Zelenskiy's 
     concerns and then traveled to Washington to update Y 
     ovanovitch on the meeting. The ambassador, who was facing a 
     smear campaign, had just been called back to Washington, 
     where she was informed that she no longer had the confidence 
     of the president. She was relieved of her duties as 
     ambassador on May 20.
       Jayanti was also one of three witnesses to a phone call in 
     which Trump discussed his interest in an investigation of 
     Biden with his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon 
     Sondland. The call occurred while Sondland was having lunch 
     with three embassy officials in Kyiv. David Holmes, political 
     counsel at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, has already detailed to 
     House investigators what he overheard. Jayanti and the third 
     witness, Tara Maher, have not been interviewed.
       Hochstein, a former diplomat who advised Biden on Ukraine 
     matters during the Obama administration, has also not been 
     questioned in the impeachment proceedings.
       The Republican arguments about Zelenskiy's lack of concern 
     stem from a Sept. 25 joint media appearance by the American 
     and Ukrainian leaders in which Zelenskiy discussed the July 
     call with Trump that effectively launched the impeachment 
     inquiry.
       The appearance came shortly after Trump released a rough 
     transcript of the call.
       ``You heard that we had, I think, good phone call. It was 
     normal. We spoke about many things. And I--so I think, and 
     you read it, that nobody pushed--pushed me,'' Zelenskiy said 
     in the appearance with Trump on the sidelines of the U.N. 
     General Assembly meeting in New York.
       ``In other words, no pressure,'' Trump spoke up to add.
       In the impeachment hearings, Democrats have countered that 
     Zelenskiy's public comments came when he was trying to calm 
     the waters with the U.S. president in the immediate wake of 
     the transcript's release. The burgeoning scandal has brought 
     further uncertainty for Ukraine with its most important 
     Western partner as the country faces simmering conflict with 
     Russia. Zelenskiy's May 7 meeting suggests that he had been 
     concerned about U.S. support from the start.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, ``Dear Ellie and James. This is a moment 
that you will read about in your history books.
  ``Today I will vote to impeach the President of the United States.
  ``I want you to know why. He broke our laws. He threatened our 
security. He abused the highest, most sacred office in our land.
  ``I want you to know that it does not feel good. I can't stop 
thinking about the cost to our country. Not just the impeachable 
offenses, but the collateral damage of a President who uses power like 
a weapon against his own people, erodes our decency, degrades our 
dignity.
  ``I don't yet know how they will tell the story of this era, but I 
want to tell you the story of this day. Let the record show that today 
justice won, that we did our job, that we kept our word, that we stood 
our sacred ground.
  ``Let the record show that we did not let you down.
  ``I love you. Listen to Mom. Be home soon.''

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say, 
I taught my children that there are consequences if they break the law.
  I am saddened, but I am not shocked, that we are here today 
considering Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. I am 
saddened, but I am not shocked because of the pattern of corruption we 
have seen from this President.
  Yes, I am saddened, but I am not shocked because this President has 
routinely shown his disregard of Congress and the rule of law.
  The facts are not in dispute. The President abused his power, defied 
the public's trust, and betrayed his oath of office. He undermined our 
elections by corruptly soliciting foreign interference in our elections 
to benefit his own future reelection efforts. Then he obstructed 
Congress every step of the way in an effort to cover it all up.
  Donald Trump has been and remains a threat to our national security, 
a clear danger to our democracy, and wholly unfit to serve as President 
of the United States.
  We have an obligation to act today to uphold the Constitution, but 
also to show our children and grandchildren that no one is above the 
law, and that includes the President of the United States.
  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 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to defend our democracy.
  In this Chamber, we debate the Nation's most pressing issues, and 
often, reasonable people can draw different conclusions. But not today.
  The facts are black and white. President Trump abused the power of 
his office for personal and political gain, and then he engaged in a 
coverup. It is up to us to confront those facts and vote to preserve 
and protect our democratic Republic.
  This is not a fight I or my colleagues sought out when we ran for 
Congress, but it is one we pledged when we raised our right hand and 
swore an oath to defend our Constitution.
  Anything other than a vote to impeach will be read as a vote 
endorsing a future President without rules or consequences, an 
``anything goes, no holds barred'' brand of executive branch authority 
that will leave us weaker and surely undermine what the Framers passed 
down.
  We owe it to future generations to transcend personal interests and 
party loyalty and to vote our conscience for what is really at stake 
here today, the sanctity of our Constitution and the sanctity of our 
democracy.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 23, 
2019, New York Times article entitled ``Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by 
Early August, Undermining Trump Defense.''

                [From The New York Times, Oct. 23, 2019]

 Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

top officials were told in early august about the delay of $391 million 
 in security assistance, undercutting a chief argument president trump 
                   has used to deny any quid pro quo.

               (By Andrew E. Kramer and Kenneth P. Vogel)

       Kiev, Ukraine--To Democrats who say that President Trump's 
     decision to freeze $391 million in military aid was intended 
     to bully Ukraine's leader into carrying out investigations 
     for Mr. Trump's political benefit, the president and his 
     allies have had a simple response: There was no quid pro quo 
     because the Ukrainians did not know assistance had been 
     blocked.
       But then on Tuesday, William B. Taylor Jr., the top United 
     States diplomat in Kiev, told House impeachment investigators 
     that the freeze was directly linked to Mr. Trump's demand. 
     That did not deter the president, who on Wednesday 
     approvingly tweeted a quote by a congressional Republican 
     saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had 
     ``provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that 
     military aid was being withheld.''
       In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level 
     Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to 
     interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.
       The problem was not bureaucratic, the Ukrainians were told. 
     To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to 
     Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, 
     according to the interviews and records.
       The timing of the communications, which have not previously 
     been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House 
     was holding up the funds weeks earlier than acknowledged.
       It also means that the Ukrainian government was aware of 
     the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. 
     Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and two American 
     diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of 
     Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations.

[[Page H12124]]

       The communications did not explicitly link the assistance 
     freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the 
     investigations. But in the communications, officials from the 
     United States and Ukraine discuss the need to bring in the 
     same senior aide to Mr. Zelensky who had been dealing with 
     Mr. Giuliani about Mr. Trump's demands for the 
     investigations, signaling a possible link between the 
     matters.
       Word of the aid freeze got to the Ukrainians at a moment 
     when Mr. Zelensky, who had taken office a little more than 
     two months earlier after a campaign in which he promised to 
     root out corruption and stand up to Russia, was off balance 
     and uncertain how to stabilize his country's relationship 
     with the United States.
       Days earlier, he had listened to Mr. Trump implore him on a 
     half-hour call to pursue investigations touching on former 
     Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a debunked conspiracy 
     theory about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 hacking of the 
     Democratic National Committee. Mr. Zelensky's efforts to 
     secure a visit to the White House--a symbolic affirmation of 
     support he considered vital at a time when Russia continued 
     to menace Ukraine's eastern border--seemed to be stalled. 
     American policy toward Ukraine was being guided not by career 
     professionals but by Mr. Giuliani.
       Mr. Taylor testified to the impeachment investigators that 
     he was told it was only on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting 
     between Mr. Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence in Warsaw 
     that the Ukrainians were directly informed by Gordon D. 
     Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, 
     that the aid would be dependent on Mr. Zelensky giving Mr. 
     Trump something he wanted: an investigation into Burisma, the 
     company that had employed Mr. Biden's younger son, Hunter 
     Biden.
       American and Ukrainian officials have asserted that Ukraine 
     learned that the aid had been held up only around the time it 
     became public through a news article at the end of August.
       The aid freeze is drawing additional scrutiny from the 
     impeachment investigators on Wednesday as they question Laura 
     K. Cooper, a deputy assistant defense secretary for Russia, 
     Ukraine and Eurasia. This month, Democrats subpoenaed both 
     the Defense Department and the White House Office of 
     Management and Budget for records related to the assistance 
     freeze.
       As Mr. Taylor's testimony suggests, the Ukrainians did not 
     confront the Trump administration about the freeze until they 
     were told in September that it was linked to the demand for 
     the investigations. The Ukrainians appear to have initially 
     been hopeful that the problem could be resolved quietly and 
     were reluctant to risk a public clash at a delicate time in 
     relations between the two nations.
       ``They didn't even know the money wasn't paid,'' Mr. Trump 
     wrote on Twitter last month.
       The disclosure that the Ukrainians knew of the freeze by 
     early August corroborates, and provides additional details 
     about, a claim made by a C.I.A. officer in his whistle-blower 
     complaint that prompted the impeachment inquiry by House 
     Democrats.
       ``As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some 
     Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in 
     jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it,'' 
     the anonymous whistle-blower wrote. The complainant said that 
     he learned that the instruction to freeze the assistance 
     ``had come directly from the president,'' and said it ``might 
     have a connection with the overall effort to pressure 
     Ukrainian leadership.''
       Publicly, Mr. Zelensky has insisted he felt no pressure to 
     pursue the investigations sought by Mr. Trump.
       ``There was no blackmail,'' Mr. Zelensky said at a news 
     conference this month. He cited as evidence that he ``had no 
     idea the military aid was held up'' at the time of his July 
     25 call with Mr. Trump, when Mr. Trump pressed him for 
     investigations into the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy 
     theory about Ukrainian involvement in the hacking of the 
     Democratic National Committee in 2016.
       Mr. Zelensky has said he knew about the holdup of the 
     military aid before his meeting in Poland on Sept. 1 with Mr. 
     Pence, but has been vague about exactly when he learned about 
     it. ``When I did find out, I raised it with Pence at a 
     meeting in Warsaw,'' he said this month.
       In conversations over several days in early August, a 
     Pentagon official discussed the assistance freeze directly 
     with a Ukrainian government official, according to records 
     and interviews. The Pentagon official suggested that Mr. 
     Mulvaney had been pushing for the assistance to be withheld, 
     and urged the Ukrainians to reach out to him.
       The Pentagon official described Mr. Mulvaney's motivations 
     only in broad terms but made clear that the same Ukrainian 
     official, Andriy Yermak, who had been negotiating with Mr. 
     Giuliani over the investigations and a White House visit 
     being sought by Mr. Zelensky should also reach out to Mr. 
     Mulvaney over the hold on military aid.
       A senior administration official who spoke on the condition 
     of anonymity to speak publicly about the issue said on Monday 
     that Mr. Mulvaney ``had absolutely no communication with the 
     Ukranians about this issue.''
       Ukrainian officials had grown suspicious that the 
     assistance was in jeopardy because formal talks with the 
     Pentagon on its release had concluded by June without any 
     apparent problem.
       In talks during the spring with American officials, the 
     Ukrainians had resolved conditions for the release of the 
     assistance, and believed everything was on schedule, 
     according to Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine's former 
     vice prime minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration.
       But by early August, the Ukrainians were struggling to get 
     clear answers from their American contacts about the status 
     of the assistance, according to American officials familiar 
     with the Ukrainians' efforts.
       In the days and weeks after top Ukrainian officials were 
     alerted to the aid freeze, Mr. Sondland and Kurt D. Volker, 
     then the State Department's special envoy to Ukraine, were 
     working with Mr. Giuliani to draft a statement for Mr. 
     Zelensky to deliver that would commit him to pursuing the 
     investigations, according to text messages between the men 
     turned over to the House impeachment investigators.
       The text messages between Mr. Volker, Mr. Sondland and the 
     top Zelensky aide did not mention the holdup of the aid. It 
     was only in September, after the Warsaw meeting, that Mr. 
     Taylor wrote in a text message to Mr. Sandland, ``I think 
     it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a 
     political campaign.''
       After being informed on Sept. 1 in Warsaw that the aid 
     would be released only if Mr. Zelensky agreed to the 
     investigations, Ukrainian officials, including their national 
     security adviser and defense minister, were troubled by their 
     inability to get answers to questions about the freeze from 
     United States officials, Mr. Taylor testified.
       Through the summer, Mr. Zelensky had been noncommittal 
     about the demands from Mr. Volker, Mr. Sandland and Mr. 
     Giuliani for a public commitment to the investigations. On 
     Sept. 5, Mr. Taylor testified, Mr. Zelensky met in Kiev with 
     Senators Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, and 
     Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.
       Mr. Zelensky's first question, Mr. Taylor said, was about 
     the security aid. The senators responded, Mr. Taylor said, 
     that Mr. Zelensky ``should not jeopardize bipartisan support 
     by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.''
       But Mr. Sondland was still pressing for a commitment from 
     Mr. Zelensky, and was pressing him to do a CNN interview in 
     which he would talk about pursuing the investigations sought 
     by Mr. Trump.
       Mr. Zelensky never did the interview and never made the 
     public commitment sought by the White House, although a 
     Ukrainian prosecutor later said he would ``audit'' a case 
     involving the owner of the company that paid Hunter Biden as 
     a board member.
       Mr. Giuliani has said he had nothing to do with the 
     assistance freeze and did not talk to Mr. Trump or ``anybody 
     in the government'' about it. ``I didn't know about it until 
     I read about it in the newspaper,'' he said in an interview 
     last week.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the two Articles of 
Impeachment against President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction 
of Congress.
  Voting to impeach the President is a weighty decision. It is not 
something you reach for; it is something you are brought to reluctantly 
when the evidence presented can no longer be denied.
  In this sober and historic moment, Members of Congress are called 
upon to uphold our oath of office and our duty to the Constitution. 
Today, we answer that call.
  The President's actions compromised the national security of the 
United States, undermined the integrity of our democratic process, and 
betrayed the trust of the American people.
  In soliciting foreign interference, President Trump took direct aim 
at the heart of our democracy. The American people should decide our 
elections, not a foreign country. As long as the President continues to 
invite foreign interference into our democracy, the integrity of the 
2020 election remains at risk.
  The question is: Will Congress allow the President to place his 
personal interests above those of his country?
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in 
answering that question with a resounding ``no'' because no one, not 
even the President of the United States, is above the law.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 9, 
2019, a Politico magazine article entitled ``This Is What a Legitimate 
Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look Like,'' which explains 
that legitimate requests are made through the DOJ's Office of 
International Affairs

[[Page H12125]]

and pursuant to the United States Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

               [From POLITICO Magazine, October 9, 2019]

This Is What a Legitimate Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look 
                                  Like

                         (By Samantha Vinograd)

       President Donald Trump insists there's an innocent 
     explanation for the July 25 phone call in which he asked 
     Ukraine's president to investigate political rival Joe Biden. 
     ``I don't care about Biden's campaign,'' he told reporters on 
     Friday, ``but I do care about corruption.'' Now, 
     congressional Republicans seem to be bolstering that defense. 
     Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday that he will invite Rudy 
     Giuliani, a key player in Trump's dealings with Ukraine, to 
     testify on corruption in the country--an odd choice when 
     Graham could have asked, for example, a U.S. government 
     official who is an authorized expert on corruption in 
     Ukraine.
       When it comes to the Bidens, asking a foreign country to 
     investigate an American, when there is no domestic criminal 
     investigation into him, is a non-starter. We have domestic 
     law enforcement avenues for that. But there is no evidence of 
     wrongdoing by Biden and no criminal investigation into his 
     activities.
       If Trump were really, legitimately focused on rooting out 
     corruption in Ukraine, however--whether at companies like 
     Burisma, which employed Hunter Biden, or within the 
     government--there are U.S. government processes for doing so, 
     when there is a credible case. Here's what they are:


     Step 1: Stop cutting State Department anti-corruption funding

       There is an entire State Department bureau--the Bureau of 
     International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)--focused on 
     law enforcement efforts overseas, including investigating 
     corruption. INL is headquartered in Washington, but it has 
     experts serving at many U.S. missions overseas. The officials 
     at INL work with their foreign diplomatic counterparts--some 
     willing and some less so--as well as non-governmental 
     organizations and law enforcement agencies at the local, 
     national and international level to support foreign 
     governments' efforts to build sound institutions by sharing 
     best practices, training and giving grants. In Ukraine, that 
     work has included supporting the establishment of the 
     National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Special 
     Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. INL and its partners can 
     investigate and report on corruption and even take actions to 
     punish it, like barring entry to the United States for 
     certain foreigners.
       Strangely, while Trump has a new-found interest in fighting 
     ``corruption''--at least that associated with his political 
     rivals--his administration has requested less money for INL, 
     not more. In fiscal year 2019, the bureau was granted $5 
     million, but State requested $3 million for fiscal year 2020. 
     If the president were really concerned about corruption in 
     Ukraine, he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should have 
     requested more resources for INL work there.


     Step 2: Alert the Ukraine ambassador, and let him deal with it

       If Trump and Pompeo really wanted to police corruption in 
     Ukraine, they would have first alerted the acting U.S. 
     ambassador there to specific concerns, like Ukrainian 
     executives laundering money or a Ukrainian official misusing 
     his or her position (such as the former prosecutor general 
     mentioned in Trump's phone call). Ambassadors can't interfere 
     in a corruption investigation or direct that one be opened, 
     but they can pass information along to experts at the 
     embassy--including INL experts and Department of Justice 
     personnel.
       Those U.S. law enforcement professionals in the foreign 
     country could see if there were a basis for them to open a 
     criminal investigation based on that concern, and U.S. anti-
     corruption experts there could review suspect activity and 
     decide how best to address them with the relevant Ukrainian 
     officials. If there were law enforcement concerns about an 
     American's involvement, DOJ could coordinate on that with 
     Ukraine's Ministry of Justice.
       For instance, the charge d'affaires in Kiev, Ambassador 
     William Taylor, and his team could send a ``demarche''--an 
     official statement of U.S. policy with respect to a corrupt 
     activity or individual--to Ukrainian officials at the 
     Ministry of Justice or in Ukrainian President Volodymyr 
     Zelensky's office and try to sort out ways to address them. 
     EU Ambassador Gordon Sandland and former special envoy for 
     Ukraine Kurt Volker had to have been aware of these official 
     channels for addressing corruption.


                Step 3. Request cooperation (officially)

       Trump and his team have another tool at their disposal to 
     investigate corruption in Ukraine related to an ongoing 
     criminal case: the United States' Mutual Legal Assistance 
     Treaty (MLAT) with the country. MLATs are international 
     agreements that establish a formal process for one country to 
     gather evidence in another country for a criminal 
     investigation.
       If there were an actual U.S. government investigation into 
     alleged criminal activity by Americans in Ukraine, or 
     foreigners suspected of violating U.S. laws, a request for 
     cooperation could have been made through a formal process 
     that's run by DOJ's Office of International Affairs. Once 
     MLAT requests are vetted by the DOJ, they are transmitted to 
     a foreign country's ``central authority''--in this case, 
     Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. If granted in the foreign 
     country, this arrangement could allow the DOJ to obtain 
     documents, locate people, take testimony, request searches 
     and seizures, freeze assets and more. If the United States 
     were actually pursuing criminal investigations into 
     corruption in Ukraine, U.S. officials would have made a 
     request under our MLAT for cooperation.
       The United States even has a Mutual Legal Assistance 
     Agreement (MLAA) with China, the country that Trump called on 
     last week to investigate Biden, after the whistleblower 
     complaint was made public.
       There is no shortage of official options when it comes to 
     cooperation on criminal matters and fighting corruption with 
     a foreign country--whether it be with the Ukrainians or the 
     Chinese or anyone else. If the president actually cared about 
     addressing corruption in Ukraine more broadly, he would 
     ensure that experts like INL staffers at the State Department 
     have the resources they need to do their jobs. The fact that 
     Giuliani was his answer suggests that something very 
     different is going on here.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, the President abused his power. 
He violated his oath of office. He sought to elevate himself as a 
dictator or king. But we are not a monarchy. We are the United States 
of America. We are a republic, a democracy, where the executive does 
not have absolute power. America was founded on a system of checks and 
balances.
  When the President withheld military aid to vulnerable Ukraine and 
pressed for a personal favor to manufacture dirt against a political 
opponent, he went too far. He undermined America's national security. 
He sought to sabotage our elections. He elevated his personal interests 
over the interests of America. Then, he tried to cover up his 
scandalous behavior, and he obstructed the investigation.
  He violated his oath of office, but I intend to uphold mine to 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. 
The President must be impeached today.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a December 5, 
2019, Boston Globe editorial entitled ``Impeach the President.''

              [Editorial: Boston Globe, December 5, 2019]

                         Impeach the President

       From the founding of this country, the power of the 
     president was understood to have limits. Indeed, the Founders 
     would never have written an impeachment clause into the 
     Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their 
     descendants might need to remove an elected president before 
     the end of his term in order to protect the American people 
     and the nation.
       The question before the country now is whether President 
     Trump's misconduct is severe enough that Congress should 
     exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 
     2020 election. The results of the House Intelligence 
     Committee inquiry, released to the public on Tuesday, make 
     clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the 
     president abused his power by trying to extort a foreign 
     country to meddle in US politics, but he also has endangered 
     the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed 
     the congressional investigation into his conduct, a precedent 
     that will lead to a permanent diminution of congressional 
     power if allowed to stand.
       The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional 
     system is more than sufficient, and a slate of legal scholars 
     who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions 
     are just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had 
     in mind when they devised the recourse of impeachment. The 
     decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with 
     drafting articles of impeachment is warranted.
       Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee 
     report, which was based on witness interviews, documents, 
     telephone records, and public statements by administration 
     officials, was already known to the public. The cohesive 
     narrative that emerges, though, is worse than the sum of its 
     parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at 
     his behest repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, 
     Ukraine, into taking steps to help the president's 
     reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In 
     his dealings with foreign states, the president has an 
     obligation to represent America's interests, not his own.
       But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance 
     that corrupt agenda. In order to pressure Ukraine into 
     acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 
     million in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he 
     demanded a bribe in the form of political favors in exchange 
     for an official act--the textbook definition of corruption. 
     The fact that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-
     blower complained, is

[[Page H12126]]

     immaterial: The act of withholding taxpayer money to support 
     a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse of the 
     president's power.
       Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign 
     policy. The United States provides military aid to Ukraine to 
     protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that 
     fragile young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is 
     a key US policy goal, and one that the president put at risk 
     for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is 
     willing to corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of 
     political gain, which will cast suspicion on the motivations 
     of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
       To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the 
     scheme and started the impeachment inquiry, the Trump 
     administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed 
     witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. 
     That ought to form the basis of an article of impeachment. 
     When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the 
     power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation 
     of powers and will hobble future oversight of presidents of 
     all parties.
       Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution 
     entrusts Congress with the impeachment power in order to 
     protect Americans from a president who is betraying their 
     interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to 
     maintain checks and balances in the federal government; to 
     have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on 
     our national interest instead of the president's personal 
     needs; to control federal spending through their elected 
     representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by 
     foreign interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed 
     those privileges. What's at stake now is whether we will keep 
     them. The facts show that the president has threatened this 
     country's core values and the integrity of our democracy. 
     Congress now has a duty to future generations to impeach him.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the December 11, 
2019, USA Today editorial entitled ``Impeach President Trump: The 
President's Ukraine shakedown and stonewalling are too serious for the 
House to ignore.''

                    [From USA Today, Dec. 12, 2019]

          USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Impeach President Trump

                         (The Editorial Board)

       ``Put your own narrow interests ahead of the nation's, 
     flout the law, violate the trust given to you by the American 
     people and recklessly disregard the oath of office, and you 
     risk losing your job.''
       USA TODAY's Editorial Board wrote those words two decades 
     ago when it endorsed the impeachment of President Bill 
     Clinton, a Democrat. Now, in graver circumstances with 
     America's system of checks and balances at stake, they apply 
     to another president facing impeachment, Republican Donald 
     Trump.
       The current board has made no secret of our low regard for 
     Trump's character and conduct. Yet, as fellow passengers on 
     the ship of state, we had hoped the captain would succeed. 
     And, until recently, we believed that impeachment proceedings 
     would be unhealthier for an already polarized nation than 
     simply leaving Trump's fate up to voters next November.


                  Trump leaves Democrats little choice

       Unless public sentiment shifts sharply in the days and 
     weeks ahead, that is the likely outcome of this process--
     impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House of 
     Representatives followed by acquittal in the GOP-controlled 
     Senate. So why bother? Because Trump's egregious 
     transgressions and stonewalling have given the House little 
     choice but to press ahead with the most severe sanction at 
     its disposal.
       Clinton was impeached by the House (but not removed by the 
     Senate) after he tried to cover up an affair with a White 
     House intern. Trump used your tax dollars to shake down a 
     vulnerable foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election 
     for his personal benefit.
       GOP leader on House Judiciary Committee: Articles establish 
     nothing impeachable and allege no crime
       In his thuggish effort to trade American arms for foreign 
     dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, 
     Trump resembles not so much Clinton as he does Richard Nixon, 
     another corrupt president who tried to cheat his way to 
     reelection.
       This isn't partisan politics as usual. It is precisely the 
     type of misconduct the framers had in mind when they wrote 
     impeachment into the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton 
     supported a robust presidency but worried about ``a man 
     unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold 
     in his temper'' coming to power. Impeachment, Hamilton wrote, 
     was a mechanism to protect the nation ``from the abuse or 
     violation of some public trust.''


                    Approve articles of impeachment

       Both articles of impeachment drafted by the House Judiciary 
     Committee warrant approval:
       Abuse of power. Testimony before the House Intelligence 
     Committee produced overwhelming evidence that Trump wanted 
     Ukraine's new president to announce investigations into the 
     Bidens and a debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, 
     interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
       To pressure the Ukrainian leader, Trump withheld a White 
     House meeting and nearly $400 million in congressionally 
     approved security aid, funding that was released only after 
     an unnamed official blew the whistle.
       To former national security adviser John Bolton, the 
     months-long scheme was the equivalent of a ``drug deal.'' To 
     Bolton's former aide Fiona Hill, it was a ``domestic 
     political errand'' that ``is all going to blow up.'' To Bill 
     Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, ``it's crazy to 
     withhold security assistance for help with a political 
     campaign.'' And to Ukrainian soldiers, fighting to fend off 
     Russian aggression in the eastern part of their country, the 
     money was a matter of life and death.
       Obstruction of Congress. Trump has met the impeachment 
     investigation with outright and unprecedented defiance. The 
     White House has withheld documents, ordered executive branch 
     agencies not to comply with subpoenas and directed 
     administration officials not to testify.
       Allowing this obstruction to stand unchallenged would put 
     the president above the law and permanently damage Congress' 
     ability to investigate misconduct by presidents of either 
     party.
       The president's GOP enablers continue to place power and 
     party ahead of truth and country. Had any Democratic 
     president behaved the way Trump has--paying hush money to a 
     porn star, flattering dictators and spewing an unending 
     stream of falsehoods--there's no doubt congressional 
     Republicans would have tried to run him out of the White 
     House in a New York minute. Twenty-seven Republicans who 
     voted to impeach or convict Clinton remain in Congress. If 
     they continue to defend Trump, history will record their 
     hypocrisy.
       Our support for Trump's impeachment by the House--we'll 
     wait for the Senate trial to render a verdict on removal from 
     office--has nothing to do with policy differences. We have 
     had profound disagreements with the president on a host of 
     issues, led by his reckless deficits and inattention to 
     climate change, both of which will burden generations to 
     come.
       Policy differences are not, however, grounds for 
     impeachment. Constitutional violations are.
       Bill Clinton should be impeached and stand trial ``because 
     the charges are too serious and the evidence amassed too 
     compelling'' to ignore, the Editorial Board wrote in December 
     1998.
       The same can be said this December about the allegations 
     facing Donald Trump. Only much more so.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, throughout this process, I 
listened, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, 
to career diplomats testify in depositions and found myself 
contemplating the gravity of this decision.
  One of my daughters asked then how I would make my decision about 
impeachment. I told her that, when her future children learn about 
President Trump's impeachment, they may ask: ``Mommy, what did Grandma 
do?'' I want my daughter to be able to tell her children Grandma did 
the right thing because, in America, no one is above the law.
  With his conduct around Ukraine, President Trump corruptly abused his 
power for his own interests, at direct odds with our national welfare 
and our Constitution. This President put his interests before those of 
this Nation. Left unchecked, he would do it again and has said so.
  The actions and ongoing schemes that led us to this moment are severe 
threats to our national security and democracy that we cannot defend or 
dismiss.
  With history watching, I must fulfill my constitutional duty and vote 
to impeach this President. His corrupt conduct and assault on our 
Constitution leave no other choice.
  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. Khanna).
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, today, the House is voting to affirm a 
conservative principle. What makes America the strongest and most 
prosperous nation in the world is our reverence for the rule of law. It 
is our love of the law that protects our freedoms, our private 
property, and our families from the exercise of arbitrary power.
  The real threat to American leadership in the 21st century is 
internal decline. We choose not to stand idly by while we see the 
corrupting of our body politic with an attitude that might makes right, 
that winners don't have to follow the rules.
  In voting to impeach, we remember Lincoln's Lyceum Address: ``Let 
every

[[Page H12127]]

American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, 
swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least 
particular the laws of the country and never to tolerate their 
violation by others. . . . Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, 
and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in 
almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative 
halls, and enforced in the courts of justice. And, in short, let it 
become the political religion of the Nation.''
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Just to advise, through the Chair, my friend, I am waiting for one 
additional speaker, but I reserve my time at this time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a December 17 
CNN article entitled ``Fact check: Trump's wild letter to Pelosi is 
filled with false and misleading claims.''

                     [From CNN, December 17, 2019]

  Fact Check: Trump's Wild Letter to Pelosi is Filled With False and 
                           Misleading Claims

               (By Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam, CNN)

       Washington (CNN)--It was on White House letterhead. It read 
     like a string of President Donald Trump's tweets.
       And it was just as dishonest.
       On Tuesday afternoon, Trump released a six-page letter to 
     House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which--employing his 
     distinctive vocabulary and punctuation--he blasted Democrats' 
     push to impeach him, defended his dealings with Ukraine and 
     touted his accomplishments in office.
       Like much of his previous rhetoric about Ukraine and 
     impeachment, much of the letter was false or misleading.
       Trump repeated multiple false claims that have been 
     debunked on numerous occasions. He also delivered some new 
     claims that were false, misleading or lacking in context.
       We're not finished going through all of Trump's claims in 
     his letter, but here are some early fact checks.


                         Dealings with Ukraine

       Trump decried ``the so-called whistleblower who started 
     this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that 
     bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was 
     made.''
       Facts First: The whistleblower's account of Trump's July 
     call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been 
     proven highly accurate. In fact, the rough transcript 
     released by Trump himself showed that the whistleblower's 
     three primary allegations about the call were correct or very 
     close to correct. You can read a full fact check here.
       Trump claimed the whistleblower ``disappeared'' because 
     ``they got caught, their report was a fraud.''
       Facts First: There is no evidence the whistleblower has 
     disappeared, let alone that they have vanished because they 
     were shown to be inaccurate. Whistleblowers do not have an 
     obligation to speak publicly after filing their anonymous 
     complaints.
       Trump wrote, ``Ambassador Sondland testified that I told 
     him: `No quid pro quo. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want 
     President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on.' 
     ''
       Facts First: Sondland, Trump's ambassador to the European 
     Union, did testify that Trump told him this--but Sondland 
     nonetheless said that, in his own opinion, there was indeed a 
     quid pro quo.
       Trump wrote that the rough transcript of his call with 
     Zelensky ``was immediately made available.''
       Facts First: The call occurred in July. Trump released the 
     rough transcript in September, after the public learned of 
     the existence of the whistleblower complaint about the call.
       Trump wrote, ``President Zelensky has repeatedly declared 
     that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He 
     further emphasized that it was a `good phone call,' that `I 
     don't feel pressure,' and explicitly stressed that `nobody 
     pushed me.' ''
       Facts First: Zelensky did say there had been ``no 
     pressure'' from Trump and made other statements to that 
     effect, but he has not gone so far as to say Trump did 
     nothing wrong.
       In an interview published by Time magazine in early 
     December, Zelensky did say, ``Look, I never talked to the 
     President from the position of a quid pro quo. That's not my 
     thing.'' But Zelensky continued: ``I don't want us to look 
     like beggars. But you have to understand. We're at war. If 
     you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking 
     anything for us. I think that's just about fairness. It's not 
     about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.''
       Trump wrote, ``I said to President Zelensky: `I would like 
     you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been 
     through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.' I said do us 
     a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then 
     mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.''
       Facts First: It's worth noting that Trump only adopted this 
     explanation for his ``favor'' comments more than two months 
     after he released the rough transcript of the July call. 
     Trump quoted himself accurately here--but in between his 
     ``favor'' sentence to Zelensky and his mention of the 
     attorney general, he had asked Zelensky to look into a 
     debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers. 
     In his next series of comments to Zelensky, after Zelensky 
     spoke, Trump asked Zelensky to look into former vice 
     president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe 
     Biden.


                         Joe Biden and Ukraine

       Trump wrote that Biden ``used his office and $1 billion 
     dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the 
     prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son 
     millions of dollars.''
       Facts First: There is a lot wrong with this claim. The $1 
     billion in question was a loan guarantee, not an aid payment. 
     The prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was widely viewed by American 
     diplomats and in the international community as corrupt; 
     Biden was pursuing official policy in pushing for Shokin's 
     ouster. And the prosecutor's former deputy has said that the 
     investigation into the company where Biden's son, Hunter 
     Biden, sat on the board of directors was dormant at the time 
     Joe Biden applied the pressure.
       Trump wrote, ``Biden openly stated: `I said, ``I'm telling 
     you, you're not getting the billion dollars'' . . . I looked 
     at them and said: ``I'm leaving in six hours. If the 
     prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.'' 
     Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.' '' Even Joe Biden 
     admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it 
     `looked bad.' ''
       Facts First: Trump was not entirely clear on what he meant 
     by ``it,'' but he left open the impression that Biden had 
     recently told NPR that his effort to oust Shokin, or the 2018 
     video of him telling the story of his effort to oust Shokin, 
     ``looked bad.'' In fact, Biden's ``looked bad'' comment was 
     about something different: Hunter Biden's position on the 
     board. Specifically, Biden said ``the appearance'' of Hunter 
     Biden's presence on the board ``looked bad and it gave folks 
     like Rudy Giuliani an excuse to come up with a Trumpian kind 
     of defense.''
       Trump wrote, ``Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely 
     accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually 
     did.''
       Facts First: Democrats are accusing Trump of abuse of power 
     for soliciting foreign interference in the presidential 
     election and for trying to use official acts to pressure the 
     Ukrainian government into doing something that would help him 
     personally. Biden has not admitted to anything of the sort.


                        The impeachment process

       Trump wrote, ``I have been denied the most fundamental 
     rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to 
     present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront 
     accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses.''
       Facts First: The constitutional rights of criminal 
     defendants do not apply to public officials in a House of 
     Representatives impeachment process, though Trump is free to 
     argue that they should. Trump's counsel was denied the 
     opportunity to participate in House Intelligence Committee 
     impeachment hearings but was invited to participate in House 
     Judiciary Committee hearings; Trump's counsel declined that 
     opportunity. House Republicans were allowed to have their 
     lawyer question witnesses at the House Intelligence 
     Committee.
       Trump wrote, ``More due process was afforded to those 
     accused in the Salem Witch Trials.''
       Facts First: Trump might have meant this as a non-literal 
     figure of speech, but as a factual matter, the claim is 
     absurd. (Salem's current mayor told Trump to ``learn some 
     history.'') Nineteen innocent people were hanged after they 
     were accused of witchcraft in the trials of the late 1600s. 
     The courts accepted ``spectral evidence'' from dreams. Some 
     of the accused were tortured into confessions.


                               Democrats

       Trump wrote of Hillary Clinton: ``Your chosen candidate 
     lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide 
     (306-227).''
       Facts First: Leaving aside Trump's characterization of the 
     result as a ``landslide,'' he got the numbers wrong--again. 
     If he was going by the number of electoral votes each 
     candidate earned in the voting, the result was 306 for him to 
     232 for Clinton. If he was going by the final result, after 
     some ``faithless electors'' defected from both him and 
     Clinton, the result was 304 for him to 227 for Clinton. This 
     was not a one-time slip; Trump is habitually inaccurate about 
     this.
       Trump said Pelosi has a policy of ``open borders.''
       Facts First: While Pelosi wants a more liberal immigration 
     policy than he does, she does not support completely 
     unrestricted migration. She has repeatedly endorsed funding 
     for border security measures aside from the President's 
     proposed wall.


                       The Mueller investigation

       Trump again claimed the cost of the Mueller investigation 
     was ``45 million dollars.''
       Facts First: The investigation cost $32 million, according 
     to figures released by the Justice Department, and the 
     government is expected to recoup about $17 million as a 
     result of the investigation, most from former Trump campaign 
     chairman Paul Manafort, according to a CNN analysis of the 
     sentences handed out to people charged by Mueller.
       Trump said that the world now knows that former FBI 
     Director James Comey is ``one of the dirtiest cops our Nation 
     has ever seen.''

[[Page H12128]]

       Facts First: We give Trump wide latitude to express 
     opinions about public figures, but the December report from 
     Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz 
     presented no evidence that Comey was corrupt in any way. 
     Horowitz found significant errors in FBI work connected to 
     the Russia investigation, and rejected Comey's claim of 
     vindication, but he did not make any finding accusing Comey 
     of deliberate malfeasance.


                        Supposed accomplishments

       Trump claimed ``a colossal reduction in illegal border 
     crossings.''
       Facts First: While there has been a reduction since May, it 
     is only a reduction from the high point of the Trump era; the 
     total number of people apprehended at the southwest border, a 
     proxy measure for the number of actual crossings, has been 
     higher under Trump than it was in the late Obama era.
       Trump boasted of the US ``becoming the world's top energy 
     producer.''
       Facts First: The US became the world's top energy producer 
     in 2012, according to the government's Energy Information 
     Administration--under Obama, whom Trump has repeatedly 
     accused of perpetrating a ``war on American energy.''
       Trump claimed ``a completely reformed VA with Choice and 
     Accountability for our great veterans.''
       Facts First: The Veterans Choice program was signed into 
     law by Obama in 2014. Trump signed a law in 2018 to expand 
     and modify the Choice program, the VA MISSION Act, but he did 
     not create Choice.
       Trump touted ``the building of the Southern Border Wall.''
       Facts First: As of December 6, the date of the latest 
     official update from Customs and Border Protection, no miles 
     of border wall had been constructed where barriers did not 
     previously exist. (Construction had started on some new 
     barriers, the government said.) Trump has argued that the 
     replacement of old barriers with newer barriers should count 
     as the building of his wall; as of December 6, 90 miles of 
     replacement barriers had been erected.
       Jamie Ehrlich contributed to this article.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise on this solemn occasion as we, 
the House of Representatives, exercise the power given to us by the 
United States Constitution.
  The original Constitution was flawed in some respects, but with 
respect to Presidential misconduct, it was unmistakable. The Framers 
knew that Presidents could be corrupt or abusive with their power so 
impeachment was written into our organic law.
  Since taking office nearly 3 years ago, President Trump has 
consistently and intentionally divided this country. He has 
consistently encouraged foreign actors to interfere in our elections. 
He has thumbed his nose, Madam Speaker, at the legislative branch.
  Enough is enough. We must protect our Constitution, our democracy. I 
will vote today to prefer serious charges against President Trump and 
deliver the charges to the Senate for trial, a place where President 
Trump can defend himself and attempt, if he chooses, to convince the 
Senate and the American people that his conduct does not violate the 
Constitution.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Baird), my good friend, a distinguished combat veteran for 
our country.
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, today marks a sad day for America. Instead 
of getting to work to solve the issues of our time, the House Democrats 
have decided to try to discredit President Trump and undo the results 
of the 2016 election.
  The facts here are clear. The President did not commit any crimes. He 
did not break any laws. And there was no quid pro quo.
  This has been a secretive, misdirected process from the very 
beginning, and the American people see right through it.
  I look forward to voting against this impeachment charade and getting 
back to work to support the efforts of President Trump to continue 
growing our economy, creating jobs, and improving the lives of all 
Americans.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this is the 
fourth impeachment proceeding against an American President and the 
most serious.
  The President committed numerous crimes, threatening the national 
security.
  Ultimately, the matter before us today is not a question of fact, for 
the evidence is undisputed, nor is it a question of law, as the 
Constitution is clear.
  The heart of the matter is this: Will Members of this House have the 
courage to choose fidelity to the Constitution over loyalty to their 
political party?
  For the sake of our Constitution and our country, for Americans today 
and tomorrow, I urge all Members to summon the courage to uphold the 
rule of law and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to hold Donald John Trump 
accountable for his repeated abuse of power, his deliberate obstruction 
of the House's constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities, 
and his unprecedented misuse of the Presidency to weaken the separation 
of powers and subvert our Constitution by dangling $391 million in 
congressionally appropriated tax dollars over the head of an embattled 
ally in order to coerce a fraudulent investigation into a potential 
political opponent.

                              {time}  1115

  Our Founders feared a lawless, amoral President would willfully put 
national security at risk for his own personal gain.
  In 1974, Republicans made it clear that their ultimate loyalty was 
not to one man, but to upholding the Constitution. Today, the 
uncontested evidence shows Donald Trump violated his oath of office. My 
friends on both sides of the aisle can either defend him or defend the 
Constitution. History will not permit you to do both.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks in closing, I want to 
say one thing for the record.
  I have great respect for all of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, and I am sure they are voting their convictions; so when I vote 
mine, please don't imply I am doing it for my political party. I am 
doing it because it is what I believe is right. I do believe I can 
defend both the President and the Constitution of the United States, 
and I think that is exactly what I am doing.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot oppose this rule strongly enough. The process 
we saw leading up to it today was a complete charade. It was a closed 
process, an unfair process, and a rushed process, and it could only 
have ever had one logical, predetermined ending.
  Throughout it all, the majority trampled on minority rights: They 
refused to call witnesses with relevant, firsthand knowledge; they 
relied on hearsay news reports to make their case; they denied 
Republicans the right to hold a minority hearing day; and they refused 
the President of the United States his due process rights in the 
committee that was actually conducting the impeachment process and 
investigating him.
  In the end, what was the result? Articles of Impeachment based on an 
event that never happened; a purported quid pro quo that did not exist; 
aid that was allegedly withheld that, in reality, was never withheld at 
all; and a narrative of intent based on nothing more than fantasy.
  Madam Speaker, we deserve better than this. Impeachment is the most 
consequential act the House of Representatives can undertake. It must 
not and cannot be based on a flawed process. It cannot come at the 
expense of minority rights or due process to the accused. It cannot be 
based on a vendetta against the President that the majority has pursued 
since the day he was elected, and it cannot be based on nothing more 
than spin and hearsay. I oppose this rule, and I opposed the flawed and 
unfair process.
  Madam Speaker, it is a very solemn vote that all of us will cast.
  I want to end by, number one, thanking my good friend, the chairman 
of the Rules Committee, for conducting the kind of hearing he conducted 
yesterday; but I also want to underscore, again, that we are very 
violently opposed to the process and very strongly opposed to the rule. 
We think this is a charade and has been very unfair.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the

[[Page H12129]]

underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend, Mr. Cole, for his kind words, 
and I appreciate his leadership on the Rules Committee and the fact 
that he respects this institution.
  But, Madam Speaker, let me say again what happened here: The 
President withheld congressionally approved military aid to a country 
under siege to extract a personal, political favor. That is a cold, 
hard fact.
  The question before us comes down to this: Should a President be 
allowed to ask a foreign nation to interfere in an American election?
  I remember my first political experience as a middle schooler in 
1972, leaving leaflets at the homes of potential voters urging them to 
support George McGovern for President--no relation, by the way. I 
remember what an honor it was to ask people to support him, even though 
I was too young to vote myself, and what a privilege it was later in 
life to ask voters for their support in my own campaigns.
  I have been part of winning campaigns, and I have been part of losing 
ones, too. People who I thought would be great Presidents, like Senator 
McGovern, were never given that chance. Make no mistake: I was 
disappointed, but I accepted it.
  I would take losing an election any day of the week when the American 
people render that verdict, but I will never be okay if other nations 
decide our leaders for us. The President of the United States is 
rolling out the welcome mat for that kind of foreign interference.
  To my Republican friends: Imagine any Democratic President sitting in 
the Oval Office--President Obama, President Clinton, any of them. Would 
your answer here still be the same? No one should be allowed to use the 
powers of the Presidency to undermine our elections, period.
  This isn't about siding with your team. I didn't swear an oath to 
defend a political party. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of 
the United States of America. And when I vote ``yes'' on this rule and 
the underlying articles, my conscience will be clear.
  I ask all of my colleagues to search their souls before casting their 
votes. I ask them all to stand up for our democracy, to stand up for 
our Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 767

       Notwithstanding the first section of this resolution, the 
     House shall not proceed to consideration of H. Res. 755, 
     impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, 
     for high crimes and misdemeanors, until such time as the 
     Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee notifies the House 
     that:
       (a) All evidence in possession of Chairman Schiff of the 
     House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been 
     made available to the House Judiciary Committee.
       (b) All members of the House Judiciary Committee have been 
     given the opportunity to ask questions of the Chairman of the 
     House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with regards 
     to his report titled ``The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry 
     Report.''
       (c) All underlying, unclassified, evidence used to create 
     the report described in subsection (b) has been made 
     available to the public.
       (d) Minority members of the House Judiciary Committee have 
     received their right to a minority hearing day.
       (e) Minority witnesses requested by Ranking Member Nunes at 
     the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and 
     Ranking Member Collins at the House Judiciary Committee are 
     called and allowed to be heard in accordance with H. Res. 
     660.
       (f) Subpoenas requested by Ranking Member Nunes at the 
     House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence pursuant to 
     H. Res. 660 are issued and enforced.
  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.
  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 229, 
nays 197, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 693]

                               YEAS--229

     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     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
     McEachin
     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
     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--197

     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
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     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)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton

[[Page H12130]]


     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

     Gabbard
     Hunter
     Serrano
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1146

  Ms. BASS 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 pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 197, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 694]

                               AYES--228

     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
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     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
     McEachin
     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
     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

                               NOES--197

     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
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     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)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     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--5

     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Hunter
     Serrano
     Shimkus


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1155

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``YEA'' on rollcall No. 694.

                          ____________________