Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 205 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)

[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

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.

____________________