[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H252-H258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTING AND AUTHORIZING MANAGERS FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD
JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I send
to the desk the resolution (H. Res. 798) appointing and authorizing
managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of
the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 15, 2020, on page H252, the following appeared: Mr.
NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 798) appointingand authorizing managers
for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of the
United States,
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. NADLER. Madam
Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I send to the desk the
resolution (H. Res. 798) appointing and authorizing managers for
the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of the
United States,
========================= END NOTE =========================
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 798
Resolved, That Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lofgren, Mr.
Jeffries, Mrs. Demings, Mr. Crow, and Ms. Garcia of Texas are
appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against
Donald John Trump, President of the United States, that a
message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these
appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in
connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial,
exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take
all other actions necessary, which may include the following:
(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary
assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be
necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee
on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from
the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the
Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of
Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or
subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment
that the managers consider necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the
resolution is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
{time} 1230
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, the resolution before us today appoints managers to
prosecute the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.
This trial is necessary because President Trump gravely abused the
power of his office when he strong-armed a foreign government to
announce investigations into his domestic political rival. He betrayed
our country when he used powers of his office, including withholding
vital U.S. military assistance, to pressure that government to help him
win reelection.
He invited foreign interference into our elections again. He
jeopardized our national security. He did all of this for his personal
political gain.
And then he violated the Constitution by stonewalling Congress'
efforts to investigate, ordering an absolute blockade of evidence.
Despite that, the House was able to uncover powerful evidence that
demonstrates, beyond a doubt, the President's betrayal and violations
of the Constitution.
But we still have not heard the whole truth because the President has
refused to allow a single document to be turned over to the House in
response to our impeachment subpoenas, and he
[[Page H253]]
has prevented us from hearing key witnesses as well. This is
unprecedented.
Our Speaker has led our fight to a fair trial in the Senate. Above
all, a fair trial must include additional documents and all relevant
witnesses.
The American people have common sense. They know that any trial that
does not allow witnesses is not a trial; it is a coverup.
The Speaker's insistence on this point has gotten results. Just
yesterday, we received critical new evidence from the President's
former associate, Lev Parnas, that further proves Mr. Trump's scheme to
pressure Ukraine to go after his personal political opponents.
New witness testimony has become available as well, including John
Bolton's announcement that he would honor a Senate subpoena.
Under today's resolution, the managers also have broad authority to
submit to the Senate any additional evidence the House may acquire on
its own, and we will do so.
The Senate is on trial. We will see whether they conduct a fair trial
and allow the witnesses or conduct a coverup. Today's resolution is the
next step in this serious and solemn constitutional process. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This impeachment process has been flawed from the outset. It
resembles not a congressional action; it resembles, more, a Dr. Seuss
book, knowing not which way it goes.
On September 24, the Speaker declared at a press conference the House
was conducting an impeachment inquiry. However, contrary to the
Speaker's decree that we were all of a sudden in an impeachment
inquiry, the House did not authorize the impeachment inquiry until
October 30 by adopting H. Res. 660.
It was said just a moment ago that the Speaker has been leading the
fight for a fair trial in the Senate. I wish the Speaker had been
leading for a fair hearing in the House instead of trashing our rules.
For those 71 out of 78 days, from the time it was announced at a
press conference to the time we finished, the President was not
permitted to participate in these meetings. Think of that: 71 days out
of 78 in which we actually did something on impeachment, he was not
presented the ability to cross-examine fact witnesses, present
counterarguments, no due process at all in those 71 days.
When presented with the opportunity, when it came to the Judiciary
Committee, instead of the Judiciary Committee stepping up and actually
acting like the Judiciary Committee, the committee of impeachment, we
punted.
We had some law professors who already had their basic talking
points. He could have cross-examined them. That would have done a lot
of good.
Then we could have had witnesses of staffers who testified--again, a
lot of good.
Where were the fact witnesses? Instead of the rubber stamp that we
were warned about 20 years ago by the current chairman, we became the
rubber stamp.
Democrats repeatedly violated House rules and blatantly abused the
rules they wrote in H. Res. 660. Even to this day, we will pass this
out in violation of H. Res. 660.
They used inflammatory rhetoric haunting them because this is what
they had to do.
One Democrat said: I call for impeachment today because it is one
heck of an emergency.
Another said: We have a crime in progress. We have an emergency in
our national election that is going on right now.
But my favorite, in December: It is a crime spree in progress.
Oh, the hyperbole just reeks in this room.
When we understand this, if it was such an emergency, if it was in
lieu to finding a 911 call, then why did we hold this for almost a
month? Well, we have been told that it is to help have a Senate fair
trial--be damned the House inappropriate process we had.
But even now that the process was bad, I am going to go back, and
let's make sure the facts are here because they still haven't changed:
A phone call that was put out in a transcript in which no pressure
was applied, there was no conditionality on anything given in that call
or since to do that.
There was also nothing given by the Ukrainians to actually get this
money that was released, by the way, before--it was actually a
statutory deadline of September 31. They did nothing. They got the
money anyway.
But the problem is they want the Senate to do their job for them. But
that is not how it works. You see, the Speaker--and what I have heard
today even from folks giving 1-minutes, Madam Speaker, is this was all
they wanted. It was a political impeachment. They have said he is
impeached for life.
This shows the true motivation, I believe, of the other side. It is
their dislike for this President and the good work he is doing.
So, Madam Speaker, before I reserve here for a moment, this has
always been a political impeachment. Even today, on the floor, the talk
of the President being forever impeached and this always being a stain
forgets the Senate trial.
I hope this ends this political impeachment and this body never sees
it again.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
resolution.
The task before us is a grave one, but one demanded by our oath.
The impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives
found that President Donald J. Trump abused his power and sought to
cover it up with an unprecedented campaign of obstruction.
He withheld hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in vital military
aid to Ukraine, a close ally at war with Russia, and withheld a coveted
White House meeting critical to the Ukrainian leader's international
legitimacy until Ukraine would commit to help President Trump cheat--
cheat--in the next election.
President Trump put his own personal interests above the national
interests, above our national security, and, if not stopped, he will do
it again.
For that reason, he was impeached. And for that reason, the House
managers will take the case to the Senate and to the American people,
because the appropriate remedy--indeed, the only remedy--is the
conviction and removal from office of President Donald Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, back when this national nightmare began,
Speaker Pelosi laid bare her intentions and purely partisan agenda. She
told her Caucus that they needed to ``strike while the iron is hot.''
This was always an exercise in raw partisan politics, contrary to the
warnings of our Founders. And over the last month, we saw the
justification for running the fastest, thinnest, and weakest
impeachment in American history crumble.
Instead of sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for
trial, Speaker Pelosi held them hostage in a failed play to gain
leverage that she did not--and would never--have.
In terms of concessions, she got nothing: no control, no moral
victories--in other words, another failed strategy.
After a month of counterproductive and harmful delays, I have three
questions for my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats:
What happened to impeachment being urgent?
What happened to Congress being ``on the clock''?
What happened to saying the House would be ``derelict in our duty''
if we did not act immediately?
These were all the assertions Democrats made over the past several
months. I guess it turns out none of them are true.
These delay tactics were self-serving, hypocritical, and
discrediting. But they made an important admission, some might even
call it a concession.
[[Page H254]]
They proved a very big point: Democrats do not even believe their case
was robust enough to win in a trial.
Even the Speaker's allies admit the delays undermined their case.
Some have gone as far as describing it as a ``failed'' strategy. These
are those who are closest to her.
Senator Feinstein, the senior Democrat from our State of California
and the hometown of the Speaker, said: ``The longer it goes on, the
less urgent it becomes.''
And Chairman Adam Smith, a confidant of the Speaker, said ``it was
time'' to transmit the articles to the Senate.
Both these statements were made last week, before the Speaker
relented. They are significant because they were public and they were
honest.
I am disappointed these individuals did not have the courage to stand
by their initial comments. If impeachment was truly as urgent as
Democrats claimed, the majority should not have waited for the Speaker
to choose a politically convenient time.
Anyone could have recognized this ploy would not work. The House and
the Senate are different institutions and, at this point in time,
controlled by different parties.
As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the purpose of
bicameralism is to guard against the dangers of encroachment and to
stop toxic resolutions from taking effect.
We saw separation of powers prevail against an abuse of power, just
as the Constitution intends.
The idea of withholding a sloppy impeachment case to force the Senate
to change its rules is constitutionally and politically unheard of.
Frankly, it is just ridiculous.
In Article I, section 5, the Constitution clearly states: ``Each
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' It doesn't say the
House may determine the rules of proceedings in the Senate.
If anything, the Speaker's actions have only further persuaded
Members of the Senate that the evidence of impeachment was neither
thorough nor satisfactory.
But do you know what? Let's be honest. This was never about
persuasion. It was never about the rule of law. It was what Alexander
Hamilton warned us, that one party would get control and, just because
of their animosity, demean the process of impeachment.
And by selecting this particular batch of managers, the Speaker has
further proven she is not interested in winning minds and hearts or
even following the Constitution.
Let's take a look at the first three names Speaker Pelosi announced
in her anticipated announcement earlier today:
Chairman Schiff, a man who has already taken on the role of judge,
jury, and fact witness throughout the entire House impeachment process.
Chairman Nadler, someone who campaigned for the chairmanship of the
Judiciary Committee that is responsible for impeachment, beginning as
far back as December 2017, before they were even in the majority, on
the notion that he would be the best person to lead the charge on
potential impeachment against the President.
You see, you get a chairmanship by your conference voting for you.
You campaign for it. You put your best ideas out there as to why you
should be the chairman. In 2017, that was the campaign.
Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, a Member who, almost 2 years ago to this
date, voted in support of impeachment. That was more than a year before
the Ukraine call even took place.
Those are just some of the managers.
If you think about the Members, there are people who, on the day they
were sworn in to this body, told those who supported them that they
were going to impeach him.
As I have said in the past, there is an issue with fairness; but
instead of looking to the Senate, Speaker Pelosi should be looking
within her own Caucus. From the beginning, this investigation was
marred by selective leaks to the media, a completely predetermined
process.
Yes, we have been through impeachment before, but it was much
different. We believed in the rule of law back then: that you could
face your accuser, that you could cross-examine, that the minority
could actually ask for witnesses.
The day that impeachment was asked to come forward, I sent a letter
to the Speaker asking 10 items, none that were made up. Do you know
what they were? The fair process we have always used in the past. The
answer was no. Because they have been working on this for 2\1/2\ years,
they could not let fairness determine the outcome.
Any other prosecutor would be disbarred for such blatant bias,
especially if that prosecutor was a fact witness in the case.
The reason for this impeachment is the same reason it has taken
Democrats 30 days to send the articles to the Senate: just spite. They
wanted to stain the President's record without giving him a fair chance
to clear his name.
Last year, we saw House Democrats invert the burden of proof during
their fair investigation.
For every American watching, take, for instance, if this was your
government, if they switched the burden of proof on you.
{time} 1245
We have Congressman Max Rose, a new freshman of the majority, who
characterized it this way: ``The President says he is innocent, so all
we are saying is `prove it'.''
God forbid the government accuses you of something as an average
American and says you have to prove it. We just switched a fundamental
belief of America, but only in this House do we do that.
This ``guilty until proven innocent'' mentality was an admission that
impeachment was not about upholding justice or protecting the rule of
law. Now Democrats have invented an even more destructive standard: you
are guilty because they say so.
Our Founders feared this day. Alexander Hamilton warned us of this
day. I hoped this day would not come. I would hope those that uphold
the Constitution would believe in the rule of law, instead of the spite
or the dislike of an individual. Like the kangaroo courts on college
campuses where an accusation is enough for a conviction.
Even as early as last Sunday in an interview, Speaker Pelosi made
that point very clear to all of us. Asked what a Senate acquittal would
mean, she said it didn't matter, the President is impeached forever.
Is that what this is all about? Just a personality, just an abuse of
power that you have within the House that we all feared this country
would never do. You could almost see the Speaker smile as she spoke
about this new standard. How incredibly solemn she was.
Madam Speaker, when Americans look back on this sad saga, they will
see a rigged process that forever damaged the remedy of impeachment.
Speaker Pelosi got nothing from the Senate, but the American people got
worse than nothing. They got stuck with the bill for a costly never-
ending investigation.
The old saying that you get what you pay for does not apply here.
Congress wasted time and millions of dollars on partisan impeachment.
In return, taxpayers get nothing. Democrats' misaligned priorities have
cost the people solutions that could have improved the quality of their
life.
There is no greater contrast than what we are doing right here today
than what is happening down Pennsylvania Avenue, the President sitting
down with a leader of another country and signing a trade agreement--
something people said we could never get done--to make this country
stronger, to make the next century in America ours.
But what are we doing here? We are doing what this majority has
worked their entire time for. Before they were even sworn in they
campaigned for the position of chairman for this moment, for this time,
for the millions of dollars that are spent so they could say the
President is impeached. That is a lofty history. Those are lofty goals
that you now have authored more subpoenas than you have created laws.
Thank God we have got a President in the White House that does not
sit back.
Yes, the President got the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade
Agreement done with, our top two traders. He is signing a trade
agreement with China today, but think about how much stronger his hand
would have been had that agreement taken place
[[Page H255]]
earlier, when he got it. No, it was held. Why? Because we were
impeaching. That is an amazing agenda, but you promised people you
would do it.
This is not a moment this body should be proud of. If Speaker Pelosi
likes to say impeachment is a national civics lesson, let's use this
blunder as a teachable moment.
I will make this promise to the American public, because the day will
come that the majority will switch. We will uphold the Constitution. We
will listen to the words of Alexander Hamilton. And just because
somebody else is in an office that we may not like, we will not change
the rule of law. We will not accuse them of breaking it and say they
have to prove it.
We believe America is more than a country. America is an idea, an
idea that, yes, would make students in Iran rise up for the freedom of
what they know America to be. That the rule of law was so powerful.
This is a moment and a civics lesson we should learn. This is a moment
that will teach our grandchildren that, yes, more than 200 years ago
the Founders crafted an amazing country, but they warned us what abuse
of power would look like. The sad part is we are witnessing it. What a
contrast in a day and time.
Moving forward, we must not redo these same mistakes in Congress, and
my promise to you is: if power were to change, the rule of law would
come back. We would have an agenda focused on people, not politics. We
would have a voice that you are innocent until proven guilty. We would
not abuse our power just for the sheer sake of politics, to say you are
impeached forever because I dislike you.
We are better than this. It is a sad day, but the great thing about
America, it will all change because the people have the voice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are once again reminded to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, two points.
First, my colleagues in the minority would rather talk about anything
than try to defend what President Trump actually did, because they
can't.
There is overwhelming evidence that the President pressured the
Ukrainian Government to interfere in our election on his behalf then he
covered it up. These are high crimes and misdemeanors, and we will
prove that in the Senate.
Second, our minority colleagues don't like our ongoing fight for a
fair trial because it got results. New documents and additional
witnesses have emerged that unmistakably point to the President's
guilt, and we have exposed the efforts of some in the Senate majority
to put on a sham trial.
The American people understand that a trial without evidence, without
witnesses is no trial at all but a coverup, and that will not stand. We
must protect the Constitution and the integrity of our elections. That
is what this is about. We must remove this President to protect our
country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining, and the
gentleman from New York has the right to close.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. Madam
Speaker, is the gentleman from New York ready to close?
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am ready to close.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, there are no other speakers?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, there are no speakers? A
closing is no other speakers.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I have one more speaker, and she will
close.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, then the gentleman is not
ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is incorrect. The gentleman
from New York has one remaining speaker who will close.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I will take it back. Madam
Speaker, give me the time one more time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, two facts just came out right
here, and again, we are going to hear in just a moment, but they are
facts. Undoubtedly the mics are not working on the other side, on the
majority side. We have talked about the facts. There is not
overwhelming evidence. We have discussed this over and over until we
are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter because this is a political
impeachment.
This has nothing to do with the facts. We have shown that there was
nothing done wrong, but that does not matter. When the train is on the
tracks, the whistle is blowing, impeachment matters, and the only thing
that matters on the timeline, the only real emergency here is that
there is a 2020 election in which the Democrats can't stand to see the
fact this President is going to win again. They can't stand the fact of
who they have got running, so what do we do? We impeach him, as they
said, for life. That is wrong. Vote ``no.''
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, again, no defense.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his exceptional custodianship of the Constitution of the United States,
for 13 years the top Democrat on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Justice Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I thank you for
your leadership in protecting and defending the Constitution, the oath
that we take as Members of Congress.
As I enter into the conversation, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from Georgia for his apology for his ridiculous remarks about me and
House Democrats. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Collins and accept his
apology.
Now, I want to go to the purpose of why we are on the floor today. My
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are here today to cross a
very important threshold in American history. On December 18, the House
of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment of Donald Trump,
Articles of Impeachment for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
By his own admission, the President stated that, yes, he had had that
conversation with the President of Ukraine, but he didn't see anything
wrong with it. Well, we don't agree with that assessment.
And, yes, it is a fact when someone is impeached, they are always
impeached. It cannot be erased, so I stand by that comment, although I
know you don't like hearing it. I stand by this picture of the American
flag, as I did the day that we introduced the Articles of Impeachment
onto the floor because every day all over America in classrooms as well
as courtrooms and in this Congress of the United States when we meet,
we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to
the republic for which it stands--and to the republic for which it
stands, that is what our Nation is. That is the genius, the beautiful,
exquisite genius of the Constitution, that we are a republic. That was
a decision of our Founders, their vision. They didn't want a monarchy,
they wanted a republic.
When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall and was asked
what do we have, Mr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic, he said: ``A
republic, if we can keep it.'' I have often wondered why he said that,
why that would be in doubt. But we see why it is in doubt right now
when the President of the United States has said Article II says I can
do whatever I want. That is a monarchy, that is not a republic that we
pledge our allegiance to every single day.
Here we are today with the Articles of Impeachment about to be
transmitted to the United States Senate.
I was thinking this morning and I mentioned it in a previous public
[[Page H256]]
event, the midnight ride of Paul Revere: ``Listen, my children, and you
shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.'' Listen, my children,
and you will hear about an assault on the Constitution of the United
States, undermining the Republic for which our flag stands by the
President of the United States in using appropriated funds enacted in a
bipartisan way by this Congress, funds that were meant to help Ukraine
fight the Russians. The President considered that his private ATM
machine, I guess, and thought he could say to the President, ``Do me a
favor.'' Do me a favor? Do you paint houses, too? What is this? Do me a
favor.
So we have a situation that is very sad. Don't talk to me about my
timing. For a long time I resisted the calls from across the country
for impeachment of the President for obvious violations of the
Constitution that he committed. But recognizing the divisiveness of
impeachment, I held back. Frankly, I said this President isn't worth
it. But when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding
funds from Ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal and
political, he crossed a threshold. He gave us no choice.
So, children, our Constitution is the vision of our Founders. They
were so brave they declared independence. They did it in a timeframe
when in the course of human events it becomes necessary. They declared
independence. They fought a war of independence and bravely succeeded.
They wrote documents, our founding documents, the Constitution. Thank
God they made it amendable so we could ever be expanding freedom in our
country.
And that, my children, is what you pledge allegiance to, the flag of
the United States of America and to the Republic contained in that
Constitution of the United States.
{time} 1300
We take that oath. When we become Members of Congress or other public
office, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States.
The President of the United States takes an oath to preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, an oath that
he has blatantly violated. For this reason, he was impeached by the
House of Representatives.
For this reason, we thought it would be helpful to have not only the
strong case for impeachment and removal that was put forth in this
House, but to know that more was to come. We didn't make it come
because we said that we were going to wait until after Christmas to
send this over. They would like to have had us send it over on
Christmas Eve so they could dismiss it.
Perhaps they don't realize that dismissal is coverup, but that has
been one of their trains of thought.
Dismissal is coverup.
I was so disappointed the other day, last Friday, I guess, or last
Thursday, when the leader of the United States Senate, rather than
strengthening the institution in which he serves, became subservient
and signed on to a resolution that would dismiss charges.
Dismissal is coverup.
In the course of the time since we passed the resolution, and not
because of the time--we passed it on December 18--on December 20, new
emails showed that 91 minutes after Trump's phone call with the
Ukrainian President, a top Office of Management and Budget aide asked
the Department of Defense to ``hold off'' on sending military aid to
Ukraine.
On December 29, revelations emerged about OMB Director and Acting
Chief of Staff Mulvaney's role in the delay of aid; the effort by
lawyers in the administration to justify the delay; and, most
importantly, the alarm that the delay caused within the administration.
On January 2, newly unredacted Pentagon emails, which the House
subpoenaed and the President blocked, raised serious concerns by Trump
administration officials about the legality of the President's hold on
the aid to Ukraine.
On January 6, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton said
he would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony. His lawyer
stated he has new relevant information.
On January 13, reports emerged that the Russian Government hacked the
Ukrainian gas company Burisma as part of their ongoing effort to
influence the U.S. election in support of Trump.
Yesterday, House committees--Mr. Nadler, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Engel, and
Madam Chair Maloney--released new evidence, pursuant to a House
subpoena, from Lev Parnas--recently photographed with the Republican
leader--an associate of Rudy Giuliani, that further proves that the
President was a central player in the scheme to pressure Ukraine for
his own benefit in the 2020 election.
The Senate leader and the President are afraid of more facts coming
to light. That is why the leader signed that dismissal resolution.
A dismissal, again, is a coverup.
The American people will fully understand the Senate's move to begin
the trial without witnesses and documents as a pure political coverup.
Whatever the outcome, the American people want a fair trial, fair to
the President, fair to the American people. The American people deserve
the truth.
The Constitution requires a trial, a fair trial.
The House is now moving forward with a vote to transmit the articles
and appoint managers.
As Speaker, I am proud to appoint outstanding American patriots to
serve on the impeachment panel:
Chairman Schiff;
Chairman Nadler;
Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren--this is her third impeachment, as a staffer
to a House Judiciary Committee member in the Nixon impeachment, as a
member of the Judiciary Committee on the Clinton impeachment, and now
as a House manager;
Hakeem Jeffries, the chair of our Caucus, a serious, respected
litigator;
Val Demings, a member of the police force in Orlando for 27 years
and, for part of that time, the first woman and African American police
chief of Orlando, so she knows her way around the courtroom;
Jason Crow from Colorado, an Army Ranger who served our country in
the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in the Congress of the
United States, and he too is a respected litigator; and,
Sylvia Garcia from Texas, a judge in a number of capacities in Texas
and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
We are very honored that you have taken the responsibility, all of
you, to bring the Articles of Impeachment over to the United States
Senate with a case for the Constitution.
So, back to the children. We don't want this President or any
President to ever violate the Constitution. It is very, very important
that we see that that Constitution is central to who we are as a
country, our system of government, our Constitution, so valued, so
respected, hopefully, so honored by everyone who takes an oath of
office to support and defend it.
We see the Russians now hacking in Ukraine. It just came out
yesterday or the day before. It just reminds me that I think most
Americans would think that voters in America should decide who our
President is, not Vladimir Putin and Russia deciding who our President
is.
I am very concerned that in all of this, whether it is withholding
funds for the Ukrainian Government to fight the Russians, whether it is
undermining our commitment to NATO, whether it is, again, making
decisions of what happens in Syria vis-a-vis Turkey favoring the
Russians, that all roads lead to Russia, all roads lead to Putin.
While some in the administration may think that is okay, I don't, but
we do insist and wonder why this President and some in this Congress
will not come to the defense of our electoral system by allowing that
to happen, denying that it is happening, placing the blame elsewhere.
This is as serious as it gets for any of us. Only the vote to declare
war would be something more serious than this. We take it very
seriously.
It is not personal. It is not political. It is not partisan. It is
patriotic.
Again, I thank our distinguished managers for their courage and their
dedication, for being willing to spend the time to do the job to honor
the oath that we take and honor the pledge that our children take of
allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H257]]
Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to this partisan impeachment spectacle that seeks to
accomplish what President Trump's opponents failed to do at the ballot
box in 2016. The bedrock of this country is our Constitution. Article
II of the United States Constitution grants our President the necessary
authority to deal with other nations and their leaders.
This President was lawfully elected by the American people. When
President Trump was sworn into office, he assumed the role of our
nation's Commander in Chief. And, as Commander in Chief, he has done
absolutely nothing illegal. The impeachment vote today is a sad
continuation of the partisan political efforts to undercut President
Trump since he was elected in 2016, if not before.
The House majority has wrongly denied President Trump the fair
process that was afforded to President Clinton and President Nixon at
every stage of their investigations. I am also profoundly disappointed
that the House Judiciary Committee refused to hold a minority day
hearing in compliance with Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of
the House, which the Democratic Majority earlier voted to approve.
It should also greatly concern all Americans that co-equal subpoena
authority was not granted to the minority during this hyper-partisan
process. Co-equal subpoena authority for both the minority and majority
has been the backbone of past impeachment investigations. My bill,
House Resolution 667, would have granted this co-equal subpoena
authority to the minority and majority, and l am disappointed that the
Speaker never let it be considered by the House.
House Democrats said that it was critical to move forward in an
historically fast, hasty manner. Yet, after passing both Articles of
Impeachment on December 18, 2019, their sense of urgency died. The
House Democratic Majority has waited nearly a month to transmit the
``urgent'' Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. This change in tone
only underscores what Tennesseans knew all along: this is a partisan
stunt, motivated purely by political reasons, that mocks our Founding
Fathers' great caution in undertaking decisions of this magnitude and
the safeguards they designed for our Republic.
It is shameful that the majority has waited nearly a month to bring
House Resolution 798 up for a vote. I am deeply alarmed that this delay
by House Democrats was a thinly veiled power grab. Our Founding Fathers
envisioned this scenario during the dawn of our Republic: one chamber
of Congress trying to control the other. In our Founders' wisdom, a
system of checks and balances was put into place to prevent the coup
d'etat that House Democrats attempted. Because of these safeguards,
House Democrats ultimately failed. I applaud the Senators from both
sides of the aisle who stood against this grave injustice and demanded
that the House send over the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate
without delay.
Instead of working to secure our southern border, protect religious
freedom, and rein in out-of-control government spending, my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have been laser-focused on removing
President Trump from office for purely political reasons.
I want to remind those who are leading this ridiculous waste of
taxpayer resources that there will be another election in 2020. The
next election is the avenue for deciding a new president, not this.
Throughout the history of this country, impeachment has been a rare
process. With this impeachment, I worry that in the next 230 years of
our Republic, it will be rare that a president is not impeached.
On behalf of my fellow Tennesseans, and on behalf of my constituents
in the Sixth District of Tennessee, I stand with our President and
Commander in Chief and will vote ``no'' to appoint and authorize
managers for the impeachment trial of President Trump.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on:
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 193, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 18]
YEAS--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)
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
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
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
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
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
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
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
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
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--9
Clay
Crawford
Gabbard
Kirkpatrick
Lesko
Lewis
Marchant
McClintock
Simpson
[[Page H258]]
{time} 1333
Mr. HIGGINS of New York changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________