Directing Certain Committees to Continue Ongoing Investigations Into Whether Sufficient Grounds Exist for the Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 660
Resolved, That the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America. SEC. 2. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the ``Permanent Select Committee'') is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.
(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation--
(i) by subpoena or otherwise--
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by the Permanent Select Committee in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
(6) The Permanent Select Committee is directed to issue a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations and appending any information and materials the Permanent Select Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution. The chair shall transmit such report and appendices, along with any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information. The report required by this paragraph shall be prepared in consultation with the chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Oversight and Reform. SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
The chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary. SEC. 4. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(a) The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution pursuant to the procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and the Rules of the House.
(c)(1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation--
(A) by subpoena or otherwise--
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the professionalism that my friend from Oklahoma has demonstrated throughout this process. We don't see eye to eye on this impeachment inquiry, but he has always conducted himself with integrity and defended this institution.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon, the Committee on Rules marked up and favorably reported H. Res. 660, directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.
Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for our country. Over 230 years ago, when the Founders of our country wrote the Constitution, they entrusted us with the gift of self-government, but they knew the persistence of this gift was not assured.
It may be taken for granted today, but having just shaken off a tyrant, the Founders knew better. They understood that the very foundations of our country are dependent on safeguarding against one branch of government encroaching on the others. That is what the idea of checks and balances is all about.
Within that system, the Framers gave only this Congress the power, if need be, to impeach a President over possible wrongdoing. This fact-- that no one is above the law--is what separates this country from so many others.
Because of its seriousness, the impeachment process has been rarely used for Presidents. For just the fourth time in our Nation's history, Congress is now investigating whether to impeach a President of the United States. Our authority to do so under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States and the Rules of the House of Representatives is clear, and the courts have recently agreed.
For all the disagreements I have with President Trump, for all of his policies, his tweets, and his rhetoric that I deeply disagree with, I never wanted our country to reach this point. I do not take any pleasure in the need for this resolution.
We are not here in some partisan exercise. We are here because the facts compel us to be here.
There is serious evidence that President Trump may have violated the Constitution. This is about protecting our national security and safeguarding our elections. That is why the Intelligence Committee has been gathering evidence and hearing testimony.
Like any investigation, reasonable confidentiality has been paramount. Witnesses should not be able to coordinate testimony in advance. The truth must be allowed to prevail.
Republicans have been a part of every single proceeding conducted so far. Republicans conducting these depositions, along with their staffs, have had an opportunity to question each and every witness.
Now, Madam Speaker, we are entering the public-facing phase of this process, and I commend the investigative committees and their staffs for the professional manner in which they have conducted themselves.
I would also like to commend the courageous public servants that have bravely come forward to tell the truth. Without their courage, this possible wrongdoing would never have seen the light of day.
The public should not be left in the dark. They should see the facts about the President's conduct firsthand.
That is why I introduced this resolution. It establishes the next steps of this inquiry, including establishing the procedure for public- facing hearings conducted by the Intelligence Committee and the process for transferring evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It is about transparency, and it is about due process for the President. Some on the other side will never be satisfied with any process that uncovers the truth of what the President did.
Madam Speaker, none of us know whether or not President Trump will be impeached or convicted. Only the facts, and how we respond to them, will dictate the outcome. But I truly believe that, 100 years from now, historians will look back at this moment and judge us by the decisions we make here today.
This moment calls for more than politics. It calls for people concerned not about the reactions of partisans today but of the consequences of inaction decades from now. If we don't hold this President accountable, we could be ceding our ability to hold any President accountable.
At the end of the day, this resolution isn't about Donald Trump. It isn't about any of us. It is about our Constitution. It is about our country.
I urge my colleagues to not just think about the political pressures of the moment. These will pass. Please consider the heavy responsibility you have today to this institution, the Constitution, and to our country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. No, I do not. Request to Extend Debate Time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say, briefly, that this resolution provides better protections for the President than those Presidents Nixon and Clinton received. And just like under Nixon and Clinton, in the Judiciary Committee, the President's counsel can submit additional testimony or evidence for the committee to consider. The President and his counsel can attend all hearings and raise objections. They can question any witness.
This is going beyond Nixon and Clinton. This resolution allows the President's counsel to ask questions at the presentation of evidence.
Under our procedures, the ranking minority members of the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee may issue subpoenas if authorized by a committee vote. These are the same subpoena powers that the ranking minority member was given during Clinton and Nixon.
Our resolution allows for greater Member participation than under past impeachment procedures, including a robust process for the minority to propose witnesses and even issue subpoenas if authorized by committees.
And let me just say, I think the fact of the matter is I don't think there is any process that we can propose that Republicans who prefer to circle the wagons around this President and prevent us from getting to the truth would accept.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record H. Res. 581 from the 105th Congress, the Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution that contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution.
Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
SEC. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require--
(1) by subpoena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision, or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.
Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For the purposes of this section, ``things'' includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record H. Res. 803 from the 93rd Congress, the Nixon impeachment inquiry resolution, which also contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require--
(1) by subpena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee) ; and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision; or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.
Subpenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For the purposes of this section, ``things'' includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind.
Sec. 3. For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee, and any subcommittee thereof, are authorized to sit and act, without regard to clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, during the present Congress at such times and places within or without the United States, whether the House is meeting, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings, as it deems necessary.
Sec. 4. Any funds made available to the Committee on the Judiciary under House Resolution 702 of the Ninety-third Congress, adopted November 15, 1973, or made available for the purpose hereafter, may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the investigation authorized and directed by this resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Assistant Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 20 seconds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article entitled ``Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported Concerns'' in which Colonel Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who was on the call, said, ``I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,'' and ``This would all undermine U.S. national security.'' [From the New York Times, October 28, 2019] Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported Concerns (By Danny Hakim) The top Ukraine expert at the White House will tell impeachment investigators he twice reported concerns about President Trump's pressure tactics on Ukraine, acting out of a ``sense of duty.''
Washington--A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine's president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior.
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a ``sense of duty,'' he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times.
He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
``I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine,'' Colonel Vindman said in his statement. ``I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.''
Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden's son served while his father was vice president.
``This would all undermine U.S. national security,'' Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump's comments in the call.
The colonel, a Ukrainian-American immigrant who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb and whose statement is full of references to duty and patriotism, could be a more difficult witness to dismiss than his civilian counterparts.
``I am a patriot,'' Colonel Vindman plans to tell the investigators, ``and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.''
He was to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees, in defiance of a White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
The colonel, who is represented by Michael Volkov, a former federal prosecutor, declined to comment for this article.
In his testimony, Colonel Vindman plans to say that he is not the whistle-blower who initially reported Mr. Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine. But he will provide an account that corroborates and fleshes out crucial elements in that complaint, which prompted Democrats to open their impeachment investigation.
``I did convey certain concerns internally to national security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command,'' he plans to say.
He will testify that he watched with alarm as ``outside influencers'' began pushing a ``false narrative'' about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests. According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, was leading an effort to prod Kiev to investigate Mr. Biden's son, and to discredit efforts to investigate Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his business dealings in Ukraine.
His account strongly suggests that he may have been among the aides the whistle-blower referred to in his complaint when he wrote that White House officials had recounted the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky to him, and ``were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call.''
Colonel Vindman did not interact directly with the president, but was present for a series of conversations that shed light on his pressure campaign on Ukraine.
He will also testify that he confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, the day the envoy spoke in a White House meeting with Ukrainian officials about ``Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president.''
Even as he expressed alarm about the pressure campaign, the colonel and other officials worked to keep the United States relationship with Ukraine on track. At the direction of his superiors at the National Security Council, including John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, Colonel Vindman drafted a memorandum in mid-August that sought to restart security aid that was being withheld from Ukraine, but Mr. Trump refused to sign it, according to documents reviewed by the Times. And he drafted a letter in May congratulating Mr. Zelensky on his inauguration, but Mr. Trump did not sign that either, according to the documents.
Colonel Vindman was concerned after he learned that the White House budget office had taken the unusual step of withholding the $391 million package of security assistance for Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. At least one previous witness has testified that Mr. Trump directed that the aid be frozen until he could secure a commitment from Mr. Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens.
While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.
On two occasions, the colonel brought his concerns to John A. Eisenberg, the top lawyer at the National Security Council. The first came on July 10. That day, senior American officials met with senior Ukrainian officials at the White House, in a stormy meeting in which Mr. Bolton is said to have had a tense exchange with Mr. Sondland after the ambassador raised the matter of investigations he wanted Ukraine to undertake. That meeting has been described in previous testimony in the impeachment inquiry.
At a debriefing later that day attended by the colonel, Mr. Sandland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with investigations into Mr. Trump's political rivals.
``Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,'' Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement.
``I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate'' and that the ``request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was going to get involved in or push,'' he added.
The colonel's account echoed the testimony of Fiona Hill, one of his superiors, who has previously testified behind closed doors that she and Mr. Bolton were angered by efforts to politicize the interactions with Ukraine.
The colonel said that after his confrontation with Mr. Sandland, ``Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.''
Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs, also reported the incident to Mr. Eisenberg.
The colonel went to Mr. Eisenberg a couple of weeks later, after the president's call with Mr. Zelensky. This time, the colonel was accompanied by his identical twin brother, Yevgeny, who is a lawyer on the National Security Council.
The picture painted by Colonel Vindman's testimony has been echoed by several other senior officials, including William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who testified last week that multiple senior administration officials had told him that the president blocked security aid to Ukraine and would not meet with Mr. Zelensky until he publicly pledged to investigate Mr. Trump's political rivals.
While the White House has urged witnesses subpoenaed by Congress not to participate in the impeachment inquiry, failing to comply with a congressional subpoena would be a risky career move for an active-duty military officer.
As tensions grew over Ukraine policy, the White House appears to have frozen out Colonel Vindman. Since early August, he has been excluded from a number of relevant meetings and events, including a diplomatic trip to three countries under his purview: Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus.
Colonel Vindman said he had reported concerns up his chain of command because he believed he was obligated to do so.
``On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities,'' he said. ``I believe that any good military officer should and would do the same, thus providing his or her best advice to leadership.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I get it. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about process, process, process, but it is interesting that not one of them wants to talk about the President's conduct, and that speaks volumes.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The gentlewoman wants to talk about a sham process; let's talk about a sham process.
Instead of respecting the constitutional authority of the House of Representatives, the White House has obstructed our investigation, ignored our duly authorized subpoenas, withheld key documents, prevented witnesses from testifying, and intimidated witnesses. They have tried to disparage Members of Congress who are trying to fulfill their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States.
Article I of the Constitution gives the House the right to investigate the President, and we are taking our responsibility seriously.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I did not come here to launch an impeachment process. However, the facts demand it. ``A Republic, if you can keep it.''
What we decide today will say more about us than it says about the conduct of the President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close for our side, so I will yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me assure the distinguished minority leader that this Democratic majority can legislate and also fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to hold this President to account because it is our job. We took an oath to do that.
In terms of our legislative accomplishments, they are second to none. When the Republicans were in the majority, they shut the government down. Today the Education and Labor Committee just reported out the higher education bill, we passed a bill to deal with gun violence, we passed the Dream Act, and we raised the minimum wage. We are working on a bill to lower prescription drugs, and we passed a bill to protect our elections so Russia doesn't interfere in our elections ever again.
So, Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues that I am proud of the process we are following here today that brought us this resolution.
Madam Speaker, past Congresses under the impeachments of Presidents Nixon and Clinton found it prudent to have a resolution in place laying out the path forward, and that is what we are doing here today.
This resolution before us today is based on precedent. It includes protections for President Trump. The President's counsel is given the right to ask questions when the evidence is presented. The rules here expressly provide his counsel the chance to be invited to offer a concluding presentation. Neither of these things were guaranteed to President Nixon or President Clinton.
It lays out a clear path forward so that the American people know what to expect going forward.
Madam Speaker, the obstruction from this White House is unprecedented. It is stunning. We don't know whether President Trump will be impeached, but the allegations are as serious as it gets, endangering national security for political gain.
Madam Speaker, history is testing us, and I worry, based on what we have heard from the other side today, that some may be failing that test.
There are no kings and queens in America. That is what separates this country from so many other nations. No one is above the law. Let me repeat that: No one is above the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and one of only 5 members and one of three Democrats to serve on that House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of 1998, I rise in strong support of the Rule governing debate for H. Res. 660, as well as the underlying legislation--a resolution directing committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise the constitutional power, solely vested in the House of Representatives, to impeach Donald John Trump, the current President of the United States of America.
This is a somber and solemn time.
Today we choose our beloved nation over individual self-interest and a political party.
We choose due process, regular order and fairness.
And as the founding fathers crafted a document, which 230 years later, from 1789 to 2019, we can abide by, we choose the Constitution.
When the Framers of our Constitution designed our government, they bifurcated power between the federal and state governments, and divided power among the branches.
Indeed as the Framers debated ratification of the Constitution, they knew of the need to remove an individual who breached the public trust.
James Madison of Virginia argued in favor of impeachment stating that some provision was ``indispensable'' to defend the community against ``the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.''
With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, ``loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.''
They wrote Article I and vested in the Congress the capacity to make the laws.
They wrote Article II, and in the Executive vested the power to faithfully execute those laws.
Because the House enjoyed a natural superiority, as most representative of the passions of the populace, the Framers vested in the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment, and made the Senate the judges.
In Article II, they specified the standard by which a president or any constitutional officer is to be removed from office: for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It is against that backdrop that we debate this resolution.
In support this resolution because it protects our interests, holds us responsible, protects the American people and gives the president ample opportunity to try to justify his conduct.
In September, members of the House of Representatives learned of a complaint filed by a whistleblower within the Intelligence Community.
The whistleblower alleged that on July 25, 2019, in a telephone conversation with the President of Ukraine, the American President sought to withhold foreign military aid from the besieged and beleaguered nation of Ukraine unless and until the Government of Ukraine produced or manufactured produced political dirt against a person he deemed his most formidable political rival.
The allegation suggests an effort and intent to extort the assistance of a foreign power to help the current president retain his office.
This is similar to the allegations surrounding his 2016 election victory, which were at the heart of the Special Counsel's Report regarding Russian election interference.
After the whistleblower's details were made public, the White House engaged in a series of untenable defenses, all designed to discredit the courageous whistleblower's account, which the Intelligence Community Inspector General found credible.
First, the White House indicated that the whistleblower should not be trusted because it referenced secondhand information, forgetting that much of the information in the Whistleblower's complaint was corroborated by the White House itself.
Next, the White House claimed, without proof, that the whistleblower was a liar.
Then, the White House spread a lie that it was a ``perfect'' call between the two leaders.
Outrageously, the White House then claimed that Chairman Adam Schiff is lying and had helped the Whistleblower draft his complaint.
That was before the President said that the whistleblower's complaint is a lie made up by the ``Deep State.''
And that was before the President said that he made the call at Rick Perry's urging and that the phone conversations with the Vice President are more problematic than his.
The President and his last defenders are now trying to denigrate the life and accomplishments of Ambassador Bill Taylor, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and decorated soldier, and dismissing him as a Never Trumper, as if that is a demerit.
This past Tuesday, Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a member of the National Security Council who immigrated from Ukraine when he was three-years old and was dismissed by the President as insufficiently loyal to him, before one of the President's acolytes suggested Lt. Col. Vindman held a greater loyalty for Ukraine over the United States.
Lt. Col. Vindman has loyally served our country and our Constitution. He was injured in the war in Iraq, for which he was awarded the Purple Heart.
It is thus fitting that when Lt. Col. Vindman appeared to testify in this impeachment inquiry, he did so wearing his Army class A uniform, and had inside his leg shrapnel from the attack that wounded him, and won him the commendation of his superior officers in the Army.
And when he began his testimony, he indicated just what service to this nation meant.
He stated:
I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and a deployment to Iraq for combat operations. In Iraq, I was wounded in an IED attack and awarded a Purple Heart.
An immigrant to this country, Lt. Col. Vindman stated:
The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant. My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old. Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics.
When Lt. Col. Vindman testified, he spoke of the horror he felt when he realized that our country's national security apparatus was being manipulated for the president's personal and political gain.
He stated in his testimony:
On July 21, 2019, President Zelensky's party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelensky to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said. I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for 6 the U.S. government's support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel.
Throughout the last five weeks, Congressional Republicans have presented a series of strawman arguments designed to deflect but not delve into the very serious charges against the President.
Congressional Republicans' claims that the whistleblower complaint was hearsay are specious because its contents have been independently and repeatedly confirmed.
Similarly, there is no merit to the claim that there was no quid pro quo when the evidence adduced to date confirms there was.
In their perverse logic, Congressional Republicans decried the lack of due process for a man who once suggested that the Central Park Five should be summarily executed for a crime for which they were later exonerated, and could shoot someone in broad daylight with impunity.
Despite these specious arguments, it is likely that these process arguments are only made because the substance of the president's allegations are utterly indefensible.
The American people and their elected representatives cannot be distracted; they are paying close attention to the substantial wrongdoing emanating from this White House.
They know what the President, which is why a clear majority support impeachment and removal of this President.
As the House of Representatives continues its impeachment inquiry, H. Res. 660 is an especially timely piece of legislation, which squarely addresses the concerns of the President's most fervent supporters.
Specifically, this legislation reaffirms that the six investigating committees--including the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a senior member and which has exclusive jurisdiction to draft Articles of Impeachment--announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been engaged in an impeachment inquiry and directs them to continue their vital work.
That we have been engaged in an ongoing impeachment inquiry was ratified by the Article III branch when Judge Beryl Howell, the Chief Judge for the United States District court for the District of Columbia, recently held that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry, which does not require a formal floor vote.
Second, H. Res. 660 authorizes the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) to make public transcripts of recent depositions with appropriate redactions made for classified or other sensitive information.
This legislation, too, establishes procedures for all investigating committees to transmit their evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary for use in their proceedings.
The resolution is also prospective, as it relates to these hearings moving from secure intelligence facilities to public view. H. Res. 660 also serves to enable effective public hearings as it permits staff counsels to question witnesses for up to 45 minutes.
This is consistent with precedent established in 1998 of having staff counsel conduct initial questioning, followed by Member questions, by Republicans used to question Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in 1998.
The resolution also continues the precedent of giving the minority the same rights to question witnesses that was afforded the majority. This has been true at every step of the inquiry.
Additionally, H. Res. 660 also permits the President opportunities to participate in this inquiry, in a manner consistent with past participation by Presidents.
The resolution establishes opportunities for the President or his counsel to participate in impeachment proceedings held by the Committee on the Judiciary, including to present his case and respond to evidence.
The President can submit written requests for additional testimony or other evidence.
The President can attend hearings, including those held in executive session, raise an objection to testimony given and cross-examine witnesses.
But, if the President unlawfully refuses to cooperate with Congressional requests, the Chair shall have the discretion to impose sanctions to enforce appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the President or his counsel.
H. Res. 660 explicates the procedure that applies after testimony is adduced in the HPSCI.
H. Res. 660 directs the Committee on the Judiciary to review the evidence and, if necessary, to report Articles of Impeachment to the House.
Following the precedent of every modern impeachment inquiry, the Committee on the Judiciary will decide whether Articles shall be reported to the House.
H. Res. 660 is important legislation that specifies the parameters and the terms this body will follow as it undergoes its solemn and constitutional task.
It affords equal time to the Chairman and Ranking Member to question witnesses and it treats the President and his counsel fairly.
And, importantly, it lays out for the American people the manner in which this inquiry will proceed to the House Judiciary Committee--the committee of jurisdiction for impeachment and where I will bring to bear my decades of experience on Capitol Hill, including the lessons learned in the impeachment of 1998.
Unlike that occasion, the allegations at the heart of this matter are serious, and damning of the president's conduct and fitness to serve and his ability to safeguard our national security.
These allegations represent a violation of his oath, a betrayal of our national interests, a repudiation of Americans' cherished Democratic Values, and a violation of federal campaign finance laws.
When the President stated that Article II permits him to do whatever he wants, he was invoking a fear of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence.
As the author of one of our nation's enduring documents, Jefferson was well-versed with what troubles would merit the erosion of public trust in its leaders.
After all, the Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances of a lawless King, who felt impunity.
But, almost 50 years after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote to another of our nation's founders: Nathaniel Macon.
In 1821, Jefferson wrote: ``Our government is now taking so steady a course, as to shew by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first; and then corruption, it's necessary consequence.''
It is clear that the consolidation that Jefferson feared--and the corruption which he said would be its necessary consequence--has now been realized in the actions of this President.
We will not permit this to continue and we will put a stop to it.
The President will be held to account. H. Res. 660 is the first step towards that accountability, and I am proud to support it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 660, as Reported Offered by Mr. Cole
In section 2, strike paragraph (5) and insert the following:
(5) Not later than 15 days after the Permanent Select Committee conducts a deposition or an interview in furtherance of the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the chair shall make publicly available in electronic form the transcript of such deposition or interview, with appropriate redactions for classified and other sensitive information.
In section 3, strike ``is authorized'' and insert ``shall''.
In section 3, strike ``to transfer'' and insert ``transfer''.
In section 3, insert after ``records or materials'' the following: ``, including exculpatory records or materials, with appropriate redactions for classified or other sensitive information,''.
In section 4, strike subsection (d) and insert the following:
(d) In the case that the Committee on the Judiciary proceeds to consideration of a resolution, article of impeachment, or other recommendation, the chair shall, at least 72 hours prior to committee consideration, make available to the public, the report received from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and any and all records or materials, including exculpatory records or materials, with appropriate redactions for classified or other sensitive information, that were transferred from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or any other committee involved in the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source