"In any discussion of the problems in our world today, racism must rank high. Not because we are soft-minded liberals obsessed with countless crimes throughout history induced by colour, religion, tribalism or chauvinism of one kind or another. But because the poison which we hoped and believed had been eradicated in our own time by the knowledge of the ultimate evil- the gas-chamber murders committed by the Nazis--is in fact still present, not in any one area of discrimination or racism, or in a restricted number of specific rulers or governments, but in all humankind. I call it "Inner Racism."-

Gitta Sereny, "The Healing Wound"

IMPEACHING TRUMP-WHAT THEY SAID

IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 205 (House of Representatives - December 18, 2019)

[Pages H12130-H12206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the House
will proceed to the immediate consideration of House Resolution 755.
The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

H. Res. 755

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United
States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and
that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to
the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of
America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment
against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

article i: abuse of power

[[Page H12131]]

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R.
Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that
Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 United
States Presidential election.
(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump--acting
both directly and through his agents within and outside the
United States Government--conditioned two official acts on
the public announcements that he had requested--
(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer
funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis
for the purpose of providing vital military and security
assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which
President Trump had ordered suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the
President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United
States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of
Russian aggression.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions,
President Trump ultimately released the military and security
assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in
openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to
undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's
previous invitations of foreign interference in United States
elections.
In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the
Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and
other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal
political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing
his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting
democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national
security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office,
and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-
governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants
impeachment and trial, removal from office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.

article ii: obstruction of congress

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives
``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the
President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors''. In his conduct of the office of President of
the United States--and in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has directed
the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance
of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant
to its ``sole Power of Impeachment''. President Trump has
abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to,
and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment
inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of
the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United
States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment
inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served
subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the
inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices,
and current and former officials.
In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President
Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and
officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump
thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the
lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed
to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise
of the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' vested by the
Constitution in the House of Representatives.
President Trump abused the powers of his high office
through the following means:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by
withholding the production of documents sought therein by the
Committees.
(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices
to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of
documents and records from the Committees--in response to
which the Department of State, Office of Management and
Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense
refused to produce a single document or record.
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials
not to cooperate with the Committees--in response to which
nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony,
namely John Michael ``Mick'' Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John
A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell
T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich
Brechbuhl.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's
previous efforts to undermine United States Government
investigations into foreign interference in United States
elections.
Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate
to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and
nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as
well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all
information to the House of Representatives in the exercise
of its ``sole Power of Impeachment''. In the history of the
Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance
of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so
comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives
to investigate ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. This abuse
of office served to cover up the President's own repeated
misconduct and to seize and control the power of
impeachment--and thus to nullify a vital constitutional
safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the
cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the
people of the United States.
Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution
if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner
grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of
law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial,
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United
States.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary is adopted. The resolution shall be debatable for 6 hours
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 3 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 755.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his tremendous leadership in helping us honor the Constitution of the
United States.
I also extend my gratitude to Chairman Schiff, who will be presiding
later in the day.
Madam Speaker, this morning and every morning when we come together,
Members rise and pledge allegiance to the flag. Every day, all across
America, children in school, members of the military, officials, and
those civilly engaged, also pledge allegiance to the flag.
Let us recall what that pledge says: ``I pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.''
``The Republic for which it stands'' is what we are here to talk
about today: ``a republic, if we can keep it.''
We gather today, under the dome of this temple of democracy, to
exercise one of the most solemn powers that this body can take: the
impeachment of the President of the United States.
No Member, regardless of party or politics, comes to Congress to
impeach a President; but every one of us, as our first act as a Member
of Congress, stood on this historic House floor, before our beautiful
American flag, and raised our hands in this sacred oath: ``I do
solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . . So help
me God.''
For 230 years, Members have taken that sacred oath, which makes us
custodians of the Constitution.
When our Founders declared independence and established our new
Nation, they crafted a system of government unlike any ever seen
before: a republic, starting with the sacred words, ``We the People.''
For centuries, Americans have fought--and died--to defend democracy
for the people. But, very sadly, now, our Founders' vision of a
republic is under threat from actions from the White House. That is
why, today, as Speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the
debate on the impeachment of the President of the United States.
If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic
that the President's reckless actions make impeachment necessary.
He gave us no choice.
What we are discussing today is the established fact that the
President violated the Constitution.

[[Page H12132]]

It is a matter of fact that the President is an ongoing threat to our
national security and the integrity of our elections: the basis of our
democracy.
Hundreds of historians, legal scholars, and former prosecutors--
regardless of party--have stated that the President committed
impeachable offenses.
Since today is a national civics lesson, though a sad one, I submit
these documents for the Record and commend them for students to study.

450+ Former Federal Prosecutors Statement on Mueller Report

May 6
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both
Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels
of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors,
special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior
officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which
we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and
rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump
described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would,
in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of
Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President,
result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all
of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that
obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truthfinding process,
as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to
pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
The President's efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify
evidence about that effort;
The President's efforts to limit the scope of Mueller's
investigation to exclude his conduct; and
The President's efforts to prevent witnesses from
cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don
McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump
directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to
gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting
rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come
into public view, Trump made ``repeated efforts to have
McGahn deny the story''--going so far as to tell McGahn to
write a letter ``for our files'' falsely denying that Trump
had directed Mueller's termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the
investigation of the President and his associates--
obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation
of false government records in order to prevent or discredit
truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special
Counsel's report states: ``Substantial evidence indicates
that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was
ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President
acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in
order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President's
conduct toward the investigation.''

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to
curtail the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney
General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated
decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The
President's stated reason was that he wanted an attorney
general who would ``protect'' him, including from the Special
Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus
refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not
contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump
went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign
manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to
direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future
elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions
in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski
passed Trump's message to senior White House official Rick
Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger
because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did
not pass along Trump's message. As the report explains,
``[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President's
effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special
Counsel's investigation to future election interference was
intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the
President's and his campaign's conduct''--in other words, the
President employed a private citizen to try to get the
Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing
investigation into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct--trying to control and impede the
investigation against the President by leveraging his
authority over others--is similar to conduct we have seen
charged against other public officials and people in powerful
positions.

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel's report establishes that the President
tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and
Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators.
Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the
dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and
public statements; other such behavior was done via private
messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel
Rudy Giuliani's message to Cohen's lawyer that Cohen should
``[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.''
Of course, these aren't the only acts of potential
obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well
within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to
charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close
professional judgment. Of course, there are potential
defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an
indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system,
every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always
the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor
could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of
justice--the standard set out in Principles of Federal
Prosecution--runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that
prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because
unchecked obstruction--which allows intentional interference
with criminal investigations to go unpunished--puts our whole
system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for
the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional
judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the
conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to
add your name below, click here. Protect Democracy will
update this list daily with new signatories.
____

Letter to Congress from Legal Scholars

Dec. 6
We, the undersigned legal scholars, have concluded that
President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.
We do not reach this conclusion lightly. The Founders did
not make impeachment available for disagreements over policy,
even profound ones, nor for extreme distaste for the manner
in which the President executes his office. Only ``Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' warrant
impeachment. But there is overwhelming evidence that
President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use
presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help
him distort an American election, for his personal and
political benefit, at the direct expense of national security
interests as determined by Congress. His conduct is precisely
the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared
when they included the remedy of impeachment in the
Constitution.
We take no position on whether the President committed a
crime. But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable.
The standard here is constitutional; it does not depend on
what Congress has chosen to criminalize.
Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public
trust. The two specific bases for impeachment named in the
Constitution--treason and bribery--involve such abuses
because they include conduct undertaken not in the ``faithful
execution'' of public office that the Constitution requires,
but instead for personal gain (bribery) or to benefit a
foreign enemy (treason).
Impeachment is an especially essential remedy for conduct
that corrupts elections. The primary check on presidents is
political: if a president behaves poorly, voters can punish
him or his party at the polls. A president who corrupts the
system of elections seeks to place himself beyond the reach
of this political check. At the Constitutional Convention,
George Mason described impeachable offenses as ``attempts to
subvert the constitution.'' Corrupting elections subverts the
process by which the Constitution makes the president
democratically accountable. Put simply, if a President cheats
in his effort at re-election, trusting the democratic process
to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at
all. That is what impeachment is for.
Moreover, the Founders were keenly concerned with the
possibility of corruption in the president's relationships
with foreign governments. That is why they prohibited the
president from accepting anything of value from foreign
governments without Congress's consent. The same concern
drove their thinking on impeachment. James Madison noted that
Congress must be able to remove the president between
elections lest there be no remedy if a president betrayed the
public trust in dealings with foreign powers.
In light of these considerations, overwhelming evidence
made public to date forces us to conclude that President
Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. To mention only a few
of those facts: William B. Taylor, who leads the U.S. embassy
in Ukraine, testified that President Trump directed the
withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in military
aid for Ukraine in its struggle against Russia--aid that
Congress determined to be in the U.S. national security
interest--until Ukraine announced investigations that would
aid the President's re-election campaign. Ambassador Gordon

[[Page H12133]]

Sondland testified that the President made a White House
visit for the Ukrainian president conditional on public
announcement of those investigations. In a phone call with
the Ukrainian president, President Trump asked for a
``favor'' in the form of a foreign government investigation
of a U.S. citizen who is his political rival. President Trump
and his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made public statements
confirming this use of governmental power to solicit
investigations that would aid the President's personal
political interests. The President made clear that his
private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was central to efforts to
spur Ukrainian investigations, and Mr. Giuliani confirmed
that his efforts were in service of President Trump's private
interests.
Ultimately, whether to impeach the President and remove him
from office depends on judgments that the Constitution leaves
to Congress. But if the House of Representatives impeached
the President for the conduct described here and the Senate
voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their
constitutional powers. Whether President Trump's conduct is
classified as bribery, as a high crime or misdemeanor, or as
both, it is clearly impeachable under our Constitution.
____

700+ Historians' Statement on the Impeachment of President Trump

Dec. 16
We are American historians devoted to studying our nation's
past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his
oath to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States'' and to ``preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.'' His ``attempts to
subvert the Constitution,'' as George Mason described
impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in
1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.
President Trump's numerous and flagrant abuses of power are
precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for
impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful
to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the
country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary
power to the United States, by withholding essential military
assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization
of false information in order to advance his own re-election.
President Trump's lawless obstruction of the House of
Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and
witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated
oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for
representative government. So have his attempts to justify
that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys
absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated,
would turn the president into an elected monarch above the
law.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment
was designed to deal with ``the misconduct of public men''
which involves ``the abuse or violation of some public
trust.'' Collectively, the President's offenses, including
his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020
election from Russian disinformation and renewed
interference, arouse once again the Framers' most profound
fears that powerful members of government would become, in
Hamilton's words, ``the mercenary instruments of foreign
corruption.''
It is our considered judgment that if President Trump's
misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then
virtually nothing does.
Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic
remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue,
``unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune,
bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents . . .
despotic in his ordinary demeanour.'' That demagogue,
Hamilton said, could easily enough manage ``to mount the
hobby horse of popularity--to join in the cry of danger to
liberty--to take every opportunity of embarrassing the
General Government & bringing it under suspicion--to flatter
and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the
day.'' Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would ``throw things
into confusion that he may `ride the storm and direct the
whirlwind.' ''
President Trump's actions committed both before and during
the House investigations fit Hamilton's description and
manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and
``repeated injuries'' to constitutional democracy. That
disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present
danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the
House of Representatives to impeach the President.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, what we are discussing today is the
established fact that the President, again, violated the Constitution.
It is a matter of fact that the President is, again, an ongoing
threat to our national security. And the testimony of decorated war
heroes, distinguished diplomats, and patriotic, career public
servants--some the President's own appointees--over the past weeks have
told us this.
The President used the power of his public office to obtain an
improper personal, political benefit at the expense of America's
national security. When the President weakens a democratic ally that is
advancing American security interests by fighting an American
adversary, the President weakens America.
This abuse of power also jeopardizes the integrity of our elections.
All Americans agree that American voters should choose our President,
not some foreign government.
The Founders understood that it is profoundly corrosive for our
democracy for a President to invite interference in our elections.
As George Washington, our Nation's patriarch, under whose gaze we
stand today, warned: ``History and experience prove that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government''--
George Washington.
Sadly, the American people have witnessed further wrongs of the
President, which necessitate the second Article of Impeachment:
obstruction of Congress.
When the President's wrongdoing was revealed, he launched an
unprecedented, indiscriminate, and categorical campaign of defiance and
obstruction. Never before in the history of our Nation have we seen a
President declare--and act as if--he is above the law.
The President even goes so far as to say and act on this absurdity
when he says: ``Article II says I can do whatever I want.''
No, it doesn't.
That recklessness is a profound violation of the Constitution and our
Republic, which endure because of our system of separation of powers:
three coequal branches, each a check and balance on the others--``a
republic,'' again, ``if we can keep it.''

{time} 1215

The Founders' great fear of a rogue or corrupt President is the very
reason why they enshrined impeachment in the Constitution.
As one Founder, William Davie of North Carolina, warned, unless the
Constitution contained an impeachment provision, a President might
spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected.
Another Founder, George Mason, insisted that the President who
procured his appointment in the first instance through improper and
corrupt acts might repeat his guilt and return to power.
We in Congress, Article I, the legislative branch, must stand up and
make clear to the American people and to all people who this body still
stands by the principles enshrined in the Constitution and defended by
generations of Americans.
Last week, in observance of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the
Bulge, Members traveled to that hallowed ground to express our
gratitude to the heroes who sacrificed everything to secure victory of
freedom over tyranny, not just for America but for the world. The
veterans of that battle, who are in their nineties, told us how, after
the war was won, the Europeans whom they liberated would ask: Why did
you risk--you don't know us--and give your lives to save us? We are not
Americans.
Our men would say: We came here to fight for you not because you are
Americans but because we are Americans.
As our beloved Elijah Cummings, our Oversight Committee chair, our
North Star, said when he announced his support of this action: ``When
the history books are written about this tumultuous era, I want them to
show that I was among those in the House of Representatives who stood
up to lawlessness and tyranny.''
He also said, almost prophetically:

When we are dancing with the angels, the question will be:
What did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?

Elijah has since passed on. Now, he is dancing with the angels.
I know that he and all of us here are very proud of the moral courage
of Members who want to honor the vision of our Founders for a republic,
the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend it, and the
aspirations of our children to live freely within it.
Today, we are here to defend democracy for the people. May God bless
America.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, we are here today to enter into a debate that should
surprise no one. This has not been a surprise, and it is not even
something that we would not have thought about.

[[Page H12134]]

From the very moment that the majority party in this House won, the
inevitability that we would be here today was only a matter of what
date they would schedule it, nothing else.
In fact, how it even began to look even further was, on September 24,
the Speaker announced an impeachment inquiry even before seeing the
call transcript that we are going to hear so much about today.
You know, it is not about what this body can do and its
constitutional oath, and there has been a lot of ``constitutional'' and
``Founders'' thrown around and will be all day today. But there is one
thing that I will mention all along, and that is, also, the Founders
were very concerned about a partisan impeachment in which politics or
the majority, who have their strength, can do what they want to do,
regardless of any facts.
In fact, I have said it before, and I will say it again, I do not
believe, no matter what was said today and even what has been said--
this is not a solemn occasion. When you go looking for something for 3
years, and especially this year since January, you ought to be excited
when you find it, but they can't because I know what has now happened.
It took me till last night, but I was thinking about it. Why do we keep
calling this a solemn occasion when you have been wanting to do this
ever since the gentleman was elected? The President came forward and
did what he saw fit for the American people, but yet they wanted to
impeach him. And it hit me. Now I know.
The reason they wanted to is now they are realizing what I told them
and have been telling them for the last few weeks, that the clock and
the calendar are terrible masters. The clock and the calendar are
terrible masters. They do not care about anything except getting the
time done and the calendar fixed. They do not care about facts. They do
not care about time. And one day, the clock and the calendar will hang
along this body in a very detrimental way.
How do I know this? Because one of our Members, Ms. Tlaib, said on
the night she was sworn in: We are going to impeach.
Well, you know the rest. In May 2019, Al Green said: I am concerned
if we don't impeach this President, he will get reelected.
That is probably the most prescient thing said by the majority in the
last year is that they said: We can't beat him if we don't impeach him.
There is a reason behind the impeachment. Even Speaker Pelosi said it
would be dangerous to leave it to voters to determine whether President
Trump stays in office. Really? After we just said the Pledge of
Allegiance, we go back to the Speaker's own words and she said it would
be dangerous to leave it to the voters.
I will tell you right now, Madam Speaker, we on the Republican side
have no problem taking our case to the majority and to the people of
this country because they elected Donald Trump, and it is a matter for
the voters, not this House, not in this way, not in the way this is
being done. It has trampled everything this House believes in.
I said it yesterday, and I believe this to be true today, I will
fight this on process, which has been deplorable, to use a word of the
majority. It has been awful.
The calendar and the clock make it impressive that we actually do it
quickly. We don't care about rules. We don't care about minority
hearing days. We don't care about giving the opportunity for witnesses
to be called because the chairman gets to determine what is relevant.
Wow, that is pretty good. Let the accuser determine what is relevant to
the one being accused.

The people of America see through this. The people of America
understand due process, and they understand when it is being trampled
in the people's House.
You see, it is also not a matter of process, which will be discussed
today. It is a matter of actual facts. I will fight the facts all day
long because what we have found here today is a President who did not
do as being charged. In fact, they had to go to abuse of power, this
amorphous term that you are going to hear many arguments about that
abuse of power, except for one thing, the call itself, the two parties
say no pressure. Nothing was ever done to get the money. In fact, they
didn't even know the money was held.
But there is something that very much bothers me about the facts.
There were five meetings--we will hear about those today--in which
there was never a linkage made. There was one witness who is depended
on over 600 times in the majority's report that, in the end, after
questioned, had to say: Well, that was my presumption of what was
happening.
You see, this is an impeachment based on presumption, basically also
a poll-tested impeachment on what actually sells to the American
people.
Today is going to be a lot of things. What it is not is fair. What it
is not is about the truth. What is true today, and I just heard it just
a moment ago in the articles themselves where it said--and the Speaker,
I believe, actually talked about this, that the President weakened a
foreign leader.
Do you know what the truth of the matter is, Madam Speaker? The most
interesting and deplorable thing that I have heard over the last few
weeks is the actual attack by the majority on President Zelensky
because they realize the whole crux of their case is that if he was not
pressured, their house of cards falls. By the way, it has already
fallen.
But if we can't show pressure, then we either have to call him a
liar, a world leader, or we have to make up names to call him. That is
exactly what happened in the Judiciary Committee when a Member of the
majority actually compared him to a battered wife. That is below the
dignity of this body, to take a world leader and, when he doesn't make
your case for you, to belittle him, especially, as is going to be often
said by the majority, that they are in the middle of a hot war with
Russia.
You see, President Trump actually did give them offensive weapons.
President Trump did nothing wrong. We are going to talk about that all
day long today.
We went on process, and we went on facts. Why? Because the American
people will see through this.
Before I close this first part, I will have to recognize that even
the minority leader in the Senate recognizes that the House did not do
their job because he can't make the case to his own Members so he is
having to ask for witnesses, ask for more time. You see, and even
yesterday, it was sort of funny. I thought it was hilarious that the
minority leader in the Senate went out and did a press conference and
said: They denied my witnesses. They denied my requests.
Well, welcome to the club, Mr. Schumer. That is exactly what has
happened over here for the last 3 months.
Today, we are going to talk a lot about impeachment. We are going to
talk a lot about our President. We are going to talk about two Articles
of Impeachment, abuse of power because they can't actually pin anything
of factual basis on him--the President did nothing wrong in this
issue--and then they are going to talk about obstruction of Congress.
You know, obstruction of Congress, as I have said before, is like
petulant children saying we didn't get our way when we didn't ask the
right way, and we didn't actually go after it and try to make a case.
You know why, Madam Speaker? The clock and the calendar are terrible
masters. The majority will own that problem today because to the clock
and the calendar, facts don't matter. The promises to the base matter,
and today is a promise kept for the majority--not a surprise, a fact.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives must now consider two
Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. The first article
charges that the President used his public office to coerce a foreign
government into attacking his political rival. The second article
charges that the President took extreme and unprecedented steps to
obstruct our investigation into his conduct.
Taken together, the two articles charge that President Trump placed
his private political interests above our national security, above our
elections,

[[Page H12135]]

and above our system of checks and balances.
After months of investigation, there can be no serious debate about
the evidence at hand. On July 25, when he spoke to President Zelensky
of Ukraine, President Trump had the upper hand. The President, through
his agents, had already demanded that Ukraine announce an investigation
of his political opponents. Ukraine needed our help, both military aid,
which had been appropriated by Congress because of our security
interests, and an Oval Office meeting to show the world that the United
States continues to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression.
President Trump should have been focused on the interests of the
American people on that call. Instead, he prioritized his private
political interests. President Trump asked President Zelensky for a
favor. He wanted Ukraine to announce two bogus investigations, one into
former Vice President Biden, then his leading opponent in the 2020
election, and another to advance a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not
Russia, attacked our elections in 2016.
Neither request was premised on any legitimate national security or
foreign policy interests. One was intended to help President Trump
conceal the truth about the 2016 election. The other was intended to
help him gain an advantage in the 2020 election.

After the call, President Trump ratcheted up the pressure. He
deployed his private attorney and other agents, some acting far outside
the regular channels of diplomacy, to make his desires clear. There
would be no aid and no meeting until Ukraine announced the sham
investigations.
To our founding generation, abuse of power was a specific, well-
defined offense. A President may not misuse the powers of the
Presidency to obtain an improper personal benefit. The evidence shows
that President Trump did exactly that.
For this alone, he should be impeached. But the first article also
identifies two aggravating factors.
When President Trump conditioned military aid on a personal favor, he
harmed America's national security. When he demanded that a foreign
government target his domestic political rival, he took steps to
corrupt our next election. To the Founders, these offenses clearly
merited removal from office.
The President faces a second Article of Impeachment for his efforts
to obstruct our investigation of his misconduct. The Constitution
grants the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives.
Within our system of checks and balances, the President may not decide
for himself what constitutes a valid impeachment inquiry, nor may he
ignore lawful subpoenas or direct others to do so.
Many Presidents, including President Trump, have asserted privileges
and other objections to specific subpoenas, but only President Trump
has ordered the categorical defiance of a congressional investigation,
the automatic rejection of all subpoenas. The President is not above
the law, and he should be impeached for this, as well.
Congress cannot wait for the next election to address this
misconduct. President Trump has demonstrated a clear pattern of
wrongdoing. This is not the first time he has solicited foreign
interference in an election, has been exposed, and has attempted to
obstruct the resulting investigation.
We cannot rely on the next election as a remedy for Presidential
misconduct when the President threatens the very integrity of that
election. He has shown us he will continue to put his selfish interests
above the good of the country. We must act without delay.
By his actions, President Trump has broken his oath of office. His
conduct continues to undermine our Constitution and threaten our next
election. His actions warrant his impeachment and demand his removal
from office.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the following Judiciary
Committee staff for their extraordinary efforts during the Committee's
consideration of the Impeachment of President Donald Trump:
Amy Rutkin, Chief of Staff; Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief
Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel
and Chief Oversight Counsel; Shadawn Reddick-Smith, Communications
Director; Daniel Schwarz, Director of Strategic Communications; Moh
Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach and Policy Advisor;
David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Williams, Parliamentarian and
Senior Counsel; Barry Berke, Special Counsel; Norm Eisen, Special
Counsel; Ted Kalo, Special Counsel; James Park, Chief Counsel of
Constitution Subcommittee; Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight
Counsel; Charles Gayle, Oversight Counsel; Maggie Goodlander, Oversight
Counsel.
Sarah Istel, Oversight Counsel; Joshua Matz, Oversight Counsel; Kerry
Tirrell, Oversight Counsel; Sophia Brill, Counsel; Milagros Cisneros,
Counsel; Benjamin Hernandez-Stern, Counsel; Matthew Morgan, Counsel;
Matt Robinson, Counsel; Jessica Presley, Director of Digital Strategy;
Kayla Hamedi, Deputy Press Secretary; Kingsley Animley, Director of
Administration; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Tim Pearson,
Publications Specialist; Janna Pinckney, IT Director; Faisal Siddiqui,
Deputy IT Manager; Rachel Calanni, Professional Staff and Legislative
Aide; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide.
William S. Emmons, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Julian
Gerson, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Rosalind Jackson,
Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Priyanka Mara, Professional
Staff and Legislative Aide; Thomas Kaelin, Oversight Intern; Anthony
Valdez, Oversight Intern; Alex Wang, Fellow.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these Articles of
Impeachment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1230

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to impeaching
the President.
The Constitution says that any civil officer, including the
President, may be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Unlike the Nixon and Clinton cases, there are no allegations that the
President has committed a crime.
We have had almost 3 years of nonstop investigations. We have had the
Mueller report, we have had the Schiff investigation, we have had the
Nadler investigation, and at no time has there been any evidence that
indicates that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statute of the
United States.
So why are we here?
We are here because the majority caucus, the Democratic Caucus, has
been hijacked by the radical left. They have wanted to reverse the
course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that
election.
So let's look at these two phony Articles of Impeachment.
First of all, abuse of power. The phone call in question had the
President say, ``our country has been through a lot. I want you to do
us a favor.'' Not ``me'' a favor; ``us'' a favor. And there he was
referring to our country, the United States of America, not a personal
political gain.
He was not afraid to let this transcript go public, and he released
the transcript almost immediately after the call.
Now, the second Article of Impeachment, obstruction of Congress,
basically says that, unless the President gives us everything we want,
when we want it, then he has committed an impeachable offense.
That is a bunch of bunk.
Now, the President has certain individual and executive privileges by
virtue of his office.
Whenever there has been a dispute between the executive and
legislative branches heretofore, they have gone to court. The Supreme
Court a couple weeks ago said they would take jurisdiction over
deciding whether the President has to comply with one subpoena relating
to his tax returns.
Now, here, the Democrats have been bent to impeach the President of
the United States before the court decides this. This means that there
is a rush job to do this.
Why is there a rush job? Because they want to influence the 2020
elections.
They have spent 3 years doing this; they have spent millions of
taxpayer dollars, including the Mueller report, putting together this
impeachment; and they also have had this Congress wrapped around
impeachment and not doing their jobs until the dam broke this week.

[[Page H12136]]

Stop this charade. Vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin knows full well
the President asserted no privileges here. He simply ordered complete
defiance of the impeachment inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon).
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership
as we navigate this challenging time, not just for our committee and
Congress, but for our country.
It is with profound sadness that I stand here today in support of
these Articles of Impeachment.
President Trump's behavior is exactly what our Founders feared most.
They knew that with the awesome power of the Presidency came the risk
of a President abusing that power for personal gain.
They were particularly concerned about an executive who became
entangled with foreign governments, corrupted our elections, or sought
to avoid consequences for his own misconduct in office.
That is why they included impeachment in the Constitution: to protect
our Republic.
Our colleagues across the aisle have claimed that we are impeaching
the President because we don't like him, but this moment is about more
than disagreement with the President's policies or personality. Those
issues belong in the voting booth.
Our task here is not to judge the President himself. Instead, we must
judge his conduct and whether his actions have undermined our
Constitution.
The President has committed the highest of high crimes under our
Constitution. He used the highest office in our government and taxpayer
dollars to pressure a foreign country to interfere in our elections. He
undermined our national security.
When he got caught, he tried to cover it up, obstructing our
investigation and refusing to produce subpoenaed documents and
witnesses.
A government where the President abuses his power is not ``of the
people.''
A government where the President pressures a foreign country to
undermine our elections is not ``by the people.''
A government where the President puts his own interests before the
country is not ``for the people.''
This isn't complicated. You know it. I know it. The American people
know it.
President Trump's wrongdoing and the urgent threat that his actions
present to our next election and our democracy leaves us no principled
alternative but to support these Articles of Impeachment.
Our Constitution, our country, and our children depend upon it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I wish, as the gentlewoman just
said, that they would examine the factual conduct, but I guess that is
not going to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Founders of this country warned us against a single-
party impeachment because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps
irreparably divide our Nation.

The truth is, in the 243 years of this Republic, there has never been
a single-party, fraudulent impeachment process like the one being used
today.
Our Democrat colleagues have weaponized the impeachment provision of
the Constitution to nullify the votes of 63 million Americans who
elected President Donald J. Trump.
This is not about a phone call or Ukraine or even his use of the
executive privilege.
You have to remember that 95 of the Democrats on this floor today
voted to impeach Donald Trump before the July 25 phone call ever
happened between President Trump and President Zelensky.
Not only is this a single-party impeachment, it is also evidence-
free.
After all their Herculean efforts, they could only come up with two
short Articles of Impeachment.
On the first, the Democrats know there is zero direct evidence in the
record of these proceedings to show that President Trump engaged in any
abuse of power.
As you will hear today, their entire case is based on hearsay,
speculation, and conjecture, and there is not a single fact witness
that can provide testimony to support their baseless allegations.
The Democrats' second claim is that President Trump obstructed
Congress by simply doing what virtually every other President in the
modern era has also done, and that is to assert, Mr. Speaker, a
legitimate executive privilege, which protects the separation of
powers.
And you know what? If they disagreed with that, the Democrats could
and should have just simply gone a few blocks away to a Federal court
to get an expedited court order compelling the extra documents and
information they requested. That is what has always been done in the
past, but they didn't do that here, because these Democrats don't have
time for it.
They are trying to meet their own arbitrary, completely reckless, and
Machiavellian timeline to take down a President that they loathe.
The real abuse of power here is on the part of the House Democrats as
they have feverishly produced and pursued this impeachment 20 times
faster than the impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton.
They are trying to reach their predetermined political outcome, and
along the way, they have steamrolled over constitutionally-guaranteed
due process, previously sacrosanct House rules, and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
This must fail. This is a shameful day for the country.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that impeachment was put
into the Constitution as a defense of the Republic in between
elections.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this is a day of accountability and
defending our democracy.
The facts in front of us are clear: this President, Donald J. Trump,
coerced a fragile foreign ally to investigate his political opponent
and interfere in our elections. He leveraged critically needed,
congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine.
The President's allies want to claim that he did this because he
cared about corruption, but if President Trump truly cared about
corruption, then he would have listened to the talking points that were
prepared by the National Security Council on anticorruption. He did
not. In fact, on those two calls with President Zelensky, he never
mentioned the word ``corruption.''
He did not abide by the Department of Defense's own recommendation
that Ukraine had passed all the anticorruption benchmarks, and he
didn't listen to the unanimous conclusion of all of his top advisers
that he must release that aid to Ukraine.
He did release the aid in 2017 and 2018, but not in 2019. Why?
Because in 2019, Vice President Joe Biden was running for President.
This is not hearsay. We have a responsibility. The President told us
himself on national television exactly what he wanted from the phone
call with President Zelensky. He came onto the White House lawn and he
said:

I wanted President Zelensky to open an investigation into
the Bidens.

He solicited foreign interference before, he is doing it now, and he
will do it again.
The President is the smoking gun.
Our Founders, Mr. Speaker, entrusted us with the awesome
responsibility of protecting our democracy, which gets its power not
from the bloodlines of monarchs, but from the votes of We the People.
Without that, we are no longer a democracy, we are a monarchy or a
dictatorship.
So today, to uphold my oath to Constitution and country, I will vote
to impeach Donald J. Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I also remind my chairman that
impeachment was never meant as a political weapon in between elections
when you can't win the next one.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, other than authorizing an act of war,
impeachment is the gravest item that we as a Congress can consider.

[[Page H12137]]

The decision to move forward with impeachment of a United States
President is so consequential that it has only been done three times
previously in our Nation's history, all based on legitimate evidence of
criminal behavior.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues have diminished what should be a
solemn and grave proceeding into an absolute political circus simply
because they don't like the man occupying the White House.
Many Democrats have been intent on impeaching the President since the
day he took office. Their actions are clearly motivated by hatred for
President Trump. This impeachment vote today is the next step in their
long-held plan to remove him from office.
The partisan impeachment investigation run by the House Intelligence
Committee was unnecessarily held behind closed doors in a room designed
to share classified information.

Nothing classified was shared during these meetings, but the result
of this decision was that most Members of Congress and all Americans
were blocked from hearing the facts for themselves.
Chairman Schiff repeatedly withheld crucial information from the
Republicans, including the ability for anyone but himself and his staff
to speak with the whistleblower at the center of this investigation. He
was even called out by liberal media for spreading misinformation and
falsehoods throughout the impeachment process.
The public hearings were held with complete disregard for the House
rules and decades of precedent. Republicans were not allowed to call
witnesses or to make basic parliamentary motions. In fact, the only
witnesses allowed to testify publicly were those who fit neatly within
the Democrats' predetermined narrative.
Most importantly, we have not been presented with any real evidence
that proves the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as
required by the Constitution to remove a duly-elected President. If
there was criminal activity, as many of my Democrat colleagues claim,
then why are there no crimes listed in the Articles of Impeachment?
We have forever weakened this body by turning impeachment into a
political weapon. This impeachment scheme is nothing more than an
attempt to conduct taxpayer-funded opposition research and damage the
President's electability heading into 2020.
The American people see right through this charade and are fed up.
It is time for this madness to stop and for us to get back to the
important work the American people sent us here to do.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for
his leadership.
Let's start by making this very simple. No one in America could do
what Donald Trump did and get away with it. No American elected
official can call up a foreign government and ask for an investigation
of a political opponent. No Member of Congress can call up a foreign
official and ask for help in our reelection campaign. If we did that,
we would likely get indicted.
No one is above the law, and the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land.
I first swore an oath to the Constitution when I joined the United
States Air Force on Active Duty. The oath I took was not to a political
party or to a President or to a king; it was to a document that has
made America the greatest nation on Earth, and that document contains a
safeguard for when the President's abuse of power is so extreme that it
warrants impeachment.
We are not here because of policy disputes. While I disagree with the
President, I acknowledge he has the right to restrict the number of
refugees entering our country, he has the right to eliminate
environmental executive orders, and he has the right to sign a bill
that has given tax breaks to the wealthy.
But the President does not have the right to cheat and to solicit
foreign interference in our elections. That is illegal, it is not what
the voters elected him to do, and we will not stand for it.
The President's actions in this case were particularly insidious,
because he also used our government for his private gain.
He conditioned taxpayer-funded military aid and a critical White
House meeting with the Ukrainian president on the requirement that
Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into his opponent. And by
harming Ukrainian national security, the President also harmed U.S.
national security.

{time} 1245

Then, the President solicited foreign interference again on the south
lawn of the White House when he again asked Ukraine to investigate his
political opponent. Then, he asked China, our peer competitor, to do
the same. That abuse of power is not acceptable.
Whether or not the Senate convicts, the House has an independent duty
to do the right thing. That is why we have passed over 275 bipartisan
bills that are stuck in the Senate. Whether impeaching or legislating,
we will continue to be faithful to the Constitution, regardless of what
the Senate may or may not do.
Moreover, impeachment is a form of deterrence. Our children are
watching. No President ever wants to be impeached. Whether Donald Trump
leaves in 1 month, 1 year, or 5 years, this impeachment is permanent.
It will follow him around for the rest of his life. History books will
record it, and the people will know why we impeached.
It is all very simple. No one is above the law, not our Commander in
Chief, not our President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, 63 million Americans went to the
polls and elected Donald Trump President of the United States. House
Democrats have been trying to overturn the election ever since. In
fact, they have tried five additional times to the one that is before
us to impeach the President, including the vote in May 2017, just 5
months into his term.
In January of this year, House Democrats took control of this
Chamber, and they were faced with a choice. They could use the tools of
the majority to pursue legitimate priorities of the American people,
policies that can impact their lives, or they could use the tools to
undo the 2016 election. They made their choice.
Since then, House Democrats have issued more subpoenas than bills
have been signed into law. That tells us all we need to know about this
Congress and that party.
Rather than launch a legitimate investigation, Democrats turn to
focus groups to workshop their language, to see if they could sell this
to the American people, and the American people have rejected it.
Instead of negotiating with the executive branch, for instance, and
allowing the courts to resolve any legitimate disputes, House Democrats
rushed toward an impeachment vote.
So here we are, 12 weeks later, voting whether to impeach the
President based off the thinnest record in modern history. It is no
surprise that the Senate is already asking for additional witnesses,
more documents, and real evidence. The body of evidence is weak and
woefully insufficient for impeachment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, American elections belong to the American
people, not the American President and not foreign powers.
No President may cheat the people by working with foreign governments
to steal from us a free and fair election. And no President who
attempts it may cover up that cheating by systematically obstructing
Congress in our work.
Article II of the Constitution does not authorize a President to do
whatever he wants. The reason we have a Constitution is to keep
government officials from doing whatever they want.
If we the people lose the certainty of free and fair elections to
Presidential corruption and foreign manipulation, then we lose our
democracy itself, the most precious inheritance we have received from
prior generations who pledged their sacred honor and gave everything
they had to defend it.
The struggle for democracy is the meaning of America. That is why we
remain the last best hope of a world

[[Page H12138]]

ravaged by authoritarianism, violence, and corruption.
We must act now to protect our elections and safeguard constitutional
democracy for the enormous and unprecedented challenges that still lie
ahead of us.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 755.
Today is a disappointing day. It is the day my colleagues from across
the aisle cast the vote that they have spent the last 3 years obsessing
over, the vote to impeach our duly-elected President.
There are two charges claimed by House Democrats, and there is zero
cause for either.
While President Trump has led, our country has thrived, and
Washington liberals have failed.
Despite the commitment of many of our colleagues to obstruct the
Trump administration's agenda at every turn, our country continues to
succeed.
In this body, however, we have not been able to deliver on what
Americans want and need. We still have not finished securing our
border. The opioid epidemic still rages in our communities. Our
infrastructure is still in dire need of an overhaul. We still have not
reached a bipartisan resolution on drug pricing.
If Congress hadn't spent the last year stuck in a divisive, ugly,
partisan impeachment debacle, think of what we could have done, the
lives that could have been saved, the communities that could have been
improved, the crisis on our southern border ended, and the positive
work that we should do for our country. But we didn't, all because of
divisive political theatrics.
Congress can do better than this, and America deserves better.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Articles of
Impeachment against Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, no one runs for Congress to impeach a President. But
this President has left us no choice.
President Trump abused the enormous powers of his office when he
solicited foreign interference for the purpose of helping him in his
reelection campaign in 2020.
The President betrayed our national security and undermined the
security of our elections when he put his own personal political
interests ahead of the interests of our country. He tried to cheat to
win reelection.
This wasn't an attack on Vice President Biden. This was an attack on
our democracy.
If we do not hold the President accountable today, we will no longer
live in a democracy. We will live in a dictatorship where any future
President will be free to abuse their office in order to get reelected.
Today, every Member of this Chamber faces a choice: whether to do
what the Constitution demands and the evidence requires or to turn a
blind eye to the President's grave misconduct, a blind eye to the
overwhelming evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I say this: This is not
about making history. This is about holding a lawless President
accountable in the way our Framers intended. This is a time to put our
country over your political party. Do not seek safety in the high grass
of a vote against these articles. We are all Americans. Show the
American people your devotion to your country is more powerful than
your loyalty to your political party.
United, we can defend our democracy from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. Divided, we risk losing our democracy.
All you have to do is look at the evidence because it will leave you
with only one answer: The President of the United States must be
impeached.
Remember these facts: He tried to cheat. He got caught. He confessed.
Then, he obstructed the investigation into his misconduct.
For our democracy, for our Constitution, for the people you
represent, and for all who will inherit our country from us, I pray you
will do the right thing.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in complete and
total support of President Trump.
The matter before the House today is based solely on a fundamental
hatred of our President. It is a sham, a witch hunt, and it is
tantamount to a coup against the duly-elected President of the United
States.
This is a sad day for our Nation when one political party, along with
their cohorts in the deep state and the mainstream media, try to hijack
our Constitution.
The Democrat majority has irresponsibly turned the impeachment
process into a political weapon, something that Republicans refused to
do when our base was calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
It is well past time for the House to move beyond this hoax and put
our Nation first. That is exactly what President Trump is doing. The
United States has record-low unemployment and historic performance in
the stock market. President Trump is rewriting failed trade deals of
the past to put America first. He is rebuilding our military, helped
create Space Force, and the list goes on.
I implore my colleagues to end this spectacle now.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a lot from my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, except a defense of President Trump's conduct,
which is indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, some say this impeachment is about eight
lines in a call transcript, but there is so much more. This was about a
scheme that lasted months and involved dozens of Trump administration
officials.
Look at the evidence, look at the direct evidence: text messages,
emails, calls, and meetings.
Way back in May, the President told his team: ``Talk to Rudy''
Giuliani. The President's message? No White House meeting unless
Ukraine helped him in the 2020 election.
Ambassador Sondland said there was a ``prerequisite of
investigations'' into the Bidens and announcement of investigations was
a ``deliverable.''
Ambassador Volker said the most important thing for the Ukrainian
President to do was commit to an investigation of the Bidens.
Just before the July 25 call, Volker told the Ukrainians: ``Assuming
President Z convinces Trump he will investigate . . . we will nail down
date for visit to Washington.''
The direct evidence kept coming after the call, more texts, more
emails, and more calls, all with the same message: If Ukraine didn't
announce an investigation into the President's political rival, then
they wouldn't get the White House meeting that they had been promised,
and they wouldn't get the aid that they needed in their war against
Russia.
American Presidential power comes from the people through elections.
The Constitution requires that we protect those elections. But when the
President abused his power to solicit foreign interference, he was
cheating American voters before they even had a chance to vote.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's actions force us to protect our
elections and the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to defend the
Constitution, support these Articles of Impeachment, and remind the
world that, in America, no one is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would remind this whole body
that it is more than eight lines. In fact, there are four facts: There
is no pressure. There is no conditionality. They did nothing to get it.
And they got the money.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Spano).
Mr. SPANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this political effort
to remove President Trump from office.

I am not surprised this day has come, but I am disappointed,
disappointed because impeachment is one of the most consequential
decisions that we can make in this body, and this impeachment is based
purely on partisan motives.
Speaker Pelosi said we shouldn't go down this path unless there was
something compelling, overwhelming, and

[[Page H12139]]

bipartisan because of how divisive it would be. Unfortunately, it is
clear the majority has had laser focus on one thing for 3 years:
impeaching the President.
The majority has failed to deliver for the American people. They
failed to pass a budget on time, failed to pass the spending bills on
time, and failed to deliver bipartisan solutions that will actually
help improve the lives of Americans.
But the American people see through this sad charade for what it is:
an attempt to undo the 2016 election based on hearsay and opinion, not
fact.
The transcript of the call showed no conditions were placed on the
aid. President Trump and President Zelensky have said there was no
pressure, and Ukraine received the aid without taking any actions.
The Constitution is clear. The President may only be impeached for
committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Nowhere in the two Articles of Impeachment brought today does it argue
that the President has committed treason, bribery, or any crime under
the law.
This is not overwhelming. It is not compelling. It is not bipartisan.
But the Speaker was right in one way. This is incredibly divisive and
has lowered the bar for what future Presidents will face.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the articles before us today, and I
hope that we will finally move past this nightmare and get to work to
deliver results for the American people.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear that President Trump
took advantage of Ukraine's vulnerability and abused the powers of his
office to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection campaign. This is the
highest of high crimes, and President Trump must be held to account.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I know
firsthand the dangers that foreign interference in our elections
present to our democracy. As a Member of Congress, it is my sworn duty
to ensure that our Nation is secure from all threats, foreign and
domestic. And Congress has a constitutional job to investigate
allegations of misconduct by the executive branch, including the United
States President.

{time} 1300

The Constitution is the highest law of the land, creating a system of
checks and balances to prevent the creation of a king. Congress is a
coequal branch of our Nation's government, equal with the Presidency,
with duties that are given to us by the Framers.
This is a very sad day, and I do not take impeachment lightly; yet, I
am here to do my job as a Member of Congress.
(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)
My town sent me to Washington to work with everyone, Democrats and
Republicans, to improve the lives of our communities.
Sadly, we are here, today, considering the actions of the President
of the United States.
My vote will be to ensure that we remain a democracy, and not a
dictatorship.
Many of our sons and daughters have paid the price of our freedom
with their blood. Our liberty and democracy must be the inheritance
that we leave to our sons and daughters.
A democracy exists when nobody is above the constitution, and we are
all subject to the law.
I ask God to give us wisdom, and to help us unite our beloved
homeland, the United States of America.
Mi pueblo me mando a Washington para trabajar con todos, Democratas y
Republicanos, para mejorar las vidas de nuestra comunidad.
Tristemente estamos presentes, considerando las acciones del
president de los Estados Unidos.
Mi voto, sera para asegurar que sigamos siendo una democracia, y no
una dictadura.
Muchos de nuestros hijos y hijas, han pagadado el precio de nuestra
libertad con su sangre. Nuertra liberated y democracia, tienen que ser
la herencia que les dejamos a nuertros hijos y hijas.
Una democracia existe cuando nadie esta sobre la constitucion, y
todos somos sujetos a la ley.
Le pido a dios que nos de sabiduria, y que nos ayude unir nuestra
querida patria, los Estados Unidos Americanos.
Mr. Speaker, today I pray to God for His guidance in uniting our
great Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Butterfield). The gentleman from
California will provide a translation of his remarks to the Clerk.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with my
chairman. I am not sure what he has been watching, but the facts are
not undisputed. They are very much disputed, not only by the minority,
but by the witnesses who actually testified.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Democrats' sham
process, which makes a mockery of the rules of the House and is,
frankly, dangerous to this country.
Since day one, the Democrats have made it clear that they wanted to
move toward impeachment well before any of the accusations took place.
What Democrats, unfortunately, don't recognize is the damage that this
will cause for our political institutions and America's trust for years
to come.
Every American should be concerned that Speaker Pelosi doesn't trust
our citizens to let them decide who should lead our great country.
This impeachment process isn't focused on strengthening and
protecting our political foundations but, rather, shaping public
opinion.
I ask you: Is it worth that?
Not only is the process alarming, but it is wasting taxpayer dollars
and valuable time that elected officials could be using to move our
country forward. That includes: securing our borders, addressing
student loan debt, and bringing down the cost of healthcare and
prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, while considering these
articles, to ask themselves whether this is truly being done for the
good of the country.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that, after
recovering millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains, the Mueller
investigation was actually a net plus for the taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Neguse).
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Nadler and Speaker
Pelosi for their leadership and their moral courage.
Today, the House of Representatives is debating whether to take the
rare step of voting to impeach a President for only the third time in
our country's history. Unfortunately, President Trump has left us no
choice.
The fact of the matter is that the President abused the power of his
office and invited a foreign country to interfere in our elections. In
so doing, he undermined the sanctity of the free and fair elections
upon which our Republic rests.
Making matters worse, over the past several months, President Trump
and his administration have done everything they can to prevent
Congress from uncovering the truth.
Let us be clear, in the history of our Republic, no President has
ever obstructed Congress like this before.
During the Watergate investigation, as my colleagues well know:
President Nixon's chief of staff testified before Congress; President
Trump's chief of staff refused.
President Nixon's counsel testified; President Trump's counsel
refused.
White House aides close to President Nixon testified; President Trump
refused to allow any aide who may have knowledge relevant to this
investigation to testify.
Simply put, his administration has engaged in a wholesale obstruction
of Congress, and that is exactly why we are considering not just one
but two Articles of Impeachment before the House today.
Every Member of this body has a responsibility to uphold our
Constitution, to defend our Republic, and, when necessary, to hold the
executive branch accountable. We are exercising that responsibility
today.

[[Page H12140]]

Mr. Speaker, therefore, I will vote ``yes'' on both articles because
it is what the Constitution requires and what my conscience demands.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would never have thought that
a Department of Justice investigation was used as a money revenue plot,
but I guess one thing is true: It was a loser for the minority in a net
profit situation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Newhouse).
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the people's House should be better than
this. We should be better than this.
During the Member's remarks in the Judiciary Committee, the
committee's impeachment proceedings, he stated: ``To my Republican
colleagues: . . . How do you want to be remembered during this
watershed moment in our Nation's history?''
Mr. Speaker, it won't be watching sports on a laptop during official
Judiciary Committee proceedings to impeach a sitting President;
It won't be using expletives to refer to our President, calling for
his impeachment just hours after being sworn into Congress;
It won't be using the chairmanship of the once-respected Intelligence
Committee to distort the President's words in order to mislead the
American people; and
It certainly won't be using the most serious and solemn powers of
Congress to overturn a legitimate national election for political
expediency.
No, Mr. Speaker, my fellow Republican colleagues and I won't be
remembered in history for doing any of those things because we know
this is far too grave a matter for subversions such as these of our
democratic Republic.
We should all be better than this.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both
sides.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 156\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 157 minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Speaker, our country faces a great tragedy and
moment of truth. We have witnessed the President of the United States
abuse his public office for personal political gain and invite foreign
governments to interfere in our elections, putting the integrity of a
government of, for, and by the people at great risk.
The evidence is overwhelming and clearly shows that President Trump
will continue to abuse his office and obstruct Congress if left
unchecked.
The Intelligence Committee conducted a robust investigation into the
President's misconduct. Members interviewed 12 witnesses in public
hearings, totaling over 30 hours; conducted 17 depositions, totaling
over 100 hours; examined text messages and emails; reviewed the
President's own words and actions; and published a 300-page report
detailing their findings.
All of this, despite the fact that, under the President's direction,
12 current and former administration officials refused to testify, even
ignoring subpoenas, and 71 document requests were denied.
The Judiciary Committee then reviewed the evidence and concluded that
two Articles of Impeachment, which I support, were warranted.
The evidence shows that President Trump is a clear and present danger
to our free and fair elections and our national security. The most
powerful evidence of this pattern has come from the President himself.
In 2016, we heard him when he called on Russia to interfere in our
elections. He said: ``Russia, if you're listening. . . .''
He then repeated this call for election interference on the July 25
call with the Ukrainian President, and we heard him again, on the White
House lawn, further adding China to that mix.
I stand ready to protect our sacred Republic, support these Articles
of Impeachment, and pray that my colleagues have the courage to do the
same. We must uphold our oath of office and defend the Constitution and
our fragile democracy, because no one is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in 2016, Vladimir Putin and his cronies waged a war on
our elections with the goal of sowing discord and division in America.
Do you think he has been successful? Somewhere in Russia right now,
Putin is laughing at us today. The majority is giving him exactly what
he wants: a divided America with pure, partisan politics, with nasty
political rhetoric at an all-time high. And some across the aisle are
discrediting the results of future elections already.
It seems to many Americans that, for the past 3 years, the House
majority has been carrying out the wishes of the Kremlin. The sad part
is the Democrats have vowed to continue their sham investigations even
after today's vote.
Impeaching a duly-elected President in a purely partisan manner with
no crimes to show for it--not one element of a crime defined--disgraces
the integrity of our democracy.
Now is the time to end the partisan politics, come together, and put
America first.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote ``no'' to partisan impeachment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, George Washington, in his farewell address
to the Nation, counseled America that the Constitution is sacredly
obligatory upon all. It is in that spirit that we proceed today.
Donald Trump pressured a foreign government to target an American
citizen for political gain and, at the same time, withheld, without
justification, $391 million in military aid to a vulnerable Ukraine as
part of a scheme to solicit foreign interference in an American
election.
That is unacceptable. That is unconscionable. That is
unconstitutional.
There are some who cynically argue that the impeachment of this
President will further divide an already fractured Union, but there is
a difference between division and clarification.
Slavery once divided the Nation, but emancipators rose up to clarify
that all men are created equally.
Suffrage once divided the Nation, but women rose up to clarify that
all voices must be heard in our democracy.
Jim Crow once divided the Nation, but civil rights champions rose up
to clarify that all are entitled to equal protection under the law.
There is a difference between division and clarification.
We will hold this President accountable for his stunning abuse of
power. We will hold this President accountable for undermining our
national security. We will hold this President accountable for
corrupting our democracy.
We will impeach Donald John Trump. We will clarify that, in America,
no one is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

{time} 1315

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, nullifying a national election requires
an overwhelming case of high crimes supported by indisputable evidence
that the vast majority of the Nation finds compelling.
Now, article I is a made-up crime called abuse of office. It does not
charge that the President broke any law, but that Congress doesn't like
the way he lawfully discharged his constitutional duties. This would
reduce the Presidency to that of a minister serving at the pleasure of
Congress, destroying the separation of powers at the heart of our
Constitution.
Article II is another made-up crime called obstruction of Congress.
It means the President sought to defend his constitutional rights and
those of his Office. This removes the judiciary from our Constitution
and places Congress alone in the position of defining the limits of its
own powers relative to the President.
Our Bill of Rights guarantees every American the right to confront
their accuser, to call witnesses in their defense, to be protected from
hearsay, and to defend these rights in court. The Democrats have
trampled them all in their stampede to impeach. Even in this kangaroo
court, the Democrats' hand-picked witnesses provided no firsthand
knowledge that the President linked aid to action--in fact, two
witnesses provided firsthand knowledge

[[Page H12141]]

that he specifically ordered no quid pro quo.
Any case that charged no actual crime and offered no legally
admissible evidence would be laughed out of court in a heartbeat. That
is the case before us today. It would redefine the grounds for
impeachment in such a way that assures that it will become a constant
presence in our national life. Now we know just how reckless is the
Democrats' chant of ``resist by any means necessary.'' This is a
stunning abuse of power and a shameless travesty of justice that will
stain the reputations of those responsible for generations to come.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, abuse of power was no vague or weak notion
to the Framers. It had a very specific meaning: the use of official
power to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring
the national interest. President Trump has abused his office and must
be removed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, from our founding, the United States has been
a special nation, a city upon a hill. Our values are enshrined in our
Constitution: liberty, equality, and opportunity. We are a self-
governing people where every person is equal before the law. In the
United States, we don't have a king. We choose our leaders. We vote.
Generations of Americans have fought, and some have died to secure
these inalienable rights. The Constitution begins: ``We the People of
the United States.'' That is us. It is not ``we the leaders of Russia,
Ukraine, or China'' or ``we the Democrats'' or ``we the Republicans.''
It is: ``We the People of the United States.'' All Americans--and only
Americans--get to have a say in our elections.
Donald Trump used the high power of the Presidency to pressure a
foreign nation to besmirch his perceived primary political opponent. He
corrupted our elections and compromised our national security so that
he could keep power--not power for the people, power for himself. In
2016, Candidate Trump called for foreign interference when he said:
``Russia, if you are listening. . . .''
In 2019, President Trump sought foreign interference when he needed a
favor from Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election. President Trump
attacked and is a continuing threat to our system of free and fair
elections.
Like all of you, Mr. Speaker, I took an oath to support and to defend
the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to abide by that oath and stand
up to President Trump's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. To
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I appeal to your patriotism
and implore you to defend free and fair elections and preserve the
Constitution.
God save the United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman and all Members are reminded
to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that our elections
should be free and fair. I do believe that with all my heart. Except it
seems like in this case impeachment is based on the fact that the
Speaker said last month it would be dangerous to leave it to the voters
to determine if Mr. Trump stays in office.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have descended into the
belly of the beast. I have witnessed the terror within, and I rise
committed to oppose the insidious forces which threaten our Republic.
America is being severely injured by this betrayal, by this unjust and
weaponized impeachment brought upon us by the same Socialists who
threaten unborn life in the womb, who threaten First Amendment rights
of conservatives, who threaten Second Amendment protections of every
American patriot, and who have long ago determined that they would
organize and conspire to overthrow President Trump.
We don't face this horror because the Democrats have all of a sudden
become constitutionalists. We are not being devoured from within
because of some surreal assertion of the Socialists' newfound love of
the very flag that they have trod upon.
We face this horror because of this map. This is what the Democrats
fear. They fear the true will of we the people. They are deep
establishment D.C. They fear what they call on this Republican map,
flyover country. They call us deplorables. They fear our faith, they
fear our strength, they fear our unity, they fear our vote, and they
fear our President.
We will never surrender our Nation to career establishment D.C.
politicians and bureaucrats. Our Republic shall survive this threat
from within. American patriots shall prevail.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was not among those who
supported impeachment before Ukraine, but I have called for impeachment
today because our President is, as we speak, abusing his power and
placing himself above the law.
President Trump's attempt to sabotage the 2020 election is a clear
and present danger on our democracy.
We the people know this, and more Americans support impeachment today
than at any time since Richard Nixon's final weeks in office. We know
that it is wrong to enlist the help of foreigners in interfering in our
elections. We know it is wrong to cheat, and we know what is at stake.
It is not just that our elections were attacked; our elections are
under attack right now.
The very day the Judiciary Committee voted out Articles of
Impeachment, President Trump welcomed Rudy Giuliani back to the White
House.
President Trump is still at it. He is doubling down. He doesn't think
he can win an election fair and square, so he is trying to cheat. To
ignore these crimes is not just giving the President a pass; it is
giving him a green light. Those who vote against impeachment are not
just endorsing President Trump's past actions but his future ones as
well.
If you think I exaggerate in warning that our elections can be
undermined, I would urge my colleagues to come down to Georgia and find
a Black man or woman of a certain age. They will tell you that the
danger is real. And they will tell you of brave Americans--patriots--
willing to risk far more than a political career who marched,
struggled, and sometimes died so that we could have fair and free
elections. We are not asked to possess even a fraction of their
courage. We are simply called upon today to do what is right. I am
proud to vote ``yes'' on impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague
just mentioned Georgia, because since 2014 the actual voter
participation among minorities--African American female and African
American male, Hispanic male and Hispanic female--has risen double-
digits. I am very proud of what Georgia is doing to get everybody to
the poll. I am glad he chose to highlight it. Unfortunately, he just
highlighted it in the wrong way.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, back home people refer to Capitol Hill as
a bubble. They are right. It is as if we are completely detached from
what is going on in communities across America. Many here don't hear or
listen to what people are saying, and many here, as well, think they
know better than the people we serve.
Our communities are benefiting greatly from President Trump's agenda:
a booming economy, a secure border, better trade deals, and a stronger
military. Unfortunately, inside the Halls of Congress, Democrats'
obsession with impeachment is all consuming.
Is this how Democrat leadership chooses to represent the people of
America, by nullifying the results of the 2016 election, disregarding
the will of the American people, and doing everything in their power to
prevent the President and this Congress from doing the job we were
elected to do?
After 3 years of trying and months of unfair, politically motivated
impeachment proceedings, Democrats have delivered two weak Articles of
Impeachment.
Abuse of power?
Not according to Ukraine. President Zelensky confirmed many times
that there was no quid pro quo, no action taken, and significant
military aid was delivered without anything in return. Of course, his
words have been conveniently dismissed.

[[Page H12142]]

Obstruction of Congress?
Is this the new standard?
If this is the new standard, then every President since Jimmy Carter
and every President moving forward would and will be impeached.
Let me be clear: It is an honor to serve in the United States House
of Representatives, but today I am distraught. Today Democrats will
disregard the will of the American people and vote to impeach the duly
elected President of the United States. What should be equally
troubling is that this has eroded, if not wiped out, the trust the
American people have in the 116th Congress.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, President Trump said no quid pro quo only
after the White House learned of the whistleblower complaints and after
the Washington Post had published an article about the President's
pressure campaign on Ukraine.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Bass).
Ms. BASS. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day in U.S. history when we
have to vote on Articles of Impeachment because Donald Trump has abused
the power of the Office of the Presidency in his attempt to cheat his
way to reelection.
The facts are uncontested.
Fact one: The President abused the power of his office by attempting
to shake down the president of a country that has been our ally. Trump
wanted President Zelensky of Ukraine to dig up and to make up dirt on
Vice President Biden because he sees him as the biggest threat to his
reelection.
Fact two: Trump wanted Zelensky to go before the press and announce
an investigation of Biden hoping the mere announcement would create
doubt about Biden and strengthen Trump's hand in the 2020 election.
Fact three: Trump obstructed Congress by engaging in a coverup. Trump
has refused to comply with congressional subpoenas and has blocked
current and past employees from testifying before congressional
committees.
Congress is a coequal branch of government, and one of our central
responsibilities is to provide oversight and investigation of the
administration--the very checks and balances the Framers built into the
Constitution so no one branch would have unchecked power.
The House of Representatives has no choice but to vote and pass
Articles of Impeachment because President Trump has abused his power
and obstructed the ability of Congress from performing our
constitutional duty. The urgency to move forward with Articles of
Impeachment is because there is no reason to believe President Trump
won't continue to abuse the power of his office, no reason to believe
he won't continue to put his foot on the scale of his reelection, and,
in fact, his attorney just returned from Ukraine, and in an article
just released in The New Yorker magazine confesses to continuing the
effort to interfere in the election.

In many of our congressional districts we worry about voter
suppression and schemes that purge legitimate voters from participating
in the election, or we worry about Russian interference in our
election. It is a sad day in America when we have to worry about the
Commander in Chief interfering in the election in order to be
reelected. Elections should be decided by the American people.
I will vote for both Articles of Impeachment. It is my constitutional
duty to fulfill my oath of office. No one is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
Mr. STEWART. Madam Speaker, I discovered something recently. It is
shocking, I know, but it turns out that some people don't like
President Trump. They think he is loud, they think he can be arrogant,
they think sometimes he says bad words, and sometimes he is rude to
people; and their sensitive natures have been offended. I get that. I
really do.
But let's be clear. This vote this day has nothing to do with
Ukraine, it has nothing to do with abuse of power, and it has nothing
to do with obstruction of Congress.
This vote this day is about one thing and one thing only: They hate
this President, and they hate those of us who voted for him. They think
we are stupid, and they think we made a mistake. They think Hillary
Clinton should be the President, and they want to fix that. That is
what this vote is about.
They want to take away my vote and throw it in the trash. They want
to take away my President and delegitimize him so that he cannot be
reelected. That is what this vote is about.
For those who think this started with this investigation, what
nonsense. You have been trying to impeach this President since before
he was sworn into office.

{time} 1330

Some of you introduced Articles of Impeachment before he was sworn
into office. This isn't something you are approaching prayerfully and
mournfully and sadly: Oh, the chaos. Oh, the sadness.
This is something you are gleeful about, and you have been trying to
do it for 3 years. And it is very clear. You don't have to go back and
Google very much to find out that is the absolute truth. I could give
you pages of examples of things you have said for 3 years about this
President. That is what this is about.
If this impeachment is successful, the next President, I promise you,
is going to be impeached, and the next President after that.
If you set this bar as being impeachable, every President in our
future will be impeached. It erodes our Republic in ways that our
Founding Fathers recognized. They got it right, high crimes and
misdemeanors. Other than that, settle it at the ballot box.
I look forward to that day. Let the American people decide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Members are reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman that, if President
Trump is impeached and removed, the new President will be Mike Pence,
not Hillary Clinton.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Mucarsel-Powell).
Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Madam Speaker, I did not have the privilege of
being born into this country. My mother brought me from Ecuador,
looking for freedom and opportunity.
But that is not my story alone. This is a story that I share with so
many people who live in Florida's 26th District and all over the
country. We have experienced corruption in our countries of birth,
where brutal dictatorships have choked their potential to benefit those
in power.
This President elected by the American people has violated his oath
of office and violated the rule of law. The evidence is overwhelming
that he withheld military aid approved by Congress and leveraged a
White House meeting to extract a political favor from a foreign
government.
The President actively sought foreign election interference to
benefit himself. It is undeniable that he has abused his power and
obstructed Congress. He presents a clear and present danger to our
democracy.
As an immigrant, I still get chills because I feel so fortunate to
live in this extraordinary country. The genius of American democracy
lies in our Constitution and the dedication to the rule of law. I want
my children, and all of our children, to feel the same way when they
grow up.
However, if we sit idly by as cracks begin to appear in our
democratic institutions, our children will be in the same situation so
many of us experienced when we left countries whose leaders destroyed
democracy.
We in Congress must abide by our oath to defend our Constitution.
That is my duty as a Member of this body. That is my duty as a mother.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Articles of
Impeachment against President Trump.
As Chairman Nadler must recall, exactly 21 years ago today, I spoke
on this floor in opposition to the impeachment of President Clinton.
And 21 years ago tomorrow, I voted against all four Articles of
Impeachment against President Clinton.

[[Page H12143]]

Today's Articles of Impeachment against President Trump are an
assault on our Constitution and the American people. To impeach a
President for a phone call for which no crime is charged, never mind a
high crime, and asserting his constitutional prerogative as a President
is a clear abuse of power by the Congress. It sets a dangerous
precedent of weaponizing impeachment to undo the solemn decision of the
American people.
Madam Speaker, President Trump and I grew up in the same borough of
New York City, and today, I am proud to stand with President Trump and
urge a ``no'' vote on these horrible Articles of Impeachment. I
strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, the President and Members of Congress
each take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When the President abuses
his Presidential power to upend the constitutional order, we have an
obligation to live up to our oath of office.
We have been presented with direct evidence about the President's
actions. They threaten our national security and undermine the
integrity of the next election. We now vote on Articles of Impeachment
for abuse of power and contempt of Congress as a result of that
evidence.
I have worked on Presidential impeachments as part of the Committee
on the Judiciary twice before. This third time brings me no joy.
President Nixon attempted to corrupt elections. His agents broke into
the Democratic Party headquarters to get a leg up on the election, and
then, just like President Trump, he tried to cover it up. Then, he
resigned. This is even worse.
President Trump not only abused his power to help his reelection, he
used a foreign government to do it. He used military aid provided to
fight the Russians as leverage solely to benefit his own political
campaign.
George Washington would be astonished since he warned ``against the
insidious wiles of foreign influence.''
The direct evidence is damning. The President hasn't offered any
evidence to the contrary. These actions constitute grounds for
Presidential impeachment.
What is before us is a serious abuse of power and obstruction of
Congress. These abuses strike at the heart of our Constitution.
The President's unconstitutional abuse of power, a high crime and
misdemeanor, is ongoing. He totally refused to provide any information
to Congress related to the impeachment inquiry.

It is our responsibility to use the tool our Founders gave us in the
Constitution to preserve the constitutional order. We must impeach.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, The Washington Post headlined the story
immediately following President Trump taking the oath of office
stating: ``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.'' How
accurate they were.
Here we are, almost 3 years later, and what we are witnessing today
is unprecedented in American history, a very partisan-based impeachment
with no facts that warrant it. This is an impeachment based on hearsay
and speculation rooted in a deep-seated hatred for a man whom many of
my colleagues on the other side detest--not all, but many. Nowhere in
the Constitution does it say that personal disdain is grounds for
impeachment.
At every turn, the claims made by my Democratic colleagues have
turned out to be false.
Early on, it was claimed there was evidence of Russian collusion.
There was none.
We were told the FBI didn't abuse the FISA process in its
investigation of the Trump campaign. That, too, has now been proven
completely false.
Then, when the Russian collusion hoax collapsed, we were told that we
would hear from a whistleblower that had details of a nefarious call
between the President and the President of Ukraine. Then, we found out
they weren't even on the call, and we still don't even know who the
whistleblower is.
We were told there was clear evidence of a quid pro quo for personal
gain. After reading the transcript, it is obvious that you have to make
assumptions that wouldn't even stand up in traffic court to come to
that conclusion.
Instead, the indisputable facts of record destroy their case:
The call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an
investigation.
President Zelensky said there was no pressure.
The Ukrainian government had no knowledge that any aid was being held
up at the time of the call.
Ukraine never opened an investigation, but still received aid and a
meeting with President Trump.
Though they allege treason and bribery by the President, the articles
we consider today only make vague accusations of abuse of power and
obstruction of Congress because they found no evidence of treason or
bribery, or anything else, for that matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROUZER. Madam Speaker, today is a very sad day for our Republic.
The country is now more divided than it ever has been in my lifetime.
The truth has been trampled by this House of Representatives. Because
of the abuses of the FBI and the Department of Justice, more Americans
have an even dimmer view of very important American institutions.
Thankfully, the lens of history will ensure that the truth is told and
will endure.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, one specific concern of the Framers was a
President who would corrupt our elections and who would abuse the great
powers of his office to ensure his own reelection.
The impeachment inquiry is not an effort to overturn an election. It
is a reaffirmation of the simple truth that, in the United States of
America, no person--not even the President--is above the law, and our
democracy cannot allow a duly-elected President to abuse the power of
his office for personal and political gain.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I hate no woman or man.
Today, the American people should receive clarity and truth. The
Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President breached and
violated the Constitution of the United States of America. The
President committed constitutional crimes. The President's crimes are
impeachable.
John F. Kennedy said: ``If this country should ever reach the point
where any man or group of men by force or threat of force could long
defy the commands of our court and our Constitution, then no law would
stand free from doubt . . . and no citizen would be safe from his
neighbors.''
The facts are undisputed.
First, President Trump violated his oath of office by placing his
personal political interests above the national interest by scheming to
coerce Ukraine into investigating a potential election opponent.
Second, President Trump betrayed the Nation's interests by
withholding the congressionally agreed $391 million to a fragile ally
against a very strong foe, Russia.
Third, the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by the President
was to enlist a foreign country to help in the 2020 election.
These acts are constitutional crimes and abuse of power. The truth
is, the President did ask for a favor. Those were his own words in the
July 25 call--no mention of corruption, only the mention of the Bidens.
The President was engaged in wrongdoing and is a clear and present
danger. He has a pattern, and his behavior remains a continuing threat
to America's national security.
The truth is that abuse of power does violate the Constitution while
both corrupting and cheating our American democracy. His acts betrayed
the Nation. He must take care to execute laws faithfully.
This is the truth. Why does the truth matter? Because it matters to
the farmer at his or her plow. It matters to

[[Page H12144]]

the waitress on an early-morning shift. It matters to the steelworker
building America. It matters to the teacher in a fifth grade class. It
matters to a mother kissing her military recruit going off to war.
The Constitution must be preserved. Our laws must be honored and
respected. The bloodshed and sacrifice of fellow Americans cannot be
ignored, trampled on, or rejected.
Our actions on the vote taken today must be for no personal gain or
grandeur.
The bright light of this constitutional democracy has been dimmed
because of his acts. The truth is no longer for all. It is for one man,
Donald J. Trump, his truth, his way.
We must reject that abuse of power because that is not America. No
one is above the law. Alexander Hamilton said impeachment was designed
to deal with ``the misconduct of public men'' and violations of public
trust.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. The President has violated the trust. We must
impeach Donald J. Trump.
Madam Speaker, I hate no woman or man. Today the American people
should receive clarity and truth. The Constitution is the highest law
of the land. The President breached and violated the Constitution of
the United States of America. The President committed Constitutional
Crimes. The President's crimes are impeachable.
President John F. Kennedy said that, ``If this country should ever
reach the point where any man or group of men by force or threat of
force could long defy the commands of our court and constitution, then
no law would stand free from doubt, and no citizen would be safe from
his neighbors.''
The facts are undisputed. First, President Trump violated his oath of
office by placing his personal and political interest above the
national interest by scheming to coerce Ukraine into investigating a
potential election opponent.
Second, President Trump betrayed the national interest by withholding
vital, congressionally appropriated security assistance; $391 Million
to a beleaguered and besieged ally facing armed aggression from Russia,
America's implacable foe.
Third, the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by President
Trump was to enlist a foreign country to help him fix the 2020
presidential election in his favor, the very type of interference most
feared by the Framers.
These acts are Constitutional crimes and an abuse of power.
The truth is this President did ask for a favor--those were his own
words.
The truth is 391 million dollars was withheld. He jeopardized not
only Americans' national security by putting Ukraine at the mercy of
Russia. He also threatened honest and fair elections in 2020. In the
July 25 call--no mention of corruption/only the mention of the Bidens.
The President was engaged in wrongdoing and is a clear and present
danger. His pattern of behavior remains a continuing threat to
America's national security. The truth is that abuse of power does
violate the Constitution, while both corrupting act and cheating our
American democracy. His acts betrayed our nation.
The Framers were concerned about abuse of power as the Judiciary
Committee impeachment report said. The abuse of power was the use of
official power in a way that on its face grossly exceeds the
President's constitutional authority and violates the take care clause
which commands the President to faithfully execute the law--not to
demand a foreign country to investigate his 2020 opponent and deprives
Americans a fair and unfettered right to vote. This is the truth.
Why does the truth matter? Because it is the American way. It matters
to the farmer at his or her plough.
It matters to the waitress on an early morning bus for the breakfast
shift.
It matters to the steelworker helping to build America.
It matters to the teacher in her fifth-grade social studies class.
It matters to a Mother kissing her young military recruit before he
or she goes off to war.
The Constitution must be preserved, our laws must be honored and
respected, the bloodshed and sacrifice of our fellow Americans cannot
be ignored, trampled on or rejected and today our actions on the vote
taken today must be for no personal gain or grandeur.
The bright light of this constitutional Democracy has been dimmed
because of his acts--the truth is no longer for all--it is for one
man--Donald J. Trump--his truth, his way-- we must reject that abuse of
power--because this is not America. No one is above the law.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was
Designed to deal with `the misconduct of public men' which involves
`the abuse or violation of some public trust.' '' The President has
violated that public trust and the House of Representatives must now
protect and defend the Constitution and impeach Donald J. Trump.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record several supporting documents.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows
a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike
. . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. . . The
server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things
that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding
yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have
the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like
you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that
whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man
named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they
say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do,
it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and
everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a
President, it is very important and we are open for any
future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on
cooperation in relations between the United States and
Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador
from United States and he will be replaced by a very
competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard
on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I
would also like and hope to see him having your trust and
your confidence and have personal relations with you so we
can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that
one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently
and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to
travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.
I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody
but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround
myself with the best and most experienced people. I also
wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends
and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can
continue our strategic partnership I also plan to surround
myself with great people and in addition to that
investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that
all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That
I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor
who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they
shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad
people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He
was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would
like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with
the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening
and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that
would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,
the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with
in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know
that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's
son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people
want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the
Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. .
. It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the
prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable
about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority
in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100%
my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the
parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September.
He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the
company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the
investigation of the case is actually the issue of making
sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and
will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I
would kindly ask you if you have any additional information
that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the
investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our
country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States
from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It
was great that you were the first one who told me that she
was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her
attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the
previous President and she was on his side. She would not
accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things.
I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going
to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the
bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the
prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair
prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is
going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of
assets. It's a

[[Page H12145]]

great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their
incredible people.
President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also
have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United
States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States,
stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the
Trump.
____

Putin Reclaims Crimea for Russia and Bitterly Denounces the West

(By Steven Lee Myers and Ellen Barry,-- Mar. 18, 2014)

Moscow.--President Vladimir V. Putin reclaimed Crimea as a
part of Russia on Tuesday, reversing what he described as a
historic injustice inflicted by the Soviet Union 60 years ago
and brushing aside international condemnation that could
leave Russia isolated for years to come.
In an emotional address steeped in years of resentment and
bitterness at perceived slights from the West, Mr. Putin made
it clear that Russia's patience for post-Cold War
accommodation, much diminished of late, had finally been
exhausted. Speaking to the country's political elite in the
Grand Kremlin Palace, he said he did not seek to divide
Ukraine any further, but he vowed to protect Russia's
interests there from what he described as Western actions
that had left Russia feeling cornered.
``Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia in the
hearts and minds of people,'' Mr. Putin declared in his
address, delivered in the chandeliered St. George's Hall
before hundreds of members of Parliament, governors and
others. His remarks, which lasted 47 minutes, were
interrupted repeatedly by thunderous applause, standing
ovations and at the end chants of ``Russia, Russia.'' Some in
the audience wiped tears from their eyes.
A theme coursing throughout his remarks was the restoration
of Russia after a period of humiliation following the Soviet
collapse, which he has famously called ``the greatest
geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.''
He denounced what he called the global domination of one
superpower and its allies that emerged. ``They cheated us
again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting
us with completed facts,'' he said. ``That's the way it was
with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment
of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told
us the same thing: `Well, this doesn't involve you.' ''
The speed of Mr. Putin's annexation of Crimea, redrawing an
international border that has been recognized as part of an
independent Ukraine for 23 years, has been breathtaking and
so far apparently unstoppable.
While his actions, which the United States, Europe and
Ukraine do not recognize, provoked renewed denunciations and
threats of tougher sanctions and diplomatic isolation, it
remained unclear how far the West was willing to go to punish
Mr. Putin. The leaders of what had been the Group of 8
nations announced they would meet next week as the Group of
7, excluding Russia from a club Russia once desperately
craved to join.
Certainly the sanctions imposed on Russia ahead of
Tuesday's steps did nothing to dissuade Mr. Putin, as he
rushed to make a claim to Crimea that he argued conformed to
international law and precedent. In his remarks he made clear
that Russia was prepared to withstand worse punishment in the
name of restoring a lost part of the country's historic
empire, effectively daring world leaders to sever political
or economic ties and risk the consequences to their own
economies.
Mr. Putin, the country's paramount leader for more than 14
years, appeared to be gambling that the outrage would
eventually pass, as it did after Russia's war with Georgia in
2008, because a newly assertive Russia would be simply too
important to ignore on the world stage. As with any gamble,
though, the annexation of Crimea carries potentially grave
risks.
Only hours after Mr. Putin declared that ``not a single
shot'' had been fired in the military intervention in Crimea,
a group of soldiers opened fire as they stormed a Ukrainian
military mapping office near Simferopol, killing a Ukrainian
soldier and wounding another, according to a Ukrainian
officer inside the base and a statement by Ukraine's Defense
Ministry.
The base appeared to be under the control of the attacking
soldiers, who like most of the Russians in Crimea wore no
insignia, and the ministry said that Ukrainian forces in
Crimea were now authorized to use force to defend themselves.
The episode underscored the fact that the fate of hundreds
of Ukrainian soldiers, as well military bases and ships,
remains dangerously unresolved.
In the capital, Kiev, Ukraine's new prime minister, Arseniy
P. Yatsenyuk, declared that the conflict had moved from ``a
political to a military phase'' and laid the blame squarely
on Russia.
Mr. Putin's determined response to the ouster of Ukraine's
president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, last month has left American
and European leaders scrambling to find an adequate response
after initially clinging to the hope that Mr. Putin was
prepared to find a political solution--or ``off ramp''--to an
escalating crisis that began with the collapse of Mr.
Yanukovych's government on the night of Feb. 21.
Within a week, Russian special operations troops had seized
control of strategic locations across Crimea, while the
regional authorities moved to declare independence and
schedule a referendum on joining Russia that was held on
Sunday.
Even as others criticized the vote as a fraud, Mr. Putin
moved quickly on Monday to recognize its result, which he
called ``more than convincing'' with nearly 97 percent of
voters in favor of seceding from Ukraine. By Tuesday he
signed a treaty of accession with the region's new leaders to
make Crimea and the city of Sevastopol the 84th and 85th
regions of the Russian Federation.
The treaty requires legislative approval, but that is a
mere formality given Mr. Putin's unchallenged political
authority and the wild popularity of his actions, which have
raised his approval ratings and unleashed a nationalistic
fervor that has drowned out the few voices of opposition or
even caution about the potential costs to Russia.
Mr. Putin appeared Tuesday evening at a rally and concert
on Red Square to celebrate an event charged with emotional
and historical significance for many Russians. Among the
music played was a sentimental Soviet song called
``Sevastopol Waltz.''
``After a long, hard and exhaustive journey at sea, Crimea
and Sevastopol are returning to their home harbor, to the
native shores, to the home port, to Russia!'' Mr. Putin told
the crowd. When he finished speaking, he joined a military
chorus in singing the national anthem.
He recited a list of grievances--from the Soviet Union's
transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian republic in 1954, to
NATO's expansion to Russia's borders, to its war in Kosovo in
1999, when he was a little-known aide to President Boris N.
Yeltsin, to the conflict in Libya that toppled Col. Muammar
el-Qaddafi in 2011 on what he called the false pretense of a
humanitarian intervention.
Since Russia's stealthy takeover of Crimea began, Mr. Putin
has said very little in public about his ultimate goals. His
only extensive remarks came in a news conference with a pool
of Kremlin journalists in which he appeared uncomfortable,
uncertain and angry at times. In the grandeur of the
Kremlin's walls on Tuesday, Mr. Putin sounded utterly
confident and defiant.
Reaching deep into Russian and Soviet history, he cast
himself as the guardian of the Russian people, even those
beyond its post-Soviet borders, restoring a part of an empire
that the collapse of the Soviet Union had left abandoned to
the cruel fates of what he described as a procession of
hapless democratic leaders in Ukraine.
``Millions of Russians went to bed in one country and woke
up abroad,'' he said. ``Overnight, they were minorities in
the former Soviet republics, and the Russian people became
one of the biggest--if not the biggest--divided nations in
the world.''
He cited the 10th-century baptism of Prince Vladimir, whose
conversion to Orthodox Christianity transformed the kingdom
then known as Rus into the foundation of the empire that
became Russia. He called Kiev ``the mother of Russian
cities,'' making clear that he considered Ukraine, along with
Belarus, to be countries where Russia's own interests would
remain at stake regardless of the fallout from Crimea's
annexation.
He listed the cities and battlefields of Crimea--from the
19th-century war with Britain, France and the Turks to the
Nazi sieges of World War II--as places ``dear to our hearts,
symbolizing Russian military glory and outstanding valor.''
He said that the United States and Europe had crossed ``a
red line'' on Ukraine by throwing support to the new
government that quickly emerged after Mr. Yanukovych fled the
capital following months of protests and two violent days of
clashes that left scores dead.
Mr. Putin, as he has before, denounced the uprising as a
coup carried out by ``Russophobes and neo-Nazis'' and abetted
by foreigners, saying it justified Russia's efforts to
protect Crimea's population.
``If you press a spring too hard,'' he said, ``it will
recoil.''
He justified the annexation using the same arguments that
the United States and Europe cited to justify the
independence of Kosovo from Serbia and even quoted from the
American submission to the United Nations International Court
when it reviewed the matter in 2009.
Mr. Putin did not declare a new Cold War, but he bluntly
challenged the post-Soviet order that had more or less held
for nearly a quarter-century, and made it clear that Russia
was prepared to defend itself from any further encroachment
or interference in areas it considers part of its core
security, including Russia itself.
He linked the uprisings in Ukraine and the Arab world and
ominously warned that there were efforts to agitate inside
Russia. He suggested that dissenters at home would be
considered traitors, a theme that has reverberated through
society with propagandistic documentaries on state television
and moves to mute or close opposition news organizations and
websites.
``Some Western politicians already threaten us not only
with sanctions, but also with the potential for domestic
problems,'' he said. ``I would like to know what they are
implying--the actions of a certain fifth column, of various
national traitors? Or should we expect that they will worsen
the social and economic situation, and therefore provoke
people's discontent?''

[[Page H12146]]

____
Jetliner Explodes Over Ukraine; Struck by Missile, Officials Say

(By Sabrina Tavernise, Eric Schmitt and Rick Gladstone, July 17, 2014)

Grabovo, Ukraine.--A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 with 298
people aboard exploded, crashed and burned on a flowered
wheat field Thursday in a part of eastern Ukraine controlled
by pro-Russia separatists, blown out of the sky at 33,000
feet by what Ukrainian and American officials described as a
Russian-made antiaircraft missile.
Ukraine accused the separatists of carrying out what it
called a terrorist attack. American intelligence and military
officials said the plane had been destroyed by a Russian SA-
series missile, based on surveillance satellite data that
showed the final trajectory and impact of the missile but not
its point of origin.
There were strong indications that those responsible may
have errantly downed what they had thought was a military
aircraft only to discover, to their shock, that they had
struck a civilian airliner. Everyone aboard was killed, their
corpses littered among wreckage that smoldered late into the
summer night.
Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, blamed Ukraine's
government for creating what he called conditions for
insurgency in eastern Ukraine, where separatists have bragged
about shooting down at least three Ukrainian military
aircraft. But Mr. Putin did not specifically deny that a
Russian-made weapon had felled the Malaysian jetliner.
Whatever the cause, the news of the crashed plane, with a
passenger manifest that spanned at least nine countries,
elevated the insurgency into a new international crisis. The
day before, the United States had slapped new sanctions on
Russia for its support of the pro-Kremlin insurgency, which
has brought East-West relations to their lowest point in many
years.
Making the crash even more of a shock, it was the second
time within months that Malaysia Airlines had suffered a
mass-casualty flight disaster with international intrigue--
and with the same model plane, a Boeing 777-200ER.
The government of Malaysia's prime minister, Najib Razak,
is still reeling from the unexplained disappearance of Flight
370 over the Indian Ocean in March. Mr. Najib said he was
stupefied at the news of Flight 17, which had been bound for
Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital, from Amsterdam with 283
passengers, including three infants, and 15 crew members.
Aviation officials said the plane had been traveling an
approved and heavily trafficked route over eastern Ukraine,
about 20 miles from the Russia border, when it vanished from
radar screens with no distress signal.
``This is a tragic day in what has already been a tragic
year for Malaysia,'' Mr. Najib told reporters in a televised
statement from Kuala Lumpur. ``If it transpires that the
plane was indeed shot down, we insist that the perpetrators
must swiftly be brought to justice.''
Mr. Najib said he had spoken with the leaders of Ukraine
and the Netherlands, who promised their cooperation. He also
said that he had spoken with President Obama, and that ``he
and I both agreed that the investigation must not be hindered
in any way.'' The remark seemed to point to concerns about
evidence tampering at the crash site, which is in an area
controlled by pro-Russia insurgents.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin also spoke about the disaster and
the broader Ukraine crisis, White House officials said, and
Mr. Putin expressed his condolences. But in a statement
quoted by Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, Mr. Putin said,
``This tragedy would not have happened if there was peace in
the country, if military operations had not resumed in the
southeast of Ukraine.''
The United Nations Security Council scheduled a meeting on
the Ukraine crisis for Friday morning.
Adding to Ukrainian and Western suspicions that pro-Russia
separatists were culpable, Ukraine's intelligence agency, the
State Security Service, known as the S.B.U., released audio
from what it said were intercepted phone calls between
separatist rebels and Russian military intelligence officers
on Thursday. In the audio, the separatists appeared to
acknowledge shooting down a civilian plane.
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry sent reporters a link to the
edited audio of the calls, with English subtitles, posted on
YouTube by the S.B.U.
According to a translation of the Russian audio by the
English-language Kyiv Post, the recording begins with a
separatist commander, identified as Igor Bezler, telling a
Russian military intelligence official, ``We have just shot
down a plane.''
In another call, a man who seems to be at the scene of the
crash says that a group of Cossack militiamen shot down the
plane. He adds that it was a passenger jet and that the
debris contains no sign of military equipment. Asked if there
are any weapons, he says: ``Absolutely nothing. Civilian
items, medical equipment, towels, toilet paper.''
Asked if there are any documents among the debris, the man
says, ``Yes, of one Indonesian student.''
Myroslava Petsa, a Ukrainian journalist in Kiev, said that
the people in the audio sounded shocked by what they had
found in the wreckage.
By Thursday night, American intelligence analysts were
increasingly focused on a theory that rebels had used a
Russian-made SA-11 surface-to-air missile system to shoot
down the aircraft and operated on their own fire-control
radar, outside the checks and balances of the national
Ukrainian air-defense network.
``Everything we have, and it is not much, says
separatists,'' a senior Pentagon official said. ``That said,
there's still a lot of conjecture.''
Russian troops, who have been deployed along the border
with eastern Ukraine, have similar SA-11 systems, as well as
larger weapons known as SA-20s, Pentagon officials said.
Petro O. Poroshenko, Ukraine's president, said he had
called the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, to express his
condolences and to invite Dutch experts to assist in the
investigation. ``I would like to note that we are calling
this not an incident, not a catastrophe, but a terrorist
act,'' Mr. Poroshenko said.
Reporters arriving at the scene near the town of Grabovo
described dozens of lifeless bodies strewn about, many
intact, in a field dotted with purple flowers, and remnants
of the plane scattered across a road lined with fire engines
and emergency vehicles. ``It fell down in pieces,'' one
rescue worker said as tents were set up to gather the dead.
The carcass of the plane was still smoldering, and rescue
workers moved through the dark field with flashlights.
For months, eastern Ukraine has been the scene of a violent
pro-Russia separatist uprising. Rebels have claimed
responsibility for attacking a Ukrainian military jet as it
landed in the city of Luhansk on June 14, and for felling an
AN-26 transport plane on Monday and an SU-25 fighter jet on
Wednesday. But this would be the first commercial airline
disaster to result from the hostilities.
Despite the turmoil, the commercial airspace over eastern
Ukraine is heavily trafficked and has remained open.
Questions are likely to be raised in the coming days about
why the traffic line, which is controlled by Ukraine and
Russia, was not closed earlier.
With the news of the crash on Thursday, Ukraine declared
the eastern part of the country a no-fly zone. American and
European carriers rerouted their flights, and Aeroflot,
Russia's national carrier, announced that it had suspended
all flights to Ukraine for at least three days. The
conspicuous exception was Aeroflot flights to Crimea, the
southern peninsula that Russia annexed in March, a pivotal
point in the Ukraine crisis.
It was unclear late Thursday whether any Americans had been
aboard the flight. Russia's Interfax news agency said there
had been no Russians aboard.
In Amsterdam, a Malaysia Airlines official, Huib Gorter,
said the plane had carried 154 Dutch passengers; 45
Malaysians, including the crew; and 27 Australians, 12
Indonesians, nine Britons, four Belgians, four Germans, three
Filipinos and one Canadian. The rest of the passengers had
not been identified.
Prof. David Cooper, director of the Kirby Institute at the
University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, said that
a prominent AIDS researcher traveling to the 20th
International AIDS conference in Melbourne was among those on
the flight.
Professor Cooper, who was heading to the conference from
Sydney, said he was unaware how many other passengers were
also on their way to the conference, which is scheduled to
start on Sunday.
Andrei Purgin, deputy prime minister of the Donetsk
People's Republic, an insurgent group in eastern Ukraine,
denied in a telephone interview that the rebels had anything
to do with the crash. He said that they had shot down
Ukrainian planes before but that their antiaircraft weapons
could reach only to around 4,000 meters, far below the
cruising level of passenger jets.
``We don't have the technical ability to hit a plane at
that height,'' Mr. Purgin said.
Mr. Purgin did not rule out the possibility that Ukrainian
forces themselves had shot down the plane. ``Remember the
Black Sea plane disaster,'' he said, referring to the 2001
crash of a Siberia Airlines passenger jet, bound for
Novosibirsk from Tel Aviv, that the Ukrainians shot down by
accident during a military training exercise.
In comments broadcast on Ukrainian television, Vitali
Klitschko, the mayor of Kiev, said the crash illustrated the
threat to peace in Europe posed by the fighting in eastern
Ukraine. ``This is not just a local conflict in Donetsk and
Luhansk, but a full-scale war in the center of Europe,'' he
said. ``I'm certain the international community this time
will pay attention and understand.''
____

[From Defense One]

In Ukraine, the US Trains an Army in the West to Fight in the East

(By Ben Watson, News Editor)

For more than two years, the U.S. military's contingent of
300 or so soldiers have been quietly helping train an
enormous allied military in western Ukraine. Meanwhile,
Russian-backed separatists appear to be keeping pace some 800
miles to the east, showcasing entire parking lots full of new
tanks and artillery just a 15-minute drive from the front
lines.
``Every 55 days we have a new battalion come in and we
train them,'' said U.S. Army National Guard Capt. Kayla
Christopher, spokesperson for the Joint Multinational
Training Group-Ukraine, at Yavoriv Combat

[[Page H12147]]

Training Center in western Ukraine. ``And at the end of that
55-day period, we'll do a field training exercise with that
battalion.'' The U.S. and partnered armies have trained seven
battalions in the past roughly two years or so.
That's what she calls the ``main line of effort that you
tend to see most of the time in the news.''
Building a host-nation's military, the U.S. has learned
painfully in the 21st century, has rarely been a good news
story. And Ukraine's conflict has largely taken a backseat to
the sequel to one of those stories: the war on ISIS, in which
eight Americans have lost their lives fighting since 2014. In
the same period, Ukraine is believed to have lost nearly
4,000 soldiers to Russian-backed separatists.
Since Crimea was annexed in 2014, the U.S. and partner
militaries have helped grow Ukraine's forces from just over
100,000 troops to nearly 250,000 today. Just since January,
Capt. Christopher's unit of 250 soldiers has added another
3,000 or so Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev's ranks.
``But that's not the real end state,'' she said.
``Essentially, what we're trying to do is get them to the
point where they are running their own combat training
center,'' like the U.S. Army's National Training Center at
Fort Irwin, Calif., or the Joint Readiness Training Center at
Fort Polk, Louisiana.
In other words, their task is to build an army's entire
training infrastructure almost from the ground up--a tall
order following decades of not-so-casual corruption that has
plagued Ukraine's and many post-Soviet countries' militaries
across eastern Europe.
``Our overall goal is essentially to help the Ukrainian
military become NATO-interoperable,'' Christopher said. ``So
the more they have an opportunity to work with different
countries--not just the U.S., but all their Slavic neighbors,
and all the other Western European countries that come'' and
train or exercise with Ukraine's military.
That includes Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Canada, and the
U.K. The U.S. has also sent a variety of non-lethal military
help to Ukraine--equipment like Humvees, medical supplies,
bulletproof vests, and radars to track the hundreds of
artillery shells that have fallen on the eastern Donetsk and
Luhansk regions. Maybe Javelin anti-tank missiles, Defense
Secretary Mattis said in August. But Christopher's unit is
far from the fighting. Their mission is ``training the
trainers'' and in particular, adding to Ukraine's NCO corps--
the stern disciplinarians who help ensure that units are fit
and ready for combat.

Terrorism in the east

For Ukraine's new soldiers, combat means fighting
terrorists--at least according to the U.S. military's way of
looking at things.
``They're called anti-terrorism operations rather than
something else because of the issue with the Russian-backed
separatists,'' said Capt. Christopher. ``So they're not
really Russians, you know. They're essentially terrorists.''
So the U.S. calls eastern Ukraine's most troubled regions
an Anti Terrorism Operation zone, or ATO, where those
Russian-backed forces have attacked and counterattacked
Ukraine's soldiers and civilians. (See, for example, this
interactive day-by-day map of alleged shelling by Ukrainian
government and separatist forces.)
In just the first two days of this month, UN monitors
recorded dozens of violations to the Minsk II ceasefire, an
agreement reached in February 2015 between Russia, Ukraine,
France and Germany. The deal never really stuck. It called
for all heavy weapons--tanks, rocket launchers and
artillery--to be pulled away from the front lines and kept in
monitored storage. By that time, more than 5,400 civilians
had already been killed in the fighting. In the months after
Minsk II was signed, the death toll barely slowed.
The UN calls these statistics ``a conservative estimate
based on available data,'' and inevitably incomplete ``due to
gaps in coverage of certain geographic areas and time
periods.'' Military casualties, especially injuries, have
been particularly underreported, the UN says.
Most of the civilians killed in the fighting were killed by
tanks and artillery, 55 percent; followed by IEDs, 36
percent; and small arms fire, 9 percent. For months it
puzzled observers how allegedly local separatists could have
obtained so much heavy weaponry, even factoring in Ukraine's
legacy as a sort of junkyard of old Soviet weapons factories.
The appearance of more advanced equipment--drones and armored
vehicles, for example--revealed Russia's hand in Ukraine as
early as January 2015, although President Vladimir Putin
didn't admit Russia's role until that December. Since then,
their advanced equipment has only grown more sophisticated
and deadly for Ukraine's frontline soldiers.
International ceasefire monitors aren't having an easy go
of their job in 2017, either. During the first six months,
they were restricted from or intimidated through armed
confrontation (see photo below) inside regions mandated by
the Minsk agreement no fewer than 480 times. More than 75
percent of those occurred in separatist-held areas.

A world away

U.S. troops are largely kept away from the conflict. That
is by design; the U.S. and the international community have
struggled with the appropriate response to Russia's invasion
of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.
Speaking alongside Ukrainian Prime Minister Petro
Poroshenko in August, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis
said, ``We do not, and we will not, accept Russia's seizure
of Crimea and despite Russia's denials, we know they are
seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining
the sovereign and free nations of Europe.''
So far, sanctions have been the U.S. and its European
allies' preferred response, hitting Russia's major banks and
energy companies. But President Trump has indicated that he
feels sanctions may not be in the best interest of the U.S.
In August, he complained about a new round of sanctions
passed by Congress, calling it ``seriously flawed.'' But the
measure reached the Oval Office with a veto-proof majority,
and so he grudgingly signed it into law.
But that is a world away from the U.S. Army in Yavoriv, and
even the fighting on the other side of Ukraine feels remote,
Christopher said. ``It's actually pretty remarkable how
little you feel the effect of the conflict on the western
side of Ukraine. It's almost as if nothing is happening,''
she said. ``And if I didn't work directly with soldiers every
day, I don't think you would really know. I mean, we see it
on the news every day, and I work with soldiers every day. So
we know about it. But you go out into Lviv, or any of the
other big cities around this area and you really don't feel
the effects of there being war here.''
Except, perhaps, for the U.S. and NATO soldiers who for
months have had their phones and social media accounts
breached by what appear to have been Russian hackers. On top
of that, Moscow has spent the past few months ferrying troops
around its border with Ukraine and into Belarus for extended
exercises that run from the Barents Sea to the Mediterranean.
So Russia is hardly backing down from a tense region. And
apparently, neither is the U.S. Despite the Trump
administration's hesitancy, its approach in Ukraine is not
terribly different from the Obama administration's.
``The U.S. will continue to press Russia to honor its Minsk
commitments and our sanctions will remain in place until
Moscow reverses the actions that triggered them,'' said
Mattis in August during the visit with Ukraine's Poroshenko.
For its part, Moscow's latest move has been not to reverse
its annexation of Crimea, but rather to fence off some 30
miles of land on the seized peninsula. One Russian lawmaker
even said in May that Moscow would use nuclear weapons if the
U.S. or NATO tried to enter Crimea.
Which would suggest that the U.S. Army's quiet mission in
Ukraine may go quietly on for many, many months to come.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, today, the House of Representatives
votes on two Articles of Impeachment for President Trump.
Members, and all Americans, must recognize that impeachment was
intended to be a safety valve, rarely used, only when a President acts
in such an immoral and blatantly unlawful manner as to threaten the
very basis of our Republic.
As we cast votes on these articles, the future tone of this House and
politics in this Nation must be carefully considered. The issue is not
whether we agree with or like the President's rhetoric, political
tactics, use of Twitter, policy choices, or his political rallies. One
of our Founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned of the risks of impeachment
becoming a solely partisan act in the Federalist Papers.
This impeachment inquiry and these articles clearly do not heed that
warning. These proceedings are weaponizing impeachment, making it
another election tool.
I have carefully examined the evidence presented throughout the
inquiry and, contrary to some, considered our history, our founding
documents, and our future. It is clear, President Trump's actions, as
described in these articles, do not constitute treason, bribery, or
high crimes and misdemeanors. You simply don't like him.
I will be voting ``no'' on these articles and will hope, someday, we
return to serving the needs of the American people.

{time} 1345

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Speaker, President Trump, on January 20, 2017,
raised his hand and swore to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution. Now we must preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution from him.
Madam Speaker, I rise today, not to disparage and embarrass the
President of the United States, but to defend our precious democracy.
I speak today, not because I hate this President, but because I love
this body, the people's House.

[[Page H12148]]

I have heard Republicans say: Why are we rushing to judgment? This is
not a rush to judgment; it is a rush to justice, and we must not delay.
Corruption is corrosive; it eats away like acid. The longer we wait,
the more time we allow for this President to do irreparable harm to our
country and our democracy.
Just last week, Rudy Giuliani was back at it in Ukraine. So please
don't tell us to wait, because the corruption continues.
There is a famous quote that says: Politicians worry about the next
election; statesmen worry about the next generation. Today calls upon
us to be statesmen and stateswomen--Democrat, Republican, and
Independent. Our election is under attack from within.
So, to my Republican colleagues, many of whom spent a lifetime trying
to build a reputation of honesty and courage, I beg you: Don't throw
that away for President Trump. He doesn't deserve it, nor will he
appreciate it past the next tweet or next week.
My fear and my prediction is that his actions will continue.
Madam Speaker, Donald Trump recently said: I can do anything I want.
He also bragged that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get
away with it. Well, he is shooting holes in our Constitution on
Pennsylvania Avenue, and our House, the people's House, must defend the
Constitution from a domestic enemy to the rule of law: Donald Trump.
Because I don't want generations to come to blame me for letting our
democracy die, I, therefore, rise in favor of impeaching Donald Trump.
Mr. COLLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
this political charade that has tormented our country for nearly 3
years.
If there was ever any doubt that this entire illegitimate
investigation is 100 percent politically motivated, earlier this month,
Speaker Pelosi actually admitted the impeachment process began 2\1/2\
years ago.
Let me say that again. The Speaker of the House said publicly that
the Democrats have been trying to remove our President from office
since the day he got elected, simply because it was not the outcome
they wanted.
Another of my Democrat colleagues publicly admitted, in May, that the
driving force behind their actions was: ``If we don't impeach the
President, he will get reelected.''
This wasn't an investigation, Madam Speaker; this was a political
crusade. In order to arrive at their Stalinistic, predetermined
conclusion, House Democrats spent the last several months staging well-
rehearsed hearings where the charges were drawn up by their own focus
groups; Democrat donors served as witnesses; and Democrat staff served
as judge and jury.
Even with the odds so blatantly stacked against the President,
Democrats still came up with absolutely nothing.
A while ago, the Speaker spoke of the Pledge of Allegiance. The last
phrase of the pledge is ``justice for all.''
Justice was not something afforded the President during the
investigation. He was denied due process, something the Supreme Court
said should be afforded in all congressional investigations. That makes
this process illegal and illegitimate.
What a shame. What a sham.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I didn't come to Congress to
impeach the President--even when he separated babies from their parents
at the border, even when he took money from our troops to build his
wall.
No, I didn't call for impeachment because I am here to make a
difference in the lives of my constituents. Yet, here we are in the
middle of a constitutional crisis.
As a former judge, I took my responsibility seriously to weigh the
evidence and determine if the President's actions were impeachable.
Unfortunately, the evidence in the Intelligence and Judiciary reports
leaves us with no choice but to impeach the President.
So I stand on my oath that I have sworn to the Constitution and to
the American people, and, today, I urge my colleagues to stand by their
oaths, too.
The Framers of the Constitution included impeachment as a safeguard
against a corrupt President whose misconduct could destroy the very
foundations of our country.
Donald J. Trump abused his power when he obstructed Congress and
ordered government officials not to appear before us.
Donald J. Trump corrupted our election when he asked a foreign
government to interfere for his personal and political gain.
Today, sadly, I ask my colleagues: Will you put your party over our
country, or will you help save our democracy and vote ``yes'' on the
Articles of Impeachment before you? I urge you to vote ``yes.''
Mr. COLLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I do have an inquiry as to
the time remaining for both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 hours and
22\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 2 hours and
27\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I start out, first, that this is the largest, most massive coverup of
such a list of crimes against our country, and to go so far as to bring
impeachment hearings to try to cover all of this up.
I would take you back to October of 2015, when Barack Obama said
Hillary Clinton would never intend to jeopardize our national security.
Again, the following April, the next month, Peter Strzok wrote the
statement that was delivered by James Comey: They have spent Democrat
money and Hillary Clinton money in Russia to pick up dirt on Donald
Trump.
And then Joe Biden goes to Ukraine and makes the statement: Here is a
billion dollars, but you must do what I told you to do.
You are accusing Donald Trump of doing that which Joe Biden has
confessed to doing.
And, by the way, Joe Biden was not the opponent of Donald Trump. He
is in a 21-way primary, and he is running third in that race. His
opponents are the other 20 Democrats. How would anybody dig into that
mess of 21 people and decide he is going to go overseas and pull some
maneuver like this?
You have to assign him a motive. You assign him a motive, then you
create the dots, then you go dot to dot.
But the reality is that it was Biden who was doing the extortion of
the power play in order to protect his own son, and it was Donald Trump
that was following the law that said you have to ensure that there is
not corruption here before this money is handed over.
By the way, there was a violent war going on in Ukraine, and that is
when we sent blankets and MREs over there, under Barack Obama.
But when I hear this from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson):
He doesn't think he can win the election fair and square, so he would
cheat--and I have heard that here on this floor.
No, it is the other way around. Democrats' number one proponent of
impeachment is Al Green of Texas, and he said those very same things;
and they brought this case November 9, the day after Trump was elected.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, words matter. We have heard many words over
the course of these last weeks. Still, what strikes me are the words
that are missing from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a
gaping hole in this conversation, the words they cannot or will not
mouth, defending a President's conduct, conduct that threatens our
constitutional order.
So, Madam Speaker, I ask: When is it ever right for a President to
coerce a foreign power to interfere in our elections?
When is it ever right for a President to intimidate a foreign leader
into announcing false investigations into a political rival?
When is it ever right for that President to withhold congressionally
appropriated aid to that country at the expense of its national
security and our very own?
And when is it ever right for a President to block a coequal branch
of government from investigating this scheme to cheat an election?

[[Page H12149]]

The answer, of course, is never. But that word does not come
trippingly from the tongues of those who are making the choice to stand
behind a man whose behavior is not worthy of your tortured words.
By our vote today, we are speaking to future Presidents and to future
generations. We are declaring that we will not tolerate foreign
interference in our Presidential elections. Americans alone will
determine the outcome.
And we will not permit a President to order the complete defiance of
a coequal branch of government.
In the end, regardless of the outcome of this impeachment, the
President's tenure will end, and this body and our grandchildren will
be left with what we did here today.
Ours is a somber generational duty about love of country and lifting
our Constitution to its gravest protections but its highest
aspirations.
Our democracy is a matter of conscience and, by voting to safeguard
our Constitution, mine is clear.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As I have reminded many times, we have followed a sham process that
we have had to deal with, and we have followed the facts and won both.
I will remind that, if you want to talk about elections, remember, it
was the Speaker of the House who said we can't trust the voters; it is
too dangerous to leave it with the voters for President Trump next
year.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona
(Mrs. Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, as you all know, I serve on both the
Judiciary Committee and Rules Committee, and I have literally spent
hours--hours--poring over testimony, looking at documents, sitting in
hearings.
And do you know the conclusion I got from all of that? This
impeachment is a total joke and a total sham. And let me tell you one
of the reasons why I think that.
All of those witnesses, the 17 witnesses that the Democrats brought
forward, not one single one of them was able to establish that
President Trump committed bribery, treason, high crimes, or
misdemeanors, which is required in the U.S. Constitution.
And, again, 17 out of 24 Democrat Members on the Judiciary Committee
voted on this floor to move forward Articles of Impeachment before the
phone call, and five out of nine Rules Committee Democrat Members did
the same thing.
So, if the main part of your impeachment is the call, why did you
vote for impeachment prior to the call?
I also want to remind the American public and others that, for 2
years, Adam Schiff claimed he had proof--proof--that President Trump
had colluded with Russia. That turned out to be false.
And then, overnight, it was obstruction of justice, then quid pro
quo, then bribery, then extortion, and the list goes on; yet, not one
of those is listed in the Articles of Impeachment.
To my Democrat colleagues, Madam Speaker, I say: Please stop tearing
the country apart. Stop this sham.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman is correct. President Trump's behavior is not new. He
has a pattern of engaging in misconduct and then obstructing any
investigation into his misconduct to cover up his actions and hide the
truth from the American people.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of today's
impeachment proceedings. I include my statement in the Record.
Madam Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will vote to
impeach the President of the United States. In America's 243-year
history, he is only the third president to be impeached. The rarity of
this process reminds us impeachment is an extraordinary remedy and
should be taken only against a president if their actions are simply
beyond the pale.
When Congress learns a president may have committed an impeachable
act, it is Congress's constitutional duty to investigate whether the
president's actions are impeachable. Our House did just that when we
learned the president may have undermined the Constitution in his
dealings with the Ukrainian government.
I disagree with President Trump on almost every issue. I do not agree
with the way he runs his government. I do not agree with his spending
priorities. I do not agree with his treatment of migrants seeking
asylum in this country. I believe he is temperamentally ill-suited to
his office, to put it mildly. But I have had disagreements, of one kind
or another, with every president with whom I have served. However,
disagreements over policy, tone, and style are simply not enough to
justify impeaching a president.
The voters of our country placed incredible trust in this president
when they elected him. He now holds the most powerful office in the
most powerful country in the world, the United States of America. As
president, he has a duty to use that power to uphold the Constitution
and the rule of law. Sadly, this president has violated that trust by
soliciting and pressuring a foreign nation to interfere in the 2020
U.S. presidential election and by obstructing Congress's impeachment
investigation. His actions undermine our Constitution, our system of
government, and the rule of law.
Today, the House is considering two separate articles of impeachment.
The first is that the president abused his power and second, that the
obstructed Congress. Both of these charges needed substantial evidence
in order to be proven, and the investigations of the House Intelligence
and Judiciary Committees have given us that evidence.
Having reviewed that evidence, I will vote to impeach the president.
I take no partisan joy in doing so. No American should take joy in the
impeachment of a president. But as Members of Congress, we took an oath
to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Today we
are living up to that responsibility. My impeachment vote is also a
signal to future presidents that they are not above the law and will be
held accountable if they violate our Constitution. When our children
and grandchildren look back on this historic time, I hope they will
know we did not shy away from our oath of office and that we fought to
protect our democracy and to preserve our Constitution for them and for
future generations.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, our Nation was founded on certain
principles: that government should be of, by, and for the people; that
a system of three coequal branches of government would provide the
checks and balances necessary to ensure the people's voices are heard;
and that no one is above the law.
Today, sadly, we are voting to impeach President Donald John Trump
because he has fundamentally broken his covenant with the American
people. In doing so, we are using the powers the Founding Fathers
enshrined in the Constitution to address a President who has violated
his oath of office.
The evidence is clear and the facts are not in question:
President Trump has consistently engaged in a pattern of behavior
inconsistent with the rule of law;
He has refused to take responsibility for his actions;
He has undermined the checks and balances we rely on by obstructing
Congress at every turn;
And, most importantly, he has abused his power by using his office to
solicit foreign interference in our elections, undermining the will of
the people.
So, on this sad day for our Nation, I will do what the President has
so often failed to do: I will fulfill my oath to support and defend the
Constitution, and I will vote in favor of impeachment.

{time} 1400

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, today is a sad day in our Nation's history
as House Democrats are poised to approve, on a strictly party-line
vote, Articles of Impeachment based on what constitutional scholar
Jonathan Turley called wafer-thin evidence. This will set a dangerous
precedent where impeachment becomes the norm rather than the exception.
That is not what our Founding Fathers intended. They wanted
impeachment to be rare. They set a high bar for impeachment: treason,
bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Alleged abuse of power, the first article, is not a high crime and
misdemeanor. In fact, that is not even a

[[Page H12150]]

crime. And since there is no concise legal definition of abuse of
power, the majority party in the House can designate nearly any
disagreement with the President from now on an impeachable offense.
The second article, alleged obstruction of Congress, would produce a
similarly dangerous precedent. Asserting executive privilege, a
practice that began with George Washington, is not obstruction of
Congress; rather, it is a function of the essential checks and balances
contemplated under the Constitution.
Here is what nearly every grade school student in America knows but,
apparently, House Democrats do not: If Congress disagrees with the
President, if they don't agree with the President, take it to court.
Let the third branch of government decide. They are the refs.
The House has never--I repeat, never--approved either abuse of power
or obstruction of Congress as an Article of Impeachment, but that is
going to change today.
Today, House Democrats are pursuing a wacky constitutional theory
under which all four Presidents on Mount Rushmore could have been
impeached. If all of this sounds absurd, Madam Speaker, it is because
it is absurd. In fact, this whole process is absurd and has been from
the outset.
But here is what is not absurd but, rather, frightening: House
Democrats, today, are setting a dangerous precedent under which no
future President will be immune from impeachment, and that will forever
negatively tarnish the history of this House.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the President's conduct constituted the
highest of high crimes against our country. An offense does not have to
violate a criminal statute to be impeachable. That was confirmed in
President Nixon's case and again in President Clinton's. There is no
higher crime than for the President to use the power of his office to
corrupt our elections.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, this July, President Trump blocked $400
million in congressionally approved aid that Ukraine desperately needed
to defend itself against Russia because he needed Ukraine to do him a
favor first. He asked the President of Ukraine to launch a public
investigation into a political rival. Military aid and other benefits
would only come after.
But this is not about a single call or a single transcript; this is
about a perfect storm, months of activity directly ordered by the
President to his senior Cabinet and political appointees, an
orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy.
President Trump betrayed his oath of office. He abused the power of
his office for personal and political gain and has refused to cooperate
with a coequal branch of government.
This is a vote for our Constitution, setting the precedent for all
future Presidents, Democrat or Republican.
Donald Trump must be held accountable for his actions. Today, we send
a clear signal to this President and all future Presidents: No one is
above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
impeachment of the legitimately elected President of the United States.
Enough. Madam Speaker, for the love of this country, enough. Enough
of this impeachment circus. Enough of these sham witch hunts.
I am voting ``no'' because the President has done nothing wrong. The
only thing that President Trump is guilty of is doing the things he
said he would do; and if my Democrat colleagues were honest, they would
tell us the only thing President Trump is guilty of is not being
Hillary Clinton.
The only party guilty of obstruction, abuse of power, or whatever
focus group terms they are using today is the party on the other side
of this aisle. They are obstructing the will of the American people.
They are obstructing the very foundations of our country.
By politically weaponizing impeachment, they have dangerously
shattered precedent and abused our Constitution. They, alone, will bear
this responsibility.
Madam Speaker, they will fail, and it is no wonder the American
people don't trust this body. It is past time to be done with this
circus and get to the work that matters, like securing our borders and
passing trade deals.
I will vote ``no'' and encourage this body to move on from this
heartbreaking, disgraceful day to things that actually matter.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the moment our Founders
anticipated in establishing the power of impeachment has arrived.
The evidence is clear: President Trump abused his power by asking a
vulnerable foreign leader to investigate both his political rival and a
baseless Russian conspiracy theory, while withholding congressionally
appropriated defense aid and a coveted White House visit. He then
blocked congressional investigation into these abuses.
These abuses threaten the integrity of our elections, they corrupt
our diplomacy, and they undermine national security.
We sometimes regard constitutional checks and balances as the
indestructible underpinnings of our democracy. In fact, they're not
fixed. They're not indestructible. The President has demonstrated this
beyond all doubt.
It's up to the Congress, the first branch of government, to apply the
remedy that the Constitution prescribes, because the threats to our
democracy are real and present.
With this vote, we affirm that no one, including the President, is
above the law.
Madam Speaker, impeachment was designed by our framers as the
ultimate constitutional protection against presidential misconduct,
reserved, as North Carolina's James Iredell put it, for ``acts of great
injury to the community.'' The impeachable acts the framers envisioned
were not disputed policy positions, as disastrous as they might be, nor
flaws in character, as deep as those might be, but acts that threaten
the very foundation of the country and Constitution we vowed to
protect.
In this moment, the future of our democracy hangs in the balance.
The evidence is abundantly clear: President Donald Trump abused his
power by asking a vulnerable foreign leader both to investigate his
political rival and to validate a baseless conspiracy theory propagated
by Russia, while congressionally appropriated defense aid and a coveted
White House visit hung in the balance. He then blocked Congressional
investigations into his abuses.
These abuses threaten the integrity of our elections, corrupt our
diplomacy, and undermine our national security. Underlying it all is
the President's often-expressed conviction that his powers are
constitutionally unlimited.
We often regard constitutional ``checks and balances'' as
indestructible underpinnings of our democracy. In fact, they are
neither fixed nor unbreakable. President Trump has demonstrated this
beyond all doubt.
When constitutional boundaries are broken, it's we--living, breathing
people within our institutions who must rise to defend our democracy.
It is this accountability that prevents creeping authoritarianism and
protects our representative democracy, where no one, including the
President, is above the law.
It's up to the Congress, the first branch of government, to apply the
remedy that the Constitution prescribes, because the threats to our
democracy are real and present. The eyes of history are upon us.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, since the beginning of this impeachment
inquiry, it has been extremely troubling to see the partisan, divisive
way in which Democrats have carried out this entire process.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though. They promised they would
unseat this President since the day he took his oath of office. From
the start, this has been a baseless attempt to undo the will of 63
million Americans who voted for President Trump.
I can tell you the people I represent in Kentucky, the very people
who voted for this President to enact change and fight for this
country, are appalled at the charade they have seen in the House in
recent months. They are appalled at the actions from House Democrats
who have failed to even come close to proving their case.
I hope all of my congressional colleagues carefully consider the
precedent they are setting by voting in favor

[[Page H12151]]

of this sham process and these illegitimate Articles of Impeachment.
These articles were written and built on a report that was drafted with
biased presumptions, cherry-picked witnesses, and vastly disputed
facts.
The President did not commit any impeachable offense, and it is clear
for all of us to see through the now very well-known transcript. This
rigged process sets a concerning precedent for impeachable offenses
moving forward, and I wholeheartedly oppose these baseless Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, many have lamented that this effort is not
bipartisan, but that is on my Republican colleagues.
Republicans have not sought the truth. They have sought to avoid the
truth. They have demeaned and insulted witnesses, patriots, warriors,
and career diplomats who have provided evidence against the President.
No House Republican has joined us to demand the documents and
witnesses that President Trump has refused to produce.
And Senate Republican leaders, this week, have announced that
President Trump, himself, can set the rules of his trial and there will
be no fact witnesses.
Republicans refuse to seek the truth and condemn the abuse of power
or to work with us to prevent this ongoing behavior in the future, and
that is the tragedy of today's events.
In our Nation's history, thousands of Americans have gone into battle
without reservation to fight for our Republic as they still do today.
Many have been gravely injured, and some have made the ultimate
sacrifice. But today, in contrast, for fear of losing an election, my
colleagues will not speak up for the rule of law or against
Presidential abuse of power. Voters may give them a pass, but history
will judge them harshly.
I will vote for the Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition not only to these Articles
of Impeachment, but in strong opposition to the process that has
brought us to this point.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about process. Our
Founders knew that a government without constraints could accuse anyone
of any crime at any time, even without compelling evidence. That is why
the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment have established a bedrock
principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But on November 14, Speaker Pelosi informed the press that the
President should prove his innocence when she stated: Mr. President, if
you have anything that shows your innocence, then you should make that
known.
The Constitution also guarantees that the accused can call witnesses
to testify on their behalf, but the Republicans and the President were
continually denied that right throughout this process.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the defendant to face
their accuser, but not only have the Democrats prohibited Republicans
and the President from questioning the so-called whistleblower, his
identity has been kept secret.
Before Members take this historic vote today, one week before
Christmas, I want Members to keep this in mind: When Jesus was falsely
accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face
his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more
rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded this President in this
process.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the President was given the opportunity to
come and testify before the Judiciary Committee, to send his counsel,
to question witnesses. He declined to do so.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for our country and for
our democracy. The President has abused the powers of his office,
betrayed the public trust, and undermined America's national security
by pressuring a foreign government to interfere in our elections for
his own political gain.
In this moment in our history, the Constitution is clear: The remedy
for such misconduct by a President is impeachment.
I didn't come here to Congress to impeach a President of the United
States, but, sadly, the President's misconduct leaves us no choice but
to follow the Constitution.
I have two grandchildren. My granddaughter, Caitlin, is 8, and my
grandson, Colin, is 4. Some day a long time from now, they will ask me
about this day. They will ask about the time a President put himself
above the law, and they will want to know what I did to stop him. And I
will have an answer for them.
Today, I vote to uphold the Constitution. I will vote to impeach
Donald Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the
President was supposedly given rights in the Judiciary Committee, but
maybe who would he have asked questions of, three law school professors
and a staff member? Not a lot of due process there.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, we are here today because House Democrats
have spent upwards of $30 million in 3 years trying to overturn the
2016 election of President Trump and come up with nothing.
Because of their radical leftwing, Democrats are willing to make all
future Presidential elections invalid until judged worthy by the
majority in the House of Representatives.
The President of the United States does not serve at the pleasure of
the House of Representatives.
Perhaps the greatest denial of reality regarding President Trump is
acknowledging that, under his policies, things are actually going much
better than they have in decades for working Americans.
We are a democratic constitutional Republic in which power flows from
we the people to our President and elected officials.
The Democrat majority thinks otherwise. They believe that they are
entitled to rule us even if they have to change the rules to invalidate
the will and the votes of the people of America. That is why the
absence of a case does not matter in this charade of impeachment.
I believe that the American people recognize and share my urgency
about what is at stake here.
Madam Speaker, you and your majority may decide today, but I have
faith that the American people will decide otherwise next November.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. DelBene).

{time} 1415

Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this
resolution.
After carefully reviewing all of the evidence and the Articles of
Impeachment before us, it is clear that President Trump abused the
power of the Presidency and obstructed Congress.
I did not come to this conclusion lightly.
Impeachment is an extremely serious matter, but no President can be
allowed to pressure a foreign country for personal and political gain.
No President is above the law.
His behavior has jeopardized the integrity of our elections, put our
national security at risk, and placed his personal interests above
those of the American people.
His obstruction has prevented the House from conducting its
constitutional duty of oversight of the executive branch.
By failing to uphold his oath of office, President Trump forces each
of us as Members of the House of Representatives to uphold ours.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do just that, and defend our
democracy.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman).
Mr. RIGGLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I oppose this impeachment effort and
will vote ``no'' on the Articles of Impeachment.

[[Page H12152]]

I represent the Fifth District of Virginia, which was home to so many
Founding Fathers whose vision shaped the great country we are living in
today.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are not around to see what their
creation has become, but I don't think they would be pleased to see
Congress subverting the will of democracy by holding an impeachment
vote because the majority party simply cannot accept the 2016 election.
Instead of wasting the taxpayers' time and money on specious
investigations, we could have passed legislation to address surprise
medical billing, secure the border, address the opioid epidemic, reduce
student debt, and solve a litany of other issues that Americans
actually care about.
Tomorrow, we might have a vote on the USMCA, which we should have
passed months ago had it not been for the obstruction and delays from
Democrats, delays that have made farmers in my district and other
districts suffer.
Votes like the one we will take today, the decisions that have led up
to today's vote, the nature and entire process of this proceeding reeks
of careerist bureaucrats and politicians that put politics over people.
I was not elected to take political votes that attempt to overturn
the will of the American people. I ran for office to serve my
constituents. Let's remember: that is why we are here.
Weaponizing emotion is not the way to serve the United States of
America.
And, Madam Speaker, to my colleagues who do just that, I offer a
quote Thomas Paine wrote in ``The Crisis'': ``To argue with a person
who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to
the dead.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the
House has passed over 400 bills, 275 bipartisan bills: driving down
costs of healthcare and prescription drugs, raising wages, rebuilding
infrastructure, taking on corruption and self-dealing in Washington.
Eighty percent of these bills are languishing on Senator McConnell's
desk.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I wish to place on the record that Members of Congress swear a solemn
oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Today we fulfill our oath by defending liberty.
The central figure testing America's resolve is not here in
Washington today. Rather, the closeted villain sits in Moscow at the
Kremlin.
Vladimir Putin has coordinated murders, election hacking, propaganda,
the entrapment of willing fools and greedy underlings who put their own
selfish interests over liberty.
Putin seeks to sow disarray and destabilize democracies and the NATO
alliance. At Putin's direction, Russia illegally invaded Ukraine in
2014. As Ukrainians defend Europe's eastern flank, 14,000 people have
been killed at Putin's hand, with over 2 million displaced.
Rather than stand up to Putin, President Trump and his minions aided
Putin, first in hastening Russian interference in our 2016 elections,
and then more recently withholding vital military aid from Ukraine to
coerce its interference in our 2020 elections for Mr. Trump's personal
gain.
Might I end by saying: Onward to liberty. Vote for the Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
these baseless Articles of Impeachment and the unprecedented process
that has been used in this effort to impeachment the duly elected
President of the United States.
It is a mockery of American justice.
In 1788, one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in
the Federalist Papers:

In many cases, impeachment will connect itself with the
preexisting factions . . . and in such cases, there will
always be the greatest danger that the decision will be
regulated more by the comparable strength of parties,
majority and minority, than by real demonstrations of
innocence or guilt.

What does this mean? It means that the majority can exert its
influence regardless of justice.
In this statement, Hamilton warned us about the danger of mob rule.
Democrats have a criminal and have been searching for a crime for 3
years, but this President has not committed a crime.

As the leader of American foreign policy, the President has a
constitutional obligation to root out corruption in countries to which
we provide aid. This is not an abuse of power. It is his job.
One of the articles is obstruction of Congress. The only thing that
has been obstructed is this President's right to due process.
I don't blame the President for refusing to fully participate in this
guilty-until-proven circus. This is not how our Founding Fathers framed
American justice.
This is a tragic day in our Nation's history. We have individuals
that hate this President more than they love this country.
Our country needs prayer, and not this disruptive partisanship.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the President's obstruction is unprecedented and
categorical. President Trump claims that the House cannot investigate
his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry. He defies lawful
congressional subpoenas and then he sues to block third parties from
complying with such subpoenas.
Even as he pursues his own interests in court, his administration
simultaneously argues that Congress is barred from obtaining judicial
enforcement when executive branch officials disregard its subpoenas.
So when can the President be held accountable for his wrongdoing? In
his mind, never.
The Constitution, however, disagrees.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, my words are my only remedy today, in
spite of the upcoming D.C. statehood vote we expect to be successful.
The people of the District of Columbia have no vote on impeachment or
on any other matter on this floor now.
I spoke on this floor on the impeachment of President Clinton 20
years ago. Unlike the Clinton impeachment on perjury concerning an
affair with an intern, Trump's impeachment turns on sabotage of
national security to get himself reelected.
Clinton repented. Trump insists that he did nothing wrong. That is a
promise to continue his long pattern of abuse of power and obstruction
of Congress.
Impeachment is our only recourse.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) for yielding.
Today, Democrats lower the bar for impeachment.
Under this standard, a President can be impeached in the absence of a
crime, without due process, and for asserting a legally,
constitutionally recognized privilege.
History shows Democrat Presidents have abused power and undermined
democracy to win elections, and yet they have not been impeached.
President Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS to target his political
opponents. His son later admitted FDR used ``the IRS as a weapon of
political retribution.''
President John F. Kennedy used the FBI to wiretap and monitor
political opponents, including congressional staff. He deported one of
his mistresses to avoid scandal.
President Lyndon Johnson spied on Goldwater's campaign, signing off
on wiretapping his opponent and Goldwater's airplane, and using a CIA
spy to obtain advance copies of Goldwater's strategies and speeches.
President Barack Obama refused to provide documents to Congress
related to Fast and Furious. His unconstitutional recess appointments
were unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court. He used national
security agencies to lie to the American people about Benghazi to win
the 2012 election. He spied on reporters. Finally, it

[[Page H12153]]

was the Obama administration that committed 17 serious violations
before the FISA Court to spy on Trump campaign associates.
Despite these clear abuses of power by FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Obama,
Republicans did not impeach.
Why? Because the Framers did not want a low bar for impeachment. They
wanted Congress and the President to work out their differences.
When I asked Professor Turley in a Judiciary Committee hearing if any
President could avoid impeachment with those low standards, he said,
``No.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman that President
Obama provided thousands of pages of information to congressional
requests, and that Attorney General Holder and others testified, unlike
now.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Kelly).
Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Madam Speaker, today is a solemn day in
America, a day that none of us hoped for when we came to Congress, but
the events of today are something that each of us swore that we were
prepared to execute in defense of the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This is the oath that binds the men and women of the 116th Congress,
as our democracy implores we defend her.
A clear and present threat to American democracy is what brings us
here. The architect, a President who asked that a foreign nation
interfere in our election: this was our Founding Fathers' greatest
fear.
I cast this solemn vote for the many individuals in my district who
entrusted me to be their voice in Congress. They entrusted me to uphold
our Constitution for them.
I vote ``yes'' for Sarah in Chicago, Doug in Kankakee, Diane in
Flossmoor; ``yes'' for Kathy in Momence, Kathryn in Crete, and Jimmy in
Park Forest.
The facts are simple. The path forward is clear. Impeachment is not
an option, it is an obligation, because no one is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), another member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Collins for
yielding.
You know, in the Navy, we had a saying: BLUF, bottom line up front.
Well, I will give you the bottom line. Democrats are terrified that
President Trump is going to win reelection.
They can't beat him on the merits, so Democrats are caving to their
far left radical base and they are using the thoughts and feelings and
the assumptions of some unnamed bureaucrats rather than relying on
facts and law to impeach a duly elected President.
Let me be clear: This is nothing more than a political hit job.
You know, I have been on all sides of the courtroom. I was a
prosecutor in the Navy, I was a defense attorney in the Navy, I was a
district judge in my hometown.
And let me tell you, as a lawyer, I would defend this case every day
of the week. As a judge, I would dismiss this on day one for lack of
merit. There is no prima facie case here.
I will tell you who I would prosecute, though. I would prosecute Adam
Schiff for abuse of power. Why? How about the fact that he used his
position as chairman to leak phone records of Ranking Member Devin
Nunes? How about the fact that he dumped over 8,000 pages of documents
on Republicans less than 48 hours before a hearing? That is the abuse
of power.
And obstruction? I would prosecute the Democrats for obstruction. How
about the fact that the Judiciary Committee Democrats voted down my
request to subpoena the whistleblower? How about the fact that Chairman
Nadler refused every single Republican request for a fact witness? That
is obstruction of Congress.
So, again, let me be clear: Today is nothing more than a political
hit job.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, once again, I hear a lot of attacks on
Democratic Members of Congress, but not one single word of substantive
defense of the President's conduct.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, each of us here took an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President,
and not our political party.
Today, history will judge. Did we abide that oath?
To extort a foreign country to investigate your political opponent is
an unconstitutional abuse of power. To solicit foreign interference in
an American election is an unconstitutional abuse of power.
The need to protect against just such abuses prompted our Founders to
grant the sole power of impeachment to this House.
The delicate balance of power that underpins our democracy is
threatened when a President disregards the Constitution by obstructing
Congress' power in order to cover up illegal behavior. In doing that,
President Trump violated his oath.

{time} 1430

Today, we must put country over party, conscience over complicity.
Today, we must assert no one is above the law. Today, we are summoned
by history to do the right thing.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I know this is probably not
true, but I think the speakers are not working on the majority side
because I have talked about it, and many of our Members have talked
about the facts.
Let's just go over them real quickly: no pressure, no conditionality,
nothing was ever denied them, and when they got through, they actually
got the money, and they never did anything for it.
We have talked about the facts. That is a distraction that doesn't
need to happen.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have heard numerous colleagues
say they didn't run for Congress to impeach the President. Well, maybe
not originally, but, unfortunately, from the moment proceedings began,
after the fourth vote to launch an impeachment inquiry, today's vote
was inevitable. Many of them campaigned on it.
I love this country with a soldier's passion. I came here to defend
freedom, not to deny due process to anyone. I came here to solve
problems and change the broken status quo, not to distract or disrupt
those, like President Donald Trump, who deliver on promises to put
America back on the path of peace and prosperity that has made and kept
our country free.
For months now, Americans have heard speculation about the
President's motives in Ukraine. Despite months of effort, dozens of
hearings, and countless documents, Americans have not seen proof that
the President committed a high crime or a misdemeanor.
We have a republic, if we can keep it. This is a disgraceful and
dishonest process. It is a discredit to this body and to our Nation.
Madam Speaker, I urge the House to drop these divisive Articles of
Impeachment and get to work for the American people.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time do both sides have
remaining, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 1 hour and 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 hours and 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, the facts are clear. The President of
the United States withheld $400 million in military aid to an ally of
the United States and also held back a White House meeting to compel a
foreign nation to investigate his political opponent.
At the exact time the President was doing this, Ukraine was engaged
in a battle for its very existence with one of America's adversaries,
Russia.
The President abused his power to persuade a foreign nation to dig up
dirt on a political opponent, and that is the truth. This was, quite
simply, a geopolitical shakedown.
The President then tried to block Congress from exercising its
constitutionally mandated duty to uncover the truth.

[[Page H12154]]

Every single one of us, today, faces a stark choice. If we choose to
turn a blind eye, to put political expediency before the Constitution,
then we are complicit in this subversion of democracy. If we do not
hold this President accountable, we have failed the people who sent us
here, and we have abdicated our own oath to defend the Constitution.
In the United States of America, no one is above the law, not even
the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, in 3 months, we have gone from receiving an
unsubstantiated, hearsay, and discredited whistleblower complaint to
the production of Articles of Impeachment against a President of the
United States. Not since Andrew Johnson has the House engaged in such a
partisan political stunt.
From the beginning, this has been a sham, and this House has been
nothing but a star chamber. The Democratic majority literally locked
themselves in the basement of this building, hiding from the American
people. When my colleagues and I refused to stand for it, Democrats
moved to public hearings but denied us questions, denied us witnesses,
and denied the President any meaningful opportunity to defend himself.
With this complete abuse of process, the Democratic majority has
produced the flimsiest and most legally unsound Articles of Impeachment
in the history of this Nation. Never before has the House reported an
Article of Impeachment that does not allege an underlying crime, yet
this majority will do so today.
Read the transcripts. There was no quid pro quo, no bribery, no
extortion, no crime, and no abuse of power. They don't even allege a
crime in their Articles of Impeachment. The President raising Ukrainian
corruption is not an impeachable offense.
If the dealings of Hunter Biden were so aboveboard, you would think
the majority would be just fine looking into this matter. Yet, they
haven't moved my resolution asking for an investigation, and our
subpoenas for Hunter Biden have all been denied. Hunter Biden doesn't
get a pass because his dad was Vice President.
I am proud to have fought against this charade every step of the way,
and I will proudly vote ``no'' today.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, the facts are uncontestable. The evidence
is overwhelming. The President grossly misused the Office of President
and obstructed Congress, and justice requires this impeachment.
I feel compelled to respond to the false narrative that Democrats are
using this process to overturn an election.
I agree that elections are the appropriate venue for public policy
disputes. However, we are not talking about a public policy dispute. We
are talking about a President who subverted national security by
soliciting foreign interference in our elections, the exact thing our
Founding Fathers feared and the exact circumstance for which they
drafted the impeachment clause.

Our democracy, our Constitution, deserves standing up for, not Donald
John Trump.
I will leave my colleagues with this last thought as they decide how
to cast this historic vote: For what shall it profit a man to gain the
whole world only to lose his own soul.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).
Mr. GOODEN. Madam Speaker, this is the day the Founding Fathers
feared when they granted Congress the power of impeachment, where we
have a political party so dead set against the President that they will
do anything to impeach him. And they are about to get away with it,
simply because they have the votes. But that is not how this process is
supposed to work.
It is not meant to be dictated by a thin partisan majority, nor is it
meant to be used when an election is just around the corner.
No one understands that better than our Speaker, for whom I have
great respect. And I agree with the comments she made on March 6 of
just this year: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless
there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I
don't think we should go down that path because it divides'' the
Nation.
That is exactly what has happened.
When we walk out of here tonight, we all know how this result is
going to go. The Democrats are voting for this. Not one Republican is
breaking. This is not bipartisan.
The American people are disgusted with the United States House of
Representatives, and we bring shame upon this body today by moving
forward with this impeachment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Speaker, the facts in this case are as simple as
they are tragic. Witness after witness attested to these facts. No one
has credibly refuted them.
President Trump tried to coerce Ukraine to interfere in the 2020
elections. He used the power of his office for personal political gain.
By withholding aid to Ukraine, the President has endangered our ally
Ukraine and undermined our own national security. When he got caught,
the President attempted to cover up the crime and shut down any
investigation by obstructing Congress.
We have overwhelming evidence that this President poses an urgent
threat to our elections, to our national security, and to the rule of
law. Congress must vote to impeach him to protect our constitutional
Republic. There is no alternative.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the only urgent threat to this
body is the clock and the calendar and the desire to impeach the
President before we go home for Christmas.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. David P. Roe).
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, today is a sad day in
the people's House. Since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, Democrats
have been on a crusade to stop him by any means.
I believe the American people are the fairest people on this Earth.
They believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law, no
matter what station you occupy in life: rich or poor, President or
factory worker--fair. This process has been anything but fair.
For 2 years, we have been told that then-candidate Donald Trump
colluded with Russians to interfere with our elections. Two years and
millions of dollars spent on the Mueller investigation: no collusion.
You would think, after being that wrong, Democrats would finally
decide to work on the problems that the American people sent us here to
do. You would be wrong again.
Then, we were told that the President withheld money to the
Ukrainians in a quid pro quo. No, no, a bribery. No, abuse of power. I
guess whatever polls best--to gather information on a potential
political rival.
Well, here are some facts about what happened:
Fact number one: The transcript of the July 25 phone conversation
that the President released shows no pressure.
Fact number two: President Zelensky did not know the money was
withheld.
Fact number three: No investigation occurred or was announced.
Fact number four: The money was released September 11, 2019.
Facts are stubborn things. One Member on the other side of the aisle
said: ``I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this President, he will
get reelected.'' That, Madam Speaker, says it all.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I take seriously my oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution, and I do not take today's proceedings lightly.
The Founding Fathers included the impeachment process in the
Constitution to uphold our values and to maintain the checks and
balances that are essential to separation of powers and to democracy.
They knew way back in 1787 that a President could abuse the power of
the office. In fact, they adopted the phrase ``high crimes and
misdemeanors'' from a phrase that had been used in the English
Parliament

[[Page H12155]]

since 1386 intended to cover situations where an official abused his
power and included disobeying an order from the Parliament.
Donald Trump has abused the power of his office by inviting a foreign
government to interfere in the U.S. election. He did this not to help
the United States but to benefit himself. That is wrong, and it is an
impeachable offense.
Then, when Congress exercised our constitutional duty to investigate
these wrongdoings, he obstructed the investigation every step of the
way. That is also wrong, and it is also an impeachable offense.

In our country, no one is above the law. That includes the President
of the United States.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, December is such a great
month, and there are so many great dates in December. We talk about the
wonderful things that have happened in Decembers of the past.
In addition to Christmas being something we celebrate, the Boston Tea
Party took place in December. Also, on December 7, 1941, a horrific act
happened in the United States, one that President Roosevelt said: This
is a date that ``will live in infamy.''
Today, December 18, 2019, is another date that will live in infamy.
Just because you hate the President of the United States, and you can
find no other reason other than the fact that you are so blinded by
your hate that you can't see straight, you have decided the only way we
can make sure this President doesn't get elected again is to impeach
him.
On the floor of the people's House, the bastion of democracy and
liberty in the whole world, we have decided that political power is far
more important than principle.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to vote ``no'' on
impeachment and to look their voters in the eye.
Listen, let me tell you, the voters will remember next November what
you are doing this December. This is a terrible time. This is a date
that will live in infamy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL. Madam Speaker, in 1787, at the conclusion of the
Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked: Do we have a
republic or a monarchy?
He responded: ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
Madam Speaker, a republic is a form of government in which the
country is considered a public matter, not the private concern or
property of the rulers.

{time} 1445

In a republic, no person is above the law. In a republic, the
President may not abuse his power by withholding critical foreign
assistance for his own personal political gain nor may he stop
witnesses from talking.
I did not come to Congress to impeach a President, but I did take an
oath to keep the Republic. For our children and our grandchildren, we
should do nothing less. One day, I will tell my grandson that I stood
up for our democracy.
I will vote ``yes'' to impeach the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1-2/3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I would like to address why we are here.
We are certainly not here because of a misquoted phone call in July
of 2019.
The Washington Post ran an article, headlined, ``The Campaign to
Impeach President Trump Has Begun,'' the day he was sworn in.
The gentleman from Maryland who spoke earlier today called for
impeachment 2 days before President Trump was sworn in.
The gentleman from Texas was introducing impeachment resolutions 2
years ago and said: President Trump should be impeached so he can't get
reelected.
This impeachment is not about anything that happened on a phone call.
This impeachment is about what President Trump has done.
The people in this country who are let in who are inadmissible or
apprehended and don't have legal authority fell from 100,000 people in
May to under 5,000 people in November, and you hate him for it.
Ben Carson thinks that low-income housing should be used by American
citizens and not people who are here illegally, and you hate him for
it.
President Trump doesn't want people coming here and going on welfare,
and you hate him for it.
President Trump wants able-bodied people on food stamps to try to
work, and he is hated for it.
President Trump renegotiated that rip-off trade agreement with Mexico
and Canada and that was put in place by President Bush and President
Obama, and you hate him for it.
President Trump sides with law enforcement instead of criminals and
murders dropped 1,000 people last year, and you hate him for siding
with the police.
President Trump lets Christian adoption agencies choose whom they
want to be parents, and you don't like him for that.
President Trump won't let foreign aid go to agencies that perform
abortions, and you hate him for that.
President Trump's judges stick to the Constitution, and he is
disliked for that.
President Trump is keeping his campaign promises, and you hate him
for that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We do not hate President Trump, but we do know that President Trump
will continue to threaten the Nation's security, democracy, and
constitutional system if he is allowed to remain in office. That threat
is not hypothetical.
President Trump has persisted, during this impeachment inquiry, in
soliciting foreign powers to investigate his political opponent.
The President steadfastly insists that he did nothing wrong and is
free to do it all again. That threatens our next election as well as
our constitutional democracy.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives, the
people's House, is vested by the Constitution with the power of
impeachment to balance the power of the Presidency. Without this
essential duty, the President could exploit his sacred office without
any regard for the law.
On January 3, 2019, every Member of the House swore an oath to defend
the Constitution, and this week, we are being asked to do just that.
When allegations arose that the President tried to coerce a foreign
government to help undermine the 2020 election, the House carried out
its duty to investigate a potential abuse of power; but the President
refused to cooperate and forbade his administration from doing so,
obstructing Congress from carrying out our sworn responsibility.
If these actions bear no consequence, future Presidents may act
without constraint and American democracy will be at an end. Therefore,
compelled by my sworn duty to defend the Constitution, I will vote to
impeach this President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), my friend.
Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, I would like to address my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle and reiterate President Washington's warning to
the Republic 223 years ago.
The Constitution rightly sets a high bar for impeachment, but the
integrity of the process also depends on the ability of the legislators
to vote their minds, independent of party politics.
Removing a President is too important and lawmakers are given too
much latitude to define ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' for it to be
any other way. Otherwise, excessively partisan politicians could
overturn an election simply because the President is a member of the
opposite and opposing party.

[[Page H12156]]

It is in regard to this impeachment process that George Washington
forewarned us as a nation at this moment in history. When political
parties ``may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the
course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning,
ambitious, and unprincipled men'' and women ``will be enabled to
subvert the power of the people to usurp for themselves the reins of
government. . . . ''

How wise he was.
Vote ``no'' on this assault to our Republic, the Constitution, and
against President Trump.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, John Adams warned in a letter to Thomas
Jefferson that these risks are unavoidable and might sometimes overlap:
``You are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence. So
am I--but, as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign
influence recurs.''
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, today, history is being written. The
facts are conclusive: The President attempted to use the power of the
powerful Office of President to force Ukraine to influence our 2020
election.
In the process, President Trump jeopardized our national security and
withheld vital military assistance intended to prevent further Russian
aggression in the region.
However, as our committees--including the Committee on Oversight and
Reform, of which I am a member--sought to interview additional
witnesses and obtain documents, the President ordered, from the power
of his office, that the executive branch not participate and obstructed
the congressional oversight.
Article I provides the House of Representatives with the sole power
of impeachment, as well as the authority to conduct oversight of the
executive branch.
What did he have to hide?
When the Framers met over 200 years ago, they went to great lengths
to ensure future Presidents will be forced to answer to their
constitutional responsibility. I stand today in support of the two
Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, today is a sad day for this body, for the
voters who sent me here last November, and for our Nation.
Benjamin Franklin cautioned, when asked what he had given us: ``A
republic, if you can keep it.''
Today, we take a step further toward losing the Republic that our
Founding Fathers envisioned by engaging in activity that they
specifically warned against: the misuse of the constitutional power of
impeachment for one party's political gain.
Our Constitution is the very foundation of our Republic. Its
assurance of self-determination has been the shining beacon by which
our Nation has chartered its course over the last two centuries.
From a new democratic experiment struggling to survive to the
greatest Nation on Earth, America has been powered, over the years, not
by government, but by the ingenuity, the bravery, and the faith of its
people, confident in their place as one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
So it is we the people who determine our President, not we the
Judiciary Committee nor we the Congress. The Constitution is clear. It
is only when we see clear proof of the impeachable offenses outlined in
Article II, Section 4, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors, that we are to challenge the decision of the voters,
break the figurative glass, and pull the emergency rip cord that is
impeachment.
We do not have that proof today. Thomas Jefferson said: ``I know no
safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people
themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise
their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it
from them, but to inform their discretion by education.''
But rather than educate, this majority has chosen today to obfuscate
with hearsay, innuendo, and speculation. And when history looks back on
this shameful period for this House, it will judge it for what it truly
is: the ugly hijacking, by the majority, of our Constitution and the
powers it so solemnly entrusts to us to engage in a blatantly political
process designed to finally achieve what they could not achieve at the
ballot box: the removal of a duly elected President.
Compelled by my sworn duty to uphold this Constitution and for the
people, I vote ``no'' on impeachment today.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, as we take this solemn, necessary step of
impeaching President Trump, my Republican colleagues have made up their
minds. We can't persuade them to do the right thing, so I will address
my remarks to the future.
Today's vote will be judged by future generations, including my
precious children, Abby and Nathan--maybe grandkids.
Historians will study what Members of this Congress did when our
democracy was tested like never before by a President who put personal
interests above country, who compromised national security to cheat his
way to reelection and, when caught, not only lied and refused to admit
wrongdoing, but flouted Congress' authority. He even called the
constitutional impeachment mechanism unconstitutional.
Historians will marvel how some Members of Congress continued to
stand by this man; how they put blind, partisan loyalty or fear of
Donald Trump above their duty to defend the Constitution; how they made
absurd partisan arguments and tried to obstruct these proceedings; and
how, instead of pushing back when their party fell under the dark spell
of authoritarianism, they embraced it as if the Constitution, the rule
of law, and our oath of office mean nothing.
Madam Speaker, for our future generations, our children, the judgment
of history, let me be clear: I stand with our Constitution, with the
rule of law and our democracy. I will be voting ``yes'' to impeach
Donald J. Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Today's vote to impeach the duly elected President of the United
States is truly historical. However, its unique place in history is not
for the reasons the Democratic Party and their mainstream media
overlords are so desperately trying to convey.
Today, will be remembered as the day that the Democrats, claiming a
false moral supremacy over the desire of the American people, executed
a deliberate and orchestrated plan to overturn a Presidential election.
It will be the first time in history that a party paraded out their
Ivy League academics to explain to 31 States and almost 63 million
people that their voice should not be heard and why their votes should
not be counted.
I pray for our Nation every day, but today, I am praying for my
colleagues across the aisle who arrived at this partisan and self-
directed fork in the road and chose the road never before traveled and
one that has a dead end.
Donald J. Trump is our President, chosen by the American people, fair
and square. As we say in Texas: ``It's a done deal.'' Democrats'
attempt to change history will never undo that.
May God bless the greatest country in the world, the United States of
America.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the
impeachment clause is placed in the Constitution to protect the
American people and our form of government against a President who
would subvert our constitutional liberties in between elections.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise.
Madam Speaker, I rise because I love my country, and, Madam Speaker,
``Shall any man be above justice?'' That is the question posed in 1787
by George Mason at the Constitutional Convention.
Shall any man be beyond justice? Madam Speaker, if this President is
allowed to thwart the efforts of Congress

[[Page H12157]]

with a legitimate impeachment inquiry, the President will not only be
above the law, he will be beyond justice. We cannot allow any person to
be beyond justice in this country.
In the name of democracy, on behalf of the Republic, and for the sake
of the many who are suffering, I will vote to impeach, and I encourage
my colleagues to do so as well.
No one is beyond justice in this country.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I also remind my chairman that
the impeachment was not to be used between election cycles to defeat a
sitting President who you think will be reelected.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Buchanan).

{time} 1500

Mr. BUCHANAN. Madam Speaker, I will vote today against both Articles
of Impeachment because they are without merit and setting a dangerous
precedent for our country. This political vendetta is an abuse of the
impeachment process and would subvert the votes of 63 million
Americans.
Just because the President's opponents are afraid that he will win
reelection is no excuse for weaponizing impeachment. No President in
history has been impeached 10 months before an election.
Elections are the heart of our democracy. Our Founding Fathers
devised a simple way to remove a President if you disagree with him. It
is called an election, and we have one coming up in less than a year.
Madam Speaker, let's let the people decide this next November.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of impeachment. I
learn so much every single day from my residents at home. Their common
sense and understanding of what is right and wrong is centered on why
they oppose any person using the most powerful position in the world
for personal gain.
We honor our veterans in this Chamber almost on a daily basis. Do we
ever follow their lead, where we serve the people of the United States
and uphold the Constitution, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as
Americans?
We should learn from their sense of duty and responsibility to
country and democracy, not political party. Doing nothing here, Madam
Speaker, is not an option. Looking away from these crimes against our
country is not an option.
This is about protecting the future of our Nation and our democracy
from corruption, abuse of power, criminal coverups, and bribery.
Madam Speaker, this vote is also for my sons and the future of so
many generations. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``yes'' on these
Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today on this dark
day in the United States House of Representatives to voice my
opposition to the shameful impeachment process that has occurred in the
people's House.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like
President Trump. We know this because they proudly boasted about their
intention to impeach our President before he was even sworn into
office.
Out of disdain for the President and for those of us who elected him,
the House of Representatives is considering two Articles of Impeachment
that are so very weak that they even fail to include specific crimes.
The people that I represent in south-central and southwestern
Pennsylvania know the truth. The American people know the truth. This
impeachment circus has never been about the facts. This process has
always been about seeking revenge for the President's election in 2016
and attempting to prevent him from winning again in 2020.
Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly oppose this partisan and shameful
effort to impeach our democratically and duly elected President.
Madam Speaker, for the sake of our Nation, I urge my colleagues to
join with me and vote ``no'' on the Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, all we keep hearing from the other side
are attacks on the process and questions of our motives. We do not
hear, because we cannot hear, because they cannot articulate a real
defense of the President's actions.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts
(Ms. Pressley).
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to protect our democracy.
Today, we take a stand against corruption and abuses of power.
What we are doing here today is not only patriotic, it is uniquely
American. America is a story of ordinary people confronting abuses of
power with a steadfast pursuit of justice.
Throughout our history, the oppressed have been relegated to the
margins by the powerful, and each time we have fought back, deliberate
in our approach, clear-eyed.
Each generation has fought for the preservation of our democracy, and
that is what brings us to the House floor today. Efficient and
effective in the pursuit of our truth.
Congress has done its due diligence. Today we send a clear message.
We will not tolerate abuses of power from the President of the United
States of America. The future of this Nation rests in our hands.
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart, but a resolved one, and
because I believe our democracy is worth fighting for, I will vote to
impeach Donald J. Trump, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The chairman hears us. He doesn't want to acknowledge it. When you
have nothing but a process that was completely amuck, you talk about
process. I have already debunked the facts many times. Let's do it one
more time.
No pressure by either Mr. Trump or Mr. Zelensky. In fact, what really
just horrifies me is they continue to say that Mr. Zelensky, who is the
supposed victim here, said many times there was no pressure. The
Democrats are calling him a liar and weakening him in his own country.
That is deplorable.
There is no conditionality in the transcript or conditionality after
that. Five meetings prove that. They were all high-level meetings. No
conditionality. Two of those meetings were after the Ukrainians
actually knew of the possibility that aid was being held.
They have not ever addressed the truths and the facts. After there
was nothing done to get the money, guess what? They got the money. That
is the fact. That is what they don't want to deal with. That is where
we are today. So let's continue to see how the sham was perpetrated.
That is what many of our Members are talking about.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bergman).
Mr. BERGMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. I believe all American
people need to be looked in the eye by all their Representatives.
Today is the culmination of the Democrats' 3-year-long quest to
delegitimize the President. This has been in the works since November
2016 and was all but promised when the Democrats took the majority.
This sham process began without a formal vote in the House and was
continued over these past several months, willfully trampling on
decades of bipartisan precedent--no due process; closed-door
depositions, even though nothing in this investigation was classified;
and leaking only details that fit their narrative.
If this isn't partisan politics, I don't know what is. Holding our
elected officials accountable is a job I take extremely seriously, but
the impeachment votes today represent the worst of Washington, D.C.,
yet another reason my constituents are so disillusioned with the
process and disappointed by the 116th Congress.
Michigan's First District sent me to Washington to get things done,
to get the government off their backs, and to help rural Michiganians
and other people around the country keep more of their hard-earned
currency, not to impeach our duly elected President.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Articles of
Impeachment. I

[[Page H12158]]

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam Speaker, it is with a solemn sense of duty that I
rise today in support of impeachment.
As this Chamber debates two Articles of Impeachment against the
President for his abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, I want
history to know that I stood up to say that I stand for the
Constitution and our democracy.
When my immigrant mom became a United States citizen, she took an
oath of allegiance to our country and Constitution. When I stood on
this floor as a new Member of Congress, I took an oath to uphold and
defend our Constitution.
The President abused his power when he used his official office and
power to ask a foreign government to interfere in our elections. When
he asked a foreign government for a personal favor to dig up dirt on
his political opponent so he could cheat, the President got caught, and
then he tried to cover it up.
Today we say no more. Today we say we will not allow this President
to abuse his power and endanger our national security. I stand to say
that no one is above the law, not even this President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, since before inauguration, the press and
Members of this Congress have been for impeachment. Members refused to
attend the inauguration. They called for impeachment, and they voted
for impeachment without any evidence. They voted for impeachment
creating and manufacturing evidence.
Recall and votes of no confidence are not included in our
Constitution for a reason. Our system demands evidence of high crimes
and misdemeanors. If such evidence existed, there would be an agreement
in this Chamber, but there is not. There is not an agreement because
there is no evidence.
Madison and Hamilton warned us that this might happen and that
impeachment would veer toward political factions, and that is exactly
what this is. This is bitterly and nakedly partisan.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made a mockery of
this process and this government. They despise the President and are
themselves abusing the power of their office all to settle the
political score they were unable to resolve at the ballot box.
Madam Speaker, they hope that if they repeat them over and over and
stay on message that you will believe their charges. Repeating things
that are not true does not make them true.
The call record between the two Presidents was clear: President Trump
was interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in the 2016
election. He asked the Ukrainians to work with our Attorney General.
The Ukrainians were already getting the military hardware, and they got
the assistance money and the meeting they desired.
These are not crimes. These are disagreements over foreign policy and
the fact that this President is conducting it.
If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable, Madam Speaker. My
colleagues are not driven by a quest for facts or truth; they are
driven by their partisan animus and a timetable. These are the reckless
and irresponsible acts of elitists in the swamp, and they undermine the
fabric of our Republic.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to remind the gentleman that there is, in fact, extensive direct
evidence--including the President's own words and actions--which is
corroborated and supported by indirect and circumstantial evidence.
The record leaves the following key facts indisputable: President
Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushed Ukraine to investigate
Vice President Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016
elections.
President Trump directed U.S. officials and President Zelensky
himself to work with Mr. Giuliani to fulfill his demands.
President Trump withheld critical military aid for Ukraine.
And President Trump stonewalled Congress' investigation to cover up
his misconduct.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Casten).
Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan
vote. This is a vote about America. It is a vote about our democracy
and our oath to the Constitution.
We all took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. We all know that what President Trump did was
wrong. We all know it is wrong to withhold foreign aid for a political
favor. We know it is wrong to ignore congressional subpoenas. We know
it is wrong to default to silly partisan and process arguments rather
than to rise and defend this beautiful, but all too fragile, democracy.
When those in elected power abuse their position for personal
advantage, it is on us to somberly uphold and defend the responsibility
that the Founders bestowed on us.
So, when my colleague talks about partisanship, I would remind him of
those great words of Lincoln. I am paraphrasing him slightly:
When one party would inflame partisanship rather than let the Nation
survive, I am proud to be the party that would accept partisanship
rather than let the Nation perish.
So in this moment the answer is clear, not because we want to impeach
but because we must.
So, Madam Speaker, when you vote in a few hours, don't vote your
party; vote your character. That is how you are going to be judged, and
that is how we are all going to be judged.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I inquire how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 hour and
44\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 1 hour and
47\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
partisan impeachment process.
Make no mistake, this process did not begin with the whistleblower
report. In fact, impeachment efforts began shortly after the President
was elected. The theatrics and political posturing that have ensued are
not part of an effort that this body is actually pursuing to preserve
checks and balances, rather, this process echoes the calls by some who
refuse to accept the 2016 election results.
Neither of the articles receiving a vote justify the removal of the
President from office. The first article suggests that the President
pressured a foreign government to be able to assist in an upcoming
election. Ukraine received its aid without a prearranged agreement,
proving this article to be an unsubstantiated allegation.
The second article is premised that obstruction occurred when the
White House ignored subpoenas issued by the House. Our Federal courts
are the ultimate arbiters of these decisions. In fact, previous
administrations, Republican and Democrat both, have dealt with these
issues and claimed executive privilege.
Madam Speaker, the articles that are before this House are
unsubstantiated. I intend to vote ``no'' on these articles, and I
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, today I will vote to impeach President
Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Those still defending the President's actions are desperately
grasping at straws while living in an alternate universe where facts do
not exist.

{time} 1515

To those still unwilling to search their souls, ask yourselves: Would
you support a Democratic President using taxpayer dollars to pressure a
foreign government to investigate a Republican political opponent based
on false Russian conspiracy theories?
Of course not. That is absurd.
Any President who does that has abused the power of the Presidency
for personal gain and undermined our most sacred tradition: our
elections.
In a few hours, every Member will make a choice. Will you fall into
the

[[Page H12159]]

age-old political trap of thinking blind partisanship is all that
matters? Will you vote to defend the Constitution and our democracy so
that President Trump and every future President will know that they are
not above the law and will be held accountable for their actions?
I have made my choice. I hope every Member puts the defense of our
Nation first and joins me.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak out
against this attempt to remove the duly elected President of the United
States.
Impeachment is importantly established in our Constitution. The
impeachment of a President has only happened twice in our country's
243-year history. Yet, today, for highly political purposes, the House
majority is trying to remove President Trump from office based on
secondhand, indirect accounts.
The Articles of Impeachment we are voting on today offer no evidence
of a crime but, instead, are purposely broad to fit the majority's
narrative.
Less than 1 year until the next Presidential election, we are being
asked to override the choice of the American people. This lopsided,
hyperpartisan, biased impeachment process has been predetermined as an
outcome from the very beginning.
This is an unfortunate day in the history of our great country. We
must hope this political game does not set a precedent of which to
follow in the future.
Surely, there will be disagreements between the President and
Congress for many years to come. Instead of unnecessarily dividing our
country, as we are seeing today, we should be looking at ways to bring
our country together.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, President Trump's actions are both
impeachable and criminal. Although the violation of the Federal
criminal statute is neither necessary nor sufficient to justify
impeachment, President Trump's conduct violated the Federal antibribery
statute very clearly.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, today, I vote to impeach President Donald
Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I don't hate the
President, but I love my country, and I have no other choice.
Voting for these Articles of Impeachment is the only moral course of
action, the only way to honor our oath of office.
I have no doubt that the votes I cast today will stand the test of
time. This has nothing to do with the 2016 elections.
I am so disappointed that my Republican friends approve of the
President's abuses of power and solicitation of foreign interference in
our elections. This is the very definition of the willful suspension of
disbelief. They know in their hearts that what the President has done
is deeply wrong. They know that they would vote without hesitation to
impeach a Democratic President who had done these things.
I remind all Americans, the President did not rebut the facts--the
many, many facts--which have led to these Articles of Impeachment
today.
For the sake of our democracy, our Constitution, and our country, we
must do the right thing and vote to impeach President Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am just amazed by what the
chairman just said. If it was obvious that he violated the bribery
statute clearly, then why didn't we add it as an Article of
Impeachment?
The reason why? It didn't.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Guest).
Mr. GUEST. Madam Speaker, Article II, Section 4 of the United States
Constitution states that the President of the United States may be
removed from office for treason, bribery, or high crimes and
misdemeanors.
As a former prosecutor, I am confident that no court would accept
these Articles of Impeachment as having met the standards set forth by
our Founding Fathers. The impeachment articles rely almost exclusively
on hearsay and opinion testimony, and they present no direct evidence
of wrongdoing.
As a former district attorney, I am dismayed that the Democrats have
submitted Articles of Impeachment against a sitting President using
circumstantial evidence that fails to offer proof of an impeachable
offense.
Additionally, the charges levied against the President in the
Articles of Impeachment lack historical precedent and are motivated by
pure political reason. If the House of Representatives passes the
Articles of Impeachment, the Democrats will have set a dangerous
precedent by undoing America's vote for President because a single
party disagreed with the 2016 Presidential election results.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I find no pleasure coming
to the floor today to consider impeachment. I ran for Congress to
represent my community and to serve the country I love.
As a combat veteran and having served 8 years on the Intelligence
Committee, I understand the threat that foreign actors can play in our
elections. Every elected official must dedicate themselves to
protecting our democracy. No one should invite a foreign country
to interfere with our most sacred act of voting.

It was abuse of power by the President to ask a foreign nation to
interfere in our election to benefit his personal and political
interests and to condition bipartisan, congressionally approved aid on
that interference.
Unchecked, these actions could lead us down a path that will unravel
the fabric of our Nation.
Madam Speaker, I am saddened we are here today, but in the interest
of defending our Nation, I will vote for the Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, our Founders intentionally did not embrace
recalls or votes of no confidence. Rather, we demand from Congress
evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
While my colleagues are free to dislike the President, and while they
may reasonably view the infamous phone call and negotiations with
Ukrainians as something less than perfect, they are not free to impeach
for something less than a high crime and misdemeanor.
In just over 10 months, though, the people are free to decide, and we
should let them.
Madam Speaker, the eyes of the world are upon us. The press galleries
are full. Our floor is filled with Members. When will we give the world
something better than this?
My colleagues wax eloquent about the Constitutions they found under
mothballs. Where is the respect for the Constitution when the people's
House daily refuses to do its actual job while shredding federalism and
limited government?
Today, in Mexico, a young girl will be abused while being trafficked
toward our open borders, while some yell ``kids in cages'' and play
race politics in the false name of compassion.
Today, in New York, a young mother will be coerced into abortion by
taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, while we allow the genocide of the
unborn in the false name of choice.
Today, across America, diabetics will struggle to afford insulin due
to a healthcare system ravished by government and insurance bureaucrats
empowered in the false name of coverage.
Today, our children inherit $100 million of debt an hour, borrowed in
the false name of what government can provide.
It is this conduct by Congress failing to do its jobs that should be
impeached. One might ask if America would be better off taking the
first 435 names out of the phonebook to represent us in the United
States House than what is on display here today.
Today is not a dark day because the American people know this:
America is great. Washington is broken. And we are taking our country
back
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

[[Page H12160]]

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I came to
Congress to serve the great people of Sacramento and to build a better
future for our children and grandchildren, including my grandkids, Anna
and Robby.
The facts before us are crystal clear. We heard testimony from 17
brave patriots who value our democracy and the Constitution. They
testified that President Trump threatened to withhold congressionally
approved money in exchange for dirt on a political rival and, worse,
that he continues to invite foreign powers to violate our sovereignty
even today.
On its face, these are impeachable offenses that represent a clear
and present danger to our country. That is why the only answer is to
act now. We need to stand together and stop President Trump immediately
so that he cannot violate the next election.
Madam Speaker, for the sake of our country and our democracy, I will
vote ``yes'' to impeach the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. SMUCKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle: How much is the trust of the American people
worth?
When the American people are dissatisfied with their government, the
primary tool that the Constitution gives them to make a change is their
vote. On November 8, 2016, Americans from every part of this Nation
packed the polls to elect Donald J. Trump to be the President of the
United States. The country wanted a disruptor, a fighter, a dealmaker,
a President who would put America first.
Sadly, on that very same day, Democrats had no plan or interest in
honoring the vote of the American people. They were going to attempt,
from day one, to delegitimize this President and, ultimately, remove
him from office.
Right after the President was sworn in, The Washington Post wrote:
``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.'' Even before he
took office, a Politico article headline read: ``Could Trump Be
Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?''
House Democrats have been planning for this day since January 2017.
It is clear that facts have never mattered to the House Democrats. They
never planned to work with the President. Instead, they intended only
to fulfill their divisive partisan agenda.
Again, I ask, how much is the trust of the American people worth?
Because after the vote today, for what you think is a short-term
partisan gain, you can be sure that the American people will have lost
their trust in our institution; they will have lost their trust in
Congress; and most importantly, they will have lost trust that their
vote counts.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, impeaching a President is one of the
most solemn and consequential decisions the United States Congress can
make. It is not an action that I or my fellow House colleagues take
lightly.
Investigations and hearings conducted by the House provide
overwhelming evidence that President Trump abused his power and
endangered our national security.
President Trump also issued a blanket order prohibiting all executive
office personnel from testifying, responding to subpoenas, or turning
over documents. Therefore, he has obstructed the legitimate and
constitutional obligation of Congress.
The President's actions leave me no choice. President Trump violated
his oath of office. Now, I will uphold my oath of office to preserve
and protect our Constitution and my promise to my constituents to
carefully analyze all issues before me. I will vote in favor of both
Articles of Impeachment against President Donald John Trump.
Madam Speaker, impeaching a President is one of the most solemn and
consequential decisions the United States Congress can make. It is not
an action I or my fellow House colleagues take lightly. Impeachment
exists to protect our democracy. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the
Federalist Papers, the impeachment clause in the Constitution exists to
address ``the misconduct of public men,'' which involves ``the abuse or
violation of some public trust.''
The investigations and hearings conducted by the House Intelligence
and Judiciary Committees provide overwhelming evidence that President
Trump abused his power and endangered our national security when he
coerced Ukraine into investigating his likely rival in the 2020
election by withholding $391 million in critical military aid and a
White House meeting from the Ukrainian government. Withholding this
military assistance to Ukraine as it enters the fifth year of its
deadly war against Russia endangers Ukraine's sovereignty and safety as
well as the United States' national security interests.
President Trump has also issued a blanket order prohibiting all
executive office personnel from testifying in Congressional impeachment
hearings, responding to subpoenas and turning over documents.
Therefore, he has obstructed the legitimate and Constitutional
obligation Congress has to conduct an impeachment inquiry when there is
evidence of wrongdoing by the President.
No one is above the law. The President's actions leave me no choice.
President Trump has violated his oath to ``faithfully execute the
Office of the President of the United States,'' and to, ``preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies foreign and domestic.'' Now I will uphold my Oath of Office to
preserve and protect our Constitution and my promise to my constituents
to carefully analyze all issues before me. I will vote in favor of both
articles of impeachment against President Donald John Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).
Mr. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today a disappointed man.
I am disappointed in a broken and partisan process that has consumed
House Democrats.
We were told this investigation was going to be bipartisan and
transparent. Instead, the proceedings were held in secret behind closed
doors with no attempt at a fair hearing.
All this was done deliberately in an effort to undo the results of
the 2016 election.
Madam Speaker, my constituents in Florida want to see us get to work.
They are counting on us to actually fix the surprise medical billing,
to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Instead, we are here a week
before Christmas, voting to impeach the legitimate President, Donald J.
Trump, on the strength of nothing but rumors.
We have wasted almost a year on this process while House Democrats
chose political theater over serving the American people. This shameful
vote to impeach our President will be a lasting stain on our House.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, it is clear-cut. The President of the
United States has violated his oath of office and betrayed the
Constitution and the American people.
He admitted to soliciting assistance from a foreign leader to
interfere in the U.S. election and aid his political reelection
campaign. That is a violation of law, a violation of the Constitution,
a betrayal of the American people, and an impeachable offense.
Overwhelming evidence also demonstrates the President withheld
congressionally approved taxpayer dollars to blackmail the young, new
President of Ukraine under attack from Russia.
The gentleman from Georgia says Ukraine didn't feel any pressure.
They are being invaded by Russia, Vladimir Putin, you know, Trump's
friend. He withheld that aid until the whistleblower report came out,
then the aid was released. It wasn't released for any good purpose.
Congress voted for that aid; the President signed the bill. That is
another impeachable offense.
The Committee on the Judiciary has put together an extensive document
which shows that there is evidence of numerous other Federal crimes,
including bribery and wire fraud.
Madam Speaker, the President's actions threaten the continuation of
our representative democracy. I am proudly voting for impeachment
today.

{time} 1530

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I am glad to know that Mr. Trump was giving them lethal aid,
actually, something to fight back with, not what was previously given
to them. And there was, again, from the President, himself, no pressure
put on him.

[[Page H12161]]

Your whole case is sort of destroyed if you are coercing somebody if
there was no pressure felt; yet, we don't seem to get that part on this
floor debate today.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana
(Mr. Gianforte).
Mr. GIANFORTE. Madam Speaker, today this Chamber is pushing through
the most partisan, baseless Articles of Impeachment in our history.
House Democrats' hyperpartisan impeachment has been a sham since day
one, driven by those whose bitter rage against President Trump has
blinded their better judgment.
The fact is they resolved to overturn the results of the 2016
election the day President Trump won. Earlier this year, Speaker Pelosi
said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's
something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think
we should go down that path.''
None of those standards have been met--none.
The committee hearings were a scripted, substance-free, made-for-TV
show. They would be comedy if impeachment weren't so serious and grave.
Witnesses denied awareness of an impeachable offense. And because the
majority has failed to make the case for impeachment, there is no
bipartisanship.
Compelling? Overwhelming? Bipartisan? Speaker Pelosi has not met her
own criteria for impeachment, but here we are. Despite Democrats
testing and tweaking their impeachment message, the American people
have rejected it.
I will vote against this partisan impeachment sham. Let's get back to
the work that the American people sent us here to do on this sad day of
an impeachment charade.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise on a sad day for
America, a sad day for Texas, and a very sad day for the people I
represent. I am not gleeful for today.
I came to Congress to lower the costs of prescription drugs, fight
for a debt-free education, and improve the care of special-needs
children, our seniors, and our veterans.
I did not come to Congress to impeach a sitting President, but we
have been given no choice. He has eroded the foundations of our
democracy and used the office of the Presidency for personal and
political gain.
Our Founding Fathers feared that one day the power of the Presidency
would stretch beyond its limits; thus, they enshrined in the
Constitution a system of checks and balances.
We cannot and will not lower the ethical standards of our Presidency.
We cannot afford to wither like a cheap flower in bad weather, watching
our democracy crumble and rot from within.
That is not the America the world knows and loves, and it is
certainly not the America we would be proud to have our future
generations inherit. And that is why, today, I must vote to impeach the
President of the United States and fulfill my oath to the Constitution.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hurd).
Mr. HURD of Texas. Madam Speaker, throughout this process, the
American people have learned of bungling foreign policy decisions, but
we have not heard evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, of bribery or
extortion. Allegations of these two crimes aren't even mentioned in the
Articles of Impeachment being debated today.
Today, we have seen a rushed process divide our country. Today,
accusations have been hurled at each other, questioning one another's
integrity. Today, a dangerous precedent will be set: impeachment
becoming a weaponized political tool.
We know how this partisan process will end this evening, but what
happens tomorrow? Can this Chamber put down our swords and get back to
work for the American people?
This institution has a fabled history of passing legislation that has
not only changed our country, but has inspired the world. This feat has
been possible because this experiment we call America has one perpetual
goal: make a more perfect Union.
We can contribute to this history if we recognize the simple fact
that way more unites our country than divides us. Tomorrow, can we
start focusing on that?
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, this is, indeed, a sad
day for our country. This is, indeed, a sad day for America. But it is
a good day for our Constitution.
It is a sad day for our country because President Trump has defied
our Constitution, our rules, our requirements, and our expectations.
It is clear that President Trump places himself above the law, above
our Constitution, and above the expectations of the American people.
At my last townhall meeting, which was held Saturday, December 15, at
Malcolm X College in Chicago, someone asked the question: What is our
position on impeachment?
Madam Speaker, every person there rose and said: Impeach.
When I speak, I speak for the people of the Seventh District of
Illinois, and my vote will be impeach, impeach, impeach.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, in 1998, Senator Schumer said: ``This
impeachment will be used as a routine tool to fight political
battles.''
We thought it was a prediction. It was a promise, and now it is
playing out. That is exactly what is being done here.

And for those who say we don't address the defenses of fact, here you
go. The impeachment served two purposes:
Number one, stop the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice
and Ukraine into the corruption of Ukraine interference into the U.S.
election in 2016.
You have said this was about, oh, this terrible Russia collusion. Oh,
then that fell through. It is about emoluments. It is about bribery. It
is about extortion. It has changed.
But one thing hasn't changed, and that is the intent to impeach this
President. It has always been there.
But let's be honest. The President turning his back on Ukraine, that
happened in 2009, because in 2008 Ukraine invaded Georgia.
What happened? Bush put sanctions on Russia to teach them a lesson.
What happened after that? Well, in March of 2009, Hillary Clinton was
sent over to Russia with a reset button to say: Bush overreacted. We
are okay that you invaded Georgia.
It was a green light to Russia to invade Ukraine.
And what do you do? Oh, yeah, you send blankets and MREs. They can
eat and be warm while the Russians are killing them. That is what the
Obama administration did.
This is a travesty, and we are in big trouble because Schumer was
right. Now it has lowered the bar even farther. It will be used for
political battles, and this country's end is now in sight. I hope I
don't live to see it.
This is an outrage.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned that any Member of
the House would spout Russian propaganda on the floor of the House.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Madam Speaker, the United States
Constitution is explicit: Bribery is an impeachable offense.
Bribery involves the abuse of power, and the President of the United
States abused the power of his office by soliciting a bribe of a
foreign leader to interfere in an election that he was afraid he could
not win honorably, fairly, or freely: You, President of Ukraine, open
and announce an investigation of my political rival, and I, President
of the United States, will release $391 million in military aid and
give you the stature-amplifying White House meeting that you need.
This is a this-for-that, something-for-something transaction.
Soliciting a bribe from a foreign leader is an abuse of power and a
Federal crime.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Republican
colleagues who have toiled honorable in defense of the Constitution and
the rule of law under difficult circumstances. Madam Speaker, it is a

[[Page H12162]]

darn shame that we have found ourselves in this position today.
Every time I step into this Chamber, I am humbled to be serving in
the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. However, it
is deeply disappointing that the hyperpartisanship that has gripped
this country has made its way into this Chamber.
I pride myself on being a consensus builder who works across the
aisle to get things done for the American people, but when it comes to
the matter of impeachment, I have no doubt that the entire process has
been politically motivated.
There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump committed an
impeachable offense, which is why I will vote ``no.''
This whole process has been a ploy to circumvent the will of the
people by removing a duly elected President of the United States. It is
a national disgrace, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
But we are a great nation, and we will survive this indignity. Let's
put this ugly chapter behind us, Madam Speaker, and get to work.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the question that will be
answered today is: Will Members honor their oath to uphold the
Constitution?
Democrats are not supporting impeachment based on a policy
disagreement or the election results of 2016. No one is above the law.
The President must be held accountable.
A constitutional process is not a hoax or a witch hunt. President
Trump just opposes it. No one is above the law, not even President
Donald J. Trump.
The President abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help his
reelection campaign. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy for these
actions.
Trump betrayed his oath, betrayed the Constitution, and undermined
the integrity of our elections. Those who are against the impeachment
inquiry are willing to turn a blind eye to constitutional violations by
the President.
As a nation, we have no other alternative. We must protect our
Constitution and the United States of America.
In his own words: ``No intelligent person believes what he is
saying.''
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, the totality of this process is just
another reminder that my colleagues across the aisle are more focused
on politics than policy. The American people deserve better. Our
Republic deserves better.
The brave men and women of our military, myself included, have fought
for freedom and democracy all around the world. Yet, today, my
colleagues are eroding those freedoms through a process that ignored
facts, abused power, and was shrouded in secrecy.
Those facts could not be more clear: The President committed no
crime, broke no laws, and there was no quid pro quo.
I look forward to doing the right thing, representing the Hoosiers in
my district, and voting against this impeachment charade. I stand with
President Trump and look forward to passing policies that continue to
move our country forward.

{time} 1545

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, thanks to the hard work of our
committees and the leadership of the Speaker, we found overwhelming
evidence Trump invited foreign interests to interfere in our elections
for his personal gain, and then he took unprecedented efforts to cover
it up, obstructing Congress.
I am proud of the courage of new Members to do their duty, so that,
for the first time in his privileged life, Donald Trump will be finally
held accountable for his reckless personal behavior and business
practices.
I vote proudly for these two Articles of Impeachment. And then I hope
the House retains control of the articles until the Speaker and Leader
Schumer can negotiate an agreement on process and witnesses from
McConnell so that the next stage will be open and fair so that Donald
Trump will ultimately be held accountable.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).
Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Public hearings began November 13. Less
than a month later, Speaker Pelosi announced Articles of Impeachment on
December 5, saying the investigation had revealed enough information to
move forward with impeachment.
Let's think about that 22-day investigation. Six of those days were
weekends where hearings weren't happening, and the House was not in
session. Seven of those days were weekdays that the House was in
recess, including the week of Thanksgiving. Two of those days were fly-
in days, where Congress doesn't hold hearings. So out of the 22 days,
just 7 days were used to investigate, debate, and vote on the
impeachment of the duly elected leader of our country.
No wonder my constituents are upset; 7 days to impeach the President
of the United States. Not to mention that this 7-day investigation
uncovered zero facts in support of impeachment. I spent every minute I
had in there as an observer of these hearings, and all I learned is if
you hate someone so strongly and enough people agree with you, that is
grounds enough to be impeached.
We asked for 12 hours of debate, the same amount of time allotted to
President Clinton's impeachment, 12 hours of debate for possibly the
biggest vote I would cast in my tenure as a Representative. It isn't
asking too much, but, no, they want to get out of here before
Christmas, so it is okay to rush the process.
I am ashamed to be part of this today, even as I vote against the
impeachment. My constituents are calling every day mad as hell, saying
we should be ashamed that this historic Chamber has fallen so low as to
allow something like this to happen.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, has a tagline
about the clock and the calendar. Madam Speaker, this is not about the
clock and the calendar. It is about corruption and the Constitution. It
is about a President who abuses power to coerce an ally to intervene in
our election and poses a continuing threat to the integrity of our next
election.
The President's defense is built on three pillars, and when those
three pillars fall, the entire defense of the President collapses.
First, they claim there was no quid pro quo. Well, the evidence is
undisputed. President Trump conditioned a White House visit and
military aid on President Zelensky's public announcement of the
investigations. Ambassador William Taylor wrote at the time, ``I think
it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political
campaign.''
A reporter asked White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney if there
had been a quid pro quo here, and he replied, ``We do that all the
time. Get over it.'' The President refused to help our ally until he
got a personal political favor, and so the first defense falls.
Second, the minority claims that the Ukrainians didn't know about the
hold. The evidence, again, is undisputed. Ukraine knew about the hold
on the military assistance within hours of the President's July 25
call. Laura Cooper of the Department of Defense testified under oath
that on July 25 the State Department sent two emails to the Department
of Defense notifying them that Ukrainian officials were asking, Where
is the aid? The Ukrainians understood exactly what President Trump was
asking. He wanted a personal political favor before the aid was
released. And so the second defense falls.
Third, and finally, my Republican friends say the aid was released.
But the aid was released only after the President got caught. This
House launched its investigation on September 9. The hold on the aid
was lifted on September 11. This is not evidence of innocence. It is
evidence of culpability. The evidence is overwhelming. And when the
President got caught, he did everything in his power to prevent the
American people from learning the truth about his actions by defying
the congressional investigation, by ordering that all requests and
demands for information be denied.

[[Page H12163]]

With our national security and the integrity of our election at risk,
we must act, not because of the clock and the calendar, but to fight
against corruption and for continued self-government by the American
people.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I would just point out that, to believe
everything that was just said, you have to also believe that President
Zelensky is a pathological liar.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, we are not debating impeachment of an
American President today. Your minds are already made up. The Democrat
majority has had a verdict, impeachment, looking for a crime since the
inauguration.
The Washington Post ran the headline, ``The Campaign to Impeach
President Trump Has Begun'' just 19 minutes after President Trump took
the oath of office.
The freshman Congresswoman from Michigan told a group of supporters,
``We are going to impeach the mother-blank'' shortly after she was
sworn in.
Even Speaker Pelosi admitted last week that the impeachment effort
has been going on for 2\1/2\ years, long before any phone call between
two world leaders.
In fact, 71 percent of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee
supported an impeachment before the phone call. The impeachment sham is
based on hearsay, conjecture, and opinion. And you know what, you can't
even get a speeding ticket in this country based on hearsay, yet we are
going to impeach an American President based on just that.
Where are the crimes of treason, high crimes or misdemeanors
committed here? Those are things that constitute impeachable offenses,
not hatred or policy disagreements. If memory serves me right, Congress
told the administration to withhold aid to Ukraine until they got their
act together, addressed corruption, and straightened it out. That was
in multiple NDAAs voted on by both parties in this Chamber.
So in the simplest terms, we are impeaching the President for doing
something we told him to do. Give me a break. We have wasted precious
time we were given to serve the American people while you held secret
hearings and depositions behind closed doors in Chairman Schiff's
chamber of secrets.
But the American people have a great sense of fairness, I promise
you. They see President Trump has not been treated fairly in this
process. Impeachment based on hearsay and opinion, not facts. It is a
sad day in this Chamber, the people's House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I now inform you that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff) the chair of the Intelligence Committee, will
now serve as my designee and will control the remainder of the time on
the majority side.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Nadler, for yielding,
and I thank him for the extraordinary job that he has done as chairman
of the Judiciary Committee throughout these difficult proceedings.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, I rise to support
the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.
``When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune,
bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the
advantage of military habits--despotic in his ordinary demeanor--known
to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty--when such a
man is seen to mount the hobbyhorse of popularity--to join in the cry
of danger to liberty--to take every opportunity of embarrassing the
general government and bringing it under suspicion--to flatter and fall
in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day--it may justly be
suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may
ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'' These are the words of
Alexander Hamilton written in 1792. Could we find a more perfect
description of the present danger emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue?
The Framers crafted a Constitution that contemplated free and fair
elections for the highest office in the land, but also afforded the
Congress with a power to remove a President who abused the powers of
his office for personal gain, who compromised the public trust by
betraying our Nation's security or who sought to undermine our
democratic system by seeking foreign intervention in the conduct of our
elections.
I would say that the Founders could have little imagined that a
single President might have done all of these things, except that the
evidence has sadly proved this is exactly what this President has done.
Hamilton, among others, seems to have predicted the rise of Donald
Trump with a staggering prescience.
Having won freedom from a king, the drafters of our Constitution
designed a government in which ambition was made to check ambition, in
which no branch of government would predominate over another, and no
man would be allowed to be above the law, including the President,
especially the President, since with whom would the danger be greater
than with the officer charged with being our Commander in Chief?
Over the course of the last 3 months, we have found incontrovertible
evidence that President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly
elected President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into
President Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, with the hopes
of defeating Mr. Biden in the 2020 Presidential election and enhancing
his own prospects for reelection. He didn't even need the investigation
to be undertaken, just simply announced to the public; the smear of his
opponent would be enough.

To effectuate this scheme, President Trump withheld two official acts
of vital importance to a nation at war with our adversary, Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The President withheld a White House meeting that
Ukraine desperately sought to bolster its standing on the world stage.
And even more perniciously, President Trump suspended hundreds of
millions of dollars of military aid approved by this Congress to coerce
Ukraine into doing his electoral dirty work.
The President of the United States was willing to sacrifice our
national security by withholding support for a critical strategic
partner at war in order to improve his reelection prospects.
But for the courage of someone willing to blow the whistle, he would
have gotten away with it. Instead, he got caught. He tried to cheat,
and he got caught.
Now, this wasn't the first time. As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump
invited Russian interference in his presidential campaign, saying at a
campaign rally, ``Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to
find the 30,000 emails that are missing,'' a clear invitation to hack
Hillary Clinton's emails. Just 5 hours later Russian Government hackers
tried to do exactly that.
What followed was an immense Russian hacking and dumping operation
and a social media disinformation campaign designed to help elect
Donald Trump. Not only did candidate Trump welcome that effort, but he
made full use of it, building it into his campaign plan and his
messaging strategy. And then he sought to cover it up.
This Russian effort to interfere in our elections didn't deter Donald
Trump. It empowered him. The day after Special Counsel Bob Mueller
testified before Congress about Russia's sweeping and systematic effort
to influence the outcome of our last election, the day after President
Trump believed that the investigation into his first electoral
misconduct had come to an end, the President was back on the phone
urging yet another country, this time Ukraine, to help him cheat in
another election.
Three consecutive days in July tell so much of the story, three
consecutive days in July of 2019:
July 24, the day that Special Counsel Mueller testified before
Congress and President Trump thought he was finally in the clear.
July 25, the day that President Trump got on the phone with the
Ukrainian President and, in the context of a discussion about military
support for that embattled nation that the President had recently
frozen, said, ``I

[[Page H12164]]

would like you to do us a favor, though,'' and asked Ukraine to do two
investigations to help his reelection efforts in 2020. That was July
25.
And then we come to July 26, the day Gordon Sondland called President
Trump on his cell phone from a restaurant in Ukraine. Gordon Sondland,
not some anonymous ``never Trumper,'' but a million-dollar donor to the
President's inauguration, and his hand-picked ambassador to the
European Union.

{time} 1600

What does President Trump ask Sondland? The day after this call, what
does President Trump ask? What does the President want to know?
Did he ask about Ukraine's efforts to battle corruption? Of course
not. Did he ask how the war with Russia was going? Not a chance.
On the phone, his voice loud enough for others to hear, President
Trump asked Sondland, ``So he is going to do the investigation?'' And
the answer was clear. Sondland assured Trump that the Ukrainian
president was ``going to do it'' and that ``he would do anything you
ask him to.''
Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, if that wasn't telling enough,
in a conversation that followed, an American diplomat dining with
Sondland asked if it was true that President Trump didn't give a blank
about Ukraine.
Sondland agreed, saying, the President cared only about ``big
stuff.''
The diplomat noted that there was big stuff in Ukraine, like a war
with Russia.
And Sondland replied that the President cared only about big stuff
that benefits him personally, like the ``Biden investigation that Mr.
Giuliani was pushing.''
In that short conversation, we learned everything we need to know
about the 45th President of the United States. He doesn't care about
Ukraine or the impact on our national security caused by withholding
military aid to that country fighting for its democratic life. All that
matters to this President is what affects him personally: an
investigation into his political rival and a chance to cheat in the
next election.
As Professor Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary Committee 2
weeks ago: ``If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then
nothing is impeachable.''
Even as this body uncovered the facts of this Ukraine scheme, even as
we opened an impeachment inquiry, even as we gathered evidence,
President Trump continued his efforts to seek foreign help in the next
election. ``Well, I would think,'' he said from the White House lawn on
October 3, ``that, if they are being honest about it, they would start
a major investigation into the Bidens. It is a very simple answer,'' he
said.
And he made it clear it is an open invitation to other nations as
well, saying, ``China should start an investigation into the Bidens,''
too.
President Trump sent his chief of staff to the White House podium,
and he told the world that, of course, they had linked aid to
investigations, and that we should just ``get over it.''
And even as these articles have made their way to this House floor,
the President's personal attorney has continued pursuing these sham
investigations on behalf of his client, the President.
The President and his men plot on. The danger persists. The risk is
real. Our democracy is at peril.
But we are not without a remedy prescribed by the Founders for just
these circumstances: impeachment.
The only question is this: Will we use it? Or have we fallen prey to
another evil that the Founders forewarned? The excess of factionalism,
the elevation of party over country.
Many of my colleagues appear to have made their choice: to protect
the President, to enable him to be above the law, to empower this
President to cheat again as long as it is in the service of their party
and their power.
They have made their choice, despite this President and the White
House stonewalling every subpoena, every request for witnesses and
testimony from this co-equal branch of government.
They have made their choice, knowing that to allow this President to
obstruct Congress will empower him and any other President that follows
to be as corrupt, as negligent, or as abusive of the power of the
Presidency as they choose.
They have made their choice, and I believe they will rue the day that
they did.
When Donald J. Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017, he repeated
these words: ``I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the
Office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of
my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States.''
Has he lived up to that sacred obligation? Has he honored his oath of
office? Has he preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution of
the United States?
The uncontested evidence provides the simple yet tragic answer: He
has not.
In America, no one is above the law.
Donald J. Trump sacrificed our national security in an effort to
cheat in the next election, and for that and his continued efforts to
seek foreign interference in our elections, he must be impeached.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is nice to see you here, Chairman Schiff. It would have been nice
to have either you or the whistleblower present in either the Judiciary
or the Oversight hearings.
I think we are continuing to neglect the four key facts of this. The
transcript is out. Everybody can read it. The American people can read
it. There is no conditionality or aid discussed on that call. The two
principals on that call, President Trump and President Zelensky, have
said there was no pressure. President Zelensky has basically screamed
from the rooftops on numerous occasions that there was no pressure, no
bribery, no quid pro quo.
The Ukrainian Government got the money and didn't know the aid was
being paused, and no investigation was announced and a meeting with the
President took place, and the aid was released.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are once again reminded to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my friend.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I come from a State that raises
corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats.

Your frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me.
I am from the Show Me State. You have to show me.
The only thing that you all have shown so far is that you are about
to impeach a duly elected President who has done nothing wrong.
Democrats are not impeaching the President because they are scared
for our republic or that he has committed a crime; they are impeaching
him because they fear the President's policies and how well they are
working for the American people. Most of all, they fear the election,
because they know they can't beat him.
In fact, one of my Democrat colleagues is quoted as stating: ``I am
concerned if we don't impeach him, he will get reelected.''
This kind of rhetoric is disgusting.
Impeachment is not a political weapon, and any Member who votes for
impeachment should be ashamed today.
You cannot undo the results of the 2016 election simply because your
flawed candidate did not win.
And I thank God she didn't.
Over the last 3 years, unemployment has dropped to the lowest point
in generations, we are seeing better trade agreements with our trading
partners, and record numbers of taxes and regulations that stifle
economic growth have been rolled back, all thanks to President Trump's
leadership and commitment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, this is very important. We
shouldn't be surprised. Democrats have introduced Articles of
Impeachment against five out of our last six Republican Presidents.
They are the party of impeachment. The Democrats are the party of
impeachment.

[[Page H12165]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, Members are admonished to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL. Madam Speaker, Donald Trump is using the Presidency to
put his own personal gain above our national interests.
He is using our taxpayer dollars and foreign interference to cheat
the next election, and it jeopardizes our national security and
integrity at the ballot box.
Not a single fact in this case is seriously in dispute.
I ask my colleagues: Who sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine to
investigate his political rival? Who fired an ambassador who stood in
his way? Who conditioned a White House meeting on investigations that
only personally benefited him and not the national interest? Who cut
off military aid to an ally that desperately needed it? Who pressured
President Zelensky to conduct those investigations? Who stood on the
White House lawn and asked not only Ukraine to investigate his rival,
but also China? Who has buried evidence and blocked witnesses from
testifying? And who is still today sending his personal lawyer to
Ukraine to dig up dirt and rig an election?
The answer to all of these questions is President Donald Trump.
This is a crime spree in progress, but we know how to stop it:
courage.
Yes, this investigation has shown us how corrupt President Trump is,
but it has also shown us the courage of some of our fellow patriotic
civil servants, who have used their courage to not only stand up around
the world to extinguish corruption, but also to extinguish it at the
White House.
How so? Well, my colleagues argue: ``No harm, no foul. Ukraine got
the aid.''
Wrong. Trump cheated. Patriots caught him. Then Ukraine got the aid.
Standing up, it turns out, works.
Now is the time to summon the courage of those patriots and to summon
the courage that they showed against Donald Trump.
If they can risk their careers, even their lives, to do the right
thing, can my colleagues also do the same?
After all, more is on the line than just military aid to an ally.
Our national security is at stake. Stand up for that.
Our election integrity is at stake. Stand up for that.
Our Constitution is at stake. Stand up for that.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota has 1 hour,
23\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 hour, 18
minutes remaining.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the detail.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America.
This partisan impeachment sham seeks to disenfranchise 63 million
American voters.
I want to use my time to call on this Chamber, for Members to rise
and observe a moment of silent reflection, to give every Member here
the chance to pause for a moment and remember the voices of the 63
million American voters the Democrats today are wanting to silence.
Madam Speaker, disenfranchising 63 million voters gives me 63 million
reasons to vote ``no'', and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and a
profound sense of the gravity of this moment that I rise today in
support of the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.
To be clear, I did not run for Congress to impeach a President.
I come to work every day on behalf of the hardworking people of
Alabama's Seventh Congressional District.
But the facts are uncontested. The truth is clear. And I have been
left no other choice.
As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I sat in shock, in awe as
witness after witness came forward, their stories painting a clear
picture of the President's abuse of power.

{time} 1615

They testified that the President had direct orders to withhold vital
military aid for Ukraine and a White House visit in exchange for
investigations into the Bidens.
To date, all the military aid has not been released, and there still
has been no White House meeting.
The bottom line is clear. President Trump endangered our national
security and the very essence of our democracy for his own personal
political gain. Then, President Trump sought to cover it up by
subverting the oversight authority of Congress.
If Presidential abuse of power is left unchecked, we all become
accomplices when he does it again. This cannot become the new normal,
not on our watch.
While President Trump's indefensible actions set in motion this
event, my vote for impeachment today is not about the President. It is
about my oath to defend and protect the Constitution of this United
States of America and to make sure that I uphold and honor the sacred
trust that my constituents gave me.
President Trump has betrayed his oath of office. Let us not betray
ours.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am back. I also noticed some
changes around here since I left. I notice I have a new manager on the
other side, who, as I came back in from getting a quick bite, I noticed
gave an eloquent defense of his side of this story that we are telling.
I just wish we could have had that same eloquent defense before the
Judiciary Committee, where he could have been asked questions instead
of just giving one side.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, today will forever be remembered as a
stain on our Republic.
These impeachment proceedings are not based upon facts, evidence,
reason, or any inappropriate or impeachable actions by our President.
Instead, the actions being taken by those favoring impeachment are a
product of their disdain for President Trump, his America First agenda,
and, particularly, a disdain by the other party for the 63 million
Americans who elected him as President.
Again, these Articles of Impeachment are not based on any facts but,
rather, on hearsay, presumptions, innuendo, and feelings, feelings by
Democrats and career bureaucrats who have wanted President Trump
removed from office since the day he was elected.
In defense of the Constitution, I urge all Members to oppose both
Articles of Impeachment. It is unclear who will judge those voting for
impeachment today more harshly: history or voters.
I want Democrats voting for impeachment today to know that I will be
praying for them from the Gospel of Luke, the 23rd chapter, verse 34:
``And Jesus said, `Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do.'''
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues have referred to patriotic Americans who
testified before the Intelligence Committee as career bureaucrats. I
want to remind people just who those career bureaucrats are.
They are people like Ambassador Bill Taylor, who has served this
country for decades. He graduated top in his class at West Point,
served during Vietnam in combat, and earned a Bronze Star.
They are people like Colonel Vindman, who served in Iraq and earned a
Purple Heart.
They are people like Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who served in
dangerous places all over the world, one of the most respected of all
of our Foreign Service officers.
These are the people who my colleagues would pejoratively label as
``career bureaucrats.'' Why? Because they have the courage to do their
lawful duty, to answer a subpoena and to come and testify. For this,
they are called career bureaucrats. Well, we should have more career
bureaucrats of that caliber.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. The two most
difficult votes any Member of Congress

[[Page H12166]]

ever has to cast is to vote to go to war or to impeach. Today, I will
vote for the Articles of Impeachment.
Over the last few months, I have listened carefully to my
constituents. I have weighed all the available information to determine
whether or not the President committed any wrongdoing. There are
disturbing facts from this administration that informed my decision,
including the President's own words.
His handpicked Ambassador to the European Union testified there was a
quid pro quo to withhold aid to Ukraine for an investigation of former
Vice President Biden, and that everyone was in the loop.
His own National Security Advisor, John Bolton, said he wanted
nothing to do with this drug deal, as he called it. Then, the President
openly acknowledged that China and Ukraine should investigate Mr.
Biden.
There is much more evidence pointing to the President violating his
own oath of office. I have not made this decision lightly, but I must
uphold my own oath of office because I believe the President has failed
to uphold his oath of office.
The weight of history, my belief in the Constitution of the United
States, and our own national security interests have led me to this
vote.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate anybody who would
come and give testimony. But it is interesting to see that the same
chairman who just spoke eloquently about those who testified would have
to actually dismiss completely almost anything by Mr. Volker or Mr.
Morrison.
But, again, I will say, at least they had the ability and the
willingness to come and testify, unlike the chairman, who wrote a
report, sent it to the Judiciary Committee, and didn't.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
politically driven Articles of Impeachment that have been brought
before the House of Representatives today.
For the past 3 years, Democrats have been unable to accept the
voters' choice to elect President Trump. They have used any and all
undemocratic and unfair means necessary to try and remove him from
office.
My vote today is not only against illegitimate impeachment of our
President, which began not with facts but with a foregone conclusion;
it is against House Democrats making a mockery of due process and the
rule of law.
This will not go anywhere in the Senate, so all that Democrats have
accomplished is postponing the important work the American people sent
their elected officials to Washington to do.
This endless crusade of Democrats to remove the duly elected
President of the United States has put partisan politics above the
issues that Americans face today. It is time Democrats stop playing
partisan games that hurt hardworking taxpayers. It is time for the
American people to be Congress' priority again.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am more than delighted to refer to the testimony of
Ambassador Volker and Mr. Morrison--Ambassador Volker, who acknowledged
that, in retrospect, he should have recognized that when they were
calling for investigations of Burisma, it really meant the Bidens, and
that to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival was
wrong.
I am happy to refer to his testimony as well as Mr. Morrison, who
went to the National Security Council lawyer immediately after he
listened to that telephone call and who also testified that he was
informed by Ambassador Sondland that the President wanted Zelensky ``in
a public box,'' that he wanted him to be forced to go to the mike and
announce these sham investigations.
I am happy to refer to their testimony as well.
Madam Speaker, I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, my father fled Nazi Germany for America
because he saw what happened when a despot became untethered. He fled
because he believed in democracy, the rule of law, and the right to
vote. Before he died, he asked to be buried in a simple pine box with
an American flag to symbolize his love of this country.
Today, we are called upon to do our duty out of love of country. The
President stands accused. We must judge him as we judge any of our
fellow citizens: on the facts and on the law.
The facts show that the President's North Star is Russia, not the
Constitution.
There is no question that President Trump delayed military aid to
Ukraine, our ally, as they were under attack by Russia, our adversary.
There is no question the President withheld a meeting with President
Zelensky at the White House, giving Russia the upper hand in peace
negotiations with Ukraine.
There is no question that President Trump promoted the Russian hoax
that Ukraine attacked our election in 2016, a canard that has been
proven to be a lie, a Russian lie.
The only question is his motive. The fact is, his conduct and crimes
are reprehensible and unquestionably impeachable.
When I vote today, my father's legacy is deep, very deep, within me.
My father loved America, and I love America. That is why I will vote to
impeach the President of the United States.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I see how this is playing out. Instead of coming to
testify for 7 or 8 hours and answering all questions, we are going to
do it in potshots.
Again, let's talk about Mr. Volker. He never testified that anyone
wanted to investigate Vice President Biden. What he did testify to,
which was left out, was that they wanted to, if the Ukrainians are
doing bad things, place Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma to avoid
anything that needed to be investigated and found out.
Let's at least tell the story. Again, they had plenty of time to do
this in an actual hearing, not here. This is what they want. This is
what they have been wanting. The majority has played this the whole
time. We will play this out as long as they want to. It would have been
better, though, if they actually had a case, to have made it in the
proper setting instead of not coming and not testifying.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the
socialistic left Democrats that have a newfound appreciation for the
Constitution and our Founders' principles. Would that those same
socialists, Madam Speaker, afford unborn babies the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well.
Madam Speaker, history tells us, in the first three impeachments in
this country, crimes were involved. Johnson violated a law that
Congress had just passed, over his veto. Nixon was involved in a
coverup in Watergate. Clinton lied to a Federal grand jury and expected
Monica Lewinsky to falsify an affidavit. Crimes, all instances of
crimes.
Now come the socialistic-leaning D's, in my opinion, Madam Speaker,
ostensibly reading the President's mind, knowing what his intent was,
and dictating to us and the witnesses that were in the hearings what
his mindset was. Quite frankly, they didn't believe that he had the
right to be in charge of foreign policy.
We heard Ambassadors, and, yes, we heard career bureaucrats, career
diplomats, whatever you want to call them. They get to ride the bus;
they don't get to drive the bus. The President is in charge of foreign
policy.

They said that the President had the audacity to use his judgment on
foreign policy instead of theirs. Opinions. Opinions. Suppositions,
indeed. The very swamp he is draining is objecting. Who knew?
Today, now, during the earlier rule debate, comes the floor manager
of the other side from Massachusetts citing not facts, nor fact
witnesses, but newspaper articles from CNN and USA Today, opinions and
editorials.
Unbelievable, Madam Speaker. Americans are watching. The D's are
delusional, deleterious, delirious, and in deep yogurt.

[[Page H12167]]

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that
Ambassador Volker said that the attacks on Joe Biden were meritless,
and he tried to persuade Mr. Giuliani that there was no factual support
for them.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam
Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to support this resolution.
When we came to Washington in 1961 to go on the Freedom Rides, we
chose that day. When we came here on August 28, 1963, for the March on
Washington, it was joyful. We met with a young President, President
John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
When we came here on August 6, 1965, for the signing of the Voting
Rights Act, we were excited and hopeful. We met with President Lyndon
Johnson.
But today, this day, we didn't ask for this. This is a sad day. It is
not a day of joy.
Our Nation is founded on the principle that we do not have kings. We
have Presidents, and the Constitution is our compass.
When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you
have a moral obligation to say something, to do something. Our children
and their children will ask us: What did you do? What did you say?
For some, this vote may be hard. But we have a mission and a mandate
to be on the right side of history.

{time} 1630

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I always like to be polite,
and I do appreciate the gentleman from California confirming everything
I just said in my statement a moment ago.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Wenstrup).
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, since 2016, America has seen a pattern
of failed and disproven attacks and allegations against President
Trump.
Today is the fourth impeachment-related vote since President Trump
took office. It is yet another attempt to reach their predetermined
conclusion of impeachment, a conclusion built on political bias,
accusations, and innuendo. These repetitive and false allegations
reveal a political obsession disguised as some kind of righteous
oversight.
When they didn't win at the ballot box, they pursued a Russian
collusion narrative that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had to waste
time and taxpayer dollars to prove false.
When the Russian collusion malicious deception didn't work, Madam
Speaker, Democrats sought a new path forward to impeach President
Trump: They created a made-for-TV set of hearings complete with witness
auditions held in the basement of the Capitol.
Despite all of their efforts, the charges the House considers today
lack evidence to support them. There wasn't one witness who said a
crime or impeachable offense was committed.
Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues, no crime, no impeachable
offense. That is a pretty good defense if you ask me.
I will work diligently to further reveal the truths and further
reveal the abuses of power, Madam Speaker, that Democrats paid for and
enacted during the last 3 years, abuses of power from the other side of
the aisle within this body and within our FBI. Americans deserve the
truth.
All in all, history will be remembered today as the political
impeachment that set the precedent for Presidents to be impeached every
time there is a divided government.
I oppose the articles before us today, and I yield to the other side
and their superior imaginations.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, indeed, we are here today because the
President of the United States abused his power and betrayed his oath
of office. He laid siege to the foundation of our democracy: the
electoral process.
These actions have posed a direct threat to the freedom and fairness
of the upcoming 2020 election.
The very day after Robert Mueller testified that Russia had
systematically and relentlessly attacked the 2016 election, the
President picked up the phone and made his now infamous July 25 call to
Ukrainian President Zelensky, asking President Zelensky on that call to
``do us a favor though,'' and announced investigations into his
political rival, Joe Biden.
We have since learned from numerous National Security Council and
State Department officials that the President did not even expect
Ukraine to open these investigations; rather, he just wanted them
announced so he could smear his rival. Rather than trusting the voters
to decide who should hold the White House, he sought the aid of a
foreign country to tip the scales in his favor--again.
After Russia's unprecedented interference, a dark cloud hung over the
2016 election; and instead of leading the American people out from
under the cloud, the President, instead, emboldened by perceived lack
of consequence, attempted to pressure Zelensky to interfere in the 2020
election.
After a courageous whistleblower came forward and warned Congress and
the public about the President's scheme, the President stood on the
White House lawn in front of TV cameras broadcasting around the world
and called for China to interfere, too.
Some of my colleagues have asked: Why not wait? Why are we
proceeding? That is very simple. Because nothing could be more urgent.
We are on the precipice of the 2020 election, and Congress has ultimate
responsibility to protect the sacred equalizer: our right to vote.
To defend the integrity of our elections and to fulfill our duty to
the Constitution, I will be voting in favor of impeachment today.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, anyone watching this impeachment sound
and fury, signifying nothing, should look out for three
misrepresentations the Democrats are making:
One, Trump endangered national security.
No. The 55-day delay did not stop Ukrainians from defending
themselves. Trump actually gave them lethal aid, which Obama never did.
During Obama's negligence, Democrats said nothing.
Two, Trump is not above the law. No one is.
But why don't the Democrats tell us what law he broke? They can't,
because he didn't break any. So Democrats have resorted to two vague
and subjective articles: abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
And, three, the evidence is not in dispute.
No, the evidence is very much in dispute. In fact, for every
statement Democrats cherry-pick to indict Trump, more statements back
up the President.
In reality, this is nothing but a partisan ploy by Democrats to
overturn an election. But this charade will fail, and the Senate will
exonerate Trump, and everyone knows it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues have said, the
evidence of the President's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress
is uncontested. But let's outline a few key events involving the nearly
$400 million in military aid that was held up by President Trump and
for President Trump despite congressional mandate.

The summer of 2019 was a summer of shame at the White House.
On July 3, the White House first blocked security assistance money
for Ukraine with no explanation.
On July 10, Gordon Sondland states, during a White House meeting with
Ukrainian officials, that they will get a White House meeting only
after announcing an investigation into President Trump's political
rival.
On July 18, a White House staffer announces the freeze on Ukrainian
aid, per direct Presidential order.
And just one day after Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress,
President Trump makes a now infamous phone call with Zelensky asking
him to investigate the Bidens.
Then, things start to fall apart.
The White House learns that a whistleblower has reported President
Trump's phone call with President Zelensky in a complaint.

[[Page H12168]]

On September 9, Congress starts to investigate the President's
actions, and then the jig is up.
On September 11, the aid is suddenly released without explanation--
over 2 months later.
When you read the call transcript and follow the timeline I have laid
out, guilty is guilty. Nothing changed during that time regarding the
President's supposed concerns over corruption.
So let's be clear. The military aid was released because the
President got caught.
But getting caught doesn't get you off the hook.
And I ask my colleagues: Is attempted murder a crime? Is attempted
robbery a crime? Is attempted extortion and bribery by a President a
crime? Yes, it is.
The only question now is whether we will find the moral courage to
stand up for our country and impeach the President of the United
States.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the impeachment of
President Trump.
Today is a day that diminishes the reputation and stature of the
United States House of Representatives, a day I never dreamed I would
see.
Today, my Democratic colleagues seek to overturn an election by
forcing a vote that will forever be a stain on this Congress. They are
not just voting to impeach President Trump; my colleagues are voting to
impeach the judgment of every person who voted for him and the process
by which we elect a President and by which we will govern our Nation.
My Democratic colleagues claim the Russians influenced the outcome of
the 2016 election, but based on their corrupt impeachment proceedings,
it appears my colleagues have been influenced by how Russia conducts
political trials: no real evidence, no real crime, no due process, and
no justice.
The Democrats have failed to show any legitimate justification for
the impeachment of President Trump. When they could not find real
evidence, they made it up and called it a parity.
They conducted most of the hearings in secret.
They instructed witnesses not to answer Republican Members'
questions, and they denied Republicans the right to call witnesses,
making it absolutely clear their objective was, from the beginning,
pathetically political.
We all understand that elections have consequences.
To all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, this day
will surely have consequences, as well, as we descend into more
disrespect, distrust, and even contempt that will eventually be
destructive of this Chamber and, I fear, eventually, our Republic.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, very quickly, my colleagues have made
repeated reference to some secret proceedings in some secret star
chamber. This is apparently what they call depositions.
I remind my colleagues that, when they were in the majority, they
conducted depositions, but they were different in this respect:
In the depositions we conducted in the Intelligence Committee, over
100 Members were able to participate. That is how secret they were. We
revealed all of the transcripts of those depositions.
The repetition of this falsehood does not make it true; it only makes
the falsehood that much more deliberate.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
Mr. AMASH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of these Articles
of Impeachment. I come to this floor not as a Democrat, not as a
Republican, but as an American who cares deeply about the Constitution,
the rule of law, and the rights of the people.
Under our system of government, impeachment is not about policy
disagreements or ineffective governance, nor is it about criminality
based on statutes that did not exist at the time our Constitution was
written. Impeachment is about maintaining the integrity of the Office
of the Presidency and ensuring that Executive power is directed toward
proper ends in accordance with the law.
The Constitution grants the House ``the sole power of impeachment''
and the Senate ``the sole power to try all impeachments.''
We in the House are empowered to charge impeachable conduct. The
Constitution describes such conduct as ``high crimes and
misdemeanors,'' but because it pertains to high office and relates to
the misuse of that office, we need not rely on any other branch or body
to endorse our determinations. We have ``the sole power of
impeachment.''
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and
misdemeanors ``are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of
public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some
public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be
denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself.''

President Donald J. Trump has abused and violated the public trust by
using his high office to solicit the aid of a foreign power, not for
the benefit of the United States of America, but, instead, for his
personal and political gain. His actions reflect precisely the type of
conduct the Framers of the Constitution intended to remedy through the
power of impeachment, and it is our duty to impeach him.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, undoubtedly, H. Res. 660 does
not matter to the majority, in particular, the manager of this bill,
because the inspector general, his transcript has not been released.
There have not been documents that were transferred that were supposed
to be transferred to the White House, and we are still not sure we got
everything we are supposed to get in the Judiciary Committee.
I guess when you want to be transparent and open, you hold it in a
SCIF and do whatever you want.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Steube).
Mr. STEUBE. Madam Speaker, this impeachment charade did not start
with the whistleblower complaint. The campaign to impeach a duly
elected President and overturn the will of 63 million Americans started
19 minutes after the President took the oath of office.
Nineteen minutes after the inauguration, The Washington Post
published a story, headline, ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump
Has Begun.''
The first day of this Congress, on day one, a Democratic member of my
class called for the impeachment of the President long before the call
to Ukraine. Then it was the Russia collusion hoax, then obstruction of
justice, then bribery, then quid pro quo--none of which are included in
these articles before us today.
The first Article of Impeachment crafted as a fiction is not an
enumerated basis in the Constitution for impeachment. The Democratic
majority would have you believe that abuse of power is a high crime or
misdemeanor. It is not. It is an opinion. It is not even a crime that
can be charged in a court of law.
Unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton who were tried for actual crimes,
this President is being impeached on vague phrases that appear nowhere
in our Constitution.
The second article, obstruction of Congress, again, doesn't exist in
the Constitution as a basis for impeachment and is attempting to
impeach a duly elected President for asserting constitutionally based
privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by
administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's
history.
This House is impeaching a President over a phone call to another
world leader, a few lines in a phone transcript that have been
completely and utterly misrepresented by the majority. The process that
ensued was anything but open, transparent, bipartisan, or equitable.
Abandoning all past historical due process afforded the minority and
the President, the Democrats ran a partisan investigation, refusing
rights of the minority, refusing the ability of the President's counsel
to call witnesses, refusing to allow the President's counsel to cross-
examine fact witnesses, and refusing a minority hearing day, just to
name a few.

[[Page H12169]]

The majority waves around a report drafted that the Democratic staff
concocted as a matter of fact. When they needed backup for their
approach, they paraded out liberal professors with animus against the
President who gave them license to impeach the President for any reason
they wish.
House Democrats are making themselves kings in a manner far worse and
more obvious than what they are accusing the President of doing. The
only abuse of power here is by the Democratic-led Congress.

{time} 1645

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cisneros).
Mr. CISNEROS. Madam Speaker, when I was 18 years old, I joined the
United States Navy and took the oath to support and defend the
Constitution for the first time. I took that oath again earlier this
year as a Member of Congress; and every day I work hard to live by that
oath and give the 39th District the representation it deserves.
I have always maintained that impeachment is a serious undertaking
and must be done with incredible care. When the unprecedented
allegations against the President and his interactions with Ukraine
were first reported, I felt that it was Congress' duty to investigate
and find out the truth.
Now the facts are before Congress and the American people. The
President betrayed his oath to support and defend the Constitution by
attempting to undermine the integrity of our election for his own
personal benefit. He asked a foreign government to investigate a
political rival and endangered our national security by withholding
military aid to an ally.
For me, it is not about personal politics or party affiliation. It is
about upholding my oath to put our country and our Constitution first
and protect our national security. This is why I will vote to move
forward with the impeachment of the President. I hope all my colleagues
will join me in recognizing this grave threat and stand up to this
administration in defense of our country and our Constitution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, going back almost 3 years to
when the President was sworn into office, we have seen some Members on
the other side of the aisle pledging and promising to impeach President
Trump. Prior to the start of this inquiry, Speaker Pelosi claimed that
the impeachment must be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. The
impeachment inquiry was announced less than 3 months ago, and what we
know is that the process has been fast, faulty, and flawed.
What we have witnessed since September 24, when the inquiry was
announced, is that the evidence we have seen is not compelling, it is
not overwhelming, and the process is undoubtedly and unquestionably not
bipartisan.
I am viewing this through the lens of a former United States
Attorney, and as we take this vote, here is the bottom line for the
American people: there was no bribery, there was no extortion, there
was no quid pro quo, and there were no high crimes and misdemeanors
committed by the President.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, we know that President
Trump withheld needed military aid to Ukraine. We know that he used it
to demand Ukraine interfere in the 2020 election for his own benefit,
and we know that Ukraine knew. None of these facts have been disputed.
Instead, the White House has tried to hide the truth. But the President
is not above the law. Nobody is.
Corruption and obstruction; the President is guilty of both. The
blatant abuse of power was made clear from over 100 hours of testimony
before three committees and was clear in the call summary released by
the White House. The obstruction has been made clear by the President's
refusal to cooperate at every turn, even when ordered by a court.
Setting a precedent that any President can abuse their power to
interfere in our elections is an existential threat to our democracy.
It is also a betrayal of the oath of office and the Constitution.
Therefore, in fulfillment of my own oath of office, it is with solemn
purpose today that I vote to impeach President Donald Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, Democrats started with quid pro quo. That
didn't work so well. Then it was bribery and extortion. Then they
brought the witnesses in, and not one could answer if they saw any
evidence of bribery, extortion, or any crime when questioned. It was
just silence. Then the witnesses testified they heard this from so-and-
so. When the Democrats brought their star witness in, Ambassador
Sondland, when asked, he said: I presumed the aid was held up.
I presumed?
Testimony was all hearsay, conjecture, and assumptions. So now it is
abuse of power with no underlying crime, which is opinion. Abuse of
power to the Democrats is they don't like his policies, or he treated a
reporter harshly.
Obstruction of Congress: there are three coequal branches of
government. When the executive branch and the legislative branch have
an impasse, that is when the judicial branch intervenes. They didn't do
that. The Democrats didn't take that route.
Every President, including George Washington, could have been
impeached based on these factless articles. There is no crime, and
there is no victim as Ukraine received their aid before the December 30
deadline and no witnesses who witnessed anything.
This isn't about the rule of law. It is politics at its worst. It is
disgraceful. It is time to end the charade and scam on the American
people.
Madam Speaker, I urge everybody to vote ``no'' on these Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I am happy to remind my colleagues of
Ambassador Sondland's testimony.
He posed the question: Was there a quid pro quo?
The answer is yes.
When he was asked about a quid pro quo involving the military aid, he
said it was as clear as two plus two equals four.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, my adult son, Ian Schakowsky, I will
always credit for my decision last June to support the impeachment
inquiry. It had never been my goal to impeach a President, but Ian made
such a compelling case. He reminded me of the oath I have taken 11
times now to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
He said: Mom, this is not about politics, and this is not about party.
Pushing back against my arguments, he said: This has nothing to do
with the final outcome. It is about doing the right thing, even if
others don't.
He made me see that it was about my legacy, my modest place in
history.
I want to thank my son for helping me do the right thing today to
vote to impeach the President of the United States, Donald Trump,
because no American is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I also would like to remind
the gentleman from California that Mr. Sondland also said he had no
direct evidence; he presumed that that was going on.
I guess we are back to presumption again.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. Madam Speaker, on March 11 of this year, the Speaker of
the House said the following in an interview with The Washington Post:
``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's
something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think
we should go down that path, because it divides the country.''
I think most Americans would agree with that statement because it
sounds thoughtful and reasonable.
So here we are today to vote on the Articles of Impeachment.
How did the majority party do in meeting the objectives set forth by
the Speaker?
Here are the answers: First, the only compelling attribute about this
sham

[[Page H12170]]

is the lengths the majority has gone to appease the radical, Socialist
wing of their party.
Second, the only overwhelming feature about this sham is the abuse of
power by the majority and the reckless disregard for fairness by the
majority throughout this entire circus.
Finally, the only bipartisan activity related to this sham will be
the votes against these flimsy Articles of Impeachment.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing these
deplorable Articles of Impeachment and to demand that the House get
back to working on the priorities that hardworking American families
care about the most.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I spent 12 years on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including 4 as ranking
member. My bipartisan cooperation with the Republican chairman was
widely recognized. When it comes to national security, there is no room
for bipartisan politics.
All 17 witnesses--mostly Trump appointees--told the same story during
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearings, each
testifying that our Commander in Chief jeopardized American national
security for the sake of his reelection. The President held hostage
military aid for the fight against a common enemy, Russia.
He willfully obstructed Congress' constitutionally prescribed
impeachment powers.
Over the last 2 years, I resisted calls to begin impeachment
proceedings, and I resent those who say this is about reversing the
election. This isn't about whether or not you like Trump. It is about
upholding our Constitution.
Allowing this conduct to go unquestioned sets a dangerous precedent
and permanently damages our system of checks and balances. No one is
above the law. President Trump's actions are a clear threat to our
national security and democracy. We must uphold our oath of office and
support these articles.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
these baseless Articles of Impeachment.
Our Founding Fathers never intended impeachment to be a one-sided
political weapon. Sadly, the majority has reduced this serious
constitutional action to a purely partisan tactic to take down
President Trump.
History will not be kind to the vote today. It will be remembered as
a rushed process that lacks credibility or transparency with a
predetermined outcome that puts a premium on political theater instead
of facts. By any objective standard, the Democrats' impeachment case is
the thinnest imaginable. There is no impeachable offense before us
today. It is a complete and total sham.
I close, not by quoting a President from the past, but rather from
the duly elected President Donald Trump: ``You are the ones interfering
in America's election. You are the ones subverting America's democracy.
You are the ones obstructing justice. You are the ones bringing pain
and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political,
and partisan gain.'' These are hard words I know, but that is the sad
reality of this entire process.
I will proudly vote ``no'' today, a vote that upholds our
Constitution, defends our President, and preserves the pillars of our
Nation's democracy.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I will vote in favor of impeachment
today. The facts are irrefutable, and the ongoing obstruction and
coverup is shameful.
My parents came here as immigrants, and I am proud to live in a
nation that rewarded their hard work by providing a better future for
my sisters and me. As a first generation American and now a Member of
Congress, a story like mine is only made possible by a nation that
upholds the rule of law and truly lives out the values enshrined in our
Constitution.

Mona and I are blessed with three wonderful daughters and five
grandkids. Because of this living legacy and the legacy I intend to
pass on to my grandchildren, my vote today is rooted in protecting
their future.
The underpinnings for impeachment are real and historic. Trump has
perverted the rule of law, abused his power, and engaged in a coverup.
No amount of misdirection, lies, disinformation, tantrums, and cries of
victimization by Trump and others can undo the abuse of power and
obstruction of Congress that remain clear and present. The President
leaves us no choice but to vote to impeach, so that we can protect our
democracy and correct the damage that is already done.
I will vote in favor of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, not as a
partisan act but as a serious, urgent, and necessary one.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, 21 years ago this week, I spoke here on
impeachment. Sadly, history will not treat Democrats well. They will
forever be remembered as the Senator Joe McCarthys of our time, so
blinded by their hatred of President Trump that they abandoned American
rights of due process, fairness, and just decency.
Reminiscent of Joe McCarthy, they assaulted the Constitution, took
glee in secret hearings, blocked evidence, and switched charges like
rogue prosecutors. Ultimately, they chose abuse of power because they
practice it so well.
President Trump committed no crime or impeachable offense--none. His
legacy won't be stained; Democrats' will. We will look back at these
days in shame because Trump haters in Congress, like red haters of the
past, are willing to plunge America into darkness for raw political
gain.
This impeachment betrays the Nation, the Constitution, and the
American people. I vote ``no.''

{time} 1700

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Tyranny rarely appears full borne. It arises, it
encroaches as freedom ebbs. Our Nation's great Founders sought to
protect us from tyranny with a carefully crafted system of checks and
balances.
But now along comes a President who actually says he is
constitutionally empowered to do whatever he wants, that he can neither
be prosecuted nor even investigated for any crime, and that he can
totally ignore any impeachment proceeding of which he disapproves.
These are the claims of a wannabe tyrant who has extolled the virtues
of tyrants and autocrats from Manila to Moscow.
To advance tyranny, he adopts an open-border policy inviting
foreigners to come into our country and intrude in our elections.
Foreign nations have their own agendas, especially adversaries like
Russia and China.
American citizens should be the only ones determining the fate of
America. If the President continues demanding more foreign
interference, we will never have truly free elections, and we will not
be free.
We act today, recognizing the solemn responsibility to safeguard our
security and Constitution. We pledge allegiance to the flag and the
Republic for which it stands, not to one man who would be king.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, before I call my next speaker,
may I ask the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 hour and
3\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 57\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for his
great work in dealing with this very sad day in our country.
Madam Speaker, today, for the third time in our Nation's history, a
President will be impeached. This will be, however, the first time
impeachment has been entirely partisan and without merit. This charade
is not because President Trump is guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor
but because one political party doesn't like him or his policies of
America First.
Fact one: We have a divided government, and House Democrats are at
war with the executive branch.

[[Page H12171]]

Fact two: They have been planning for this day since President Trump
took office.
Fact three: They accused the President first and have spent months
looking for a crime.
Fact four: No evidence has been presented of an impeachable offense.
During one of the partisan hearings, a Member of this body asked: If
President Trump had evidence of his innocence, why didn't he bring it
forward?
The Democrats want Americans to believe that our President is guilty
until he proves himself innocent. This whole process is
unconstitutional.
Today, we have heard both sides, but we need to get the truth. The
truth is, the decision of who should be our President should be made by
the American people, not Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and House
Democrats.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend.
As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have to say that this
is a sad day. No one is gleeful that the President's actions have
brought us to this point.
But when you boil it down, we are here today because the President
abused the power of his office to help his chances at reelection. He
used the enormous weight of the Presidency and American foreign policy
to push a foreign government to smear a political rival. And he got
caught.
Why is this conduct so serious? Why has the President's behavior
pushed the House of Representatives to exercise one of its most
consequential constitutional responsibilities? Because corrupting an
American election, particularly in cahoots with a foreign power, means
corrupting American democracy.
Our elections are at the heart of our democracy, the foundation of
what makes our system of government great, our Republic, if we can keep
it, as Benjamin Franklin once said.
If our elections aren't fair, then our Republic cannot stand. Anyone
who tries to fix an election is taking away the power of the American
people to choose their leaders. If it happens at any level of
government, it is toxic to our democracy, and this came from the
highest level.
In this case, it is even more serious, because what was the President
willing to give up for this advantage? What price was he willing to
pay? The price was our national security.
When the President devised a shadow foreign policy that undermined
our diplomacy and diplomats; when he held back assistance for Ukraine,
which was embroiled in a war against Russia; when he pressured a
foreign government to interfere in our elections, again, he sacrificed
our security. He shook the faith of a loyal ally. He played right into
the hands of Vladimir Putin. He weakened our country all because he
thought it might help his reelection bid.

Only the President has that power to corrupt our foreign policy for
political gain. The moment he chose to do so, the moment he undermined
our security in this scheme to undermine our democracy, whether he
succeeded or not--and thank God, he did not--at that moment, it became
an abuse of power.
A President who abuses his power for personal gain is exactly what
the Framers feared. It is why impeachment is in the Constitution.
We need to pass these articles. The President's actions have left us
no choice. He cannot be allowed to undermine our democracy and tear
apart the fabric that holds our country together.
Madam Speaker, I will vote for impeachment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), who is a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, this is not about Ukraine. It is about
power. Donald Trump has it, and House Democrats want it.
With no crime, no victim, no evidence, no proof, no agenda for
America, this impeachment charade marches on, following no rules and
adhering to no sense of honor.
The American people aren't fooled by dirty tricks. Voters will never
forget that Democrats have been triggered into impeaching the President
because they don't like him and they don't like us.
Those who vote ``yes'' on today's Articles of Impeachment must carry
the heavy burden of shame and guilt for as long as they serve in
Congress, which won't be long because the American people will remember
in November.
Democrats would rather trip the President just to see him stumble
than see America succeed. They would rather impeach the President than
work together for the common good of our country and our citizens.
Democrats may have won the House in 2018, but they haven't forgiven
Donald Trump for having the audacity to win the Presidency.
And they haven't forgiven you, the American people, for voting for
him.
The day before she was sworn in to Congress, one Member of the body
said she promised to impeach the mothereffer.
She is not alone. Trump's impeachment was plotted and planned before
the ink was even dry on his election certificate and, possibly, before
some Democrats could even point to Ukraine on a map.
In seeking the chairmanship of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from New York said that he was the strongest Member to lead a
potential impeachment.
Democrats may not have known why they were going to impeach the
President, but they knew it was an inevitability, facts be damned.
This impeachment is a slap in the face to the millions of Americans
who voted for President Trump. The same Americans who Democrats in
Washington have mocked as smelly Walmart shoppers and ``deplorables.''
Madam Speaker, this impeachment isn't legitimate. It is the radical
left's insurance policy. But we have an insurance policy, too. It is
the next election, and we intend to win it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, we, the people, have a common tie that
binds us together now as it has since the founding of our country, and
it is our shared respect for the Constitution of the United States.
Let us all step back from the maelstrom of the moment to recall that,
at our country's inception 243 years ago, the concept of a democratic,
self-governing rule was a breathtaking and idealistic aspiration. When
the 13 American Colonies boldly rejected the rule of the British
monarch, our Founders were determined to form a government that would
rule instead with the consent of the governed.
Ensuring that this noble experiment endured through the ages was an
enormous existential challenge. It was met with the adoption of the
Constitution in 1788.
At its heart are two bedrock principles that have served as
touchstones for our country ever since. First, it established America
as a nation of laws, where no person is above the law. Second, it
established the concept of a separation of powers where three coequal
branches of government would check each other, lest power be
concentrated in one at the expense of liberty to all.
Madam Speaker, when President Trump abused the power of his office by
soliciting foreign interference in the upcoming election for his
personal benefit, he willfully infringed upon the right of citizens to
decide who will lead our Nation. In doing so, he placed himself above
the law and in violation of his oath.
When he denounced, denied, and defied the clear authority of Congress
to investigate his conduct, he repudiated our constitutional system of
checks and balances and further violated his oath to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution.
It is for these reasons that I will cast my vote in favor of
impeaching President Donald John Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues across the aisle have
said, ``Hey, where are the facts?'' as if we have the burden of proof.
Madam Speaker, it is their burden of proof. It is the Democrats'
burden of proof.
But the facts are unchanged. Ukraine received aid that they were
promised and appropriated for. The aid was lawfully disbursed. In fact,
it was disbursed within the time limits set by

[[Page H12172]]

this Congress. If you wanted it sent to them before September 30, 2019,
you should have put that in the legislation. You did not.
The Ukrainians gave nothing in return. The Ukrainian President said
he felt no pressure, no coercion, no duress, no conditionality.
What changed? On the day that the aid was released, two
anticorruption measures were signed into law by the Ukrainian
President, President Zelensky.

Democrats have manufactured this sham and then argue that refusing to
cooperate is impeachable. The Supreme Court is currently considering
the extent of executive privilege when fighting dubious subpoenas. But
instead of taking their process to court or waiting for the Court to
rule on the pending case, the Democrats chose to press forward because,
simply, they said: ``We don't want to wait.''
``We don't have time,'' they say. But failing to do so is an abuse of
power of this institution that will have grave consequences for our
Republic.
When the other side claims they proceed with soberness, I am bemused
by media reports that indicate they have been admonished not to do a
jig today when they win the vote, which we know they will. I am struck
that solemnity of process shouldn't need to have an admonition against
levity.
This process has been partisan, vindictive, dishonest. In this
impeachment, Democrats have lied about the content of the July 25 call;
met secretly with the whistleblower; held Soviet-style hearings behind
closed doors where the Committee on the Judiciary, the committee of
jurisdiction, could not attend; and blocked the President's counsel
from participating in the factfinding portion of the inquisition.
Madam Speaker, it has been a sham from start to finish.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I include my remarks in favor
of both Articles of Impeachment.
Every Member of Congress swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution, and that oath should be the guide for all of us when
considering articles of impeachment against the President of the United
States. There has been considerable public debate over what constitutes
impeachable offenses; the Constitution names them as `Treason, Bribery,
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Under normal circumstances, the
country could wait until the next election to remove an undesirable
president from office. Issues like the President's Muslim ban,
separating babies from their parents at the border, trying to undermine
access to health care, cutting funding for education, standing in the
way of commonsense gun legislation, or other harmful policy stances are
not impeachable offenses, but issues that will be addressed in the 2020
election. However, our founders included impeachment in the
Constitution for times when an official's conduct was so egregious, we
could not wait for the next election to remove that individual from
office. President Trump's Ukraine scheme was intended to influence the
2020 election to make it an unfair process, and that highlights a key
reason why he must be impeached and removed from office.
Multiple House Committees have conducted extensive investigations
into the President's conduct. The facts are uncontested. President
Trump invited Ukraine to interfere in our next presidential election
and leveraged desperately needed military aid and a high-profile visit
to the White House to promote his scheme. This constitutes an attack on
our electoral system and democracy itself and is a gross abuse of
presidential power. This scheme needs to be viewed in the context of
other actions by this President. The Mueller report found multiple
instances of obstruction of justice committed by the President, and
that obstruction has continued. Furthermore, the President has
continued to violate the Emoluments Clause by profiting from foreign
and domestic business transactions from the moment he took office, and
that violation has continued.
With the Ukraine scheme, the President has admitted in public to
actions that sacrifice national security for his own personal,
political gain and then he insisted that he did nothing wrong. His
ongoing attack of the whistleblower serves to discourage other
whistleblowers from coming forward, his intimidation of witnesses
during impeachment proceedings, his orders to witnesses to ignore
subpoenas, and his invitation to China to meddle in our next election
all indicate that, left unchecked, this President will not cease his
misconduct and will seek to do it again. The President continues to put
his own personal and political gain above the law and his conduct in
these matters constitutes clear abuses of power and an ongoing threat
to our democracy.
If the President had simple acknowledged the basic fact that trying
to sabotage the next presidential election is wrong, and that he would
not continue such behavior, we could be discussing the question of
waiting until the next election to express our views on his conduct. We
would have to discuss the credibility of such a statement, but a
discussion over waiting for the election would be a relevant issue.
However, that is not the case. President Trump continues to obstruct
properly convened investigations and he continues to abuse his power by
trying to undermine the next presidential election.
For all of these reasons, I will vote for both articles of
impeachment.
I came to the 116th Congress to serve the people of Virginia's Third
Congressional District, and to focus on my work as chair of the
Committee on Education and Labor. Committee Democrats have been working
to expand access to the building blocks of a strong middle class--a
quality education, a rewarding job, and affordable health care. The
House has already passed the Raise the Wage Act, the Lower Drug Costs
Now Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Stronger Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act, the Butch Lewis Act, the Dignity in Aging Act, and
the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service
Workers Act. The Committee has also approved the College Affordability
Act, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, the Protecting the Right to
Organize (PRO) Act, and other critical legislation awaiting a vote by
the full House. Later this week, the House will ratify the USMCA with
strong labor protections.
However, if we expect our democracy to survive, President Trump's
abuse of power cannot be ignored. No one is above the law.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as we continue and consider
this historic impeachment vote, let's be clear that the President's
actions seriously jeopardize not only America's national security but
the security of our closest allies. His actions threaten the goals of
the U.S.-led NATO alliance.
You see, Ukraine is a nation working hard to make its democracy
stronger. Make no mistake, Ukraine is on the front lines of Russian
aggression. Thankfully, U.S. military aid helps Ukraine defend itself
against Russia and integrate itself into the European community.
When our European allies are stronger, America is stronger. We are
better equipped to promote democracy and put a stop to tyranny.
But, Madam Speaker, to President Trump, strengthening this valuable
national security objective was not as important as smearing a
political rival.
Madam Speaker, we know that he held nearly $400 million of aid to
Ukraine until President Zelensky agreed to help him dig up dirt on his
potential 2020 opponent.

{time} 1715

This aid was approved by Congress with strong bipartisan support.
President Trump's actions hurt American diplomacy and undermine the
integrity of our Nation's promises to our allies. We will not allow our
leaders to trade away our national security.
We cannot allow Russia's continued threats to democracy to go
unanswered, and we must not allow our own President of these United
States to get away with breaking his own oath of office.
Madam Speaker, that is why we take this solemn but necessary vote to
impeach.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for our country, one that
our forefathers warned us against.
We have watched this illegitimate impeachment process unfold while
making a mockery of our constitutional duties. House Democrats have
conducted the most polarizing impeachment process in our Nation's
history, and the men and women I represent are tired of this Democrat-
run House putting political games above our Nation's interests.

[[Page H12173]]

House Democrats held secret meetings, withheld important documents,
deliberately misrepresented information to the public, and did not give
due process to the President. This investigation was unfair, and the
American people expect more out of Congress.
The Articles of Impeachment are not based on facts but, instead, are
entirely politically motivated. The truth is there was no pressure put
on President Zelensky, and the transcripts confirm that there was no
conditionality.
This inquiry has been rigged from the start, lacking fairness,
transparency, and truth. It has been a waste of taxpayers' dollars, and
it is based off the opinion of an unnamed whistleblower and hearsay.
The accusations in today's proceedings do not align with the facts.
This impeachment process is out of step with existing precedent for
Presidential impeachment proceedings, and it is not a process I will
support. I urge my colleagues to put country first and vote in
opposition to the Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.
President Trump abused the power of his office for his own personal
and political gain at the expense of our national security.
President Trump's wholesale obstruction of Congress is unprecedented,
indisputable, and impeachable. President Trump is the first President
in history to openly and completely defy all aspects of the
constitutional impeachment process.
In an attempt to cover up his abuse of power, he ordered the entire
executive branch not to participate in the inquiry and directed it to
defy lawful subpoenas from Congress.
As chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I find this
obstruction particularly offensive.
Even President Nixon accepted Congress' impeachment authority and
allowed his aides and advisers to produce the documents to Congress.
And President Nixon allowed current and former staff to testify in both
the House impeachment and the Senate Watergate investigations,
including his chief of staff and White House counsel.
By contrast, President Trump, without any legal basis, directed
current and former officials not to cooperate with the House's inquiry,
which resulted in nine administration officials defying subpoenas for
testimony. And in response to the House's inquiry, President Trump
refused to turn over even one single--not one single--document to
Congress in response to lawful subpoenas.
Put simply, President Trump's actions are even worse than Nixon's.
Let me repeat that. President Trump's actions are even worse than
Nixon's.
Our Founding Fathers established a system of checks and balances that
spread out power between the branches of government. They decided that
no one would be a king, that no one is above the law, including the
President. And they gave the responsibility of impeachment solely to
the people's House.
When President Trump defies our subpoenas and obstructs our
impeachment inquiry, he seeks to place himself above the Constitution
and above the law.
We cannot let that stand; and if we do, then that is the end of
Congress as a coequal branch of government, and we have allowed
President Trump to elevate himself above the law.
It is our solemn duty, under the Constitution, to impeach President
Trump for his blatant abuse of power and his obstruction of Congress.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this
moment.
Mr. Speaker, years from now, history books will tell of this day. It
will tell of a purely partisan effort to remove the President of the
United States, an effort not built on a high crime or misdemeanor, not
on a process in keeping with the high American standard of due process
and equal treatment. This effort is rooted only in the governing
party's hatred of a man elected President of the United States.
Members on the other side of the aisle have been in pursuit of this
moment since 2016. They are consumed by it. Earlier in this debate, one
of our colleagues referred to our President as a ``domestic enemy.''
Our Founders warned us about this day. That is why our Nation has
entrusted the future of the country with the outcome of elections, not
the will of a party filled with contempt for a duly elected President.
My hope is that, when historians write about this day, it is not
written in the context of a nation that lost its way because its
elected Members chose hateful partisanship over the sacred oath that
has protected this great Republic since its founding.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, in America, when we call the fire
department or enroll our children in school, we do not expect a
government official to say to us: ``I need you to do us a favor,
though.'' Why would we tolerate a President using his awesome power to
make foreign policy, when the safety of our country is at stake, not
for the people, but for himself?
I will vote to impeach today because President Trump did just that
when he shook down a foreign country to criminally investigate his
political rival.
If we fail to say that this was wrong, then any President will be
free to ask a foreign power--be it Russia, China, or Iran--to help him
hurt his political enemies at home, and every foreign tyrant and
kleptocrat will know that America's foreign policy can be bought by
doing our President a political favor.
If you believe that our highest duty is to protect America, then
search your conscience and ask: Do you want our future Presidents to
behave as this one has done?
Do not whisper in the shadows of the Capitol that you disapprove and
then defend that conduct here today. Do your duty. Keep your oath.
Defend your country, as will I.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, on
November 14, I spoke on the impeachment hoax with points true then and
still true today.
After over a month of secret investigations into the administration,
Democrats have now decided to open these controlled hearings to the
public. This continues the deception by Democrats to mislead the
American people. It is insulting: no Republican witnesses, no counsel
by the President to participate, and full exoneration by courageous
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
It is sad that, instead of focusing on funding our military through
the National Defense Authorization Act passed only last week or passing
the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to create jobs, Democrats
continue, having wasted $30 million of taxpayers' money on the Russian
hoax, now proceeding with a Ukrainian hoax.
This partisan witch hunt diverts attention from the President's
successes: The unemployment rate remains at a record low; there is
record job creation; and the stock market, again, today, is thriving,
showing that President Trump keeps his promises.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gomez).
Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, we are here at this moment in our Nation's
history because the President abused the power of his office, bribed a
foreign government to intrude into our democracy, and engaged in an
unprecedented campaign of obstruction of Congress to cover it up.
Our credibility in the global community has been compromised. Our
character and motivations are questioned.
We know where the President's true loyalties lie: not with our
constituents, not with our allies, but with our adversaries and
himself.
Abraham Lincoln once said: ``Nearly all men can stand adversity, but
if you want to test a man's character, give him power.''
Donald Trump has failed this test, and now our test is whether we
will be

[[Page H12174]]

a check on that power. Therefore, we must hold anyone to account,
regardless of party or politics, who sets fire to the very institutions
that define our Nation and our values. With this in mind, I will vote
``yes'' to impeach Donald J. Trump.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to the process and to the resolution.
When Congress sees fit to examine its solemn power of impeachment, it
is imperative that it does so in genuine pursuit of justice: fairly,
transparently, and objectively. Anything less is unacceptable. This
partisan impeachment has fallen far short of that.
Sadly, Alexander Hamilton's prediction in Federalist No. 65 has come
true, where he warned: ``In many cases, it will connect itself with the
preexisting factions and will enlist all their animosities,
partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and
in such cases, there will always be the greatest danger that the
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties
than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''

After years of investigations, hearings, and millions of taxpayer
dollars, Democrats found no proof that the President committed a
crime--no proof--as the vague accusations in these articles clearly
reflect.
A basic prerequisite for impeaching for ``high crimes and
misdemeanors'' is a charge that an actual crime was committed. These
empty, baseless articles expose for the American people what this is: a
desperate, partisan attempt to avenge the loss of the Democrats'
preferred candidate in 2016.
We must respect American voters and reject these articles.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a quick fact-check before I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that no Republican
witnesses were allowed to testify. That is, of course, not correct.
In the Intelligence Committee, three of the Republican-requested
witnesses testified; that is, one out of every four of the witnesses
were Republican-requested witnesses. That they incriminated the
President did not make them any less requested by the minority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Keating).
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, today I reflect on the imperatives of two
sons of Massachusetts:
John Adams, who, in one sentence, captured the very foundation of our
country, saying, we are a government of laws, not men--translation: no
one is above the law; and
John F. Kennedy, who, in his iconic City Upon a Hill address,
cautioned that any one of us holding public office would be judged by
the high court of history on whether we were truly men and women of
courage, with the courage to stand up to one's enemies and the courage
to stand up, as well, to one's associates, the courage to resist public
pressure as well as private greed, and on whether we are truly men and
women of integrity who never run out of the principles in which we
believe and for whom neither financial gain nor political ambition
could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust.
President Donald Trump, indifferent and disdainful of this sacred
trust, conspired to extract personal benefit from his office.
He dishonored his oath. I refuse to abandon mine.

{time} 1730

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out very quickly
that the only Republican witnesses allowed in the Intelligence
Committee hearings were on the Democrats' preapproved list.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Rice).
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this partisan sham of an impeachment resolution that is ripping our
country apart.
Beginning even before he took office, President Trump has been
attacked by a never-ending barrage of lies, corruption, and deceit by
the liberal political elite, including James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa
Page, Hillary Clinton, and the impeachment zealots in this Congress.
Democrats colluded with Russia and Ukraine to interfere in our 2016
election by producing the now-famous fake dossier. Now, they accuse
President Trump of colluding with a foreign power. What a joke.
They abuse their office to illegally wiretap and spy on President
Trump's campaign. Now, they accuse him of abusing his office. What a
joke.
Democrats structure these proceedings to deny the President and
Republicans in Congress a fair hearing. Then, they accuse the President
of obstructing Congress. Look in the mirror, folks.
The reaction of the American people, that this is contrived and
corrupt, was entirely predictable and is entirely correct. The polls
will turn against them, and the Democrats are desperate to stop the
bleeding. That is why we are cramming this vote in today, just before
leaving for recess, to dispose of impeachment as quickly and painlessly
as possible.
The actions of the Democrats are a stain on this Chamber. I urge my
colleagues to join me in fighting against this shameful abuse of power
and vote ``no'' on this sham of an impeachment resolution.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I didn't think I would have to do another
fact-check so quickly, but, of course, there was no preapproved witness
list.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, the decision to impeach a President of the
United States is of enormous magnitude and utmost significance. There
are few issues that so deeply reflect upon the Constitution and the
American system of governance.
As a senior member of the United States House Foreign Affairs
Committee, I have spent years trying to promote American values of
democracy and the rule of law in other parts of the world, including
Eastern Europe. Because I have been so steeped in Ukrainian issues for
so long, I know how damaging President Trump's actions were.
But the President's damage does not end there. He has consistently
obstructed at every turn of this investigation. This Nation's Founding
Fathers fought to end unaccountable rule. We did not free ourselves
from a King to turn the President into a monarch.
The camera of history is rolling, and I will cast my vote consistent
with the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and our Constitution
for the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. I do so because I
could not look my granddaughter or any member of future generations in
the eye having condoned actions that undermine our democratic system,
and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
May God bless the United States of America.
I stand before you on a serious and solemn day in the House of
Representatives. The decision to impeach a President of the United
States is of enormous magnitude and the utmost significance. There are
few issues that so deeply reflect upon the Constitution and the
American system of governance.
My ancestors were African slaves, forced on a transatlantic journey
from the coasts of Sierra Leone to the plantations of South Carolina. I
know full well that the designers of our Constitution, who embedded an
economy of human bondage into the fabric of our political institutions,
were not perfect men. Yet they wrote a malleable document that allowed
American society to adjust to changing times while laying down eternal
principles: democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, open
markets, and a separation of powers. Indeed, they laid the foundation
for a nation that would allow men and women like myself, who are
descended from slaves, to become Members of Congress with the right and
duty to weigh in on the most important questions confronting our
republic. I will exercise that responsibility here today.
Given my background as a lawyer and former prosecutor, I believe we
must look at the relevant law in question before casting a vote. That
language comes directly from the Constitution: ``The President . . .
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The two
articles of impeachment brought against President Trump concern his
abuse of power and his obstruction of Congress.

[[Page H12175]]

As a senior Member of the United States House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee with a particular focus on Europe, I have spent years
trying to promote American values of democracy and the rule of law in
other parts of the world including Eastern Europe. Other nations have
not been blessed with political institutions that promoted civil
liberties and the rule of law. Today, in Ukraine however there are
leaders keen on anticorruption initiatives, invested in following the
Western democratic model, and inspired by the American example. Nearly
13,000 Ukrainians have been killed since 2014 because of the conflict
provoked and sustained by Russia, who opposes this vision of liberty
and opportunity.
Over the years, I have pushed for the U.S. government to fund and
protect these Ukrainian freedom fighters from Russian aggression. As
the leader of the United States, President Trump has responsibility to
help Ukraine lay the ground work for a more sustainable system of
governance, one that promotes the rule of law and free and fair
elections. This duty is inextricably linked to American national
security interests. Because I have been steeped in these issues
pertaining to Ukraine for so long, I know how damaging President
Trump's actions were. Based on witness testimony and the overwhelming
evidence presented, I am forced to conclude that the President abused
the power of his office for his own personal gain rather than the
public interest and that this was in fact an impeachable offense.
The second article of impeachment concerns President Trump's
obstruction of Congress. Our constitutional system was designed to
promote checks and balances among the different branches of government,
with a particular focus on ensuring that the judiciary and the
legislature could check the President. We did not free ourselves from a
King to tum the President into a monarch.
In the case of our current President, he has shown his disdain for
separation of powers unrelentingly and unrepentantly. This pattern of
behavior evidenced throughout the Mueller investigation and repeated
itself again as the President has continually defied any oversight
initiatives from the legislature. This is in complete contravention of
our Constitutional system. And it is an impeachable offense.
In sum, the founders knew from the very beginning that the insertion
of domestic political interests into foreign policy would be an
existential threat to the United States. Indeed, confidence in our
electoral system at home has been indispensable to the strength of our
republic while the absence of quid pro quo corruption from our foreign
policy has been essential to American leadership abroad. President
Trump's misconduct has betrayed both of these vital principals,
weakening our democratic institutions at home and our standing abroad.
The camera of history is rolling. Today's vote is not about one man,
but instead about the foundations of our republic for the years,
decades, and centuries to come. I will cast my vote consistent with the
principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the American
constitutional system and for the impeachment of President Donald J.
Trump. I do so because I could not look my granddaughter or any member
of future generations in the eye having condoned actions that undermine
our democratic system.
I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
May God bless the United States of America.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
Mr. BACON. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to this impeachment.
No law was broken, no high crimes or misdemeanors, no impeachable
offenses.
The Ukrainians received aid 1 week prior to the law's requirement,
aid that was previously rejected by the administration before it. There
was no investigation, and President Zelensky said he received no
pressure from the Trump administration ever.
Simply put, there was no quid pro quo and no crime. There was only
the majority's disdain for the President, and that is not an
impeachable offense.
The elections are in 10 months, but the majority doesn't trust the
American people. Too many have said that the impeachment is necessary
so that the President is not reelected in 2020, and that is shameful.
Today's vote sets a new precedent for America. In the future, the
majority will use impeachment as a tactic to remove a President simply
based on partisanship. Our Founders feared this, and I strongly oppose
it.
I want my statement to be in the Record until the end of time to show
that I was on the side of the Constitution, that I oppose the majority
taking down a duly elected President who committed no crime, and that I
defended the truth.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, my colleagues continue to make the
argument that the Ukrainians got the money. Yes, the President got
caught, but they got the money. No harm, no foul.
It is the equivalent of saying that if you are pulled over by a cop
and you attempt to bribe the cop, and the cop doesn't take the money
but arrests you, well, where is the crime in that? They didn't get the
money.
This is what my colleagues would have you accept. This is what my
colleagues would have you accept, that because the President got caught
in the act, we must look the other way. Of course, that is not the way
the law works. That is not the way the Constitution works. That is not
the way our oath of office works.
Our oath of office requires us to impeach a President who abuses his
power, whether he gets away with it or he gets caught. In this case, he
got caught.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today at a time of grave concern
for all Americans.
This past weekend, I joined a bipartisan delegation traveling to
Belgium and Luxembourg for the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the
Bulge, a battle in which over 19,000 Americans gave their lives. Today,
we are called to preserve that democracy that they so bravely defended.
Over 2 years ago, I was one of the first Members of Congress to vote
to advance the inquiry. Since then, I have withheld final judgment as I
reviewed the facts and heard the testimony.
I believe there is overwhelming evidence well beyond a reasonable
doubt that President Donald Trump is guilty in both Articles of
Impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Therefore, I
will uphold my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States in favor of impeachment.
It is our solemn responsibility to honor all those who have fought
and given their lives to uphold the truth. In America, no one is above
the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Wow, I just love this, again, potshot it in
when you can.
Remember, quid pro quo didn't work out really well for them because
that was supposedly who had pressure on President Zelensky. In fact, it
didn't work out, so, well, you had to go poll test it. The majority
didn't work out because focus groups didn't like it.
So, what do we do? We throw it in here, a bribe. It is all in their
report, but if they had a bribe or if they actually had a crime, it
would be in the articles.
Guess what? He doesn't have it. He can't put it in there. This is all
fluff and circumstance because they can't get to the President, and
that is what is killing them.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Bucshon).
Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, House Democrats have been obsessed with
impeaching President Trump since he was elected.
He wasn't supposed to win. ``How could the voters support him?'' they
asked.
The American people were told the only way the Speaker would move
forward with impeachment was if the case was compelling, overwhelming,
and bipartisan, yet the case for impeachment that has been rushed
forward by House Democrats is anything but that.
To be clear, neither of these Articles of Impeachment prove any
wrongdoing or impeachable offense has actually taken place. Instead,
House Democrats' case rests solely on hearsay testimony and
presumptions from cherry-picked witnesses.
The Framers of the Constitution never intended impeachment to be used
as a tool to settle political and policy differences. That is what
elections are for.
This is a sad and dangerous moment in our history, as impeachment is
being used to undo the will of the American people and silence the
voices of millions of Americans in the process. Alexander Hamilton
would be ashamed.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan impeachment
sham.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crow).

[[Page H12176]]

Mr. CROW. Madam Speaker, years ago, I took my first oath to the
country, went to war, and fought alongside our Nation's finest men and
women. Some of them gave their lives for our Nation. Not a day has
passed that I don't reflect on those sacrifices.
I learned during that time that our Nation is built on sacrifice. We
have overcome challenging times because people have decided to put
aside their personal interests, their livelihoods, and, yes, even given
their lives to do what is best for our Nation.
Our Founders created a system to ensure we would have no kings or
dictators, a system that vested power in the people to ensure that no
man or woman is above the law.

Generation after generation, this system has survived because people
have fought for it. Today, it is our turn.
The President's abuse of power and scorn for our constitutional
checks and balances is unprecedented. Unless we stand up against these
abuses, we will set the country on a dangerous new course.
My oath, my love of our country, and my duty to honor the sacrifices
of those who came before us require me to act. To my colleagues, it is
time to put aside our personal and political interests and honor those
who have come before us.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 35 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the Democrats' new definition for
evidence is allegations, allegations based on hearsay, I might add. So,
they hurl allegations against the President, and then they say to him
that it is not their responsibility to prove guilt but the President's
responsibility to prove his innocence.
This impeachment has been a sham and an act of injustice against the
President and against 63 million Americans who voted for him. Although
this process was rigged from the beginning, Democrats never produced a
single true piece of evidence.
It is time for us to stop this hoax and vote against these Articles
of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Luria).
Mrs. LURIA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of our
Constitution, in support of the military members in harm's way who
defend our Constitution, in support of Gold Star families who keep
faith that their loved one's sacrifice was justified.
I rise today in support of the oath I first took at 17 upon entering
the Naval Academy and took five more times in my 20-year Navy career;
an oath that comforted me in the years I spent away from my family,
deployed around the globe; an oath that encouraged me to remain
vigilant on the bridge of the ship at night; an oath that strengthened
me when in command, as I sent my fellow sailors into harm's way; and
today, an oath that gives me resolve to do what is right and not what
is politically expedient, resolve to stand with the President at the
White House last week, and resolve to stand up to the President in this
House today.
I ask my colleagues to have the same strength and the same resolve.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 35 seconds to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, when emotions supersede the facts, the
conclusion is cataclysmic. Today, we are wrapping up not a 3-month
process but, rather, a 3-year process with Democrats' disdain so much
that it has led to the abuse of this very House.
These are the same Democrats who promised America they saw evidence
of Russian collusion. Do the American people trust them? Hell, no, they
don't.
A growing number of American people have condemned this impeachment
process, and that is with House Democrats setting the rules and then
even bending and breaking the rules to fit their narrative. The
majority of Americans see this circus for what it is. I wonder how many
more will join them.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to defend our Constitution and
our democracy by voting for the two Articles of Impeachment.
The words of our sacred oath define our duty, and those words must be
kept. Our Founders' primal fear was that powerful members of our
government would become, in Hamilton's words, ``mercenary instruments
of foreign corruption.''
President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and
injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain
an improper personal benefit. He also betrayed our Nation by abusing
his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic
elections.
Article II I agree with because it details the obstruction of
Congress by the President by directing unprecedented, categorical, and
indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by this House of
Representatives and abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner
subversive to the Constitution.
I believe the Constitution is the soul of our Nation, and by
defending it, we are saying we will not be soulless.

{time} 1745

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 35 seconds to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, don't be fooled. Democrats are not
impeaching the President to protect national security.
Democrats are impeaching the President for following a law that they
themselves voted for.
No less than five times in the last 6 years, bipartisan Congresses
imposed on the executive branch an affirmative duty to ensure that the
Government of Ukraine was countering corruption.
And for good reason: Ukraine is the third-most corrupt nation on
Earth.
So the President not only had the legal authority to temporarily
pause security assistance to Ukraine, he had a mandate from Congress to
do it.
As a result, President Zelensky's government made historic
anticorruption reforms, making Ukraine a more reliable ally, countering
Russian aggression.
Far from compromising national security, the President's actions
advanced national security.
Oppose this impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues would have the country believe that the
President held up the aid to Ukraine because he was concerned about
corruption. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence for that.
All of the national security experts across all the departments
testified that Ukraine met the criteria to receive the aid.
So what was the real motivation here? Well, one thing is telling. In
2017, the President had no problem with aid to Ukraine, raised no issue
of corruption. In 2018, he had no problem with the military aid for
Ukraine.
So what changed in 2019? Joe Biden announced he was running for
President, and all of a sudden, Donald Trump held up the aid for
Ukraine.
As Ambassador Sondland testified, the President didn't care about
Ukraine. All he cared about was the big stuff that affected him
personally, the investigation of the Bidens that Giuliani was pushing.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms.
Spanberger).
Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res.
755.
As a CIA case officer, I used to meet with foreign nationals who were
providing vital intelligence to help inform our hardest national
security decisions and keep our country safe. These individuals, from
countries where leaders abused their power and defied the rule of law,
risked imprisonment and often their very lives in order to provide the
United States with information to help us, to inform us.
But why? It was their belief in the United States, their belief in
our country, the longest-standing democracy in the world; our country,
a beacon of hope in the world, a democratic republic founded on a
document and the belief in the rule of law and a belief in its people.
Today, I am proud to serve in the people's House, representing my
hometown and again serving our country, that beacon of hope in the
world.
And today, especially today, I reflect on the founding documents that
have set us apart in the world, leading people across generations and
across the

[[Page H12177]]

world to risk everything because of their belief in our great Nation.
Today, especially today, I affirm my commitment to upholding and
protecting the Constitution, the rule of law it defines, and the people
it governs.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 35 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, today, many of my Democratic colleagues
will be making history, unfortunately, for supporting the first-ever
completely partisan impeachment of a President of the United States.
Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that history will indeed be made
today in this hallowed Chamber, but for all the wrong reasons: not for
love of country, but hatred for a political foe; not to pursue justice,
but to punish a political adversary; not to seek truth, but to seize
political power.
Madam Speaker, for the love of country, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this disastrous political ruse.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, the
rules of debate won't allow me to cite all of the reasons why this
President should be impeached. There are many.
However, Madam Speaker and Members of this House, to quote the late
Maya Angelou: ``When someone shows you who they are, believe them the
first time.''
This day was not inevitable, but it was predictable, because this
President has shown himself time and time again to believe that he is
above the law, and he has no respect for our Constitution or our
democracy.
Based on all that we know about Donald Trump, we could have predicted
he would have abused the power of the Presidency by ``corruptly
soliciting the Government of Ukraine'' and Ukrainian President Zelensky
to publicly announce investigations into his political opponent, former
Vice President Joseph R. Biden.
This impeachment resolution includes evidence that this President
withheld $391 million of taxpayer funds that Congress appropriated for
the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to
Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression, another blatant abuse of power.
Our investigations revealed that this President advanced ``a
discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine, rather
than Russia, interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential
election.''
``For corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.''
Never before in our history have we experienced a President who has
so clearly conducted himself in a ``manner offensive to, and subversive
of, the Constitution,'' and who directed his Cabinet members, executive
branch agencies, and other White House officials to defy lawful
subpoenas from Congress.

Was he attempting to hide wrongdoing?
It is without question that this President ``has demonstrated that he
will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if
allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly
incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law,'' because at
every turn, he has shown us who he is.
It is no secret that this President could have been impeached a long
time ago.
Today, we stand here with an irrefutable case and an indisputable set
of facts that this President absolutely abused his power and obstructed
Congress.
Any other individual who would have been caught conducting themselves
in the way this President has would have been prosecuted to the full
extent of the law.
It is shameful that any Members of this House are willing to
disregard the Constitution, turn a blind eye to hard facts, and ignore
a confession from the President himself.
History will remember those who were willing to speak truth to power.
Yes, I called for Trump's impeachment early.
This is our country. Our foremothers and our forefathers shed their
blood to build and defend this democracy. I refuse to have it
undermined.
I wholeheartedly support this resolution. I am proud that, in the
final analysis, justice will have been served in America and Donald
Trump will have been impeached.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time that the
gentlewoman did not have, I yield 35 seconds to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam Speaker, what is shameful is that Speaker Pelosi
has allowed this Democratic witch hunt to move forward. She is the one
that has abused her power, and we should be debating her removal from
the House.
Reagan said that: ``The trouble with our liberal friends is not that
they are ignorant, it is just that they know so much that isn't so.''
Democrat extreme partisanship will set a dangerous precedent for this
Nation. And mark my words, Madam Speaker: This sinister attempt to
remove this lawful President will not go unnoticed.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. TITUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my statement
supporting the impeachment of Donald Trump.
For 35 years I taught American government to university students.
When we discussed impeachment, I never thought I'd actually be
participating in the process, but this president has left us no choice.
He tried to rig the 2020 elections by soliciting foreign
interference, and then engaged in an unprecedented cover-up once he got
caught.
No president can be permitted to abuse the power of the office for
personal, political gain, nor try to hide his misdeeds by demanding
that his subordinates withhold key documents and refuse to testify
before Congress.
President Trump's allies have offered lots of crazy excuses for why
he shouldn't be impeached, but even they will not deny that he wouldn't
have asked Ukraine to investigate Biden if the former Vice President
weren't a leading candidate for president.
I have analyzed the evidence thoroughly. It is consistent and
convincing. That is why I am casting my vote to impeach President
Trump.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in anger and hope.
I am angry that President Donald Trump has treated his oath of office
so disrespectfully that now we must hold him to account.
The truth is clear to anyone not deliberately looking away. The
President withheld military aid and a White House meeting unless and
until a vulnerable Ukrainian President announced a nakedly political
investigation.
It didn't matter if the Ukrainians uncovered any wrongdoing. The mere
announcement of an investigation would damage his political opponent.
Mr. Trump didn't care about stopping corruption in Ukraine. He never
mentioned the word ``corruption'' once in the infamous July 25 call.
This was not an attempt to reduce Ukrainian corruption.
It was an attempt by Donald J. Trump to aim Ukrainian corruption
straight at the heart of the Presidential election of 2020.
The President knows this, which is why he has not given this Congress
a single email, phone record, or document.
That is not the behavior of a man with nothing to hide. It is, simply
and undeniably, contempt of this Congress.
But what makes this impeachment essential is that the President's
abuse of power has not stopped. As we speak, he continues to urge
foreign interference in our democracy: beseeching China to investigate
the Bidens, sending Rudy Giuliani overseas to chase Russian conspiracy
theories.
This morning, the President tweeted, ``I did nothing wrong,'' all
caps. He believes it, too. He sees nothing wrong with inviting Russian,
Ukrainian, or Chinese interference into our election.
He did it, he continues to do it, and he sees nothing wrong with it.
He will wake up tomorrow and do it again if we don't stop him today.
Therein lies our hope.

[[Page H12178]]

Madam Speaker, I am proud today to answer the call to defend our
democracy and the United States Constitution, and I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, for reasons that I really
don't understand, I am having to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I am saddened today that I
spent two Christmases defending our country overseas, and I get a
measly 30 seconds to speak in this laughable process.
Our President made a campaign promise to drain the swamp, and there
are those today relying on swamp creatures' words to preserve the
swamp.
How do you suppress the votes of 63 million people in an electoral
landslide? You keep repeating the same lies absent any factual basis.
I have heard some of the greatest fiction ever spoken here today. If
you don't like the facts, just rewrite them in a parody and repeat.
If the facts are so clear and indisputable, why is the minority
leader begging for more witnesses?
You can't disprove something that never happened.
Mr. Speaker, due to a rushed process and limited debate, I was not
allocated time to speak on the Floor ahead of this monumental vote, an
opportunity that every member should be afforded.
I have spent two Christmases down range, defending our Constitution
and Country, and it is a sad day when something this historic is rushed
to a desired result so my colleagues will be home in time for the
holidays.
I am disappointed in this body for putting their own convenience over
the sanctity of our Nation.
I will tell you this: I would rather face attacks from our Nation's
enemies than an attack on our Constitution.
This is the first time in history that impeachment proceedings have
been completely partisan, shrouded in secrecy, and based on he-said-
she-said accusations.
As a former prosecutor, I find it insulting my colleagues have built
a case on second hand accounts, editorials, and opinions.
When the facts do not support the elements of crime, my experience
tells me there is no crime.
Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove
the crime and not the accused to prove their innocence.
The House has wasted time and tax dollars on an unfounded witch hunt
instead of legislating on behalf of our country.
Upon passage along party lines, the Senate will then be obligated to
continue this circus at the expense of the American people.
Today is a stain on this esteemed body for generations to come and a
detrimental precedent is set for future presidencies.
Today is a day of reckoning and a day the framers of our Constitution
warned us about. James Madison foresaw this day when he feared the
vague and heavily-disputed claims by my colleagues would turn our
republic into an unruly parliamentary system in which Congress could
remove a president over political differences with only partisan
motives as evidence.
The power to impeach the President is the single most important vote
that a member of this body can cast.
It should not be taken lightly, and it certainly shouldn't be rushed
through the House.
Alexander Hamilton feared the greatest danger of abusing impeachment
authority is that the decision would be ``regulated more by the
comparative strength of parties than the real demonstration of
innocence or guilt.''
The fears of our Founding Fathers have manifested in this Chamber
today.
We face a partisan process that will jeopardize our 243-year
experiment at self-governance, now, and for decades to come.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' to this sham.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Madam Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I
never ran for Congress wanting or expecting to impeach anybody, let
alone the President of the United States.
However, given the facts, here we are.
While some questions remain unanswered, two key facts are clear and
compel me to support the Articles of Impeachment.
First, President Trump attempted to pressure a foreign government to
help his reelection campaign.
And second, the President used the powers of his office to obstruct a
congressional investigation into that wrongdoing.
The President has falsely claimed he has been denied the chance to
defend himself, but at the same time, he is preventing the testimony of
witnesses with direct knowledge of the events under investigation.
If the President were innocent, as he claims, surely these witnesses
would be able to testify to that. If there had been no quid pro quo,
these witnesses could say that. If aid to Ukraine were not
intentionally delayed for improper purposes, they could surely testify
to that also.
But rather than giving these witnesses the chance to speak, the
President has silenced them. The President has silenced witnesses at
the Defense Department. The President has silenced witnesses at the
State Department. The President has silenced witnesses at the White
House. He even silenced the loquacious Mick Mulvaney, who uttered at a
press conference that there was a quid pro quo and ``get over it.''
By choosing to block this testimony, the President is not proving his
innocence; he is just proving he is afraid of what they have to say.
As a wise man once said, the truth will come to light. And it has. It
is our duty to act on it.

{time} 1800

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is a shame, on the floor of
this House, when you accuse somebody and then make them prove they are
not guilty of what you are accusing them of.
Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. John W. Rose).
Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong
opposition to this partisan impeachment spectacle that just seeks to
accomplish what President Trump's opponents failed to do at the ballot
box in 2016.
Our votes today are merely formalizing the decision my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle reached 3 years ago. This has been an
embarrassment to our country, an insult to our Constitution, and a
distraction from the real work we should be accomplishing for the
American people.
I stand with the people of Tennessee's Sixth District in strongly
supporting President Trump, and I will vote against the Articles of
Impeachment before us today.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, in her own words, Speaker Pelosi said
impeachment must be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. These
Articles of Impeachment being considered today by the House fail to
meet Speaker Pelosi's own standards.
Process matters, folks. Representing a good chunk of Gerald Ford's
old district and being a staffer during the Clinton administration, I
have an intimate understanding of the effects of impeachment on this
Nation. I am stunned to see my Democratic colleagues whitewash, or
maybe I should say ``Whitewater,'' Bill Clinton's cooperation with the
House of Representatives. That is not exactly what was going on.
This is the most partisan impeachment that we have seen in our
Nation's history.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).
Mr. CLOUD. Madam Speaker, it has been very clear from the beginning
that this impeachment proceeding has never been about an honest search
for the truth. If it were, our Democratic friends would not have polled
to see what to charge the President with.
Calling an opinion a fact does not make it so, and repeating it over
and over does not make it more true. When one produces a committee
report with fabricated findings based on no fact witnesses and then
quotes from it like it is authoritative, it is no more valid than
having a campaign pay for a foreign entity to create a private dossier
and then selling it to a FISA court in order to spy on a campaign.
This has always been a verdict in search of a crime, an impeachment

[[Page H12179]]

birthed at a resistance movement. It is time to end this charade and
get back to doing the work we were elected to do.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Madam Speaker, in a day heavy in verbal debate, I choose
to use my time to enumerate in detail every high crime and misdemeanor
committed by the President of the United States. I will do so now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Madam Speaker, my heart aches for our great Republic
today. I implore my Democratic colleagues in this House: We are not
Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans.
This is not the right place. This is not the right procedure. Settle
our political differences politically.
We owe the American people a great duty to come together. Don't give
the Senate the victory lap. Give the House the victory lap. Vote ``no''
to impeach. We owe it to the American people.
They want so dearly for us to come together for our great Republic
and thank our great President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time
remaining for both the majority and the minority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 43 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 29 minutes remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).
Mr. WALTZ. Madam Speaker, I am a Green Beret and a proud veteran, but
this process does not make me proud. I fought all over the world, from
Africa to Afghanistan, and I have seen fair and more transparent
processes than this.
Since the Democrats lost the election in 2016, they have been focused
on impeaching this President. Meanwhile, we have not solved the
problems America entrusted us to solve: immigration, healthcare, and
infrastructure.
Nothing in President Trump's call rises to the level of high crimes
and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment. For that reason, I will be
voting against impeachment today.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Articles of Impeachment on President Trump.
My Democratic colleagues have been planning to impeach President
Trump since he took office. After months of wasting House time on
partisan investigations, they have been unable to produce evidence that
President Trump committed a crime.
I will vote ``no'' on today's Articles of Impeachment. I look forward
to getting back to the business on behalf of Kentuckians.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, the facts and
the evidence establish beyond peradventure that the President abused
the power of his office for personal gain and sought to cover up his
misconduct by obstructing the Congress.
What we do today goes to the heart of the oath we take to support and
defend the Constitution. These actions are as necessary as they are
heartbreaking.
It is the President, not any Member of this House, who has brought us
to this sad place. His actions echo in this Chamber and, like a tin can
tied to his leg, will rattle behind him through the pages of history.
For in the final analysis, none of us will escape the truth. It will
come for us all in this world or the next.
What is the truth? The President used taxpayer money and official
acts to pressure a foreign government to help him win reelection by
slandering a fellow American.
How do we know this truth? We know because brave Americans, soldiers
and public servants, came forward to reveal the President's misconduct.
And the President? He continues to undertake an unprecedented coverup
to stonewall the public and obstruct their Representatives in Congress.
He withholds access to documents and records belonging to the public
that would further establish his mendacity. He blocks his advisers and
associates from testifying before the public to conceal the wrongs they
witnessed.
These actions are unworthy of the Presidency.
Today is about right and wrong and whether we still know the
difference. Today, we hold the President accountable. If we fail to do
so, future Presidents would see corruption as without consequence. And
there, our democracy goes to die.
We inherit this Republic from our ancestors, and we borrow it from
our children. With humility, we pray that the history of this day will
guide us to a better future for our Nation.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).
Mr. LONG. Madam Speaker, we have never, ever, in the history of this
country, seen a Presidency like this one.
Once the President was sworn in, 19 minutes later, The Washington
Post said impeachment begins today. A million women marched the next
day in Washington. Bank of America and Starbucks, both who supported
Hillary Clinton, had their windows broken out here in Washington
because people were so upset that this man was elected President of the
United States.
He has had his head held under water for almost 3 years now, never
coming up for a breath of air, just keep pushing him down.
Lowest Black unemployment ever, lowest Hispanic unemployment ever,
highest stock market ever, and the very lowest unemployment in years.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I have been concerned since the
beginning of this impeachment process that it has been driven by a
predetermined guilty verdict.
It is unfair. It is wrong. And now, every future President, Democrat
or Republican, will have to worry that the impeachment process will be
driven as a blunt-force political instrument.
It has been said that this day is sad. It is not sad; it is
regrettable. But this day will end shortly. The House has had its
cathartic moment. Tomorrow will begin a new day. Let's get back to
work.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, ready, fire, aim.
What we are hearing today are made-up articles to fit an ever-
shrinking impeachment foothold. George Washington could be impeached
under this criteria.
Democrats believe they are saving our democracy with these
hysterical, made-up charges, which is odd because we are a republic,
not a democracy, as they keep insisting.
No one came to Congress to impeach, we hear. Several new and
returning Members have come specifically to impeach President Trump.
I hear a lot today about sadness and solemnity. From impeachment? No,
because their candidate lost in 2016. The American people chose Donald
J. Trump to lead us into prosperity, not a socialist government.
We will survive this day, but I call upon the American people to see
through this sham, heal, and unite by speaking the truth.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.

[[Page H12180]]

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I am voting ``no.''
Impeachment is not in the best interest of this country. In fact, it
has only deepened the partisan divide that truly plagues this country.
When the Sun comes up tomorrow, I pray with all my heart that the
anger and the division in this Chamber will give way to an
honorableness, a productivity, and a time of working together.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, today, a duly elected President is being
impeached by the House of Representatives, by the Democrats compelled
by partisanship and not by the facts.
I am proud to stand here with President Donald Trump, and I plan to
cast my vote against both Articles of Impeachment.
It is not that the President abused his power. It is my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle who are abusing one of the most powerful
tools that has been entrusted to Congress in the Constitution by our
Founding Fathers.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, Webster's dictionary defines the star
chamber as ``characterized by secrecy and often being irresponsibly
arbitrary and oppressive.''
Sadly, my Democratic friends have turned this Chamber, the people's
Chamber, into the star chamber of the people.
One great example is the most important thing we can do as Members is
declare war. The next one is to impeach a President.
We are hoping Republicans can have every Member stand up and vote,
like for Speaker, and say their vote loudly.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, while this institution
should rightfully ensure the law is faithfully executed by the
administrative branch, this exercise has shown itself to be the
ultimate manipulation of the legislative branch's oversight powers in
order to achieve political gains.
I caution my colleagues, who have placed political expediency ahead
of moderation, their votes later today will forever change this
institution. Imagine a future where this body utilizes the most severe
of its constitutional tools to continually put the opposition party on
trial.
Madam Speaker, the American people have elected their Representatives
to be their voice and vote on matters most important to this country.
We must collectively focus on these issues, not on the political
impulses of a few.
This cannot become the new normal. I will be voting a resounding
``no'' on these Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

{time} 1815

Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Speaker, when I was commissioned a
second lieutenant in the United States Army, I swore an oath to support
and defend the Constitution, and I have done so 13 times in my 35 years
of public service. That oath means everything: to serve and fight for
our country and to protect and promote our values.
Yet, President Trump betrayed his oath. He abused his power, the
immense power of the Presidency. He threatened our elections by
inviting foreign interference. He chose investigating a political rival
over defending our national security.
So, today, we must use our power, the extraordinary power endowed by
our Constitution and entrusted by the people: the power to impeach. We
must hold President Trump accountable or else we will be complicit in
undermining our democracy, our security, and our dignity.
His conduct demonstrates his unfitness to serve as Commander in Chief
and warrants removal from office. The oath I took as a Member of
Congress is the same I took as a soldier, an oath that reminds me
values matter, that duty, honor, and the rule of law matter.
To keep my oath to the people I serve, the country I love, today I
will vote to impeach the President of the United States.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I have said from the beginning of this
process, impeachment is and should be the nuclear option reserved for
the most treasonous activity and the most serious activity. Clearly,
that has not been met here.
As I reviewed the facts and evidence, as a former Federal
prosecutor--I have read the transcripts; I have watched the hearings; I
have read the whistleblower report--that has not been met here.
In addition, this process has lacked fairness, due process, and
transparency.
We shouldn't be here tonight doing this. This is a travesty.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable to the few Americans
who are going to be watching this because they know what the outcome
is. We all know what the outcome is.
They are wondering: Why are we trying to negate the vote of 63
million Americans instead of talking about the things that Americans
care about: prescription drug coverage, the high cost of prescription
drugs, the high cost of healthcare, securing our borders, keeping our
economy going? These are the things we should be talking about.
No, instead, we are going to pass this resolution tonight and then go
home for Christmas vacation instead of doing the job of America.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins).
Mr. WATKINS. Madam Speaker, I was a political newcomer before this;
and just like President Trump, perhaps like me, he was naive to think
that this House, that in the people's House, everybody was true and
just. That is not the case.
Democrats weren't saddened by this sullen day. They weren't waiting
for all of the evidence. This was always about politics because they
loathe the President because he doesn't play by their beltway rules.
I should have known.
But the fact is Kansas is better, the U.S. is better, and the world
is better because of Donald Trump.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle
have been clamoring for this day since President Trump was elected.
The refusal to accept the election results and, later, the findings
of the Mueller investigation have brought forth Articles of Impeachment
that are negated by two simple facts, namely, the military aid to
Ukraine was provided, and no investigation was ever started.
The real offense is that the President won the election, and their
fear is that he will win again, despite all of their efforts.
I will vote against the partisan attempt to overturn the election.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).
Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
impeachment against President Donald Trump.

[[Page H12181]]

This is based on hearsay that was made by partisan witnesses behind
closed doors. This impeachment is a sham, Madam Speaker, and it has
divided this country.
Congress' wasted time on this impeachment would have been better used
to address issues that are facing Americans, like securing our southern
border, the opioid epidemic, or establishing a constitutionally
mandated budget.
Now American workers have to wait until the Senate trial to pass
USMCA that the President and the House Republicans have been working on
for over a year.
I am disappointed in the path Congress chose to go down.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, it is obvious today that there is an
intense hatred by the Democrats for President Donald Trump.
Why do they hate the man so much? Maybe it is because of the out-of-
control government gone wild: the abuses of FISA, the abuses of the
FBI, the abuses in the State Department.
Maybe it is just the previous administration they are trying to cover
up.
It is sad. This is a shameful act in what we are doing today.
Shame on the Democrats. Shame on them for pursuing this.
I ask every Member to vote ``no'' and to take notice of who votes for
these Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America.
We know this impeachment is a sham. They know this impeachment is a
sham. They know we know this impeachment is a sham, and they know that
most of the American people know that this impeachment is a shameful
sham.
We know that it began the moment the President was elected, long
before he ever had a telephone call with any foreign leaders. We have
heard the numerous quotations from them that validate those very
points, yet they persist in trying to overturn the duly elected
President of the United States of America's election.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I have heard several of my colleagues in a row now,
and it is interesting to see how very few of them want to address any
of the facts of the President's misconduct.
Apparently, Madam Speaker, I have struck a nerve. Nor do they wish to
defend a President who would extort an ally, withhold military aid to
help him cheat in an election.
They don't want to defend that conduct, so, instead, they say: Oh,
Democrats really want to impeach the President, or Democrats don't like
the President.
But what they can't say is that this President's conduct was ethical.
What they can't say was that this President's conduct was legal.
What they can't say was this President's conduct was constitutional.
What they can't say is this President has upheld his oath of office.
No, they can't say that. All they can say is: We don't like the
process, or, Our colleagues are just too happy to impeach, or, It is
overturning the will of the public when it is a Republican President.
Interestingly, my colleagues who supported the impeachment of Bill
Clinton did not think it was overturning the will of the people.
Apparently, this impeachment provision only overturns the will of the
people if it is a Republican President.
I would like to give them more credit than that.
What is the distinction here is the seriousness of the conduct. This
remedy was put in the Constitution for a reason. It is not an
unconstitutional remedy. It is part of the Constitution.
The only way you can conceive of this remedy as being
unconstitutional is if you believe, as the President does, that he is
the state, that anything that opposes him opposes the state and is, by
definition, anticonstitutional.
But that, of course, is nonsense. But it is more than nonsense; it is
dangerous nonsense.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Schrier).
Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, the people of Washington's Eighth
District sent me to Congress to fight for their families and make
thoughtful, evidence-based decisions.
I did not come to Congress to impeach a President, but evidence is
evidence, and a balance of power is fundamental to our democracy.
On my first day in office, like everybody else here, I took an oath
to uphold the Constitution and protect our country. History will judge
this moment. Given all of the facts before us, impeachment is the only
remedy.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am sure it did strike a chord with the chairman
since he showed up a little late, hadn't heard all of the arguments. We
beat the facts back all the time. It is the majority side that had to
run through this. That clock and that calendar are killing him, and it
is killing him because his arguments are falling flat.
To speak of evidence, we looked at the evidence, and the evidence
doesn't fit anything.
And by the way, if the gentleman had extortion, put in articles. The
gentleman can't because he can't make the case. He can only put it in
his notes and then come to the mike when he can't be questioned and
talk about it. That is the question, and that is the chord that has
been struck.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, once President Trump was sworn in,
Articles of Impeachment were introduced almost immediately. In 3 years,
House Democrats have introduced 10 resolutions, getting support of over
100 of their Members, and all of that before the July 25 phone call.
But also during that time, the Russia conspiracy hoax was exposed.
Obstruction of justice charges were abandoned after the Mueller
hearings fell flat.
So, after 2 years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500
warrants, and 17 lies in a FISA warrant application, they had nothing
to show for it.
Undeterred by the facts and uninterested in governing, the beat
marched on. So here we are today. We have no quid pro quo, no bribery,
no extortion, no crimes alleged in the articles at all.
But don't worry, because we have a brand-new, 632-page report
alleging all kinds of things, some for the very first time.

This isn't a somber, solemn process. This is a political drive-by.
They just want President Trump gone.
But this never-ending march toward overturning the 2016 election has
consequences, because you are telling 63 million voters that you don't
respect their vote.
Voters in States like mine, who not that long ago used to send
Democrats to this august Chamber but, recently, have found no home in
the Democratic Party, feel that their values have been replaced by a
liberal, elitist agenda and feel that partisan points are more
important than practical solutions.
Your never-ending impeachment quest is a constant reminder to them
that you don't trust their judgment, you don't understand their way of
life, and you couldn't care less about the issues that are important to
them.
As Chairman Nadler has so ominously stated, if you are serious about
removing a President from office, what you are really doing is
overturning the results of the last election.
Well, they were serious. They spent the last 3 years talking about
it, unwilling to accept the results of 2016.
I wonder if my colleagues recognize the irony that their impeachment
vendetta is the greatest election interference of all, and it was
homegrown right here in the Halls of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, this impeachment is an embarrassment for
House Democrats.
On the substance, the Democrats claim that their case is uncontested,

[[Page H12182]]

relying on presumptions, hearsay, and 3 percent of the story trying to
connect dots that actually aren't connected.
Some inconvenient truths: President Zelensky didn't know that there
was a hold on aid until August 29. The aid gets released shortly
thereafter, and Ukraine didn't have to do anything in order to get that
aid released; President Zelensky says no demand, no quid pro quo, no
pressure.
But Democrats want the public to ignore the other 97 percent of this
story. It doesn't work like that.
Senate Democrats want new witnesses to show why there was a hold on
aid. That is an odd request if you think you have already proven your
case.
At the heart of this debate, two investigations are being discussed
between countries. Democrats and media allies want the public to
believe it is all just debunked that Ukrainians interfered in the 2016
election. They want you to ignore Avakov and Chaly's comments, that
Chalupa worked with the Ukrainian Embassy, origins of the Steele
dossier, the black ledger, and more.
The problem with all of this is that the American public are smarter
than Democrats are giving them credit for.
Next, the Democrats claim the Republicans are arguing that it was
Ukraine and not Russia that wanted to interfere and was interfering in
the 2016 election. No, that is not what Republicans are saying.
Of course, we have the Burisma-Biden issue of a corrupt Ukrainian
energy company run by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch hiring Hunter Biden
for at least $50,000 per month, with no energy experience and no
Ukraine experience, solely because he is Vice President Biden's son.
Now, the company wanted to hire Hunter Biden because they wanted to
curry favor while there was this ongoing corruption investigation.
Enter Joe Biden. He gets that prosecutor fired, threatening the loss of
$1 billion if it didn't happen immediately, which it was.
Now, Democrats believe that Burisma and Biden should be immune from
scrutiny. I disagree. Never again should that conflict of interest ever
happen. And our governments should be working together to get to the
bottom of all of this.
This has also been a total disaster on the process, from getting a
Federal worker to file a whistleblower complaint to Schiff's made-up
version of the July 25 call.
In the closed-door interviews, Schiff was prosecutor, judge, jury,
and witness coach. Every day he loved getting America drunk on his
favorite cocktail, three ingredients: cherry-picking leaks, withholding
key facts, and misstating evidence.
In the depositions and in the public hearings, the President's
counsel was not invited to attend, present evidence, or cross-examine
witnesses; and Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses like
Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and others.
Then there was the House Judiciary debacle where Schiff couldn't even
show up to present his reports. He had to have one of his staffers
present it for him. This impeachment is ripping our country in half. It
is fatally flawed on the process, the substance, the intentions, and
the consequences. It is a total Schiff show. I encourage all my
colleagues to vote ``no.''

{time} 1830

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, today, as we sit here debating
impeachment, all they want to talk about is the Constitution and
Alexander Hamilton. During the last 30 days I have heard more about
Hamilton from my Democrat colleagues, and until then the closest they
ever came to Hamilton was a $10 bill. All of a sudden, what we have are
these strict constitutionalists on the other side of the aisle.
Madam Speaker, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has
nothing to do with anything but raw politics.
There is only one person on the other side of the aisle who got seven
Pinocchios for not telling the truth. No one on this side of the aisle
got that during this impeachment process, Madam Speaker.
The American people need to understand two key facts: The Democrats
in control set their own rules of evidence. They said, what we need to
do for impeachment is to have compelling evidence and bipartisan
support.
They don't have either of those two things. They failed the rules
that they made up themselves.
We have got President Zelensky of Ukraine saying that there was no
pressure. We have got the number two guy in Ukraine saying that there
was no pressure. We have got the number three guy in Ukraine saying
that there was no pressure. These are the supposed victims of this
alleged crime, and yet here we are supposedly having this compelling
evidence and facts when the best witness they have--the very best
witness they had--had to change his testimony twice. They mentioned him
611 times, and ultimately, he said: I presume that that is what the
President meant.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you that there are not facts here to
support it. But what is more important than that, Madam Speaker, is
that here we are today and we have bipartisan opposition to
impeachment, not bipartisan support.
My colleagues opposite want the American people to think that this is
a sad and somber day. This is a sad day. It is a sad day for this
institution because we have lowered the bar to impeach a President who
continues to give us an economy that not only is growing, but growing
at levels that we have never seen in the history of our country. When
we look at unemployment at a level that is truly remarkable, they want
to impeach.
But it is another sad day because now what they are doing is they are
telling the American people that 233 Democrats deserve to decide who
the President of the United States should be and disenfranchise 63
million voters.
When all is said and done, when the history of this impeachment is
written, it will be said that my Washington Democrat friends couldn't
bring themselves to work with Donald Trump, so they consoled themselves
instead by silencing the will of those who did: the American people.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, Robert Mueller lays out facts from 2017
that constitute Obstruction of Justice but says the President cannot be
indicted, only Congress can apply the law to those facts.
Many of us have been talking about impeachment since those facts
emerged in 2017.
Of course, today, we focus on more recent crimes.
So why did we talk of impeachment back when a Republican-led Congress
would not act?
Why do we impeach today when a Republican-led Senate is unlikely to
act?
First, because it is our constitutional duty, no matter what the
political consequences.
Second, because it is the most effective tool to chasten and restrain
a President who does not naturally feel constrained by the rule of law.
I would note that the President's attempt to extort Ukraine was
secretive and furtive, far different from his modus operandi of brazen
threats that we saw in 2017.
We can only imagine what high crimes and misdemeanors this President
would have boldly committed had nobody been talking about impeachment
then--had he felt immune from impeachment.
Today we will demonstrate that the President is not above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it would have been nice if
they had actually thought those crimes were bad enough to have put them
in the articles, but they didn't.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Ratcliff).
Mr. RATCLIFFE. Madam Speaker, do you know who doesn't think the
Democrats have presented enough testimony or evidence to impeach
President Trump today?
It is the Democrats.
Sure, here in the House, Democrats running this inquiry have declared
they have done everything needed and

[[Page H12183]]

they have all the testimony and evidence necessary to impeach right
now.
But right now, down the hall, Democrats in the Senate are saying the
exact opposite. They are complaining they need more evidence and more
testimony, because Senate Democrats know that House Democrats have
built them a house-of-cards impeachment, an impeachment built by the
same Democrats who told America: Trust us, President Trump committed
treason; he is a Russian agent, and we have got evidence--which, of
course, proved to be totally false.
To quote the favorite catchphrase of one Member of this House, they
got caught.
Along the way, those same Democrats said: Trust us, the FISA law and
court weren't abused by the Obama administration using a Democratic
opposition research dossier against the Trump campaign and President
Trump--again, totally false, and, again, they got caught.
When Democrats started this latest impeachment inquiry, they said:
Trust us, we have not yet spoken to the whistleblower.
Again, totally false, and they got caught.
Sadly, my Democratic colleagues have placed their own credibility in
the hands of Members of this body who have no credibility left, Members
whom nobody trusts because they keep getting caught betraying America.
Unless a bolt of courage and integrity strikes that side of the room
in the next hour, history will reflect that Donald Trump is the third
President to be impeached. History may also shortly reflect that he
will be the first President to be reelected after being wrongfully
impeached.
If that happens, Democrats won't be able to hide behind a pretend
veneer of caring about the Constitution. History will record the
Democrats' legacy as a betrayal of the Constitution because the
Founders meant for impeachment to be used for actions so extraordinary
and so rare that it has happened three times in two and one-half
centuries. It wasn't meant for congratulatory phone calls where there
is no crime alleged, where there is no victim, and where the Democrats
themselves couldn't even decide what to accuse the President of doing
wrong before ending up with this embarrassment of a grab bag of an
abuse of power article.
An obstruction of Congress?
To even allege it is an admission of constitutional illiteracy. The
Founders had a term for what the Democrats call the obstruction of
Congress. The Founders called it the separation of powers. The funny
thing about obstruction is every time Democrats get caught trying to
frame this President for some crime he didn't commit, they follow up by
accusing him of obstructing their efforts to frame him for the things
he never did in the first place.
The Founders warned and feared today might come when impeachment was
used politically by the party that had the most votes. Today the
Democrats are the Founders' worst nightmare come true. I think most
Americans are probably wishing they could impeach the Democrats.
To them I say: You can next November.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I think, when the history of this time is
written, it will record that, when my colleagues found that they lacked
the courage to stand up to this unethical President, they consoled
themselves by attacking those who did.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano)
for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. TAKANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks
supporting the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Madam Speaker, I rise today as a strong believer in the American
experiment and the democratic norms that distinguish us from the
monarchies that existed at the birth of our nation and from the
authoritarian tyrannies that exist today.
The facts that were uncovered during the House's impeachment inquiry
point to unlawful misconduct by President Trump--misconduct that
demands that we, the Congress, hold him to account.
The president's egregious abuse of power undermined the integrity of
our elections, which are the foundation of our democracy, and
threatened our national security.
Furthermore, his refusal to cooperate with the House's impeachment
inquiry represents an unprecedented level of contempt for the law and
violation of our democratic norms. What the president obstructed wasn't
trivial, nor was it about concealing private conduct--he obstructed a
Congressional investigation of great significance to our national
interest and infringed on Congress' ability to carry out our
constitutional duty.
As a separate and co-equal branch of government we must hold the
president accountable for his abuse of power and his violation of the
public trust.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. CLARKE of New York asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record
my remarks supporting my vote for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks
supporting the Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump.
Madam Speaker, I rise to say no one is above the law, not even the
President. Today, we assert this truth, uphold our constitutional duty,
and hold President Trump accountable for his actions. To fulfill my
oath of office and protect the Constitution, I will vote to impeach
President Donald Trump.
President Trump abused the power of his office when he solicited help
in the 2020 election from Ukraine. He did this not to root out
corruption or with our nation's interests in mind, but to gain a
personal, political advantage in the election. The President withheld
$391 million in congressionally-approved military aid for Ukraine until
it agreed to investigate his political rival. This corrupt scheme put
at risk Ukraine's security as well as our own national security, and it
undermined the integrity of our elections. It is a clear abuse of
power.
President Trump then obstructed Congress, which sought truth and
accountability. He ordered the complete defiance of lawful subpoenas
for relevant documents and prohibited witnesses from giving testimony,
further violating the Constitution. This unprecedented blockade has
threatened our cherished system of Checks and Balances.
Madam Speaker, it is time to finally hold President Trump accountable
for these corrupt and unconstitutional actions. We must pass the two
articles of impeachment before us today to make certain no one is above
the law. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the Constitution
and join me in voting yes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Beatty) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. BEATTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks
supporting the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Madam Speaker, I rise today--a day that will certainly be looked back
upon by future generations.
Many years from now, when conspiracy theories are put aside and the
truth made plain, the American people will know that President Trump
broke his oath, abused the power of that great office, and thought
himself above the law.
But they will also know that many members of this body--the People's
House--kept their oath to defend the Constitution and held President
Trump accountable.
History will note each of our names and where we stood today--for
democracy, for justice, and for this great country.
When we vote to impeach this president this evening, I can tell you
that I will do so with a clear conscience and with the full confidence
that future generations will judge us on the right side of history.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Ms. Wexton) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. WEXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WEXTON. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks
supporting the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of both articles of
impeachment.

[[Page H12184]]

I did not come to Congress to impeach the President, but his actions
have left us no choice.
The facts are uncontested and the truth is inescapable.
The President leveraged the highest office in the land for personal
political gain. In doing so, he jeopardized our national security,
undermined the integrity of our elections, and betrayed the public
trust. The Framers gave Congress the power of impeachment precisely to
protect our democracy from this kind of abuse of power.
The President's pattern of misconduct outlined in the articles of
impeachment, and his unrepentant contempt for the rule of law, make it
clear that he poses a clear and present danger to the very foundations
of our democracy.
Voting to impeach the President is not an easy decision, nor is it
one I take any pleasure in.
I will cast my vote tonight with a heavy heart and a solemn sense of
duty to protect our Constitution.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, we are here today because of the failure
of so many to cast aside narrow ambition to confront the threats
standing before us. Offered the chance to investigate this government
together, the President and his party stonewalled and obstructed. We
are here today because we choose comfort over courage and avarice over
the Republic.
This is the ongoing tragedy of our age. And it is ongoing. The matter
is now solely in our hands and belongs to us and us alone. The buck has
stopped. Many have invoked the judgment of history as an anecdote to
this threat, but the threat to democracy is here today, not tomorrow.
We need not and we must not await the verdict of time for Donald
Trump's abuse of power and obstruction.
We can offer that verdict right now, and we are.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the Democrats forgot two key things. They
forgot about the facts, and they forgot about fairness. Four facts will
never change: We have the call transcript, no quid pro quo; we have the
two guys on the call who have repeatedly said there was no pressure and
there was no pushing; we have the fact Ukraine didn't know aid was held
up at the time of the phone call; and, most importantly, Ukraine took
no action and no announcement of investigation to get the aid released.
But Democrats don't care. They don't care about the facts, and they
sure don't care about the process.
There was no subpoena power for Republicans and no Republican
witnesses. During the depositions Republicans were prevented from
getting all their questions answered, but Democrats got every one of
their questions, the witnesses responded to every one of theirs, but
not Republicans'. The chairman wouldn't let them.
Of course, there was the whistleblower, the anonymous whistleblower,
with no firsthand knowledge, who was biased against the President, who
worked for Joe Biden, and who was never compelled to testify--the guy
who started it all.
This is really about that the President has been driving these guys
crazy because he is getting things done. He is doing what he said he
was going to do. He is having results. Taxes have been cut, regulations
have been reduced, unemployment is at its lowest level in 50 years, the
economy is growing, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on the Court, we are out
of the Iran deal, the embassy is in Jerusalem, hostages are home from
North Korea, and a new NAFTA agreement coming tomorrow.
But guess what, Madam Speaker?
When you drain the swamp, the swamp fights back. And they started
attacking the President before the election even. On July 31, 2016,
they opened the Russian investigation. The FBI spied on four American
citizens associated with the Trump campaign. The FBI took the dossier
to the FISA court. The dossier they already knew was false, they took
to the court and lied to the court 17 times.
Guess what, Madam Speaker?
Three days ago on national television, even James Comey had to admit
the FBI was wrong. Yesterday--1 day ago--the FISA court sends the FBI a
letter and says: Straighten up and get your act together when it comes
to the FISA application process.
Think about this: the attacks started then, and they have continued
right up until today. But, Madam Speaker, I want you to think about
something: the individual who said that the FISA process was fine, the
dossier was fine, and the Russian investigation was fine, that same
individual ran the impeachment process. That same individual's staff
met with the whistleblower, that same individual is the only guy in
Congress who knows who the whistleblower is for sure, and that same
individual released the phone records of the President's personal
attorney, released the phone records of a member of the press, and
released the phone records of a Republican Member of the United States
Congress.
This process has been unfair, it has been dangerous, and it has been
harmful to our country.
Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people. Nancy
Pelosi made that clear 4 weeks ago when she called the President of the
United States an imposter. The will of we the people, the 63 million
folks who voted for this guy and made him President in an electoral
college landslide, they never accepted that fact.
We are less than 11 months away from the election. Let the American
people decide who should be President. Let the American people decide.

{time} 1845

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I rise to defend the Constitution and
support these Articles of Impeachment.
The President abused the power of his office by corruptly putting his
own political interest ahead of our Nation's security. He blocked
congressionally authorized military aid to coerce Ukraine to launch a
phony investigation into his political rival.
In the months since, he has waged a campaign of absolute obstruction
against Congress' constitutional authority, ordering all Federal
officials to defy subpoenas and refusing to produce even a single
document.
Madam Speaker, I take no joy in today's impeachment vote or that the
President's actions demand this response. This is a sad moment for our
Nation. Only twice before has the House voted to impeach a President,
and never before on accusations of compromising our Nation's security.
I hope, in the Senate, prosecution and defense can call and cross-
examine witnesses, and the Senators will hear the evidence and make
their decisions without prejudice or prejudgment.
This is a solemn moment, but our system of checks and balances was
designed for times like these. I have faith that our Constitution will
guide us on the path ahead.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, as the Democrats now admit, their attempt
to remove the President began on Trump's Inauguration Day. When the
Democrats' semi-official mouthpiece, The Washington Post, declared:
``The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.''
For years, the Democrats tried to expel the President with the
preposterous accusation that he was a Russian agent. As detailed by
Inspector General Horowitz, dishonest intelligence officials used fake
allegations spread by the Democrats to gain approval of a spying
operation against the Trump campaign.
As they falsely accused the Trump campaign of colluding with
Russians, the Democrats, themselves, colluded with Russians to
manufacture these allegations in the infamous Steele dossier. They even
tried to get nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters.
With the Russian collusion hoax, the Democrats had everything going
for them: Federal investigations run by Trump haters; an endless supply
of media cheerleaders; and a galaxy of leftwing interest groups
amplifying their ridiculous messages.
Yet, even with all those messages at their disposal, the Russia
conspiracy theory collapsed, so they quickly concocted plan B.
The Ukraine hoax was based on a supposed whistleblower who colluded

[[Page H12185]]

beforehand with the Democrats. The Democrats then prevented Congress
from interviewing the whistleblower while conducting bizarre secret
depositions and selectively leaking testimony to discredited media
hacks. The Democrats showcased the most useful witnesses in public
hearings that somehow reduced support for impeachment.
It is not easy to make a coup attempt boring, but the Democrats found
a way. As it turns out, the American people don't think a routine phone
call with a foreign leader is a good basis for ousting a U.S.
President.
The Democrats also put forth ever-changing accusations against the
President, including campaign finance violations, quid pro quos,
election interference, bribery, and extortion.
Eventually, they ended up with the ridiculous charges we consider
today, abuse of power, an utterly meaningless term, and obstruction of
Congress. One Democrat has pronounced the President guilty simply
because he won't cooperate with their plan to railroad him.
But the only thing President Trump is guilty of is beating Hillary
Clinton. The Democrats refuse to accept that loss, and now they are
indicating they will continue their impeachment efforts even after this
one fails in the U.S. Senate.
Madam Speaker, after all their deceit, phony investigations, ginned-
up crises, and manufactured outrage, the Democrats need a long period
of rehabilitation. They must learn how to do something productive for
the American people instead of ripping the country apart in their lust
for power.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, it is deeply unfortunate that we have to
undertake this impeachment proceeding that unfolds this evening, but
the part we play in this process is not optional.
Among other things, as the Intelligence Committee and Committee on
the Judiciary have painstakingly documented, the President has indeed
abused his authority, and he has indeed obstructed justice.
He threatened to withhold congressionally appropriated U.S. taxpayer
dollars from an ally under attack from Russia unless they agreed to
interfere in our election on his behalf. He has expressed no remorse,
and he continues to maintain that his behavior was ``perfect,'' while
simultaneously obstructing legitimate congressional oversight and
subpoenas and blocking members of his administration from providing
truthful testimony to investigators.
His actions are so far beyond the pale that they have left us with no
remaining recourse except impeachment, and so we shall impeach because,
as drastic and as unwelcome as this step is, our country faces even
greater long-term risk if we fail to respond.
We cannot excuse a President who feels entitled to disregard or break
the law with impunity. We are a nation built upon the rule of law, not
the law of rulers.
The Framers gave us their best effort in 1787, and, indeed, it was an
extraordinary one. The Constitution they set down wasn't perfect, but
it founded a republic that has endured and thrived with exceptional
stability.

As the late Senator Moynihan pointed out, only two countries in the
world both existed in 1800 and have never had their governments changed
by violence since then: the United States and Britain. Only eight
governments have existed since 1914 and have not had their form of
government changed by force since then: the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, and
Switzerland.
The innovative system of checks and balances that they constructed,
with the separation of powers, brought about and successfully
negotiated a generation of challenges that we have sustained.
In the very first week that the Framers began crafting this blueprint
for America's freedom and stability, negotiations immediately started
on impeachment. No government in the world at that time exposed the
head of government to impeachment, but America was to be different.
In the view of the Framers, impeachment is in no way a constitutional
crisis. It is a process that the Framers wisely judged that we would
sometimes need. This evening is one of those rare moments.
Madison worried that, one day, the country would elect a President
who ``might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or
oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.'' George Mason
asked the Delegates: ``Shall any man to be above justice? Above all,
shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive
injustice?''
Of course not, because having just thrown off one King, they would
never consent to anoint another one. America firmly rejected the notion
of divine right.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. NEAL. Article I of the Constitution prescribes Congress as the
first branch of government. Just as importantly, let me quote Speaker
Rayburn, who was asked: How many Presidents did you serve under?
Speaker Rayburn answered: None. I served with seven Presidents of the
United States.
Impeachment is reserved for moments of grave danger when the
constitutional order becomes dangerously out of balance, moments like
this one. That is why I will vote to impeach.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, well, here we are, on the verge of doing
exactly what America doesn't want us to do and what they feared that
you would do.
In 2016, I, along with 63 million American voters representing 304
electoral college votes, went to the polls, and we raised our
collective political middle finger to D.C. and voted for Donald Trump,
folks like my father, who watched this place destroy his profession of
community banking; my friends and family in the textile industry who
saw their way of life destroyed following NAFTA; Americans in rural
areas whose opportunity and life and voice have been drowned out by the
screams of socialist Democrats; our friends and neighbors living in
poverty and crime, broken-down, project-based public housing, who for
generations have been told by this place: ``This is the best that we
think you can do. Here is your check. God bless you. Now, move along.''
Those voters.
Now you want to remove our voice from office. Well, our voice will be
heard. I stand here determined to make sure that it will be because we
will fight back against this corrupt and unfair impeachment process.
How dare you, the liberal elites, the condescending bureaucrats, and
every other kind of swamp critter in this godforsaken place tell the
American public who the President should be. That is the job of the
American voter, not yours.
This whole flipping rodeo is a sham and a shame, and it will not be
forgotten.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, this week, Americans are busy finishing up
their Christmas shopping mostly for their children, or if they are
lucky enough to have them, their grandchildren. And high school and
college students are taking final exams and sweating out the results.
That got me to thinking about those who follow and what our
obligation is to them, and that got me to thinking about those who came
before and how they might have seen their obligation to us, people like
my grandfather, who our family believes literally was born on the boat
on the way over here from Germany, or my father, who fought in World
War II against the very people that his grandfather had left.
We are all here today, all of us, because someone before us
sacrificed so that they could journey here and build a new life in this
unique land. We are here today because those immigrants and their
children were dedicated not just to the land of America, but to the
idea: freedom and opportunity secured by self-government, choosing our
own leaders in free and fair elections, and the rule of law under the
Constitution.

[[Page H12186]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HECK. This idea of America is in peril, brought about so by this
President, who sought to cheat in an election, a President who puts
himself above the law and attacks the bedrock constitutional precept of
checks and balances.
Yet, the question is, can America survive this behavior? What ideal
will we hand down to those who follow us? And, finally, what is our
obligation to those who would follow?
It is simply this: to do our duty, to defend the Constitution and the
values underpinning it by voting ``yes'' on the Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Demings).
Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, we live in the greatest democracy in the
world, and I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of Americans
are good, decent people who work hard and play by the rules.
But then, we have people who have no respect for the law, people who
have little regard for the rules, people who spend a lot of their time
trying to figure out how to game the system. Law enforcement officers
call them habitual offenders. The more they get away with, the more
likely they are to engage in misconduct.
Some say it takes courage to hold powerful people accountable, but I
see it differently. I see it as a sense of duty, a regular part of my
job as a Member of Congress.
However, habitual offenders usually don't sneak up on you. They
usually telegraph their intentions time and time again.
On July 27, 2016, in my home State of Florida, then-candidate Trump
said, ``Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the
30,000 emails,'' thereby inviting foreign interference into U.S.
elections.
Then, the day after the special counsel testified before Congress,
the President, feeling undeterred and emboldened, called President
Zelensky and pressured him to help him rig the elections and chose to
hold much-needed military aid over our ally's head until the
President's demands were met.
Now, I served 12 years on the hostage negotiations team, and I know
that pressure and demands come in many forms. In this scheme, we had
both.
I have enforced the laws, and now I write the laws. But the laws mean
nothing if the accused can destroy evidence, stop witnesses from
testifying, and blatantly refuse to cooperate. I ask you to name
somebody in your community or your family who can do that.
I know the President said that he can get away with anything he wants
to. I come today to tell you that, no, he cannot, because no one is
above the law, and he shall be held accountable.

{time} 1900

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CRAWFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks in
opposition to this sham impeachment.
Madam Speaker, the talking points that we have heard all day are the
same that have been repeated for months--and they all point to the same
conclusions: the President did not abuse his power and he has been
subjected to the most partisan, lopsided impeachment attempt in
history.
President Trump said there was no quid pro quo. President Zelensky
said there was no quid pro quo. The two people with any direct
knowledge both said that there was no crime. Despite that, one of my
colleagues--the same one who publicly claimed for over a year that he
had seen clear evidence that the President was a Russian spy--secretly
met with a whistleblower who had heard that the President had withheld
aid for a quid pro quo. Now, we don't know if that knowledge came to
the whistleblower second, third, or even fourth hand because we weren't
allowed to question them--we just know it was hearsay.
What is readily apparent after years of this garbage is that the
Democrat party simply cannot accept the will of the American people.
Robert Mueller investigated the Russian collusion hoax for over a year
and cleared that cluster of lies with his report. Rather than indemnify
President Trump for promoting and campaigning on that sham, my
colleagues across the aisle cooked up another scandal to deliver on
their impeachment promises.
In 2024 there will be no Soviet-bloc countries left to accuse the
President of colluding with and then what will you do?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on the floor of this
magnificent Chamber, the very heart of our democratic Republic, and I
would imagine, Madam Speaker, that every one of us in this Chamber,
regardless of party, understands, shares a common view, that being
citizens of this great Republic is among life's most tremendous
blessings.
We all know that no force on Earth is more powerful than the force of
freedom. It is our miraculous constitutional system, Madam Speaker,
defended by our men and women in uniform that has safeguarded that
freedom for 230 years.
Each one of us in this Chamber bears a sacred duty, passed down to us
through generations and affirmed in our oath of office, to preserve and
protect our Constitution.
Madam Speaker, our Nation's Framers recognized that this Republic is
fragile and that extreme partisanship can be among the most severe
threats to its survival. That is why, in Federalist 65, Alexander
Hamilton wrote: ``. . . there will always be the greatest danger that
the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of
parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
Madam Speaker, our Democratic colleagues have been working to remove
this President since the day he was elected, searching for an offense
on which they could impeach. Failing to find one, Madam Speaker, they
have decided to assume one.
Rather than attempting to enforce their subpoenas in court, they have
also decided to declare it a high crime and misdemeanor when the
President of the United States asserts his constitutional privileges.
The Democrats are asking Members of this body to impeach, despite the
fact that they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable
offense.
Let me say it one more time, Madam Speaker. They have presented no
direct evidence of any impeachable offense.
If anyone in this Chamber still believes the Democrats have proven
their case, I would urge those Members to ask the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, why he failed to appear to answer
questions about his report. Before Members vote for impeachment, they
might want to know why the author of the impeachment report will not
defend it under questioning.
If the House impeaches here, Madam Speaker, it will create exactly
the type of risk the Framers cautioned us to avoid: It will mean that
divided government can imperil a democratically elected President based
on unproven allegations and innuendo in the absence of direct
testimony.
Despite all the rhetoric you have heard today, Madam Speaker, passage
of these Articles of Impeachment may permanently damage our Republic.
From this day forward, a hyperpartisan bare majority can cite this
precedent to try to remove a future Commander in Chief.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
think of our Republic, think of the Constitution, think of the oath
that we all swore to protect and defend that Constitution, and vote
against these partisan, reckless, and dangerous Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, today we proclaim that no
person is above the law, not even the President of the United States.
Donald J. Trump abused the power of his office and violated his oath
of office by extorting a new and inexperienced President of a
vulnerable foreign ally to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump's domestic
political opponents.
He then obstructed the Congress, this equal branch of our government,
from undertaking our duty, outlined in the Constitution itself, to
investigate and check these violations.
Today, we do nothing more and nothing less than fulfill our duty to
our country and to our Constitution.

[[Page H12187]]

Mr. Trump has allowed foreign powers to interfere in our domestic
affairs. He has endangered our national security and our democracy
itself. Madam Speaker, for those reasons, we must impeach this
President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution on impeachment,
and I include my statement in the Record.
Madam Speaker, President Donald Trump is unique in the history of the
American presidency. No one has led as he has. His success and his
style have frustrated his opponents.
Remember back to the fall of 2016 when pundits and politicians on the
left lectured Americans about the historical need to accept the outcome
of the election? Then Hilary Clinton lost. Some began undermining and
attacking the President before he had even taken office. Others called
for his impeachment.
Meanwhile, we now know--as a result of the Horowitz investigation--
that some in the FBI engaged in nefarious actions to investigate the
Trump campaign. They lied to and misled the FISA court in an incredible
abuse of power by a government agency. Civil libertarians are rightly
outraged by what occurred. Laws designed to protect America from
foreign terrorists were misused to spy on an American presidential
campaign.
The false narrative of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians
dominated the first two years of the Trump presidency. I supported the
appointment of Mr. Mueller and repeatedly stood up for the independence
of his investigation. I wanted the facts.
The Mueller investigation spent years and millions of taxpayer
dollars and came up empty. That report produced nothing impeachable, or
the articles of impeachment would include the findings of that report.
For me, overturning the outcome of an election demands two things: A
bipartisan and fair process to determine wrong doing, and a criminal
offense worthy of overturning the outcome of the voters' will. Neither
threshold has been met in this case.
With a clear conscience, I will vote against both articles of
impeachment.
Read the articles of impeachment. ``Abuse of power'' and
``obstruction of Congress,'' are the charges. Neither of these are
criminal violations. This isn't perjury or burglary.
Every administration--Democratic and Republican--pushes back against
Congress' request for witnesses and information. The Constitution
enshrines this separate-branch conflict. Congress doesn't like being
told no. At times we've sued over it. It's the tension our founders
designed into the competing branches of government. Work it out, or go
to the courts. But in this case, they truncated the timeline to exclude
a judicial review. They announced the outcome before the investigation
was completed.
I voted to hold President Obama's Attorney General in contempt of
Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the ``fast and
furious'' fiasco. Congress sued and won this case. But Republicans
never seriously thought about impeaching the President.
I threatened to subpoena President Trump's Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to his face in the East Room of the White House during our
investigation of the opioid crisis. We eventually worked it out and got
to review the data we sought. Not once did I think about impeaching the
President over this matter.
The anti-Trump crowd has weaponized impeachment and converted it into
a partisan tool, something one of America's founding fathers--Alexander
Hamilton--warned against. The American people elected President Trump
to shake things up in Washington, D.C. And that's precisely what he's
done.
Lower taxes and less oppressive regulations would not have happened
under a Clinton Administration. Hillary Clinton would not have stood up
to China as President Trump has. She would not have demanded and gotten
a new and better trade deal with our friends to the north and south. As
for the Russians, she's the one who led the ``reset'' with Russia that
offended our European allies and played into Putin's hand.
We've never had a better economy or lower unemployment in the modern
era. We're the envy of the world. America is standing up to our
competitors and enemies. We're getting new and better trade agreements
and bringing more jobs back to America.
We've never had a President lean in more to get lower drug prices or
make our allies keep their promises to help pay for their national
security.
President Trump is doing exactly what he promised, and that includes
violating the political norms of the Washington, D.C. swamp. And for
that, the left wants to send him packing.
In facts matter, we should not impeach this president, but instead
get back to work solving the problems facing American families.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. NORMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I include my
statement in the Record.
Madam Speaker, Today I have heard my Democratic warn that our
Republic is in a constitutional crisis. Yet the only crisis I see is
the crisis of one party unable to accept its defeat.
When you lost, you called for the abolishment of the Electoral
College, to redraw the electoral map, and now for impeachment
You claim to be the Defenders of our Constitution, but is there any
article you would not shred to gain power?
But if we pretend for a second that you are sincere about the dangers
to our Republic, I am left wondering:
Why would you not follow the historical precedent of impeachment
processes?
Why would you not have an open and fair investigation?
Why would you rush through the entire process?
In other words, if you are so concerned with the fate of our
Republic, why on earth would you play politics with it?
The truth is, yours words do not match your actions.
As you pretend to cry about the state of our Republic, save a few
tears for the state of your own party.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. PALAZZO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I oppose the Articles of Impeachment, and
I include my statement in the Record.
Madam Speaker, as the Democrats continue suppressing Republicans'
right to speak out against the ridiculous impeachment inquiry, I was
unable to provide remarks during the debate in the House on the two
articles of impeachment today. I now ask my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle why they chose to silence not only members of
Congress but also our constituents. The responsibility of impeachment
is not one I take lightly. I am disappointed the Democrats continued
ramming this baseless impeachment through the House without hearing
from every single member of Congress. Had I been provided the
opportunity to speak before the House, I would have shared the
following thoughts.
I rise with a heavy heart for our nation today.
Later this evening, House Democrats will force a vote on the weakest
articles of impeachment this legislative body has ever seen in an
attempt to overturn the fair and lawful election of Donald Trump.
Since the day President Trump was inaugurated, Democrats have made it
their sole purpose to impeach this man, but for what? No facts have
been presented to substantiate a single allegation made by the liberal
majority.
Simply put Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in Congress do not care about
free and fair elections. They do not care about the will of the
American people. They care about obstructing the work of a great
American president with whom they disagree.
The articles of impeachment before the House today, fall
significantly short of an impeachable offense. This vote sets a
horrible precedent that any majority can undo an election based on
personality conflicts and policy disagreements.
The Democrats have entirely disregarded process and procedure by
blatantly ignoring the notion that all are innocent until proven
guilty--the president is not guilty of obstruction of Congress, and he
is not guilty of an abuse of power.
The president making efforts to curb corruption in a country well
known for corruption is not quid pro quo; it is good governance by a
chief executive dedicated to doing right by the people of this country.
Make no mistake about it, when the work of this House is done, and
the Senate votes to dismiss these charges, the other party will
continue to obstruct and slander the president at every turn.
My constituents and I agree that the president is changing the face
of America for the better. While some on the other side may not like
his straight-forward manner, it is hard to argue that our country is
not better because of him.
The Democrats have forgone due process in an attempt to fulfill their
electoral shortcomings.
When my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to find
reasons why they lost in 2016, they should not look beyond the confines
of their own caucus.

[[Page H12188]]

I encourage my colleagues to give up this charade, get back to
leading, and move past personal vendettas against a duly elected
president.
The majority party could take some lessons from our president. Let's
put Americans first and get back to taking care of our country.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if
he is ready to close.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I have a few more speakers.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Espaillat).
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, if you live on Lenox Avenue in the
village of Harlem in my district, you are not above the law.
If you live on Webster Avenue in the Bronx part of my district, you
are not above the law.
If you live in Washington Heights, the immigrant neighborhood in my
district, you are not above the law.
So I submit to you, if you live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you are
not above the law, and you will be held accountable.
President Donald Trump asked the Ukrainian President to ``do us a
favor'' and look into the Bidens. That is abuse of power.
President Trump used the official White House meeting to extort the
Ukrainian President. That is abuse of power.
President Trump ordered White House staff to withhold $400 million in
aid to Ukraine. That is abuse of power.
President Trump and his staff defied multiple subpoenas from
Congress. That is obstruction of Congress.
He blocked witnesses from testifying before this body. That is
obstruction of Congress.
No one is above the law. I cast my vote for these Articles of
Impeachment, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I include my statement in the Record,
recording that I am opposed to these Articles of Impeachment on the
basis that they do not measure up to Article II, Section 4.
Madam Speaker, following the release of reports from the Oversight,
Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committees, it is clear
the hearings held by House Democrats over the last month have by no
means proved President Trump committed an impeachable offense. Unhappy
with the results of the election, House Democrats have been working to
build a case for impeachment since the day President Trump took office.
Speaker Pelosi said from the beginning that the impeachment must be
`compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan;' and today, none of those
are true. In actuality, there is one thing bipartisan about this
impeachment: the opposition to it.
There is a reason why only three presidents have gone through this
before--it is supposed to be an exceedingly rare occurrence. The
founders warned against a single party impeachment because it would
divide the country--and that is what we are seeing right now, we are
seeing Democrats weaponize the impeachment process and I am worried for
the precedent this will set for the future.
The majority has wasted the Fall by being solely focused on
impeachment--leading us to pass two continuing resolutions, miss
important deadlines for the NDAA, and leave funding to the last minute.
I believe we need to be focused on solving problems and working on
solutions for our constituents; the American people are sick of this
partisan stalemate. I hope in the beginning of the next session we can
get back to the real issues--finding a bipartisan solution to lowering
the price of prescription drugs, creating an infrastructure package,
reforming our broken budget process, and expanding access to broadband
in rural areas.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Brownley ).
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, as the chair of the
Women's Veterans Task Force, I see, every single day, the immense
sacrifice our women veterans and all of our Nation's veterans have made
in service to our country, in service to our Commander in Chief, our
Constitution, to protect our democracy, and for every single man,
woman, and child in our country.
When the President of the United States used $400 million meant to
protect our national security in order to cheat in our elections, he
not only abused his power, he turned his back on the sacrifices our
veterans and their families have made for all that we hold so dear.
That abuse of power is reprehensible, and it is exactly what
impeachment was designed to prevent.
We have a solemn duty to protect our Constitution, to protect our
democracy, and to honor all those who have laid their lives on the line
for these United States of America.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. WALORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record my
opposition to these Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, make no mistake. We are not
impeaching this President. He is impeaching himself.
If you are the President and you obstruct justice, try to bribe a
foreign leader, and threaten national security, you are going to get
impeached. End of story.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Budd) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BUDD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my opposition to
these Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Haaland).
Ms. HAALAND. Madam Speaker, I stand before you as a Representative of
New Mexico, a place where we believe in dignity and respect for all. In
Congress, I have been fighting for them. We have been working to make
healthcare more affordable, education accessible, and move our country
forward for the people.
But today, this President has forced us into a serious debate. We are
talking about a President who used the power of the Presidency for his
own political gain, risking our national security, and putting the
integrity of the next election at risk.
It is a sad day when a President shows complete disrespect for
Congress as a coequal branch of government and for the American people
who elected us.
We collected the evidence, and the facts are indisputable. We all
took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We have the solemn
responsibility to hold this President accountable because it is our
job.
I urge my colleagues to live up to our responsibility and show our
fellow Americans that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. MULLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my opposition to
these Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Adams) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. ADAMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my statement in
support of the Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J.
Trump.
After reviewing hours of testimony, countless pieces of evidence, and
the Administration's own words and actions, I believe the case has been
made that the President abused his power and obstructed Congress from
fulfilling its constitutional duty.
As such, I will support both articles of impeachment today on the
House floor.
The evidence shows that the President put his interests above those
of the country.
We must act quickly because President Trump's behavior poses a clear
and present danger to our democracy.

[[Page H12189]]

His words and actions show that he is actively looking to interfere
in next year's election by any means necessary.
We cannot stand for that kind of misconduct in our country's Chief
Executive.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, impeaching a President of the United
States. This isn't about some solemn duty tonight. Let's talk about
what this is really about.
This has been about a political vendetta, a political vendetta that
didn't just start with the Zelensky call. It started long before that.
Just listen to some of the quotes from Democrats in this Chamber:
Speaker Pelosi: It's been going on for 22 months, 2\1/2\ years,
actually. We cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump. What's more
serious is that he can't win.
This isn't about some crime that was committed. It is about fear that
he might win reelection.
That is not why you impeach a President.

{time} 1915

Al Green: ``I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this President, he
will get reelected.''
The list goes on, Madam Speaker. In fact, there are some quotes that
I can't even read on this House floor that some of our colleagues made.
And keep in mind, more than 100 Democrats on this House floor voted
to impeach this President before the Zelensky phone call.
Just look at some of these Articles of Impeachment they voted for 2
years ago:
Fifty-eight Democrats voted to impeach the President over comments he
made about NFL players kneeling for the Pledge of Allegiance. Over 50
Democrats voted to impeach him for that.
Just this summer, over 90 Democrats voted to impeach the President
for comments he made about The Squad. So he makes comments about some
other Members of Congress who make a lot of comments about him, and 95
Members vote to impeach the President of the United States.
This is a political vendetta. It has nothing to do with a crime
committed. There was no crime.
And why don't we listen to some of the witnesses? Obviously, we
weren't able to call all the witnesses we wanted, but there were
witnesses. In fact, Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European
Union, he is mentioned over 600 times in the Schiff report. He was
their star witness.
And what did he say when asked: ``Did President Trump ever tell you
personally about any preconditions for anything?''
His answer: ``No.''
``Any preconditions for the aid to be released?''
``No.''
``Any preconditions for a White House meeting?''
Under oath, he testified: ``No.''
Abuse of power, let's talk about that Article of Impeachment, Madam
Speaker.
George Washington Law Professor Turley, who admitted under oath that
he voted against Donald Trump, spoke to this claim of abuse of power.
In fact, he said: ``If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of
going to the courts, it is an abuse of power; it is your abuse of
power.''
You are doing precisely what you are criticizing the President of
doing, abuse of power.
There is a House rule, Madam Speaker, that requires--not allows, but
requires--that the minority get a day of hearing, which we asked for
multiple times. They broke this rule. They didn't allow us to have a
minority day of hearing. They didn't want to hear the facts about this
case because it was never about the facts because there was no crime.
It is about a personal political vendetta.
Now let's talk about obstruction of Congress, as they make up these
terms to impeach a President because they didn't find a crime, and they
were looking. It has been an impeachment in search of a crime.
But they talk about obstruction of Congress in saying the President
defied subpoenas, subpoena after subpoena. Let's go through the
Departments.
The Department of State they subpoenaed. Do you know that, literally,
just 4 days after the subpoena, the Secretary of State, himself,
responded to their subpoena?
The Department of Defense, a week later responded to the subpoena.
The Department of Energy responded to the subpoena.
We can go on and on with all of these agencies.
That is an abuse of power, that is an obstruction of Congress,
responding to your subpoena?
That is what they did: They responded.
You might not have liked the answer, but that is not the way this
works. You don't impeach a President because you don't like his foreign
policy, as so many of those foreign policy experts came and testified.
But this isn't just about Donald Trump. They don't just hate Donald
Trump, Madam Speaker. They hate the 63 million Americans who voted for
this President, the forgotten men and women of this country who have
been left behind, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it is those forgotten
men and women of this country that Washington had left behind.
And what is this President doing for them? He is delivering for them:
600 jobs in Pennsylvania; 1,000 jobs, workers in Mingo Junction, Ohio;
$750 million investment for 600 new jobs across this country; The
Detroit News; Chrysler, 6,500 new jobs. That is what this President is
doing to deliver for those men and women of this country who have been
left behind.
It is about time somebody stands up for Americans, and President
Trump is.
So it is a political vendetta.
But if they are going to go through with this, Madam Speaker,
impeachment will not just be a stain on this Democrat majority; the
impeachment will be their legacy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Madam Speaker, I include my statement in
the Record regarding the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge in
favor of the Articles of Impeachment.
Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I returned from a bipartisan trip
to Belgium to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the
Bulge--the Germans' last significant offensive during World War II.
We celebrated with courageous 95-year-old American veterans who
turned the tide at Bastogne and the Ardennes Forest, so that my
generation and generations to come may live in peace and freedom from
tyranny.
My late father, Malcolm McLane, was shot down during the Battle of
the Bulge and spent the final six months of World War II in a Nazi
prisoner-of-war camp.
In this solemn moment, on this historic day for our nation, I reflect
on the legacy of my father and all World War II veterans. We owe them--
and all of the men and women who have served our nation--an incredible
debt of gratitude for their service and bravery.
Today, we must defend a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Just moments ago, I upheld my oath to protect and defend the
Constitution when I cast my vote to charge President Donald John Trump
with articles of impeachment.
I did so with a heavy heart, to protect and defend the future of our
great nation--our American democracy--for generations to come.
The evidence and facts are clear and uncontested: President Trump has
abused the power of the Presidency for his own personal gain, at the
expense of our national security and the integrity of the 2020
election.
Articles of impeachment are formal charges against the President--
this is not a vote to remove him from office. That decision will be
made following a trial in the United States Senate.
I hope that the Senate will hold a fair, transparent and thorough
trial to get to the truth for the American people.
Meanwhile, I will continue to focus my efforts on our important work
to improve the lives of Granite Staters and all Americans. I wish you
and your family a Merry Christmas, joyful holidays and peace in the New
Year. May God bless the United States of America.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of
Representatives.

[[Page H12190]]

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I have had the honor of serving in this House for over
38 years. I have served during six Presidencies. I have been here
through moments of tremendous progress and terrible tragedy. I have
seen periods of rank partnership and patriotic bipartisanship. I have
seen our two-party system work, and I have seen it break down.
Never in all my years of serving in this great institution that I
love and the people of my district did I ever expect to encounter such
an obvious wrongdoing by a President of the United States, nor did I
expect to witness such a craven rationalization of Presidential actions
which have put our national security at risk, undermined the integrity
of our elections, and defined the constitutional authority of the
Congress to conduct oversight.
We have heard from Republicans that this impeachment really has to do
with policy differences or how we feel personally about the President,
about his temperament or that we simply dislike him.
Throughout the Trump Presidency, Democrats have resisted pursuing
impeachment even as we watched with dismay and disgust at a pattern of
wrongdoing. That pattern included:
Ordering Federal agencies to lie to the public;
Firing the FBI Director for refusing to end investigations of his
campaign;
Siding with Vladimir Putin against our intelligence agencies;
Taking funding away from the military to put towards an ineffective
border wall; and
Setting policies that have led to the separation of families and
caging of children.
We have, to be sure, deep disagreements with the policies and actions
taken by this President.
There has been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted
for Mr. Trump, little talk about the 65 million people who voted for
Hillary Clinton.
The policy difference, or those votes, this President was elected
legitimately because we have an electoral college. But none of these
are reasons to pursue what Chairman Schiff has called a wrenching
process for the Nation.
In fact, Democrats rejected that process emphatically in three
specific votes:
In December of 2017, Democrats overwhelmingly voted against pursuing
Articles of Impeachment, including the Speaker and me.
We did so again in 2018, with over 60 percent of the Democrats
rejecting pursuing Articles of Impeachment.
And again just months ago, in July of 2019, 60 percent of the
Democrats said no to pursuing Articles of Impeachment just days before
the infamous July 25 telephone call. We did the same with 60 percent of
Democrats voting not to proceed.
Credible witnesses, many of whom were appointed to office by
President Trump, have corroborated the details and timeline of his
abuse of Presidential power, which forms the basis of the first Article
of Impeachment in this resolution. I will not recount all of the
witnesses or abuses that have occurred.
I congratulate my colleagues and Mr. Nadler and his committee and Mr.
Schiff and his committee for setting forth a compelling case. They have
been laid out fully in the articles before us and by colleagues in
their remarks.
What I will do is remind Americans that the House provided President
Trump every opportunity to prove his innocence, but the witnesses were
precluded from coming forth.
The witnesses who had personal knowledge did not come, either at the
President's request, in which he refused to show up because he thought
it was a sham, as so many of you have said, or to the committees.
Instead, he ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and for
testimony by White House officials and ordered his subordinates not to
cooperate. Perhaps they could have exonerated him.
This, itself, I suggest to you, is unprecedented. When Presidents
Nixon and Clinton were asked to hand over documents and allow officials
to testify, ultimately, both complied because it is the law.
Such actions of the President can be taken as further evidence of his
obstruction and abuse of power. It is, in and of itself, impeachable
conduct, the subject of the second Article of Impeachment.
These two articles, of course, concern two very profound
constitutional issues about the abuse of power in our Republic:
First, whether it is acceptable for the President of the United
States--any President--to solicit foreign interference in our
elections.
There is a difference as to whether he has done that, and the place
to try that is in the United States Senate. But we believe strongly
there is probable cause to conclude that, to undermine our national
security, the integrity of our elections, and the integrity of our
democracy.
Secondly, whether it is permissible for the President to obstruct
Congress and act as if he is above the law and immune from
constitutional oversight.
On December 4, the Judiciary Committee heard the testimony of
constitutional law experts who weighed in on these points.
Some 1,500 historians have said the same thing as Professor Noah
Feldman said: If we cannot impeach a President who abuses his office
for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. ``We live in
a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship.''
The votes we are about to take concern the rule of law and our
democracy itself.
Let us not forget the words of John Locke, so influential to the
Founders of our Republic. John Locke, a millennia ago, said this:
``Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.''

{time} 1930

This impeachment asks whether we are still a republic of laws, as our
Founders intended, or whether we will accept that one person can be
above the law.
In America, as we have said over and over again, no one is above the
law, but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking
the law, even a President, will that be true.
If the House does not act, if we wait and delay, we run the risk of
allowing the President's misconduct, if we believe it to be so, to be
repeated at the expense of the integrity of our elections, our national
security, and our constitutional system of separation of powers.
Democrats did not choose this impeachment. We did not wish for it.
We voted against it. We voted against it once, we voted against it
twice, we voted against it three times, as recently as July.
We did not want this.
However, President Trump's misconduct has forced our constitutional
Republic to protect itself.
These votes that we are about to take and the process that will
follow in the Senate are not only an assessment of the President's
commitment to the Constitution or to his oath of office; it is, as
well, a test of our own.
Damning evidence of the President's high crimes has emerged.
Nevertheless, Republican Members of this House and of the Senate have
continued to defend the President, whose actions seem to many of us to
be indefensible.
All of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. It is what makes our two-
party system function. It is what helps hold Presidents and majorities
accountable. But party loyalty must have its limits.
And as evidence of the President's impeachable offenses have mounted
daily as the witnesses testified, it has become increasingly clear that
the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed.
Now, Democrats and Republicans together face a test before our
constituents, our countrymen, and our creator.
The New York Times on October 18 summarized the question now posed to
House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats: ``Compromise by
compromise, Donald Trump has hammered away at what Republicans once saw
as foundational virtues: decency, honesty, responsibility,'' and, yes,
even civility.
It went on to say: ``Will they commit themselves and their party
wholly to Mr. Trump, embracing even his most antidemocratic actions, or
will they take the first step toward separating themselves from him and
restoring confidence in the rule of law?''
Madam Speaker, we have seen Republican courage throughout our
history, from the Civil War to the Cold War.

[[Page H12191]]

In 1950, Margaret Chase Smith, the Senator from Maine, a Republican,
spoke bravely against the cancer of McCarthyism in her party, leading
six of her Republican colleagues in a ``Declaration of Conscience''
against their own leadership.
``We are Republicans,'' they declared. ``But we are Americans
first.''
In 1974, one Congressman took the brave and principled step of
becoming the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support
impeaching President Nixon.
He said to his colleagues and to the country: ``It is not easy to
align myself against the President, to whom I gave my enthusiastic
support . . . on whose side I have stood in many a legislative battle,
whose accomplishments in foreign and domestic affairs I have
consistently applauded.
``But it is impossible,'' he went on to say, ``for me to condone or
ignore the long train of abuses to which he has subjected the
Presidency and the people of this country. The Constitution and my own
oath of office,'' he said, ``demand that I `bear true faith and
allegiance' to the principles of law and justice upon which this Nation
was founded,'' he concluded, ``and I cannot, in good conscience, turn
away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and compelling.''
My colleagues, that Congressman's name was Larry Hogan, Sr. He
represented the Fifth District of Maryland, which I now represent. His
son is presently the second-term Republican Governor of our State.
When Larry Hogan, Sr., died in 2017, every obituary led with praise
for his act of political courage.
Who among us, many years from now, will receive such praise as a man
or woman of courage?
Who will regret not having earned it?
We have talked a lot about partisan differences.
There is one person who has spoken today who is neither a member of
the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party. His name is Justin
Amash, who represents a Republican district. He left the Republican
Party, and in doing so, he admonished his colleagues that: ``This
President will only be in power for a short time, but excusing his
behavior will forever tarnish your name.''
He spoke on this floor in support of the two articles that we will
consider this evening, neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Representative Amash, of course, is the only Member of this House who
has no allegiance to either party, but to his country. He is
supporting, as I have said, both articles.
We need not ask who will be the first to show courage by standing up
to President Trump.
The question we must now ask is: Who will be the last to find it?
The pages of our history are filled with Americans who had the
courage to choose country over party or personality, but as President
Kennedy wrote: ``The stories of past courage . . . can teach, they can
offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply
courage itself. For this,'' President Kennedy said, ``each man''--each
woman--``must look into their own soul.''
Madam Speaker, I urge my fellow colleagues in the House and, yes, in
the Senate, to look into your soul, summon the courage to vote for our
Constitution and our democracy.

I understand we will all not see the same conclusion, but to do less
betrays our oath and that of our Founders, who pledged their lives,
their fortune, and their sacred honor.
Let us neither turn away from the evidence, which to me seems so
clear, nor from our good conscience, which compels us to do what, in
our hearts, we know to be right.
Let us not allow the rule of law to end or for tyranny to find its
toehold.
With our votes today, we can bear true faith and allegiance to the
vision of our Founders and we can show future generations what it truly
means to be Americans first.
Vote ``yes.''
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago just off of
this floor, I said that a dark cloud was descending upon this body. And
today, because of the clock and the calendar, it is closing.
It is amazing to me what I just heard from the majority leader: that
Mr. Schiff and Mr. Nadler presented a compelling case for impeachment.
If this is a compelling case for impeachment, I am not sure why we
are here right now.
It is not anywhere close to compelling.
But you know what is interesting is what I have heard today. The
majority leader just spoke and said that the President was given every
opportunity to come prove his innocence.
I tell you what, Madam Speaker, let me have just a few minutes, stop
the clock, and let me go around to the press corps and everybody here
and I am going to accuse you of something.
You did it. You did it. You did it. You did it. Now prove it is
wrong. You did it.
Guess what? You don't want to, because deep down, you know that that
is turning the entire jurisprudence of this country upside down.
You are not guilty until you are proven innocent. You are innocent.
And today from this floor, we have heard the majority leader say this
President is guilty, and not the other way around.
He is innocent, and these articles come nowhere close to proving it.
But what is left of this body? Let's have an honest conversation,
Madam Speaker.
What we have found over the past few weeks is that it is okay for the
majority to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their
case. They have called him a liar or weak or worse, or as he was called
in the committee, he even looked like a battered wife.
It is below the dignity of this body and this majority to tear down a
foreign leader because they can't make their case against this one.
We have broken rules in this House, even to this moment. Chairman
Schiff and the others have broken H. Res. 660 by not turning over the
things that they should be turning over.
I still have not gotten a transcript and the White House still has
not gotten their stuff.
I guess to the minority here, the rules today don't matter either.
You see, there is a problem here, because we are going to vote on
this tonight while breaking the rules. What a shameful incident.
But we also found a creative interpretation of minority rights. We
saw the rise of partisanship, because of the things that have been done
even further.
We have even seen Members smeared in reports by drive-by political
hacks when they match phone numbers of the ranking member and members
of the press.
That ought to concern every one of you as much as it concerns every
one of us. Nothing but a drive-by hit.
But you know something? This majority leader also just said wherever
law ends, tyranny begins.
But I will say this: In this House, wherever the rules are
disregarded, chaos and mob rule actually begin, and the majority has
taken that to a new level.
It has been said today, where is bravery?
I will tell you where bravery is found and courage is found: It is
found in this minority, who has lived through the last year of nothing
but rules being broken, people being put down, questions not being
answered, and this majority saying, Be damned with anything else, we
are going to impeach and do whatever we want to do.
Why? Because we won an election.
I guarantee you, one day you will be back in the minority, and it
ain't going to be that fun. Because when you look at it, when you
actually trash the rules of this House, you want to really look at:
What did you gain at the end by trashing the institution you claim to
love?
Those are the things we have found out so far.
But you know they are really careful in saying, Oh, you want to deal
with process and process.
As I said last night in the Rules Committee--where they didn't want
to listen--I will win on process and I will win on facts, because we
have the truth on our side.
Let me remind you that here is what the facts actually say. There was
no pressure. Look at the call between President Zelensky and President
Trump: no pressure. There was no conditionality. There was nothing done
to get the aid, and the aid actually came.

[[Page H12192]]

There were five meetings, but when you look at it right now, none of
which matter, because right now the dark cloud is descending upon this
House.
I am fearful, Madam Speaker, when I look out into that abyss. I don't
know what I see, but I tell you what I do see. I see coming up a
President who will put his head down, even through this sham
impeachment, and he will do his job. He will put the American people
first. He will tell them, I care about you. He will still put the
economy first, and he will make sure that this country stands strong.
That is what I see in this abyss. That is where we are going.

{time} 1945

Madam Speaker, it is with that hope in the future that I recognize
right now that I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), the Republican leader of this House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I must warn you, I am about to say
something my Democratic colleagues hate to hear: Donald J. Trump is
President of the United States. He is President today. He will be
President tomorrow. And he will be President when this impeachment is
over.
Madam Speaker, when they accept that, maybe this House can get back
to work for the American people.
But, tonight, I rise not as the leader of the opposition to this
impeachment or as the elected Representative from the Central Valley of
California. I rise as Kevin McCarthy, citizen, no better, no worse than
the 435 Representatives who are in this Chamber or the 330 million
Americans watching this institution make what I believe to be one of
the worst decisions we have ever made.
It doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, whether you
are liberal or you are conservative, whether you are the first
generation or the tenth, at our core, we are all American, all of us.
We choose our future. We choose what kind of Nation we want to be.
Here is our choice tonight: Will we let impeachment become an
exercise of raw political power, regardless if it damages our country?
Or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now
and in the future?
For months, Democrats and many in the media have attempted to
normalize the impeachment process that would remove a duly elected
President from office. After 3 years of breathless and baseless
outrage, this is their last attempt to stop the Trump Presidency.
Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi even recently admitted that Democrats
have been working on this impeachment for 2\1/2\ years. Those were her
words; they were not mine. Because they lost to him in 2016, they will
do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020.
That is not America. That is not how democratic republics behave.
Elections matter. Voters matter. And in 11 months, the people's voice
will be heard again.
Impeachment is the most consequential decision Congress can make
other than sending our men and women into war. Yet, 85 days ago,
Speaker Pelosi chose to impeach the President of the United States. She
wrote the script and created an artificial timeline to make the details
fit. Why else are we doing this just hours before Christmas?
If that is all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven. But
before the Speaker saw one word, one shred of evidence, she moved to
impeach.
In the past, in this body, such a step demanded a vote from all of us
from the start, but not only did she move to impeach before she gave
this House and the hundreds of millions of people we represent a say in
whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan
standards this House gave Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
That is why I immediately sent Speaker Pelosi a letter asking her to
follow the rules of history, of tradition, to follow those standards
that have served America well. What did she say? She rejected it. She
rejected it because Democrats knew a fair process would crumble their
case.
A fair process would have exposed to the American public what many
already knew: Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since
the day he was elected, and nothing was going to get in their way,
certainly not the truth.
Madam Speaker, Chairman Schiff said he had evidence, more than
circumstantial, of collusion. That was false.
In January, when we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised
our hands, and we swore that we would uphold the Constitution. A few
mere hours after that, Congresswoman Tlaib said she was going to
impeach the mothereffer. Those are not my words.
A year before taking the majority, Chairman Nadler campaigned to the
Democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
where impeachment is, The New York Times writes, Madam Speaker, because
he is the ``strongest Member to lead a potential impeachment.''
Congressman Raskin, a leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
one who the Democrats had represent them in the Rules Committee for
these articles just yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach President
Trump 2 days before he was even sworn into office.
What we have seen is a rigged process that has led to the most
partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of America. That
is this legacy. Any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for
such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness,
the judge, and the jury.
Madam Speaker, Democrats haven't just failed on process. They have
also failed on evidence. I have heard a lot of debate on this floor
today, but I haven't heard one Member of this body dispute this simple
fact: President Trump provided lethal aid to Ukraine. It came before
the call; it came after the call; and it continues to this day.
President Trump provided Ukraine tank-busting bombs. The previous
administration, they gave blankets. This is the truth.
Meanwhile, the Democrat's case is based on secondhand opinions and
hearsay. Simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment.
As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley--and I would challenge to
say he is probably the most respected, and we all know it--a Democrat
who did not vote for the President said, under oath: There was no
bribery. There was no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no
abuse of power.
Based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of
evidence, Turley called this the fastest, thinnest, and weakest
impeachment in U.S. history.
Such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this. But
Speaker Pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment, without
evidence or facts or truth or public support. The Speaker says it is
out of allegiance to our Founders.

On this, I agree. I agree with the Speaker that we should listen to
the Founders. If one does, it is very clear that this impeachment is
unfounded and improper.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote there would always
be the greatest danger that impeachment would be driven by partisan
animosity instead of ``real demonstrations of innocence or guilt''--
that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of
``real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
James Madison, another author of the Federalist Papers, wrote the
danger of legislative abuse ``must lead to the same tyranny as is
threatened'' by executive abuse.
The Founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or
partisan battles. If my colleagues do not want to follow the
constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps
they could have followed Speaker Pelosi's standard, at least the one
she promised to follow back in March. It was a very sensible standard.
She said that ``impeachment is so divisive,'' the evidence must be
``overwhelming,'' ``compelling,'' and ``bipartisan.''
Not one of those criteria has been met today. Based on the facts,
based on the evidence, based on the truth, this impeachment fails even
that Pelosi test.
Those who now say removing President Trump would protect the
integrity of our democracy have it backward. By removing a duly elected
President on empty Articles of Impeachment, Congress will erode public
trust in our system of government.
I understand they dislike the President, his beliefs, the way he
governs, and even the people who voted for him. How do I know this?
Because they say so, day in and day out.

[[Page H12193]]

In 2016, they even dismissed his supporters, calling us
``deplorables.'' Now, they are trying to disqualify our voice before
the 2020 election. They want to undo the results of the last election
to influence the next one.
As I said, President Trump will still be President when this is all
over. But Congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayer dollars
on impeachment rather than doing what the American people want us to
do. It didn't have to be this way.
Is this why we came here to serve, to trample on due process rights,
to issue more subpoenas than laws, to appease the new Democrat-
socialist base? That is not leadership. That is raw partisan politics,
and they know it.
By refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts by
substituting partisan animosity for real demonstrations of innocence or
guilt, and by continuing a 3-year effort to undermine the President,
this impeachment has divided this Nation without any concern for the
repercussions. Moreover, politicizing this process has discredited the
United States House of Representatives and could forever weaken the
remedy of impeachment.
To again quote Professor Turley, it is the Democrats' rush to
impeachment on these grounds, with unfair procedures, that is an
``abuse of power.'' History will right that.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we face a choice. Do you
trust the wisdom of the people, or do you deny them a say in their
government? Fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak
up and render their verdict in 11 months.

{time} 2000

To my fellow Americans, if you approve of the way this House has
conducted their business, if you want to see your tax dollars go
forward to endless investigations, support this impeachment.
But if you want to restore a working Congress like the previous
Congress that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy this
country has ever seen and one that, once again, will work with the
President to get things done for you and your family, then join with us
in rejecting this baseless impeachment.
That is what is wonderful about this system of ours. We are a
government of, by, and for the people. Always remember, we work for
you, not the other way around.
Now, I will say this stronger and with more conviction than I have
ever said it before: In this time of great trial and tribulation, may
God bless America.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, after 8 hours, let us return to where we began, with
the articles themselves.
Article I charges the President of the United States with abusing the
power of his office by coercing an ally into cheating in a U.S.
election on his behalf. It charges the President of the United States
with abusing his power by withholding official acts; by withholding a
White House meeting that the President of Ukraine desperately sought to
establish the support of his most important benefactor, the United
States; by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid
to a nation at war in order to get that nation to intervene in our
election by smearing his opponent. That is the gravamen of the charge
in Article I.
And what is the defense from my colleagues?
And I have listened carefully to my colleagues for the last 8 hours,
and I have to say, it has been hard for me to follow. But I think, when
you cut through it all, when you cut through all of the sound and the
fury signifying nothing, what it really amounts to is this: Why should
we care? Why should we care about what the President did to Ukraine?
Well, first of all, we should care about our allies. We should care
about Ukraine. We should care about a country struggling to be free in
a democracy.
We used to care about democracy. We used to care about our allies. We
used to stand up to Putin and Russia.
We used to. I know the party of Ronald Reagan used to.
Why should we care about Ukraine? But, of course, it is about more
than Ukraine. It is about us. It is about our national security.
Their fight is our fight. Their defense is our defense.
When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since World
War II by dint of military force and Ukraine fights back, it is our
fight, too.
And when the President sacrifices our interests, our national
security for his election, he is sacrificing our country for his
personal gain.
That is the gravamen of Article I.
Article II charges the President of the United States with
obstructing the Congress, with denying the Congress any witness, any
document, by telling all of his administration people: You will not
appear. You will ignore a coequal branch of government.
And what is the defense to this from my colleagues again? It is: Why
should we care? He is the President of our party. Why should we care if
he ignores this Congress?
Well, I remind my friends that he will not be the last President.
There will be another President, and you may be, one day--although you
do not act like it--you may one day be in the majority, and you will
want to hold a President accountable.
What will you say when that President says: ``You are a paper tiger.
You have no oversight. I can ignore your subpoenas''? What will you
say? What will you argue?
``Well, no, no, that was different. Then we were in the minority.
Then it was a Republican President.''
Will that be your argument? Is that how little faith you have in our
democracy and our Constitution? Is that how poorly you defend and
uphold our Constitution?
But, finally, let me ask this question that overrides it all: Why
should we care about any of this?
I will bring you to one conversation that came to light, because it
is not the most important conversation, but, in many ways, it is the
most revealing.
It took place on September 14 in Ukraine, when Ambassador Volker sat
down with Andriy Yermak, the top adviser to Zelensky, and he did what
he should do. He supported the rule of law, and he said: You, Andriy
Yermak, should not investigate the last President, President
Poroshenko, for political reasons. You should not engage in political
investigations.
And do you know what Yermak said: Oh, you mean like what you want us
to do with the Bidens and the Clintons?
And in that abrupt, brutal retort, we see why we should care, because
what he was saying is: You, America, have forgotten what it means to
uphold the rule of law. You have forgotten what it means to say that no
one is above the law. We are a struggling democracy, but even we know
better than that.
What is at risk here is the very idea of America. That idea holds
that we are a nation of laws, not of men. We are a nation that believes
in the rule of law.
When we say we uphold the Constitution, we are not talking about a
piece of parchment; we are talking about a beautiful architecture in
which ambition is set against ambition, in which no branch of
government can dominate another. That is what it means to uphold the
Constitution.
If you ignore it, if you say the President may refuse to comply, may
refuse lawful process, may coerce an ally, may cheat in an election
because he is the President of our party, you do not uphold our
Constitution. You do not uphold your oath of office.
Well, I will tell you this: I will uphold mine. I will vote to
impeach Donald Trump.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, on March 7, 1788, six months after the
Constitution was signed at Independence Hall, Alexander Hamilton laid
out in detail the standards for impeachment in the Federalist papers.
Impeachment should, quote `proceed from the misconduct of public men,
or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,'
Hamilton wrote.
Donald Trump has without question met these standards.
These words from our framers--they don't only serve as guidance for
people in this country.
They serve as guidance for people around the world wishing to build a
sound system of government.
And they have allowed us in the United States of America, to stand
for democracy and the rule of law around the world.

[[Page H12194]]

So as the world watches, captivated and bewildered by the lawlessness
of our president, I hope they are also able to see the full functioning
of our democracy as we hold him accountable.
With this impeachment vote, the world is able to see the fruits of
our democracy and the glory of the checks and balances preserved in our
Constitution.
Unlike the dictatorship that my family fled from, in a democracy, we
don't just vote. We get to impeach a lawless president.
Mr. ESTES. Madam Speaker, I speak in opposition to the unprecedented
and unauthorized impeachment of the President of the United States.
Since the day after the 2016 election, many of my colleagues have
vowed to impeach President Trump and have since spent more than two
years searching for a reason to do it.
Today, they have brought forward two articles of impeachment based on
unfounded accusations of abuse of power and obstruction.
Despite a lack of evidence, an unfair process and no bipartisan
support, my colleagues across the aisle have barreled toward
impeachment, ignoring or delaying key priorities like the US-Canada-
Mexico Agreement along the way.
This is a sad day and the fact remains that this effort seeks to
overturn the 2016 election not based on evidence, but on a disdain for
President Trump.
I will vote against the articles of impeachment before us because I
think the American people deserve better from the House of
Representatives.
So on behalf of hardworking Kansans in the Fourth District and
Americans across our country, I call on my colleagues to vote against
articles of impeachment and focus on priorities that matter like
growing our economy, supporting our veterans and military, lowering
prescription drug costs, and helping Americans prepare for jobs and
retirement.
That's what the American people sent us here to do and it's time we
got back to work and beyond this shameful impeachment.
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 votes today are a sad
continuation of the efforts that have been underway since President
Trump was elected.
The majority has wrongly denied President Trump the fair process that
was afforded to President Clinton and President Nixon at every stage of
this investigation. I am also profoundly disappointed that the House
Judiciary Committee refused to hold a minority day hearing in
compliance with Clause 2(j)(l) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House.
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 a bedrock of past impeachment investigations. I am
disappointed that my resolution, H. Res. 667, which would have granted
co-equal subpoena authority to the minority and majority, was not
adopted.
Instead of working to combat rising prescription drug prices,
securing our southern border, protecting religious freedom, and reining
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 today's 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'' on both articles of
impeachment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, long before today's votes were scheduled,
my wife Karen and I made arrangements to visit our son Joshua in
Tanzania where he's serving in the Peace Corp. At the White House last
week I informed President Trump that I would not be present for these
votes, and he was supportive of me visiting my son. I told him I did
not support his impeachment, and I have requested that this statement
of my reasons for opposing both articles of impeachment be entered into
the Congressional Record.
I've been to Ukraine twice this year. I was an observer of the second
round of the Presidential election on April 21, 2019. I returned with a
bipartisan Congressional delegation from September 28 thru October 5,
2019 right in the middle of this supposed controversy.
We met with many people. We met with our embassy leadership. We also
met with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister and Minister of Defense. We had
a chance to visit our soldiers who are helping in the training mission
of the Ukrainian military. During that time, we met with the military
leadership of both countries. Finally, we met with members of the
Ukrainian parliament. During all these meeting no one mentioned a quid
pro quo.
What I also know is this: The Trump Administration provided the long-
overdue aid to Ukraine, including lethal Javelin anti-tank missiles,
that had been authorized by Congress but withheld by the previous
administration in their misguided efforts to appease Russia. Other
assistance to Ukraine was temporarily delayed this year following the
election of a new president--a political outsider we knew little about.
The new president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, also addressed this issue
several times. He has rejected the accusation that any quid pro quo or
any pressure was applied to him or the Ukrainian government. The aid
was also released prior to the Ukrainian government being pulled into
this political controversy. These observations convince me that the
first article of impeachment, ``abuse of power,'' is not credible.
My experience in Congress, including during the impeachment of
President Clinton, likewise convinces me the second article of
impeachment, ``obstruction of congress,'' is not a credible charge.
Constant tension exists between our legislative and executive
branches of government. Every president I've served with has said at
one time or another he is empowered to do this or to withhold that.
When Congress disagrees, we have at times taken those questions of
executive authority or privilege to our third branch of government: the
courts. But the Democrats haven't even given President Trump an
opportunity to defend his executive privilege through the courts, and
they're demanding that he just give up his constitutional powers under
Article II.
I'm disappointed to miss these votes but not embarrassed. I'm
embarrassed that they are even happening.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the articles of
impeachment which have been produced by this flawed process, which was
based on hearsay and testimony largely collected from a closed-door,
one-sided investigation.
In fact, the only witness we heard from who had direct knowledge of
the conversation in question, testified that President Trump did not
want a quid pro quo and confirmed that the aid to Ukraine was released
without the launching of any investigation that the President's
detractors say he was seeking.
The two articles of impeachment in the resolution--abuse of power and
obstruction of Congress--are broad and cite no specific crimes that the
President committed. The House Democrats are basing the entire
impeachment on hearsay testimonies grounded on absolutely no evidence
of a crime.
However, last week we had a look at some real wrongdoing. We found
out from the Justice Department's Inspector General that the
investigation into whether President Trump colluded with the Russians
was based on fraudulent information filed with the secret court. The
FBI was found to have withheld exculpatory evidence and senior FBI
leaders were found to have manipulated facts in order to support this
false collusion narrative, justify their investigation and expand it.
This happened on multiple occasions.
While the Mueller investigation found no collusion, some Members of
Congress, like House Impeachment Leader Adam Schiff, knowingly promoted
this falsehood and used similar tactics to engineer this impeachment
inquiry. This is unacceptable.
For the above reason, I voted to censor Chairman Adam Schiff and will
vote against these articles of impeachment.
We know this impeachment is a sham. They know this impeachment is a
sham. They know that we know it is a sham.
We all know this shameful impeachment began the moment the President
was elected, long before he ever had a single telephone call with any
foreign government. We've heard the numerous quotations by those on the
other side that validate that fact. And, yet the other side persists in
attempting to over-turn the results of the legitimate election of
President Donald J. Trump, because he dares to drain a swamp to which
they are beholden.
When the President calls for an investigation of corruption, the
other side calls it ``digging for dirt.'' When they dig for dirt, they
call it an ``investigation.''
This is a sad day for America. This impeachment is the worst case of
partisan politics in the history of our Republic.

[[Page H12195]]

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, there is no joy for me in the
impeachment process, because I know the nature of impeachment is
polarizing. Unfortunately, based on his own words, conduct, and the
evidence from credible witnesses, there is no other option but to
impeach.
The first article alleges the President abused the power of his
office for personal gain. He withheld military aid and an Oval Office
meeting from a foreign government unless they gave him dirt he could
use against his likely challenger to help his own re-election bid. The
President admitted he did this. This conversation was in the transcript
the White House released. Two State Department officials' texts and
phone calls confirmed the transcript and the President's own words.
The second article alleges the President obstructed Congress by
refusing to comply with the lawful requests made by Congress in the
impeachment inquiry. President Trump repeatedly instructed government
officials and agencies not to cooperate and spurn subpoenas. In the
history of impeachment in our country, this has never happened. No
President or Administration facing impeachment has ever categorically
denied subpoenas and refused requests for documents, until President
Trump.
The facts are not in dispute. The President and his Chief of Staff
have admitted they did it and told us ``we do that all the time, get
over it.'' We must not get over it. We must not let the abnormal become
the normal. We cannot allow this President to ``do whatever he wants''
if it violates the Constitution and laws of the United States.
To not impeach would say to future presidents they can disregard the
Constitutional authority given to Congress. To not impeach would
announce to foreign countries that America's presidency is for sale. To
not impeach would tell future presidents they too can try to rig an
election in their favor instead of letting voters decide. To not
impeach would say our President is above the law.
The President and Members of Congress take an oath to the
Constitution. The President violated his oath, but I will not violate
mine.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, for the first time in history, the House
is moving to impeach a duly-elected president without asserting a
crime. Instead, they are charging President Trump with a vague ``abuse
of power'' for allegedly conditioning U.S. security assistance to
Ukraine on an investigation into an energy company.
This deeply flawed inquiry did not produce clear evidence or
bipartisan support. At a minimum, one would expect bipartisan support
for such an extraordinary measure.
As a former federal prosecutor with the Public Integrity Section of
the Department of Justice, I approached this inquiry with the same
standards I would have applied to any case I handled during that time.
During six weeks of depositions, I listened diligently and sought out
relevant facts. But the Majority, driven by a political timeline,
insisted on a rush to judgment with an incomplete factual record.
Instead of interviewing multiple people with firsthand knowledge, they
settled for speculation and innuendo.
Ultimately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle failed to
prove the President tied U.S. aid to a political investigation. Here's
what we learned instead:
The president placed a temporary hold on U.S. security assistance in
mid-July and released it September 11 without Ukraine ever announcing
an investigation.
Multiple witnesses provided testimony that the pause was due to the
President's longstanding concerns about corruption in Ukraine. It took
for firsthand accounts from administrative officials, such as Vice
President Mike Pence, to see the sincerity of Ukraine's new President
Volodymyr Zelensky. He campaigned as an anti-corruption reformer and
made historic progress after his party took over the Ukrainian
parliament in August.
The Democrats' key witness--of which there was the only one who
talked with the President about the aid--is Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
When pressed, Sondland admitted he never knew why the aid was delayed.
Neither President Trump, nor anyone else, ever told him that aid was
tied to investigations, and any opinion he expressed to others about
such a connection was only him ``speculating.''
President Zelensky and his senior advisor Andriy Yermak, the key
Ukrainians in the Democrat narrative, have repeatedly and strongly
denied they were ever pressured or given any sense that the temporary
hold was connected to investigation requests. Indeed, they were not
even aware of the hold until it was publicly reported in the press.
History will judge this inquiry for the rush to impeach President
Trump without direct evidence, in defiance of historic precedent and as
a one-sided political probe. The ``investigation'' was held in the most
secret room in the Capitol. Depositions occurred on days lawmakers were
out of town. The Minority was denied basic fairness and did not allow
them to call a single witness. The administration was not allowed to
bring executive branch lawyers to defend themselves during depositions.
This contrasts with previous impeachment inquiries, where Presidents
Nixon and Clinton could have administration lawyers attend all
depositions and hearings, ask questions, make objections, present
evidence, and request their own witnesses. Those rights were denied in
this inquiry, as this impeachment process was weaponized for political
gain.
Opposing impeachment does not mean embracing every decision made by
the administration in this case. I strongly disagreed with the hold on
the security assistance that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine and
wrote an urgent letter with the gentleman from New York, Chairman Eliot
Engel, a week before the aid was released. Then and now, I believe that
unwavering support for Ukraine to counter Russian malign influence is a
vital component of U.S. national security.
But the truth is, Democrats began their three-year effort to impeach
the President the day he was sworn into office. In fact, 104 of my
Democratic colleagues voted for impeachment before the phone call
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky ever took
place.
Our constitutional order demands far more than this to remove a duly-
elected President. Sixty-three million Americans voted for President
Trump. With an election less than a year away, Americans should decide
their elected president at the ballot box, as our Constitution
requires.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Constitution is
clear and unambiguous--impeachment of any president is permitted only
for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Undoing the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election
with the proposed articles of impeachment, totally fails to meet the
legal standard prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. Despite hearings
and a process that were egregiously flawed and unfair, there is still
no direct evidence whatsoever of any crime.
Disagreement with or intense dislike for this or any other president
of the United States is not now--nor should it ever be--grounds for
impeachment.
Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, when I made the decision to return to
Congress, I did so with a clear understanding of how important this
moment is for our country and the democracy of our nation. My desire to
serve has always been to help people who deserve an effective voice
fighting for them.
I did not come to Congress to impeach a president. Despite the
ongoing inquiry, I've remained laser-focused on the issues that I hear
from my constituents most often--access to affordable health care,
lowering the cost of prescription drug prices, passing common-sense gun
reforms that will make our communities safer, and addressing income
inequality in all of its forms.
My role as the Representative for Nevada's Fourth Congressional
District also includes faithfully preserving and upholding our
Constitution and the system of laws and norms that undergird our
federal government. Our Constitution clearly lays out Congress' role in
protecting our democratic institutions and the delicate balance that
exists within it. Today, the House of Representatives is voting to
uphold this solemn responsibility to hold President Trump accountable.
In an effort to fulfill my obligation to uphold our Constitution and
the rule of law, I have paid careful attention to the investigations of
the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives. The Committees
of jurisdiction and witnesses have brought forward evidence uncovering
the truth of President Trump's July phone call and subsequent
inappropriate behavior toward President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
It has become apparent that President Trump is a continuing threat to
our democracy and danger to our national security. He abused the power
of his office for personal and political gain at the expense of our
national security; he conditioned official acts--millions in military
aid and a White House meeting--for his personal, political gain; and he
attempted to cheat our democracy and corrupt our elections. And so
today, I will vote in favor of the two articles of impeachment against
President Trump. No one is above the law. Not even the President.
The first article of impeachment charges President Trump with
violating his oath of office by abusing the powers of the Presidency
when he solicited the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 United States
presidential election. The second article of impeachment charges
President Trump with violating his oath of office by obstructing
justice and directing defiance of subpoenas issued by the House as part
of its impeachment inquiry. This is no longer a question of facts, it
is a question of duty--my duty to this country, our Constitution, and
my oath of office to uphold that Constitution and protect our
democracy.
This decision took careful thought and consideration. When I made my
oath of office, I

[[Page H12196]]

swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to serve this
country. As difficult as this moment is for the country given the
political divisiveness, preserving the integrity of our system for
posterity is how I can best serve the interests of the people of
Nevada. I hope that following this vote I can turn my full attention
back toward the issues that matter to Nevada's working families.
My mission in Washington has not changed, and I'll continue to fight
for the issues that will improve the lives of my constituents. My focus
will be on their stories and passing legislation to positively advance
their futures. I will continue to work to lower health care costs for
all Nevadans, to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, to protect
our children from mindless gun violence, and to ensure all Nevadans
have access to well-paying jobs and accessible job training programs.
It is the honor of my life to serve the people of Nevada's Fourth
Congressional District and I will continue to put their interests first
as I work to deliver on their behalf.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I'm pretty angry.
I'm angry with you, the Speaker of the House. I'm angry with Chairman
Adam Schiff. I'm angry with the Chairman Jerry Nadler.
I'm angry they're putting the country through this.
They've bastardized the tool of impeachment and are attempting to use
it to overturn the votes of 63 million people.
In just a few short hours, our president will be the first president
in history to be impeached by just one single political party.
Every person who is responsible for getting us to this point should
be held accountable.
Mr. SUOZZI. Madam Speaker, tonight, I will vote for impeachment. The
President threatened to withhold Congressionally approved military aid
to an ally under Russian attack unless the ally, a foreign government,
agreed to help the President with his campaign. That is an abuse of
power. The President refused to cooperate with Congress's
constitutional duty to provide oversight. That is obstruction.
As drastic and unwelcome as this is, inaction would not only give
this president a license to further abuse power and obstruct, but set a
dangerous precedent for all future presidents, that their misdeeds are
immune from consequences. Inaction would also seriously undermine our
system of government by relegating the Congress to a less than co-equal
branch of government.
As difficult as this is for our country, I believe this is the right
thing to do for our country.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, the President should be impeached. His
actions were an abuse of power that jeopardizes America's national
security and compromises our elections. No one is above the law, and
that includes the President. By withholding $400 million Ukraine
desperately needed to defend itself against Russia until Ukraine did
the President's political bidding, the President committed High Crimes
and Misdemeanors for which he should be impeached under Article I,
Section 2, Clause 5 and Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This abuse of power is compounded by the President's refusal to
cooperate with Congress' impeachment investigation and his stonewalling
of witnesses from testifying or turning over documents to Congress.
Almost 14,000 people have been killed since Russia invaded Ukraine.
Withholding $400 million Congress appropriated to help Ukraine defend
herself unless Ukraine helped the President dig up dirt on his
political rival Joe Biden was the last straw for me. People's lives and
our national security were placed at risk. This was more than paying
hush money for strippers, profiting from foreign governments staying at
resort properties, or even obstructing justice as laid out in the
Mueller Report.
The Founders fought and died for freedom and independence from a
tyrannical ruler and foreign government. Impeachment and removal from
office was the remedy they included in the Constitution to act as a
check on a President who placed himself above the law, abused his power
for his own personal benefit, and invited foreign governments to get
involved in our domestic affairs, especially our elections. A President
who flaunts the separation of powers and checks and balances in our
Constitution and who refuses to allow witnesses to appear before
Congress would receive our Founders' universal condemnation.
Treating taxpayer money as his own to extort a ``favor'' from a
foreign government to aid him in his re-election goes to the very heart
of concerns raised by our Nation's Founders when they drafted and
advocated for impeachment to act as a check on the awesome powers of
the chief executive. For instance, Madison said in Federalist No. 47,
``the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary,
in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of
tyranny.'' He went on to say during the Constitutional Convention,
``the Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power,''
and further that a President ``might betray his trust to foreign
powers.'' George Washington's Farewell Address warned of ``foreign
influence and corruption'' which leads to the ``policy and will'' of
America being ``subjected to the policy and will of another.''
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65 that impeachment
``proceeds from the misconduct of public men . . . from the abuse or
violation of a public trust.''
The USA Today editorial board stated it perfectly when they wrote in
their December 12, 2019 editorial:

In his thuggish effort to trade American arms for foreign
dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter,
Trump resembles not so much Clinton as he does Richard Nixon,
another corrupt president who tried to cheat his way to re-
election . . . This isn't party politics as usual. It is
precisely the misconduct the Framers had in mind when they
wrote impeachment into the Constitution.

Impeachment is the remedy the Founders placed in the Constitution to
remove a President during his or her term of office. This is especially
true when the misconduct involves an upcoming election. The President
invited foreign participation in our elections at least three times.
First with, ``Russia, if you're listening . . .,'' second with his
demands on Ukraine to ``do us a favor, though,'' and third with his
request for China to get involved in the 2020 election by starting ``an
investigation into the Bidens.'' Any further delay or simply allowing
the election cycle to run its course results in the harm and abuse
impeachment was designed to prevent.
For the sake of the Constitution, fair elections free of foreign
interference, and our national security, President Trump should be
impeached.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
impeachment of Donald J. Trump. This is not a joyous moment.
Impeachment ought to be an act that is exceedingly rare. Madam Speaker,
this is one of those rare occasions because this President's abuse of
power strikes at the very heart of our republic.
I was initially one of the holdouts on impeachment, preferring first
to see a strong, defensible case that Donald Trump had abused the power
of his office before endorsing such a serious step. When it became
clear that President Trump abused the power of his office by attempting
to extort the Ukraine government by withholding military aid in
exchange for a political investigation, our only choice was to move
forward on impeachment. Mr. Trump attempted to use the power of the
Presidency to subvert democracy itself.
My Republican friends argue, in part, that no crime was committed
because Mr. Zelensky claims he never felt pressure when asked to
criminally investigate the political rival of the most powerful man in
the world. I agree in part. These crimes were not committed against Mr.
Zelensky. Donald Trump believes that the power of the Presidency is his
personal tool to coerce the weak to do his bidding. If it had not been
Mr. Zelensky, it would have been some other poor fellow compromised by
need or greed. These crimes were committed against the Republic and the
American people who belong to it. And the power of impeachment was
given to this body to save us from small men entrusted with great
power. In 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked this simple question:
``What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?'' I hope that my
colleagues will answer as Mr. Franklin did: ``A republic, if we can
keep it.'' I will vote yes to impeach the President of the United
States. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my
support for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump.
Today's vote to impeach the President is sobering. While I have deep
disagreements with President Trump on immigration, health care, climate
change and other policy areas, I did not come to Washington to impeach
the President. I came to represent the voices of my constituents and I
take my duty very seriously.
The facts tell a disturbing yet highly consistent story. The
President's misdeeds have been verified by an immense body of evidence
and the testimony of dozens of witnesses--including civil servants and
constitutional scholars of the highest caliber. President Trump abused
his power to bribe another country for his own personal and political
gain. This is wrong.
I voted to impeach President Trump to do right by my constituents,
the future of our democracy, and to uphold the rule of law and my oath
to defend the Constitution. The facts are clear. The President
obstructed Congressional investigations by instructing his accomplices
to ignore compulsory calls to testify before Congress. No matter how he
tries to spin it, President Trump violated the Constitution and must be
held accountable. Regrettably, House and Senate Republicans are going
along with the President's lies and attempts to cover up his actions.

[[Page H12197]]

No one is above the law, not even the President.
Donald Trump indisputably violated the Constitution and is, without a
shadow of a doubt, no longer fit to discharge the duties of the
President of the United States of America.
I urge my colleagues to support these articles of impeachment.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, this year, our nation finds
itself in the midst of historic turmoil. President Donald J. Trump's
defiance of the Constitution and disregard for the rule of law have
given Congress no other choice but to proceed with impeachment. The
President has brought this on himself through his actions. As
instructed by H. Res. 660, on November 19, 2019, the House Permanent
Select Intelligence Committee began conducting open public hearings to
ensure the American people were able to hear directly from witnesses as
the committee collects and examines evidence in a fair and professional
manner. This was followed by public hearings in the House Committee on
the Judiciary, which allowed for an examination of the constitutional
grounds for impeachment and an airing of evidence against the
President.
After weeks of depositions, public hearings and a thorough review of
evidence, the House Judiciary Committee concluded that President Trump
violated his oath of office and, on December 11th, 2019, approved H.
Res. 755, which set forth two articles of impeachment: Abuse of Power
and Obstruction of Congress. As the House today deliberates and decides
on these articles, it is important to lay the full scope of the
President's misconduct before the American people.
My constituent and authentic American leader, Ralph Nader, a consumer
advocate, renowned attorney, author, and a respected voice in American
politics and good governance, has partnered with constitutional
scholars, Bruce Fein and Louis Fisher, to assess the President's
misconduct and whether it meets the Constitutional standard for ``. . .
Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
I include in the Record his thinking and those of others in our
nation, in the hopes that it will help the public further understand
the significance of this vote.

ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT

(By Ralph Nader, Bruce Fein, and Louis Fisher)

Article of Impeachment

Resolved. That Donald J. Trump, President of the United
States, is impeached for bribery and high crimes and
misdemeanors in violation of his constitutional oath of
office and that the following article of impeachment be
exhibited to the Senate:
Article of Impeachment Exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America and of All
the People of the United States of America, Against Donald J.
Trump, President of the United States of America, in
Maintenance and Support of its Impeachment Against Him for
Bribery and High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Violation of his
Constitutional Oath of Office To Preserve, Protect and Defend
the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United
States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional
duty faithfully to execute the office of the President of the
United States, and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,
Article 1, section 1, clause 6, and, contrary to his public
trust, has systematically scorned the letter and spirit of
the Constitution on a scale vastly beyond any previous
occupant of the White House in doing the following:
1. CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS. President Trump has notoriously
boasted, ``Then I have Article II, where I have the right to
do whatever I want as President.'' He has chronically acted
in violation the Constitution accordingly.
The informing or oversight powers of Congress are even more
important than its legislative prerogatives. The United
States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the plenary
authority of Congress to investigate the executive branch for
abuses, irregularities, illegalities or the need for new
laws. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously
lectured, sunshine is said to be the best of disinfectants;
electric light the most efficient policeman. The House
Judiciary Committee voted an article of impeachment against
President Richard M. Nixon for defying a congressional
subpoena that compromised the ability of Congress to
investigate impeachable offenses.
President Trump has repeatedly and unconstitutionally
systematically undermined the congressional oversight power,
including the ongoing congressional impeachment inquiry of
the President himself, by instructing numerous current and
former White House staff and members of the executive branch
to defy congressional subpoenas on an unprecedented scale far
beyond any previous President. Without congressional
authority, he has secretly deployed special forces abroad and
employed secret guidelines for targeted killings, including
American citizens, based on secret unsubstantiated
information. He has unconstitutionally endeavored to block
private persons or entities from responding to congressional
requests or subpoenas for information, e.g., Deutsche Bank.
He has refused to provide Congress information about
nepotistic or other security clearances he granted in
opposition to his own FBI security experts. He has refused to
disclose his tax returns to the Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee contrary to a 1924 law, 26 U.S.C. 6103(f).
The informing or oversight powers of Congress are even more
bedrock than legislation. Without information, Congress
cannot enact informed legislative bills, repeal inadequate
laws, or prevent maladministration of good ones. The Supreme
Court of the United States has repeatedly affirmed the
authority of Congress to investigate the executive branch for
abuses, irregularities, illegalities or the need for new
laws. Transparency, not secrecy, is the coin of the realm.
Congress possesses plenary authority independent of the
federal judiciary to determine whether presidential defiance
or obstruction of a congressional subpoena warrants
impeachment for destroying the rule of law in favor of raw
presidential power. A court order is unnecessary. Under the
Constitution, the Supreme Court held impeachment questions
are assigned to the House and Senate to the exclusion of
federal courts in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224
(1993).
2. ABUSE OF THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT AND ABUSE OF
PUBLIC TRUST. President Abraham Lincoln famously declared
that, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' The
nation's motto is E Pluribus Unum. President Trump, however,
has fostered combustible division and rancor among ``We the
people of the United States'' by inciting violence and
threatening civil war if removed from office. Unlike prior
presidents, he has made presidential lies as routine as the
rising and setting of the sun, confounding civil discourse,
truth and public trust. He has disrespected, belittled, and
serially preyed upon women, mocked the disabled, incited
violence against the mainstream media and critics, and
encouraged and displayed bigotry towards minorities and
minority Members of Congress, including intercession with
Israel in serious violation of the Speech or Debate Clause,
Article I, section 6, clause 1, to deny two Members visitor
visas.
Mr. Trump has failed to superintend or check the chronic
lawlessness of his subordinates, a dereliction of duty which
James Madison characterized as an impeachable offense. In the
very first Congress, Mr. Madison elaborated:
``I think it absolutely necessary that the President should
have the power of removing his subordinates from office; it
will make him, in a peculiar manner, responsible for their
conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he
suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or
misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to
superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.''
George Washington when presiding over the constitutional
convention instructed, ``Let us raise a standard to which the
wise and honest can repair.'' Mr. Trump has so disrespected
that standard.
No other President has so consistently voiced extremist and
inflammatory views across the board and so grossly neglected
the duties of the Oval Office.
3. APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE, REVENUE CLAUSE. Article I,
section 9, clause 7 prohibits federal government expenditures
``but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
Congress has consistently voted much less money than
President Trump requested to build an extensive,
multibillion-dollar wall with Mexico. In violation of the
Clause and the criminal prohibition of the Anti-Deficiency
Act, President Trump has committed to spending billions of
dollars far in excess of what Congress has appropriated for
the wall. The congressional power of the purse is a
cornerstone of the Constitution's separation of powers. James
Madison in Federalist 58 explained, ``This power over the
purse may . . . be regarded as the most complete and
effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the
immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining
redress of every grievance, and to carrying into effect every
just and salutary measure.''
Article I, section 7, clause 1 requires all revenue
measures to originate in the House of Representatives. In
violation of the Clause, President Trump has raised tens of
billions of dollars by unilaterally imposing tariffs with
limitless discretion under section 232 of the Trade Expansion
Act of 1962. He has become a Foreign Trade Czar in imposing
tariffs or quotas or granting exemptions from his trade
restrictions in his unbridled discretion to assist political
friends and punish political enemies. Literally trillions of
dollars in international trade have been affected. Riches are
made and livelihoods destroyed overnight with the capricious
stroke of President Trump's pen.
4. EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE. Article I, section 9, clause 8
prohibits the President (and other federal officers), without
the consent of Congress, from accepting any ``present,
emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any
King, Prince, or foreign state.'' The President should be
above suspicion. The clause aims to prohibit dual loyalties
or its appearance because of financial conflicts of
interests. President Trump has notoriously refused to place
his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he continues to profit
from opulent hotels heavily patronized by foreign
governments. He has permitted his family to commercialize the
White House.

[[Page H12198]]

He has compromised the national interest to enrich family
wealth on a scale unprecedented in the history of the
presidency.
5. TREATY CLAUSE. Article II, section 2, clause 2 requires
Senate ratification of treaties by two-thirds majorities. The
text is silent as to whether treaty termination requires
Senate ratification, and the Supreme Court held the issue was
a nonjusticiable political question in Goldwater v. Carter,
444 U.S. 996 (1979). But the Treaty Clause purpose indicates
Senate approval of treaty terminations. Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 75 that the President would be an
untrustworthy steward of the national interest in the conduct
of international affairs because of the enormous temptation
to betray the country to advance personal ambitions. That
suspicion of presidential motives is equally implicated in
treaty terminations and points to requiring Senate
ratification. President Trump flouted the Treaty Clause in
terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
(INF) with Russia unilaterally. The treaty assigned the
termination decision to the ``United States.'' The
President alone is not the United States under the Treaty
Clause.
6. DECLARE WAR CLAUSE. Article I, section 8, clause 11
empowers Congress alone to take the nation from a state of
peace to a state of war. That power is non-delegable. The
Declare War Clause authors distrusted the President to
preserve the peace because of the temptation to war to
aggrandize executive power and earn a place in history. In
violation of the Declare War Clause, President Trump has
continued to wage or has initiated presidential wars in
Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan, and has used special forces offensively in several
African nations. President Trump has claimed authority to
initiate war against any nation or non-state actor in the
world--not in self-defense-on his say-so alone, including war
against North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela.
7. TAKE CARE CLAUSE; PRESENTMENT CLAUSE. Article II,
section 3 obligates the President to ``take care that the
laws be faithfully executed.'' In violation of that trust,
President Donald J. Trump deliberately attempted to frustrate
special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of
collaboration between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia to
influence the presidential election. Among other things, the
President refused to answer specific questions relating to
his presidential conduct; endeavored to fire the special
counsel; dangled pardons for non-cooperating witnesses; and,
urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal
decision to better protect his presidency. In all these
respects, the President was attempting to obstruct justice.
President Trump has also systematically declined to enforce
statutory mandates of Congress by arbitrarily and
capriciously revoking scores of agency rules ranging from
immigration to the Consumer Financial Protection Board to the
Environmental Protection Agency in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act or otherwise. He has routinely
legislated by executive order in lieu of following
constitutionally prescribed processes for legislation.
In violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, Mr. Trump has dismantled and
disabled scores of preventive measures to save lives, avoid
injuries or disease, help families, consumers, and workers,
and detect, deter, and punish tens of billions of dollars of
corporate fraud. He has disputed climate disruption as a
``Chinese hoax,'' compounded the climate crisis by overt
actions that expand greenhouse gas emissions and pollution,
and excluded or marginalized the influence of civil service
scientists.
Article I, section 7, clause 2, as President George
Washington explained, requires the President either to sign
or veto a bill passed by Congress in toto. The President may
not exercise a line-item veto, as the United States Supreme
Court held in Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
President Trump, however, like several of his predecessors
commonly exercises the equivalent of unconstitutional line-
item vetoes through signing statements declaring his intent
to leave unexecuted provisions he decrees are
unconstitutional without a court test. Presidential signing
statements weaken legislative power by disarming Congress
from bundling in a single bill provisions both liked and
disliked by the President and forcing the White House to
choose between all or none. During the administration of
President George W. Bush, an American Bar Association Task
Force issued a report condemning signing statements as
unconstitutional sent to the President himself. ABA Task
Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation
of Powers Doctrine, August 2006.
8. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. The Fifth Amendment provides that
no person shall ``be deprived of life . . . without due
process of law.'' In violation of due process, President
Trump claims power, like his immediate two predecessors, to
act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to kill
American citizens or non-citizens alike, on or off a
battlefield, whether or not engaged in hostilities, whether
or not accused of crime, and whether or not posing an
imminent threat of harm that would trigger a right of
preemptive self-defense. This combination of powers are
euphemistically referenced as ``targeted killings,'' but they
define tyranny.
9. APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE. President Trump has repeatedly
appointed principal officers of the United States, including
the National Security Advisor and Cabinet officials, who have
not been confirmed by the Senate in violation of the
Appointments Clause, Article II, section 2, clause 2. On a
scale never practiced by prior presidents, Mr. Trump has
filled as many as half of Cabinet posts with ``Acting
Secretaries'' who have never been confirmed by the Senate.
10. SOLICITING A FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION FOR THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND BRIBERY. President Trump has
endeavored to corrupt the 2020 presidential campaign by
soliciting the President of Ukraine to contribute something
of value to diminish the popularity of potential rival Joe
Biden, i.e., a Ukrainian investigation of Mr. Biden and his
son Hunter relating to potential corrupt practices of
Burisma, which compensated Hunter handsomely ($50,000 per
month). In so doing, Mr. Trump violated the criminal campaign
finance prohibition set forth in 52 U.S.C. 30121.
President Trump solicited a bribe for himself in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 201 in seeking something of personal value,
i.e., discrediting Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign
with the help of the President of Ukraine to influence Mr.
Trump's official decision to release approximately $400
million in military and related assistance.
11. VIOLATING CITIZEN PRIVACY. The Fourth Amendment
protects the right to be let alone from government snooping,
the most cherished right among civilized people as Justice
Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.W.
438 (1928) (dissenting opinion). Government spying on
Americans ordinarily requires a warrant issued by a neutral
magistrate based on probable cause to believe crime is afoot.
President Trump, however, routinely violates the Fourth
Amendment with suspicionless surveillance of Americans for
non-criminal, foreign intelligence purposes under Executive
Order 12333 and aggressive interpretations of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
12. SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH. The major purpose of a
free press protected by the First Amendment is to expose
government lies or illegalities--to shine light on the dark
side. Justice Hugo Black elaborated in New York Times v.
United States, 403 US. 713 (1971) in protecting publication
of the classified Pentagon Papers from suppression:
``The Government's power to censor the press was abolished
so that the press would remain forever free to censure the
Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the
secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and
unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in
government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a
free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government
from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant
lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.''
President Trump is violating the First Amendment in
stretching the Espionage Act to prosecute publication of
leaked classified information that are instrumental to
exposing government lies and deterring government wrongdoing
or misadventures, including the outstanding indictment
against Julian Assange for publishing information which was
republished by the New York Times and The Washington Post
with impunity. The United States Supreme Court upheld the
First Amendment rights of the New York Times and The
Washington Post to publish the classified Pentagon Papers,
which accelerated the conclusion of the disastrous Vietnam
War, in New York Times v. United States.
In all of this, Donald J. Trump, since the day of his
inauguration, has conducted the office of the President
contrary to his oath of office to destroy constitutional
government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.
Wherefore Donald J. Trump warrants impeachment and trial,
and removal from office.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, as we vote today, I think
it is instructive that Americans reflect on how we got to this point.
The impeachment of Donald J. Trump has largely been brought on by the
President himself.
The President took two specific actions: he directly solicited a
foreign government to gather information on his political opponent. He
then further sought to promote a false narrative that it was Ukraine,
and not Russia, who interfered with the elections in 2016. With the
ability to correct the record, clear his name, or offer explanation for
his actions, he chose instead to obstruct a co-equal branch of
government from performing its Constitutional responsibilities of
oversight and review. He did this by refusing testimony, ignoring
Congressional subpoenas, and not providing Congress with any pertinent
information or data.
Today we're putting Russia and other adversaries on notice, don't
interfere with our elections. Russia tried to divide the country in
2016, but they only succeed if America turns away from the rule of law.
Some Republicans have excused the President's behavior by saying,
``Donald Trump isn't a politician, he's a businessman. This is Trump
being Trump, this how he's used to doing business.''
That very well may be true, but in a constitutional democracy, no
one, including Donald Trump, is above the law.
I realize there are people who feel strongly and differently than I
do, but to do nothing, to

[[Page H12199]]

take no vote, is in essence condoning this behavior that disregards our
Constitution. Republicans may see today differently, but as we look
forward, we must stand united as a Congress in defending our democracy.
For a democracy to work in a system of check and balances, no one is
above the law. The President takes an oath of allegiance to the United
States Constitution; there are no exceptions for the art of the deal.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, there have been quite a few
comments from the other side about how this is partisan, and this is an
attack, and we're coming after Donald Trump.
I don't like this President. I don't like his values, or his decision
making, nor his policies or the words he chooses to use. But these
articles are not about a man. They are about the ACTIONS of a man. They
are about the ways in which someone elected to the highest office in
this country abused that office, and violated the basic tenets of the
constitutional balance of power.
I don't want him to serve two terms, but this is about that. This is
about holding the President of the United States, whoever he may be, to
the standards and expectations of that office.
I say that genuinely. I would take this same vote for any President
who abused his office in that way. And any member of this body who
fails to understand what this vote really means--making clear what we
expect of the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, not the person sitting in it--is
deeply and horribly mistaken.
Anyone who fights for democratic values, who values the balance of
power, who wants to ensure the underpinnings of the greatest democracy
in the world remain strong for generations to come, will support these
articles of impeachment as I intend to do.
Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, as a citizen of the United States of
America, the greatest experiment in democracy that our world has ever
known, as the duly elected U.S. House Representative of my home
communities of the Coachella Valley, San Gorgonio Pass, and the San
Jacinto Pass in California's 36th Congressional District, and as the
father to two young daughters growing up in this great nation, I rise
today in support of impeaching the President of the United States,
Donald J. Trump.
By conditioning $391 million in military aid to a foreign ally on an
investigation into his political rival, Donald Trump abused the power
of the presidency for personal political gain. He then obstructed
Congress in its constitutionally mandated oversight role. In doing so,
President Trump violated our Constitution, compromised our national
security, and undermined the integrity of our democratic process.
This was a principled decision made with great reverence for the
Constitution, in the best interest of our nation, and without partisan
consideration. I was compelled by the overwhelming evidence and the
sacred oath I took to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution--
and by nature, our very democracy.
When Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall at the close of
the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was asked whether America
would be a republic or a monarchy, and his response was, ``A republic,
if you can keep it.''
By voting in favor of impeachment today, I am voting to keep it.
Benjamin Franklin and the Founding Fathers envisioned the tragic
scenario we are witnessing at this moment in history: The President of
the United States abusing the power of the office with a foreign
country for personal political gain.
They gave us a constitutional remedy.
They gave us this remedy because the Constitution is not a self-
preserving document. It needs people who will protect and defend it.
History must reflect that there are people taking that oath of office
seriously and fighting to keep our Republic intact; that there are
people who are defending the Constitution and fighting for the
integrity of our Democratic process; that there are people who say that
any President--regardless of political party--who abuses the power of
their high office for personal gain will be held accountable.
It is important for me, for my daughters, Sky and Sage, for my
grandchildren, my great grandchildren, and future generations; it is
important for future leaders, future Congresses, and for the historical
record; it is important for the ideals of the Constitution and the core
of our Republic that I solemnly cast my vote today in favor of
impeaching President Donald Trump.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res.
755, a resolution Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United
States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Today is indeed a solemn day
for the United States of America.
The two Articles of Impeachment, as written and passed by the House
Judiciary Committee, outline the findings of the investigations done by
several committees of jurisdiction, charged with the constitutionally-
mandated task of finding out the truth.
The truth is the President abused his power of office by obstructing
the impeachment inquiry; solicited the interference of the Ukraine
Government in the 2020 U.S. presidential election in an attempt to
undermine our elections; and posed a threat to national security for
political gain.
Madam Speaker, I have listened to and spoken with my constituents in
my district and throughout the state of Texas. The corrupt pattern of
evidence is overwhelming. Therefore, I am voting in favor of H. Res.
755, a resolution Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United
States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is a fundamental ideal of our
republic that every American receives justice under the law. As a
Member of this body, we are required to uphold that ideal, and as a
former judge, I was tasked with the same responsibility. What I have
seen throughout this impeachment process is far from justice.
In fact, this process has lacked impartiality, respect for the United
States Constitution, and fairness. When I was on the bench, I
instructed every jury the same way. I told them that ``what someone
heard from another source other than what they directly observed is not
evidence.'' Rumors and hearsay are not evidence under our laws, and it
certainly shouldn't qualify as evidence in this chamber. The evidence
presented by the Majority in this case is entirely hearsay and
therefore, should be inadmissible. In fact, the only direct evidence
presented to this body is the transcript of President Trump's telephone
call with the Ukraine President.
The Constitution is clear--treason, bribery, high crimes and
misdemeanors are impeachable offenses, and the evidence presented does
not meet those standards. Impeachment is one of the most serious acts
that Congress will undertake. It is not to be taken lightly or to be
used as a political weapon against those you disagree with, but
unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves today. For that reason,
I will not support the articles of impeachment and I also ask my
colleagues to reflect on one thing: in light of what you have observed
about the process used to charge the President, are we upholding
justice?
I think not.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss an issue of solemn,
national importance. The impeachment of a president of the United
States is not a step we take lightly, nor with anything but the
seriousness it demands. But, we take it, because it is our duty to
uphold our oath of office, the Constitution, and the trust that our
constituents and the American people place in us. That is why I am
voting for the articles of impeachment.
President Donald Trump's actions are a dangerous departure from his
oath of office and his duty to uphold the Constitution. As with many of
my colleagues, I was reluctant to call for impeachment because I feared
it would further divide our country, be perceived as overturning the
2016 election, and go to the United States Senate where Republicans
would acquit President Trump regardless of the evidence. But the
President's unchecked actions gave the Congress no other choice.
Today, the House of Representatives is upholding its duty to protect
the Constitution of the United States. Our founders set up a system of
checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law so that no
person would be above the law. That includes the President of the
United States. The Constitutional recourse for ``treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors'' is clear: impeachment. It is a
heavy price--intended only for matters of grave consequence to our
republic. President Trump's actions meet that high bar, and that is why
I am voting in favor of the articles of impeachment.
The facts of the case against President Trump are indisputable. On
July 25, 2019, President Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky and asked him to ``look into'' 2020 Presidential candidate
Vice President Joe Biden and his son--an investigation solely for his
own personal and political gain. In the weeks leading up to that call,
the President withheld Congressionally-appropriated foreign aid to
Ukraine, as well as a meeting between the two countries' presidents in
the White House, as leverage. The President's abuse of power has been
corroborated before the Congress by brave public servants over the last
few months.
Facing a Congressional investigation into these matters, President
Trump ``directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate
defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant
to its 'sole Power of Impeachment.''' In doing so, President Trump
obstructed Congress's Constitutionally-authorized investigation.
So, today, I will vote to uphold my responsibility, outlined in the
oath I have taken and the Constitution. I will vote for the articles of
impeachment.
Mr. PANETTA. Madam Speaker, I did not come to Congress to impeach the
President. But, I swore an oath to protect our country

[[Page H12200]]

and defend the constitution. That is why, today, I will vote to approve
two articles of impeachment against this President for abuse of power
and obstruction of Congress.
In order to arrive at that solemn and somber conclusion, I used many
of the same skills that I acquired early on as a former prosecutor. By
putting politics and emotions aside to focus on the underlying evidence
and applying those facts to the articles of impeachment, I found it
clear that the President subverted our national interest for his own
personal and political interest. The President then repeatedly ignored
and refused to cooperate with the numerous requests and subpoenas of
the investigation by Congress. Moreover, the President proudly admitted
this conduct and refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong.
I do not take pride in impeaching a sitting president of the United
States. But as the U.S. Representative for the central coast of
California, I am upholding my obligation under the United States
Constitution and to protect the future of our democracy.
The impeachment of the President and his upcoming trial in the U.S.
Senate will not stop us from getting things done. As I have proven
during my limited time in Congress, I will continue to work on and pass
legislation that reforms our immigration laws, especially for Dreamers
and farmworkers, promotes our agriculture, combats the effects of
climate change, improves our health care system, lowers prescription
drug prices, changes the tax code to help the middle class and small
businesses, defends equal rights, and protects our values and way of
life on the Central Coast.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, when I took the oath of office in January,
I entered Congress prepared to work with President Trump whenever
possible and to stand up to him whenever necessary. In my first year, I
have ranked among the top five of 235 House Democrats in voting with
the president. In a deeply divided and partisan Congress, the
opportunities for agreement have often felt limited, but I have sought
in good faith to work with him as best I can.
Since January, I have received many phone calls and letters from
constituents calling upon me to support efforts to impeach the
president for a wide range of reasons. I have resisted those efforts
and maintained that the impeachment of the President of the United
States must be considered as a last resort, reserved only for the most
serious crimes and constitutional abuses.
Earlier this year, upon the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation, I determined that there was no evidence that
the president had committed an impeachable offense, and as a result I
opposed calls for his impeachment. In my view, the Special Counsel's
report identified a pattern of conduct beneath the office of the
presidency, specifically: poor judgement, efforts to exert undue
influence over an investigation, and attempts to obstruct justice.
However, in reviewing the available facts, I did not find sufficient
information to support impeachment principally because the Special
Counsel did not find adequate evidence that the president or his
campaign team were involved in a conspiracy to collude or coordinate
with Russian efforts to interfere with U.S. elections. It was my
personal judgement that the president's efforts to impede the
investigation did not meet the threshold for launching impeachment
proceedings.
What mattered most in my assessment of the Special Counsel's report
was whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to
interfere in our elections--actions that, if proven, would have crossed
a clear red line. This concern was rooted in the history of our nation,
for there is no doubt that the Founders were fearful of foreign
influence in our domestic affairs. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander
Hamilton wrote:
``Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle
should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly
adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected
to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from
the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our
councils [emphasis added]. How could they better gratify this, than by
raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?''
Our Framers also understood that impeachment may be necessary to
protect American elections. During the Constitutional Convention, James
Madison argued that waiting for an election to vote a president out of
office might not be a sufficient safeguard, because the president
``might betray his trust to foreign powers.'' Similarly, in debating
the need to include a procedure for impeachment in the Constitution,
the Framers conceived of how a president might abuse his power in order
to win an election. George Mason asked the Constitutional Convention,
``Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means
procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape
punishment by repeating his guilt?''
I have argued previously that to the extent that my constituents
consider the president's actions, most of them believe that the future
of our country's leadership and direction should be determined at the
ballot box in 2020. I continue to believe that sentiment, but in order
for my constituents to voice their opinions on the direction of the
country, the security of the 2020 presidential election must be
guaranteed, and the integrity of the election must be without question.
That is why I find the president's most recent actions with regard to
Ukraine and the upcoming election deeply troubling and unacceptable.
In evaluating the president's actions, I have consulted the
statements of the Founders and of members of Congress who spoke during
previous impeachment hearings. I have studied the late law professor
Charles Black's monograph Impeachment: A Handbook, written at the
height of Watergate. I have considered carefully the depositions of key
witnesses, watched hours of the testimony provided in public hearings,
and carefully listened to the questions and statements of my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle. The length of my process has frustrated
some of my constituents, but on a matter of such gravity, I have felt a
responsibility to take the time necessary to gather all available
information before making a decision.
Here is what we know: in September, the White House released a call
summary showing that on July 25, 2019, just one day after the Special
Counsel presented his findings about the 2016 election to Congress,
President Trump solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice
President Joe Biden. The president requested this investigation despite
the fact that officials in both the United States and Ukraine have
rejected the accusations as baseless.
The president's intent in the July 25 phone call is clear. He
specifically references both the former vice president and his son,
Hunter Biden. We also know from depositions taken as part of the House
impeachment inquiry that the president's personal lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, was concurrently demanding that Ukrainian officials publicly
announce investigations into Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden
served as a board member, before the White House would agree to arrange
a meeting between President Trump and the new Ukrainian president. Key
members of the Trump Administration's diplomatic corps testified under
oath that this head of state meeting was contingent upon the
announcement Of these politically-motivated investigations.
The House investigation clearly unearthed a pattern of evidence that
demonstrates the corrupt intent on the part of the president, his
personal lawyer, and members of his administration to leverage the
powers of the presidency to damage a political opponent and strengthen
the president's reelection prospects. Given that the sought-after
investigation was solicited from a foreign government, the president's
actions are a realization of the Framers' greatest fears: foreign
corruption of our electoral process, and a president willing to
leverage the powers of his office to benefit his own reelection. This
action crossed a clear red line, and in my view, there is no doubt that
this is an impeachable act. For this reason, I will vote for Article I
of the House resolution to impeach President Trump for an abuse of
power.
I did not reach this conclusion lightly. Although I find that there
is indisputable evidence that the president solicited the interference
of a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, I
believe that the burden of proof for part of the first article, that
the president withheld military assistance to Ukraine in order to
secure the investigation of Vice President Biden, will be harder to
meet in a Senate trial. While I believe it is reasonable to conclude
there is sufficient evidence to support the other charges in Article I
and justify sending an indictment to the Senate for trial, I also
regret that the House did not package the charge regarding the military
aid as a separate article, rather than combining it with the
president's direct solicitation of a foreign investigation into his
political rival.
I have advocated for this change to Article I to House leadership, in
part because I believe it would provide for clearer debate in the
Senate and among the general public. Why exactly the Trump
Administration withheld military aid from Ukraine is a question on
which reasonable minds--looking at the same set of facts--may reach
different conclusions. But there is no such room for disagreement on
one stark fact: the President of the United States asked a foreign
government to aid in his reelection by soliciting an investigation of
his political opponent based upon trumped-up charges. Our Founders
feared exactly this situation, a president willing to illegitimately
wield the powers of his office against his political opponents in order
to secure his reelection. As North Carolina's William Davie remarked at
the 1787 Constitutional Convention, ``If he be

[[Page H12201]]

not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means
whatever to get himself reelected.''
Article II of the resolution presents a separate charge, that the
president ``without lawful cause or excuse,'' obstructed the
congressional inquiry into his actions. While I do not dispute that the
White House has been provocative in its defiance and sweeping in its
claims of executive privilege, I also believe there are legitimate and
unresolved constitutional questions about the limits of executive
privilege, and that before pursuing impeachment for this charge, the
House has an obligation to exhaust all other available options.
It is important to note that the House has not attempted to enforce
subpoenas for key witnesses to the charges before the president,
including those issued to Mick Mulvaney, John Eisenberg, and Russell
Vought. The House has also failed to issue subpoenas to other key
witnesses, like John Bolton and Rick Perry. In fact, because of a
political decision to wrap up impeachment proceedings as quickly as
possible, the House recently withdrew a subpoena for Charles Kupperman,
a senior aide to John Bolton, and House counsel asked a federal court
to dismiss a lawsuit that would clarify Mr. Kupperman's obligation to
testify.
At the heart of this matter is a debate about the limits of the
president's executive privilege, especially in the face of subpoenas
issued by congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry.
Professor Black has argued that executive privilege has a stronger
claim in the earlier stages of the impeachment process, but that by the
time of a Senate trial, it should be clearer what specific information
is necessary for Congress to conclude its proceedings.
I believe that the House must exercise as much restraint as possible
in order to avoid setting a dangerous precedent for the future. On the
one hand, each of the two political parties has an interest in
protecting the executive privilege of the White House; there are some
communications that should remain confidential, or at the very least
not be released publicly in order to protect our national security. On
the other hand, the White House has made broad and in my view excessive
claims regarding executive privilege, declaring as early as April of
this year that it would contest ``all the subpoenas'' and arguing that
Congress is powerless to force the White House to comply.
This tension is precisely why our system of government provides for a
forum in which disputes between the executive and the legislature over
the scope of their respective privileges and powers can be resolved.
That forum is the judicial branch. The House can--and in other contexts
has--gone to the courts to enforce committee subpoenas. Before wielding
our awesome power to impeach a sitting president, we first ought to
exhaust available judicial remedies, or--at the very least--give the
courts a chance. If the president were to defy a court order to produce
documents or to give testimony in an impeachment inquiry, or if he were
to encourage his subordinates to do the same, then a charge of
obstruction would be appropriate. But while the president's resistance
toward our investigative efforts has been frustrating, it has not yet,
in my view, reached the threshold of ``high crime or misdemeanor'' that
the Constitution demands. For that reason, I will vote against Article
II of the House resolution regarding obstruction of Congress.
To my constituents: please know that I am deeply dismayed by the
circumstances surrounding this inquiry, likely impeachment, and coming
trial of the president. Indeed, my concerns about our politics and the
health of our democracy have only grown over the course of this
process. The divisiveness of this impeachment inquiry has been terrible
for our country, just as the Framers knew it would be. I also believe,
however, that the president's efforts to solicit a foreign government's
involvement in our upcoming election to undermine a political opponent
represents a clear and imminent threat to our democracy that cannot go
unchecked. I see it as my duty to vote in support of Article I in order
to send a clear message to the president, to the country, and to the
world that foreign interference in American elections is not
acceptable, not welcomed, and will not be tolerated. In the end, I
believe the failure of Congress to act in a bipartisan fashion to send
this message may represent the greatest threat of all to the health of
our democracy.
Earlier this year, I expressed my concern that a partisan impeachment
would further deepen the political divisions in this country, and that
the best recourse would be to rely on our electoral process to litigate
our differences. But in this current moment, when the subject of the
president's actions has been to corrupt that very process, relying on
the next election cannot be the solution. As I square those concerns
with our current moment, I take solace in the words of a previous
congressman from Maine's Second District who also confronted an
impeachment vote during his first term in office. Concerned with the
divisive impact of impeachment on the country, then-Congressman William
Cohen observed:
It has been said that impeachment proceedings will tear this country
apart. To say that it will tear the country apart is a proposition I
cannot accept. I think what would tear the country apart would be to
turn our backs on the facts and our responsibilities to ascertain them.
That in my opinion would do far more to start the unraveling of the
fabrics of this country and the Constitution than would a strong
reaffirmation of that great document.
In the face of the evidence before me today, I believe Cohen's words
still ring true--but only if we commit ourselves not to become mired in
this current sad chapter of deep partisanship in American history. We
must turn our eyes to the future and look for ways to address the needs
of the country and our constituents. We have made progress in the past
few days with the passage of important legislation, like the National
Defense Authorization Act and the announcement of a budget deal that
keeps government open, accomplishes important healthcare reforms,
secures our borders, and funds our military. There remains much more
potential in the year ahead, if only we are able to set aside our
differences and work together toward common ground for the good of the
country.
Ms. CRAIG. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an open letter to
my constituents:
This is a somber time in our country as the House this week
weighs articles of impeachment against our President. It's a
vote that no Member should ever want to take, and I certainly
did not. I ran for Congress to work to lower the price of
prescription drugs, to fight for education funding and to
help our family farmers. And as your representative that is
what I've been focused on. I'm particularly proud that over
two-thirds of my nearly 340 bills are bipartisan and that
I've developed strong relationships across the aisle that are
leading to important legislative accomplishments.
When I was sworn into office this past January, I swore an
oath to protect and defend the Constitution of our great
nation. That is why in mid-September I called for an open and
transparent process to determine whether the President's
actions warrant articles, and if they should receive a full
trial in the Senate.
On Friday morning, the House Judiciary Committee voted to
send the resolution on Articles of Impeachment to the House
Floor. You deserve to hear from me directly in advance of my
vote now that the Committee work is complete.
After reviewing the public testimony from non-partisan
public servants and officials appointed to their roles by the
President himself--as well as the final House Intelligence
Committee report--I have decided that this week I will vote
yes on both Articles of Impeachment.
No elected leader is above the law.
It is clear from the testimony and the report delivered to
Congress that the President attempted to coerce a foreign
government into investigating his political rival by
withholding Congressionally-appropriated military assistance
to a foreign ally. This is a clear abuse of power by a
sitting U.S. President for his own personal gain. It is also
clear that the President obstructed Congress by refusing to
produce documents and blocking testimony during the
impeachment inquiry, which is against the law.
My values would require the same vote if this were a
Democratic President. It is about protecting our democratic
values, about right and wrong, and about upholding my oath to
the Constitution and the rule of law.
Gratefully yours,
Rep. Angie Craig
MN-02
December 15, 2019.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Speaker, many members of this body have publicly
voiced support for impeachment since before this President was sworn
into office--some even skipping the Inauguration, a time-honored
American tradition, because they viewed him as an illegitimate
President.
For a significant number of my colleagues, this will not be the
first--and possibly not even the last time they vote to impeach
President Trump. Several have openly admitted they are concerned if
they don't vote to impeach the President, he will be reelected.
Even the highest-ranking member of this body publicly stated that
this process has been two and a half years in the making. The Speaker
admitted this just months after she told the American people that
impeachment would need to be compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan.
Yet, the only thing bipartisan about this impeachment is the opposition
to it.
Here are the facts:
Both President Trump and President Zelensky say there was no
pressure.
The call transcript shows no conditionality--or ``quid pro quo''--
between aid and an investigation.
The Ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when Trump and
Zelensky spoke. Ukraine did not open an investigation, and still
received aid and a meeting with President Trump.

[[Page H12202]]

The sad truth is that this has been an overtly political process from
the very beginning, and an unwarranted attempt to remove our duly
elected President from office. I will vote ``no'' and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this divisive
impeachment.
I include in the Record a letter from President Trump to Speaker
Pelosi.

The White House,

Washington, December 17, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I write to express my strongest and
most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment
crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of
Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented
and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers,
unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American
legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House
Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard
of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence.
They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses
whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very
ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are
violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your
allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open
war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding
Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme--yet
your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for
America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to
destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to
build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you
are offending Americans of faith by continually saying ``I
pray for the President,'' when you know this statement is not
true, unless it is meant in a negative sense. It is a
terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with
it, not I!
Your first claim, ``Abuse of Power,'' is a completely
disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your
imagination. You know that I had a totally innocent
conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a
second conversation that has been misquoted,
mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented.
Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation
taken, and you know from the transcript (which was
immediately made available) that the paragraph in question
was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: ``I would like you
to do us a favor, though, because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.'' I said do
us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then
mentioned the Attorney General of the United States. Every
time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests
first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches
of government into an impeachable offense--it is no more
legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of
Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative
power.
You know full well that Vice President Biden used his
office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce
Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the
company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this
because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated:
``I said, `I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion
dollars' . . . I looked at them and said: `I'm leaving in six
hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the
money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.'' Even Joe Biden
admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it
``looked bad.'' Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely
accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually
did.
President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did
nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further
emphasized that it was a ``good phone call,'' that ``I don't
feel pressure,'' and explicitly stressed that ``nobody pushed
me.'' The Ukrainian Foreign Minister stated very clearly: ``I
have never seen a direct link between investigations and
security assistance.'' He also said there was ``No
Pressure.'' Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of
Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said:
``At no time during this meeting . . . was there any mention
by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure
to do anything in return for the military aid.'' Many
meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine
and our country. Never once did Ukraine complain about
pressure being applied--not once! Ambassador Sandland
testified that I told him: ``No quid pro quo. I want nothing.
I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right
thing, do what he ran on.''
The second claim, so-called ``Obstruction of Congress,'' is
preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to
impeach the duly elected President of the United States for
asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been
asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both
political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that
standard, every American president would have been impeached
many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley
warned when addressing Congressional Democrats: ``I can't
emphasize this enough . . . if you impeach a president, if
you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the
courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power.
You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President
for doing.''
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening.
Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an
Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party
have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a
full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump
Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!
You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at
the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have
spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of
the American people and nullify their votes. You view
democracy as your enemy!
Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public
forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on
for ``two and a half years,'' long before you ever heard
about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I
took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a
story headlined. ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump
Has Begun.'' Less than three months after my inauguration,
Representative Maxine Waters stated. ``I'm going to fight
every day until he's impeached.'' House Democrats introduced
the first impeachment resolution against me within months of
my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our
country's best decisions, the firing of James Corney (see
Inspector General Reports)--who the world now knows is one of
the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and
raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours
after she was sworn into office, ``We're gonna go in there
and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r.'' Representative Al
Green said in May, ``I'm concerned that if we don't impeach
this president. he will get re-elected.'' Again. you and your
allies said, and did, all of these things long before you
ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to
Ukraine. As you know very well. this impeachment drive has
nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate
conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do
with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the
election of 2020!
Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to
the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make
up, out of thin air. my conversation with President Zelensky
of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as
though it were said by me. His shameless lies and deceptions,
dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the
main reasons we are here today.
You and your party are desperate to distract from America's
extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock
market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your
party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new
jobs; the lowest-ever unemployment for African Americans,
Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans: a rebuilt military:
a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for
our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two
Supreme Court Justices: historic tax and regulation cuts; the
elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in
prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new
branch of the United States Military since 1947, the Space
Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal
justice reform; a defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of
the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the
replacement of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal with the
wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One
trade deal with China; massive new trade deals with Japan and
South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal;
cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord;
becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of
Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem,
and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a
colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of
Catch-and-Release, and the building of the Southern Border
Wall--and that is just the beginning, there is so much more.
You cannot defend your extreme policies--open borders, mass
migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized
healthcare, destruction of American energy. late-term
taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second
Amendment. radical far-left theories of law and justice, and
constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common
good.
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to
your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I
don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations,
45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the
entire force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to
be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING!
Few people in high position could have endured or passed this
test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and
hurt you have inflicted upon wonderful and loving members of
my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the
democratically elected President of the United States, and
you are doing it yet again.
There are not many people who could have taken the
punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done
so much for the

[[Page H12203]]

success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting
our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country
still further. You completely failed with the Mueller report
because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the
next hoax that came along, the phone call with Ukraine--even
though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to
foreign countries, there are many people, with permission,
listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You
are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones
Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and
suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal,
political, and partisan gain.
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt.
Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and
your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the
Russians--a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood
like no other. You forced our Nation through turmoil and
torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased
from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in order to
assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was
debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into dust,
you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to
be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-
reflection. Instead, you pursued your next libelous and
vicious crusade--you engineered an attempt to frame and
defame an innocent person. All of this was motivated by
personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your
party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical
representatives of the far left. Each one of your members
lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger--this is what
is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's
challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our
country down with your party.
If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our
Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative
resources to exposing the full truth concerning the FBI's
horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016
election--including the use of spies against my campaign, the
submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the
concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to frame the
innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the
leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you
would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in
your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you
tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely
discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that ``all roads
lead to Putin,'' when you know that is an abject lie. I have
been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even
thought to be.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of
impeachment--against every shred of truth, fact, evidence,
and legal principle--is showing how deeply they revile the
voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional
order. Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan
politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional
Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right
up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental
rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to
present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront
accusers. and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the
so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a
false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to
the actual phone call that was made. Once I presented the
transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters
(they never thought that such evidence would be presented),
the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower,
disappeared because they got caught, their report was a
fraud, and they were no longer going to be made available to
us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your
whole plot blew up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.
More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem
Witch Trials.
You and others on your committees have long said
impeachment must be bipartisan--it is not. You said it was
very divisive--it certainly is, even far more than you ever
thought possible--and it will only get worse!
This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted
coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the
voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you
are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this
colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever
been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed
with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of
turning the House of Representatives from a revered
legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.
Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of
solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the
American People that you expect them to believe that you are
approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and
reluctantly. No intelligent person believes what you are
saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat
Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no
reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a
mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your
hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions
of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are
seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous
game you are playing.
I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the
Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election.
They will not soon forgive your perversion of justice and
abuse of power.
There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the
lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly
partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this
impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American
People. While I have no expectation that you will do so, I
write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to
put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
One hundred years from now, when people look back at this
affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so
that it can never happen to another President again.
Sincerely yours,
Donald J. Trump,
President of the United States of America.

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the articles of
impeachment that have been produced by this flawed process, which was
based on hearsay and testimony largely collected from a closed-door,
one-sided investigation.
In fact, the only witness we heard from who had direct knowledge of
the conversation in question, testified that President Trump did not
want a quid pro quo and confirmed that the aid to Ukraine was released
without the launching of any investigation that the President's
detractors say he was seeking.
The two articles of impeachment in the resolution--abuse of power and
obstruction of Congress--are broad and cite no specific crimes that the
President committed. The House Democrats are basing the entire
impeachment on hearsay testimonies grounded on absolutely no evidence
of a crime.
However, last week we had a look at some real wrongdoing. We found
out from the Justice Department's Inspector General that the
investigation into whether President Trump colluded with the Russians
was based on fraudulent information filed with the secret court. The
FBI was found to have withheld exculpatory evidence and senior FBI
leaders were found to have manipulated facts in order to support this
false collusion narrative, justify their investigation, and expand it.
This happened on multiple occasions.
While the Mueller investigation found no collusion, some Members of
Congress, like House Impeachment Leader Adam Schiff, knowingly promoted
this falsehood and used similar tactics to engineer this impeachment
inquiry. This is unacceptable.
For the above reason, I voted to censure Chairman Adam Schiff and
will vote against these articles of impeachment.
We know this impeachment is a sham. They know this impeachment is a
sham. They know that we know it is a sham.
We all know this shameful impeachment began the moment the President
was elected, long before he ever had a single telephone call with any
foreign government. We've heard the numerous quotations by those on the
other side that validate that fact. And, yet the other side persists in
attempting to over-turn the results of the legitimate election of
President Donald J. Trump, because he dares to drain a swamp to which
they are beholden.
When the President calls for an investigation of corruption, the
other side calls it `digging for dirt.' When they dig for dirt, they
call it an 'investigation'.
This is a sad day for America. This impeachment is the worst case of
partisan politics in the history of our Republic.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, no one enters Congress hoping to impeach
the president. But when duty demands it, we have no other choice. Our
founders included in the Constitution a provision for impeachment, a
provision to be used only in the face of the gravest threats to our
democratic republic.
Deciding how to vote cannot be accurately portrayed in tweets or
sound bites, so I welcome the opportunity to explain my thoughts.
Unlike many others in the Democratic Party, I was, at first, hesitant
about impeachment. As one of the few who predicted that Donald Trump
could win the election, I made clear that I would work with him if he
would help the hard-working men and women of my district in Michigan.
I worked with his team on lowering drug prices, improving trade
policies, addressing the opioid crisis and updating major conservation
efforts. We made progress in some areas.
I have also opposed many of this administration's positions,
including threatening to take away protections for people living with
pre-existing medical conditions, withdrawing from the Paris climate
agreement, instituting a travel ban affecting Muslim-majority countries
and tearing families apart at the border.
These policies were wrong, but they were not impeachable offenses.
Our democracy supports dissenting opinions, and I respect the office of
the presidency.
Pressure began early this year for me to call for impeachment. The
billionaire Tom Steyer

[[Page H12204]]

ran advertisements in The Detroit News and The Detroit Free Press and
on news websites and social media calling for impeachment. People in my
district had strong opinions everywhere I went, from the grocery store
and farmers markets to church and my bagel place.
At the time, my constituents were focused on the Mueller report into
Russian interference in the 2016 election, which they hoped would
provide a case for impeachment. But it wasn't clear. What the report
did reveal--a finding that was often overlooked in the focus on the
Trump campaign's contacts with Russians--is that Moscow is trying to
divide our country.
Then, in October, came reports that Mr. Trump and his administration
withheld congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine while asking
for a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals. An
inspector general appointed by Mr. Trump found that there was a
credible, urgent and potentially immediate threat to our national
security.
No matter the party affiliation of the person occupying the White
House or the party of the majority in Congress, our founders built our
Constitution on a system of three equal branches of government, with
very clear oversight responsibilities delegated to the Congress. The
whistle-blower report required Congress to investigate the facts and
follow the issue.
News outlets seem to assume that House Democrats and Republicans have
been as obsessed with impeachment as they are, and that every single
Democrat had her mind made up from Day 1. But the truth is that many of
us on both sides have remained focused on kitchen-table issues that
matter to everyone.
While the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees undertook the
job of gathering the facts, House leaders and other committees worked
to lower prescription drug prices, protect the environment, restore
voting rights to citizens and devise trade deals that level the playing
field.
A vote as serious as impeaching the president of the United States
deserves thoughtful, reflective and deliberate attention. Each day,
after attending my own committee hearings and markups, meetings and
events with constituents, I would come home to start my own studies on
the impeachment inquiry.
I read testimonies from firsthand witnesses, parsed the majority and
dissenting opinions from the committees' reports and listened to the
voices on both sides. I spent weeks reading the Constitution,
constitutional scholars, the Federalist Papers and papers from both the
Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes.
By the end, I was convinced: The facts showed that President Trump
and his administration put politics over country by asking a foreign
government to investigate a political rival while withholding military
aid that affects our national security.
Further evidence showed a clear obstruction of Congress. Blocking key
witnesses from the administration from testifying and even intimidating
sitting witnesses sets a dangerous precedent.
If we don't address this abuse of power, we abdicate our
constitutional and moral responsibility. Failing to address it would
also condone these actions as acceptable for future administrations.
Did President Trump's actions rise to the level of a threat to our
democracy? Yes. Future generations and historians will judge us if we
did not address these dangers. I will cast my vote to protect our
Constitution, our democratic republic and the future of our country.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, in 1998, I voted for three of the four
counts of impeachment brought against President Clinton. Those votes
were some of the most difficult I have cast during my 25 years in
Congress. Impeachment is an extreme remedy, which, in effect, alters a
decision made by the American people through an election. It was clear,
however, that President Clinton had lied under oath in a judicial
proceeding, a felony crime for which other Americans are routinely
prosecuted and convicted. In my view, dismissing such a crime because
the lies involved private rather than public actions or because the
perjurer was the President of the United States would have undermined
the rule of law and presented a danger to our constitutional system of
government. Therefore, I voted for three of the counts.
The count of impeachment that I voted against in 1998 involved
``abuse of power.'' It was essentially a repeat of the perjury recited
in other counts and a failure to provide information to Congress. It
was also one of two counts that failed to receive a majority of the
votes on the Floor of the House.
In contrast to 1998, the votes I make today are not difficult at all.
After three years of investigating this President, House Democrats
center their case for impeachment on one phone call between President
Trump and the President of Ukraine, a transcript of which has been
released.
I believe that aspects of that phone call, particularly discussing an
investigation of a political opponent, were inappropriate for a
president. I recognize that ignoring potentially corrupt behavior
because of political prominence could lead to another set of problems.
Nonetheless, under the circumstances, I believe that it would have been
best if the President had avoided such topics.
Inappropriate does not mean impeachable. The Constitution sets a high
standard for impeachable conduct: ``Treason, Bribery, other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.'' (Article II, Section 4) A potentially inappropriate
conversation does not begin to approach that standard, as the counts
brought before us today demonstrate.
Count one alleges ``abuse of power,'' the same phrase rejected by the
House in the Clinton impeachment. The allegations relate to the phone
call, an investigation that was never conducted, and a temporary delay
in military aid being released. In spite of a last-minute attempt in
the Judiciary Committee's report to allege some form of bribery, the
evidence and the law do not support the charge, and the Committee made
no serious attempt to prove it. Instead, we are left with a nebulous,
subjective phrase that can be used to cover any political or stylistic
difference.
Count two alleges ``obstruction of Congress.'' I find it remarkable
that an impeachment process which, in contrast to those prior, has been
totally partisan with no attempt at a jointly-decided bipartisan
process, would attempt to impeach a president for resisting such
partisanship. In addition, I believe that it is a mistake to
essentially criminalize the inherent tensions between the legislative
and executive branches of government.
To describe these counts as ``weak'' overstates them. A partisan
process, designed from the beginning to achieve a desired result,
brings to the Floor two counts that do not begin to meet the
constitutional standard for impeachment, even if all of the facts
alleged are assumed true. It is a misuse--one might say ``abuse''--of
the Constitution's impeachment power.
One final concern: the partisan process used in this case degrades
established boundaries of political competition that have helped this
nation survive intense political differences for over two hundred
years. As a result, I fear that partisan impeachment efforts may well
become just another tool in the political arsenal, expected to be
pursued by whichever party loses a presidential election.
The damage done to our constitutional processes and to our
institutions by this hyper-partisan, flawed process is greater than any
alleged harm done by the President's phone call. I hope and trust that
the American people in their wisdom will see that appropriate
boundaries and constitutional balance are restored.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, impeaching a President is one of the
most solemn and consequential decisions the United States Congress can
make. It is not an action I or my fellow House colleagues take lightly.
Impeachment exists to protect our democracy. As Alexander Hamilton
wrote in the Federalist Papers, the impeachment clause in the
Constitution exists to address ``the misconduct of public men,'' which
involves ``the abuse or violation of some public trust.''
The investigations and hearings conducted by the House Intelligence
and Judiciary Committees provide overwhelming evidence that President
Trump abused his power and endangered our national security when he
coerced Ukraine into investigating his likely rival in the 2020
election by withholding $391 million in critical military aid and a
White House meeting from the Ukrainian government. Withholding this
military assistance to Ukraine as it enters the fifth year of its
deadly war against Russia endangers Ukraine's sovereignty and safety as
well as the United States' national security interests.
President Trump has also issued a blanket order prohibiting all
executive office personnel from testifying in Congressional impeachment
hearings, responding to subpoenas and turning over documents.
Therefore, he has obstructed the legitimate and Constitutional
obligation Congress has to conduct an impeachment inquiry when there is
evidence of wrongdoing by the President.
No one is above the law. The President's actions leave me no choice.
President Trump has violated his oath to ``faithfully execute the
Office of the President of the United States,'' and to, ``preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies foreign and domestic.'' Now I will uphold my Oath of Office to
preserve and protect our Constitution and my promise to my constituents
to carefully analyze all issues before me. I will vote in favor of both
articles of impeachment against President Donald John Trump.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the articles of impeachment introduced
in the U.S. House of Representatives fulfill an obligation incumbent
upon every Member of Congress to defend the Constitution, protect our
national

[[Page H12205]]

security, and ensure our democracy is not corrupted by a foreign power.
For every Member of Congress, holding the President of the United
States accountable to the Constitution and protecting our most
fundamental democratic values is not a political decision based on
loyalty or partisan affiliation. In fact, it is an inherent duty upon
which we have sworn a sacred oath.
The sole person responsible for precipitating this impeachment
process is President Donald J. Trump. President Trump's willful,
flagrant, and corrupt misconduct is a betrayal of the public trust. At
this historic and sober moment, the American people understand that as
a nation of laws there can be no person, not even the President of the
United States, who is above the law. Let these articles of impeachment
also serve as a clear and unambiguous message to all future presidents:
Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, will never tolerate or
appease an abusive, corrupt executive.
With the power granted to the U.S. House under Article I, Section 2
of the U.S. Constitution (`The House of Representatives . . . shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment'), I intend to vote in favor of the
resolution to impeach President Donald J. Trump for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this is the
fourth impeachment proceeding against a president of the United States,
and the most serious.
President Trump committed numerous crimes. He conditioned two
official acts, hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and an
Oval Office meeting, on getting help for his campaign in return. When
his scheme was publicly exposed, he did everything possible to obstruct
the investigation.
Congress voted to grant hundreds of millions of dollars in military
aid to our ally Ukraine because it is both morally right and in our
national interest to stand with them in their fight to preserve their
independence against Russian aggression. I was one of the members of
Congress who advocated and voted for this military aid. It was never
intended to become a bargaining chip for the President to use to get
foreign help for his re-election campaign.
The factual evidence is clear and convincing. It was reinforced by
the testimonies of every single fact witness, all of whom are career,
nonpartisan public servants or Trump appointees.
So, the matter before us, ultimately, is not a question of fact, for
the evidence is undisputed. Nor is it a question of law, as the
Constitution is clear. The heart of the matter is this: will Members of
this House have the courage to choose fidelity to the Constitution over
loyalty to political party?
The Constitution has endured for more than two centuries, not just
because of the brilliance of our founders, but because of the
commitment of generations of Americans to uphold it. For the sake of
our Constitution, and the sake of our country, for Americans today and
tomorrow, I urge all Members to have the courage to vote yes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise today in support of two articles of
impeachment--one regarding abuse of power and one regarding obstruction
of Congress--against President Trump.
I decided to support the President's impeachment after a judicious
consideration of the facts established by the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the House Committee on the
Judiciary, as well as reflecting upon my constitutional
responsibilities as a Member of Congress.
I would note that the constitutional remedy for high crimes and
misdemeanors--such as abuse of power--is impeachment. Regrettably, the
President's severe misconduct with respect to Ukraine showed a complete
disregard for our constitution, our democratic system of government,
and the security of our nation and our allies. The President left the
House with little choice but to faithfully discharge its duty.
As the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense,
I believe that it is unconscionable that an American leader would use
nearly $400 million in military aid appropriated by Congress--and
signed into law by the President himself--as leverage for personal
gain.
There are fundamental reasons why U.S. law provided these desperately
needed funds to Ukraine. I would emphasize that, in 2014, Russia
invaded Ukraine and illegally annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea
while Russian-backed separatist forces seized control of key cities in
eastern Ukraine. The fighting in eastern Ukraine continues to this day
and has killed more than 13,000 Ukrainians while forcibly displacing
more than two million individuals.
Additionally, the impeachment reports issued by the HPSCI and the
House Committee on the Judiciary present an irrefutable case that the
President's behavior constituted an ongoing threat to a free and fair
Presidential election in 2020.
Further, I believe that the President's refusal to comply with the
impeachment inquiry is representative of his broader contempt for
Congress and its constitutional role as a separate and coequal branch
of government. Congress must continue to work diligently to protect and
fully exert its complete range of constitutional prerogatives and
maintain the balance of power that has existed for 231 years.
Finally, I would highlight that the administration's complete
repudiation of constitutionally-proscribed legislative authorities
stands in stark contrast to the courage and patriotism demonstrated by
the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint with the Intelligence
Community's Inspector General, as well as the public servants who
testified before the House. These individuals deserve our utmost
respect and gratitude.
As the Senate moves forward with a trial to determine whether to
convict the President of impeachable offenses, be assured that I will
continue to work hard to address the pressing needs of our nation's
citizens, from creating more opportunities for good-paying jobs to
decreasing the cost of prescription drugs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution, as amended.
The question of adoption of the resolution, as amended, shall be
divided between the two articles.
The question is on the adoption of Article I.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 197, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 695]

YEAS--230

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
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
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano

[[Page H12206]]

Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--197

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Gabbard

NOT VOTING--3

Hunter
Serrano
Shimkus

{time} 2032

Mr. CLOUD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So Article I was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the adoption of Article II.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 696]

AYES--229

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
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
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--198

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Gabbard

NOT VOTING--3

Hunter
Serrano
Shimkus

{time} 2050

So Article II was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider Article I was laid on the table.
A motion to reconsider Article II was laid on the table.

____________________