APPOINTING AND AUTHORIZING MANAGERS FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 9
(House of Representatives - January 15, 2020)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H252-H258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTING AND AUTHORIZING MANAGERS FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD 
               JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I send 
to the desk the resolution (H. Res. 798) appointing and authorizing 
managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of 
the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 15, 2020, on page H252, the following appeared: Mr. 
NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 798) appointingand authorizing managers 
for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States,
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. NADLER. Madam 
Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I send to the desk the 
resolution (H. Res. 798) appointing and authorizing managers for 
the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 798

       Resolved, That Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. 
     Jeffries, Mrs. Demings, Mr. Crow, and Ms. Garcia of Texas are 
     appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against 
     Donald John Trump, President of the United States, that a 
     message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these 
     appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in 
     connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial, 
     exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take 
     all other actions necessary, which may include the following:
       (1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary 
     assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be 
     necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from 
     the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the 
     Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of 
     Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or 
     subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment 
     that the managers consider necessary.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the 
resolution is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution before us today appoints managers to 
prosecute the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.
  This trial is necessary because President Trump gravely abused the 
power of his office when he strong-armed a foreign government to 
announce investigations into his domestic political rival. He betrayed 
our country when he used powers of his office, including withholding 
vital U.S. military assistance, to pressure that government to help him 
win reelection.
  He invited foreign interference into our elections again. He 
jeopardized our national security. He did all of this for his personal 
political gain.
  And then he violated the Constitution by stonewalling Congress' 
efforts to investigate, ordering an absolute blockade of evidence. 
Despite that, the House was able to uncover powerful evidence that 
demonstrates, beyond a doubt, the President's betrayal and violations 
of the Constitution.
  But we still have not heard the whole truth because the President has 
refused to allow a single document to be turned over to the House in 
response to our impeachment subpoenas, and he

[[Page H253]]

has prevented us from hearing key witnesses as well. This is 
unprecedented.
  Our Speaker has led our fight to a fair trial in the Senate. Above 
all, a fair trial must include additional documents and all relevant 
witnesses.
  The American people have common sense. They know that any trial that 
does not allow witnesses is not a trial; it is a coverup.
  The Speaker's insistence on this point has gotten results. Just 
yesterday, we received critical new evidence from the President's 
former associate, Lev Parnas, that further proves Mr. Trump's scheme to 
pressure Ukraine to go after his personal political opponents.
  New witness testimony has become available as well, including John 
Bolton's announcement that he would honor a Senate subpoena.
  Under today's resolution, the managers also have broad authority to 
submit to the Senate any additional evidence the House may acquire on 
its own, and we will do so.
  The Senate is on trial. We will see whether they conduct a fair trial 
and allow the witnesses or conduct a coverup. Today's resolution is the 
next step in this serious and solemn constitutional process. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This impeachment process has been flawed from the outset. It 
resembles not a congressional action; it resembles, more, a Dr. Seuss 
book, knowing not which way it goes.
  On September 24, the Speaker declared at a press conference the House 
was conducting an impeachment inquiry. However, contrary to the 
Speaker's decree that we were all of a sudden in an impeachment 
inquiry, the House did not authorize the impeachment inquiry until 
October 30 by adopting H. Res. 660.
  It was said just a moment ago that the Speaker has been leading the 
fight for a fair trial in the Senate. I wish the Speaker had been 
leading for a fair hearing in the House instead of trashing our rules.
  For those 71 out of 78 days, from the time it was announced at a 
press conference to the time we finished, the President was not 
permitted to participate in these meetings. Think of that: 71 days out 
of 78 in which we actually did something on impeachment, he was not 
presented the ability to cross-examine fact witnesses, present 
counterarguments, no due process at all in those 71 days.
  When presented with the opportunity, when it came to the Judiciary 
Committee, instead of the Judiciary Committee stepping up and actually 
acting like the Judiciary Committee, the committee of impeachment, we 
punted.
  We had some law professors who already had their basic talking 
points. He could have cross-examined them. That would have done a lot 
of good.
  Then we could have had witnesses of staffers who testified--again, a 
lot of good.
  Where were the fact witnesses? Instead of the rubber stamp that we 
were warned about 20 years ago by the current chairman, we became the 
rubber stamp.
  Democrats repeatedly violated House rules and blatantly abused the 
rules they wrote in H. Res. 660. Even to this day, we will pass this 
out in violation of H. Res. 660.
  They used inflammatory rhetoric haunting them because this is what 
they had to do.
  One Democrat said: I call for impeachment today because it is one 
heck of an emergency.
  Another said: We have a crime in progress. We have an emergency in 
our national election that is going on right now.
  But my favorite, in December: It is a crime spree in progress.
  Oh, the hyperbole just reeks in this room.
  When we understand this, if it was such an emergency, if it was in 
lieu to finding a 911 call, then why did we hold this for almost a 
month? Well, we have been told that it is to help have a Senate fair 
trial--be damned the House inappropriate process we had.
  But even now that the process was bad, I am going to go back, and 
let's make sure the facts are here because they still haven't changed:
  A phone call that was put out in a transcript in which no pressure 
was applied, there was no conditionality on anything given in that call 
or since to do that.
  There was also nothing given by the Ukrainians to actually get this 
money that was released, by the way, before--it was actually a 
statutory deadline of September 31. They did nothing. They got the 
money anyway.
  But the problem is they want the Senate to do their job for them. But 
that is not how it works. You see, the Speaker--and what I have heard 
today even from folks giving 1-minutes, Madam Speaker, is this was all 
they wanted. It was a political impeachment. They have said he is 
impeached for life.
  This shows the true motivation, I believe, of the other side. It is 
their dislike for this President and the good work he is doing.
  So, Madam Speaker, before I reserve here for a moment, this has 
always been a political impeachment. Even today, on the floor, the talk 
of the President being forever impeached and this always being a stain 
forgets the Senate trial.
  I hope this ends this political impeachment and this body never sees 
it again.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution.
  The task before us is a grave one, but one demanded by our oath.
  The impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives 
found that President Donald J. Trump abused his power and sought to 
cover it up with an unprecedented campaign of obstruction.
  He withheld hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in vital military 
aid to Ukraine, a close ally at war with Russia, and withheld a coveted 
White House meeting critical to the Ukrainian leader's international 
legitimacy until Ukraine would commit to help President Trump cheat--
cheat--in the next election.
  President Trump put his own personal interests above the national 
interests, above our national security, and, if not stopped, he will do 
it again.
  For that reason, he was impeached. And for that reason, the House 
managers will take the case to the Senate and to the American people, 
because the appropriate remedy--indeed, the only remedy--is the 
conviction and removal from office of President Donald Trump.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, back when this national nightmare began, 
Speaker Pelosi laid bare her intentions and purely partisan agenda. She 
told her Caucus that they needed to ``strike while the iron is hot.''
  This was always an exercise in raw partisan politics, contrary to the 
warnings of our Founders. And over the last month, we saw the 
justification for running the fastest, thinnest, and weakest 
impeachment in American history crumble.
  Instead of sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for 
trial, Speaker Pelosi held them hostage in a failed play to gain 
leverage that she did not--and would never--have.
  In terms of concessions, she got nothing: no control, no moral 
victories--in other words, another failed strategy.
  After a month of counterproductive and harmful delays, I have three 
questions for my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats:
  What happened to impeachment being urgent?
  What happened to Congress being ``on the clock''?
  What happened to saying the House would be ``derelict in our duty'' 
if we did not act immediately?
  These were all the assertions Democrats made over the past several 
months. I guess it turns out none of them are true.
  These delay tactics were self-serving, hypocritical, and 
discrediting. But they made an important admission, some might even 
call it a concession.

[[Page H254]]

They proved a very big point: Democrats do not even believe their case 
was robust enough to win in a trial.
  Even the Speaker's allies admit the delays undermined their case. 
Some have gone as far as describing it as a ``failed'' strategy. These 
are those who are closest to her.
  Senator Feinstein, the senior Democrat from our State of California 
and the hometown of the Speaker, said: ``The longer it goes on, the 
less urgent it becomes.''
  And Chairman Adam Smith, a confidant of the Speaker, said ``it was 
time'' to transmit the articles to the Senate.
  Both these statements were made last week, before the Speaker 
relented. They are significant because they were public and they were 
honest.
  I am disappointed these individuals did not have the courage to stand 
by their initial comments. If impeachment was truly as urgent as 
Democrats claimed, the majority should not have waited for the Speaker 
to choose a politically convenient time.
  Anyone could have recognized this ploy would not work. The House and 
the Senate are different institutions and, at this point in time, 
controlled by different parties.
  As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the purpose of 
bicameralism is to guard against the dangers of encroachment and to 
stop toxic resolutions from taking effect.
  We saw separation of powers prevail against an abuse of power, just 
as the Constitution intends.
  The idea of withholding a sloppy impeachment case to force the Senate 
to change its rules is constitutionally and politically unheard of. 
Frankly, it is just ridiculous.
  In Article I, section 5, the Constitution clearly states: ``Each 
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' It doesn't say the 
House may determine the rules of proceedings in the Senate.
  If anything, the Speaker's actions have only further persuaded 
Members of the Senate that the evidence of impeachment was neither 
thorough nor satisfactory.
  But do you know what? Let's be honest. This was never about 
persuasion. It was never about the rule of law. It was what Alexander 
Hamilton warned us, that one party would get control and, just because 
of their animosity, demean the process of impeachment.

  And by selecting this particular batch of managers, the Speaker has 
further proven she is not interested in winning minds and hearts or 
even following the Constitution.
  Let's take a look at the first three names Speaker Pelosi announced 
in her anticipated announcement earlier today:
  Chairman Schiff, a man who has already taken on the role of judge, 
jury, and fact witness throughout the entire House impeachment process.
  Chairman Nadler, someone who campaigned for the chairmanship of the 
Judiciary Committee that is responsible for impeachment, beginning as 
far back as December 2017, before they were even in the majority, on 
the notion that he would be the best person to lead the charge on 
potential impeachment against the President.
  You see, you get a chairmanship by your conference voting for you. 
You campaign for it. You put your best ideas out there as to why you 
should be the chairman. In 2017, that was the campaign.
  Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, a Member who, almost 2 years ago to this 
date, voted in support of impeachment. That was more than a year before 
the Ukraine call even took place.
  Those are just some of the managers.
  If you think about the Members, there are people who, on the day they 
were sworn in to this body, told those who supported them that they 
were going to impeach him.
  As I have said in the past, there is an issue with fairness; but 
instead of looking to the Senate, Speaker Pelosi should be looking 
within her own Caucus. From the beginning, this investigation was 
marred by selective leaks to the media, a completely predetermined 
process.
  Yes, we have been through impeachment before, but it was much 
different. We believed in the rule of law back then: that you could 
face your accuser, that you could cross-examine, that the minority 
could actually ask for witnesses.
  The day that impeachment was asked to come forward, I sent a letter 
to the Speaker asking 10 items, none that were made up. Do you know 
what they were? The fair process we have always used in the past. The 
answer was no. Because they have been working on this for 2\1/2\ years, 
they could not let fairness determine the outcome.
  Any other prosecutor would be disbarred for such blatant bias, 
especially if that prosecutor was a fact witness in the case.
  The reason for this impeachment is the same reason it has taken 
Democrats 30 days to send the articles to the Senate: just spite. They 
wanted to stain the President's record without giving him a fair chance 
to clear his name.
  Last year, we saw House Democrats invert the burden of proof during 
their fair investigation.
  For every American watching, take, for instance, if this was your 
government, if they switched the burden of proof on you.

                              {time}  1245

  We have Congressman Max Rose, a new freshman of the majority, who 
characterized it this way: ``The President says he is innocent, so all 
we are saying is `prove it'.''
  God forbid the government accuses you of something as an average 
American and says you have to prove it. We just switched a fundamental 
belief of America, but only in this House do we do that.
  This ``guilty until proven innocent'' mentality was an admission that 
impeachment was not about upholding justice or protecting the rule of 
law. Now Democrats have invented an even more destructive standard: you 
are guilty because they say so.
  Our Founders feared this day. Alexander Hamilton warned us of this 
day. I hoped this day would not come. I would hope those that uphold 
the Constitution would believe in the rule of law, instead of the spite 
or the dislike of an individual. Like the kangaroo courts on college 
campuses where an accusation is enough for a conviction.
  Even as early as last Sunday in an interview, Speaker Pelosi made 
that point very clear to all of us. Asked what a Senate acquittal would 
mean, she said it didn't matter, the President is impeached forever.
  Is that what this is all about? Just a personality, just an abuse of 
power that you have within the House that we all feared this country 
would never do. You could almost see the Speaker smile as she spoke 
about this new standard. How incredibly solemn she was.
  Madam Speaker, when Americans look back on this sad saga, they will 
see a rigged process that forever damaged the remedy of impeachment. 
Speaker Pelosi got nothing from the Senate, but the American people got 
worse than nothing. They got stuck with the bill for a costly never-
ending investigation.
  The old saying that you get what you pay for does not apply here. 
Congress wasted time and millions of dollars on partisan impeachment. 
In return, taxpayers get nothing. Democrats' misaligned priorities have 
cost the people solutions that could have improved the quality of their 
life.
  There is no greater contrast than what we are doing right here today 
than what is happening down Pennsylvania Avenue, the President sitting 
down with a leader of another country and signing a trade agreement--
something people said we could never get done--to make this country 
stronger, to make the next century in America ours.
  But what are we doing here? We are doing what this majority has 
worked their entire time for. Before they were even sworn in they 
campaigned for the position of chairman for this moment, for this time, 
for the millions of dollars that are spent so they could say the 
President is impeached. That is a lofty history. Those are lofty goals 
that you now have authored more subpoenas than you have created laws.
  Thank God we have got a President in the White House that does not 
sit back.
  Yes, the President got the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade 
Agreement done with, our top two traders. He is signing a trade 
agreement with China today, but think about how much stronger his hand 
would have been had that agreement taken place

[[Page H255]]

earlier, when he got it. No, it was held. Why? Because we were 
impeaching. That is an amazing agenda, but you promised people you 
would do it.
  This is not a moment this body should be proud of. If Speaker Pelosi 
likes to say impeachment is a national civics lesson, let's use this 
blunder as a teachable moment.
  I will make this promise to the American public, because the day will 
come that the majority will switch. We will uphold the Constitution. We 
will listen to the words of Alexander Hamilton. And just because 
somebody else is in an office that we may not like, we will not change 
the rule of law. We will not accuse them of breaking it and say they 
have to prove it.
  We believe America is more than a country. America is an idea, an 
idea that, yes, would make students in Iran rise up for the freedom of 
what they know America to be. That the rule of law was so powerful. 
This is a moment and a civics lesson we should learn. This is a moment 
that will teach our grandchildren that, yes, more than 200 years ago 
the Founders crafted an amazing country, but they warned us what abuse 
of power would look like. The sad part is we are witnessing it. What a 
contrast in a day and time.
  Moving forward, we must not redo these same mistakes in Congress, and 
my promise to you is: if power were to change, the rule of law would 
come back. We would have an agenda focused on people, not politics. We 
would have a voice that you are innocent until proven guilty. We would 
not abuse our power just for the sheer sake of politics, to say you are 
impeached forever because I dislike you.
  We are better than this. It is a sad day, but the great thing about 
America, it will all change because the people have the voice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are once again reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, two points.
  First, my colleagues in the minority would rather talk about anything 
than try to defend what President Trump actually did, because they 
can't.
  There is overwhelming evidence that the President pressured the 
Ukrainian Government to interfere in our election on his behalf then he 
covered it up. These are high crimes and misdemeanors, and we will 
prove that in the Senate.
  Second, our minority colleagues don't like our ongoing fight for a 
fair trial because it got results. New documents and additional 
witnesses have emerged that unmistakably point to the President's 
guilt, and we have exposed the efforts of some in the Senate majority 
to put on a sham trial.
  The American people understand that a trial without evidence, without 
witnesses is no trial at all but a coverup, and that will not stand. We 
must protect the Constitution and the integrity of our elections. That 
is what this is about. We must remove this President to protect our 
country.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining, and the 
gentleman from New York has the right to close.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. Madam 
Speaker, is the gentleman from New York ready to close?
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am ready to close.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, there are no other speakers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, there are no speakers? A 
closing is no other speakers.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I have one more speaker, and she will 
close.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, then the gentleman is not 
ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is incorrect. The gentleman 
from New York has one remaining speaker who will close.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I will take it back. Madam 
Speaker, give me the time one more time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, two facts just came out right 
here, and again, we are going to hear in just a moment, but they are 
facts. Undoubtedly the mics are not working on the other side, on the 
majority side. We have talked about the facts. There is not 
overwhelming evidence. We have discussed this over and over until we 
are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter because this is a political 
impeachment.
  This has nothing to do with the facts. We have shown that there was 
nothing done wrong, but that does not matter. When the train is on the 
tracks, the whistle is blowing, impeachment matters, and the only thing 
that matters on the timeline, the only real emergency here is that 
there is a 2020 election in which the Democrats can't stand to see the 
fact this President is going to win again. They can't stand the fact of 
who they have got running, so what do we do? We impeach him, as they 
said, for life. That is wrong. Vote ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, again, no defense.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his exceptional custodianship of the Constitution of the United States, 
for 13 years the top Democrat on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
Civil Justice Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I thank you for 
your leadership in protecting and defending the Constitution, the oath 
that we take as Members of Congress.
  As I enter into the conversation, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Georgia for his apology for his ridiculous remarks about me and 
House Democrats. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Collins and accept his 
apology.
  Now, I want to go to the purpose of why we are on the floor today. My 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are here today to cross a 
very important threshold in American history. On December 18, the House 
of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment of Donald Trump, 
Articles of Impeachment for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
  By his own admission, the President stated that, yes, he had had that 
conversation with the President of Ukraine, but he didn't see anything 
wrong with it. Well, we don't agree with that assessment.
  And, yes, it is a fact when someone is impeached, they are always 
impeached. It cannot be erased, so I stand by that comment, although I 
know you don't like hearing it. I stand by this picture of the American 
flag, as I did the day that we introduced the Articles of Impeachment 
onto the floor because every day all over America in classrooms as well 
as courtrooms and in this Congress of the United States when we meet, 
we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to 
the republic for which it stands--and to the republic for which it 
stands, that is what our Nation is. That is the genius, the beautiful, 
exquisite genius of the Constitution, that we are a republic. That was 
a decision of our Founders, their vision. They didn't want a monarchy, 
they wanted a republic.

  When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall and was asked 
what do we have, Mr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic, he said: ``A 
republic, if we can keep it.'' I have often wondered why he said that, 
why that would be in doubt. But we see why it is in doubt right now 
when the President of the United States has said Article II says I can 
do whatever I want. That is a monarchy, that is not a republic that we 
pledge our allegiance to every single day.
  Here we are today with the Articles of Impeachment about to be 
transmitted to the United States Senate.
  I was thinking this morning and I mentioned it in a previous public

[[Page H256]]

event, the midnight ride of Paul Revere: ``Listen, my children, and you 
shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.'' Listen, my children, 
and you will hear about an assault on the Constitution of the United 
States, undermining the Republic for which our flag stands by the 
President of the United States in using appropriated funds enacted in a 
bipartisan way by this Congress, funds that were meant to help Ukraine 
fight the Russians. The President considered that his private ATM 
machine, I guess, and thought he could say to the President, ``Do me a 
favor.'' Do me a favor? Do you paint houses, too? What is this? Do me a 
favor.
  So we have a situation that is very sad. Don't talk to me about my 
timing. For a long time I resisted the calls from across the country 
for impeachment of the President for obvious violations of the 
Constitution that he committed. But recognizing the divisiveness of 
impeachment, I held back. Frankly, I said this President isn't worth 
it. But when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding 
funds from Ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal and 
political, he crossed a threshold. He gave us no choice.
  So, children, our Constitution is the vision of our Founders. They 
were so brave they declared independence. They did it in a timeframe 
when in the course of human events it becomes necessary. They declared 
independence. They fought a war of independence and bravely succeeded. 
They wrote documents, our founding documents, the Constitution. Thank 
God they made it amendable so we could ever be expanding freedom in our 
country.
  And that, my children, is what you pledge allegiance to, the flag of 
the United States of America and to the Republic contained in that 
Constitution of the United States.

                              {time}  1300

  We take that oath. When we become Members of Congress or other public 
office, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the 
United States.
  The President of the United States takes an oath to preserve, 
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, an oath that 
he has blatantly violated. For this reason, he was impeached by the 
House of Representatives.
  For this reason, we thought it would be helpful to have not only the 
strong case for impeachment and removal that was put forth in this 
House, but to know that more was to come. We didn't make it come 
because we said that we were going to wait until after Christmas to 
send this over. They would like to have had us send it over on 
Christmas Eve so they could dismiss it.
  Perhaps they don't realize that dismissal is coverup, but that has 
been one of their trains of thought.
  Dismissal is coverup.
  I was so disappointed the other day, last Friday, I guess, or last 
Thursday, when the leader of the United States Senate, rather than 
strengthening the institution in which he serves, became subservient 
and signed on to a resolution that would dismiss charges.
  Dismissal is coverup.
  In the course of the time since we passed the resolution, and not 
because of the time--we passed it on December 18--on December 20, new 
emails showed that 91 minutes after Trump's phone call with the 
Ukrainian President, a top Office of Management and Budget aide asked 
the Department of Defense to ``hold off'' on sending military aid to 
Ukraine.
  On December 29, revelations emerged about OMB Director and Acting 
Chief of Staff Mulvaney's role in the delay of aid; the effort by 
lawyers in the administration to justify the delay; and, most 
importantly, the alarm that the delay caused within the administration.
  On January 2, newly unredacted Pentagon emails, which the House 
subpoenaed and the President blocked, raised serious concerns by Trump 
administration officials about the legality of the President's hold on 
the aid to Ukraine.
  On January 6, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton said 
he would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony. His lawyer 
stated he has new relevant information.
  On January 13, reports emerged that the Russian Government hacked the 
Ukrainian gas company Burisma as part of their ongoing effort to 
influence the U.S. election in support of Trump.
  Yesterday, House committees--Mr. Nadler, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Engel, and 
Madam Chair Maloney--released new evidence, pursuant to a House 
subpoena, from Lev Parnas--recently photographed with the Republican 
leader--an associate of Rudy Giuliani, that further proves that the 
President was a central player in the scheme to pressure Ukraine for 
his own benefit in the 2020 election.
  The Senate leader and the President are afraid of more facts coming 
to light. That is why the leader signed that dismissal resolution.
  A dismissal, again, is a coverup.
  The American people will fully understand the Senate's move to begin 
the trial without witnesses and documents as a pure political coverup.
  Whatever the outcome, the American people want a fair trial, fair to 
the President, fair to the American people. The American people deserve 
the truth.
  The Constitution requires a trial, a fair trial.
  The House is now moving forward with a vote to transmit the articles 
and appoint managers.
  As Speaker, I am proud to appoint outstanding American patriots to 
serve on the impeachment panel:
  Chairman Schiff;
  Chairman Nadler;
  Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren--this is her third impeachment, as a staffer 
to a House Judiciary Committee member in the Nixon impeachment, as a 
member of the Judiciary Committee on the Clinton impeachment, and now 
as a House manager;
  Hakeem Jeffries, the chair of our Caucus, a serious, respected 
litigator;
  Val Demings, a member of the police force in Orlando for 27 years 
and, for part of that time, the first woman and African American police 
chief of Orlando, so she knows her way around the courtroom;
  Jason Crow from Colorado, an Army Ranger who served our country in 
the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in the Congress of the 
United States, and he too is a respected litigator; and,
  Sylvia Garcia from Texas, a judge in a number of capacities in Texas 
and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  We are very honored that you have taken the responsibility, all of 
you, to bring the Articles of Impeachment over to the United States 
Senate with a case for the Constitution.

  So, back to the children. We don't want this President or any 
President to ever violate the Constitution. It is very, very important 
that we see that that Constitution is central to who we are as a 
country, our system of government, our Constitution, so valued, so 
respected, hopefully, so honored by everyone who takes an oath of 
office to support and defend it.
  We see the Russians now hacking in Ukraine. It just came out 
yesterday or the day before. It just reminds me that I think most 
Americans would think that voters in America should decide who our 
President is, not Vladimir Putin and Russia deciding who our President 
is.
  I am very concerned that in all of this, whether it is withholding 
funds for the Ukrainian Government to fight the Russians, whether it is 
undermining our commitment to NATO, whether it is, again, making 
decisions of what happens in Syria vis-a-vis Turkey favoring the 
Russians, that all roads lead to Russia, all roads lead to Putin.
  While some in the administration may think that is okay, I don't, but 
we do insist and wonder why this President and some in this Congress 
will not come to the defense of our electoral system by allowing that 
to happen, denying that it is happening, placing the blame elsewhere.
  This is as serious as it gets for any of us. Only the vote to declare 
war would be something more serious than this. We take it very 
seriously.
  It is not personal. It is not political. It is not partisan. It is 
patriotic.
  Again, I thank our distinguished managers for their courage and their 
dedication, for being willing to spend the time to do the job to honor 
the oath that we take and honor the pledge that our children take of 
allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H257]]

  

  Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to this partisan impeachment spectacle that seeks to 
accomplish what President Trump's opponents failed to do at the ballot 
box in 2016. The bedrock of this country is our Constitution. Article 
II of the United States Constitution grants our President the necessary 
authority to deal with other nations and their leaders.
  This President was lawfully elected by the American people. When 
President Trump was sworn into office, he assumed the role of our 
nation's Commander in Chief. And, as Commander in Chief, he has done 
absolutely nothing illegal. The impeachment vote today is a sad 
continuation of the partisan political efforts to undercut President 
Trump since he was elected in 2016, if not before.
  The House majority has wrongly denied President Trump the fair 
process that was afforded to President Clinton and President Nixon at 
every stage of their investigations. I am also profoundly disappointed 
that the House Judiciary Committee refused to hold a minority day 
hearing in compliance with Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
the House, which the Democratic Majority earlier voted to approve.
  It should also greatly concern all Americans that co-equal subpoena 
authority was not granted to the minority during this hyper-partisan 
process. Co-equal subpoena authority for both the minority and majority 
has been the backbone of past impeachment investigations. My bill, 
House Resolution 667, would have granted this co-equal subpoena 
authority to the minority and majority, and l am disappointed that the 
Speaker never let it be considered by the House.
  House Democrats said that it was critical to move forward in an 
historically fast, hasty manner. Yet, after passing both Articles of 
Impeachment on December 18, 2019, their sense of urgency died. The 
House Democratic Majority has waited nearly a month to transmit the 
``urgent'' Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. This change in tone 
only underscores what Tennesseans knew all along: this is a partisan 
stunt, motivated purely by political reasons, that mocks our Founding 
Fathers' great caution in undertaking decisions of this magnitude and 
the safeguards they designed for our Republic.
  It is shameful that the majority has waited nearly a month to bring 
House Resolution 798 up for a vote. I am deeply alarmed that this delay 
by House Democrats was a thinly veiled power grab. Our Founding Fathers 
envisioned this scenario during the dawn of our Republic: one chamber 
of Congress trying to control the other. In our Founders' wisdom, a 
system of checks and balances was put into place to prevent the coup 
d'etat that House Democrats attempted. Because of these safeguards, 
House Democrats ultimately failed. I applaud the Senators from both 
sides of the aisle who stood against this grave injustice and demanded 
that the House send over the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate 
without delay.
  Instead of working to secure our southern border, protect religious 
freedom, and rein in out-of-control government spending, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have been laser-focused on removing 
President Trump from office for purely political reasons.
  I want to remind those who are leading this ridiculous waste of 
taxpayer resources that there will be another election in 2020. The 
next election is the avenue for deciding a new president, not this. 
Throughout the history of this country, impeachment has been a rare 
process. With this impeachment, I worry that in the next 230 years of 
our Republic, it will be rare that a president is not impeached.
  On behalf of my fellow Tennesseans, and on behalf of my constituents 
in the Sixth District of Tennessee, I stand with our President and 
Commander in Chief and will vote ``no'' to appoint and authorize 
managers for the impeachment trial of President Trump.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on adoption of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on:
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 193, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 18]

                               YEAS--228

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

                               NAYS--193

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Crawford
     Gabbard
     Kirkpatrick
     Lesko
     Lewis
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Simpson

[[Page H258]]


  


                              {time}  1333

  Mr. HIGGINS of New York changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________