Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6395, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Sun Tzu said that ``the art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.'' As reported out of committee, this NDAA funds essential military readiness to support the National Defense Strategy. The legislation does a number of things. It makes significant investments in operations and maintenance and military construction; invests in essential capabilities to retain military overmatch, including cyber, space, hypersonics, ground-based strategic deterrent, and artificial intelligence; begins recapitalizing our surge sealift fleet; addresses shortfalls in refueling capacity; requires that DOD develop a long-term sustainment strategy; codifies the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment; improves energy and critical infrastructure resilience; requires responsible water use by installations; improves transparency regarding PFAS releases; authorizes National Guard access to DOD funds for PFAS remediation; and continues military housing so as to protect the families. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, John Garamendi, for his leadership on the Readiness Subcommittee, and Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for their leadership to get this to the floor. Representative Thornberry has left a strong mark on this Nation's national defense, and we appreciate his dedication. This legislation reflects the hard work of Members on both sides as well as the bipartisan staff. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I voted against the rule. I did so because the Democratic leadership appears to be playing political games that could undermine all of this good work. One amendment would reduce the defense top line, if accepted, by 10 percent. By requiring the Department to fully fund all the personnel and medical accounts, all other accounts would have to decrease by 16 percent, more than twice the cuts imposed under sequestration. That would devastate readiness. Rules also made in order include two massive land amendments affecting Colorado and Arizona and other States. These have nothing to do with national defense, and they are opposed by many citizens of those States. Using servicemembers and their families as pawns to support a partisan agenda is just wrong, so I truly hope this remains a bill that I can vote for after this debate.

Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentlewoman is not willing to answer this question. If she can't answer this question, then I don't think we have to take it seriously. I think it is a political gimmick. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to my colleague from California that at least the sage-grouse amendments in the past had something to do with national defense. These were next to military areas that impacted readiness. This amendment has nothing to do with national defense. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would be a major change to the Insurrection Act first invoked by Thomas Jefferson more than 200 years ago. Under this amendment, a President would not be able to act quickly and decisively in the event of riots that are not being controlled at the State or municipal level. He would have to, along with the Secretary of Defense, certify certain findings to Congress and then consult with Congress. This would hinder and delay needed action to preserve domestic peace. Any military personnel then deployed would have burdensome restrictions placed upon them that would make them less effective in controlling violence and riots. It is ironic that we are considering this amendment on a day when we are honoring the life of Representative John Lewis, an icon in the civil rights movement whose passing I, too, mourn. You see, Mr. Speaker, had this amendment been law during the 1950s and 1960s, the progress of civil rights in this country would have been stifled. By being forced to consult with Congress, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson could have been blocked by a Senate majority that at the time was preventing all progress on civil rights. It is a matter of history. My Uncle Jim Lamborn was a Federal employee at Leavenworth Penitentiary in 1957 when he was deputized as a marshal and sent to Little Rock, Arkansas, with many others so Black children could go to integrated public schools. President Eisenhower had to oppose the Arkansas Governor and act unilaterally to make this happen. If Eisenhower had to oppose an obstructionist House or Senate also, it may have never happened. So, looking at today's headlines, I would like to ask the sponsor of this amendment, in light of the violence and rioting in Seattle and Portland, which for whatever reasons are not being controlled by the mayors of those cities, would President Trump be justified to invoke the Insurrection Act as amended by this amendment?

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), who is a retired three-star general and Member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment to add a package of divisive and unrelated partisan land bills to the NDAA. First of all, this amendment has nothing to do with national defense. It is a travesty that the majority has jammed these issues together. Collectively, this package of ideologically driven bills impacts lands in Colorado, California, and Washington by creating about 1.3 million acres of new wilderness. But this will greatly reduce opportunities for multiple uses on these public lands, limit access to them, and significantly reduce the available productive acreage in working forests, rendering them more prone to catastrophic wildfires. In Colorado alone, this would designate about 570,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 23,000 acres of expanded wilderness, and 14,000 areas of potential wilderness, whatever ``potential wilderness'' is. This is in a State where we have 3\1/2\ million acres of wilderness right now. While I commend my colleague from Colorado for her attempts to work with local stakeholders to address some of their concerns, none of the bills in this package comes close to the type of balance and consensus necessary for a bill of this magnitude. Many of the local communities impacted by this package have raised significant concerns. Now, you know, look, I love public lands, as does the sponsor of this legislation. My wife and I hiked a national park in Moab last week. While wilderness sounds good to the uninformed, it really means that most people will forever lose access to those lands. Local communities have many concerns with this bill. At the July subcommittee hearing on this bill, we heard testimony from Montezuma County Commissioner Keenan Ertel, who shared the county's concern that this bill would negatively impact individual landowners, agricultural entities, water providers, first responders, and especially the recreation and tourism industry. Garfield County has also weighed in against this bill because of the increased wildfire risk. In addition to the local grievances, the affected Federal land management agencies have stated that this bill is inconsistent with previous designations and existing land uses because it arbitrarily adds wilderness areas and wild and scenic river designations where those designations are simply not supported. Now, actually, there is one connection to national defense, and that is a negative one. By designating the High Altitude Aviation Training Site, or HAATS, as being within a wilderness area, it won't be able to expand if and when future vertical lift platforms come online. Future platforms will fly higher, farther, and faster, and they will need more space, and this amendment prevents that. Because of all these concerns, the Trump administration rightly issued a veto threat against this bill when it first came up to the House in February. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Thomas G. Falzarano, USAF, who passed away on May 12, 2020 after a lifetime of distinguished service to his country. Colonel Falzarano was a devoted husband, a caring father, a leader of character, and a champion for our nation's ideals. Thomas G. Falzarano was born September 20, 1972 in Nashua, New Hampshire to George Marshall and Joan Denise (Campagnone) Falzarano. Growing up with five siblings meant that he had to hone his competitive spirit and leadership skills early. Such skills prompted him to seek an appointment to the United States Air Force Academy, which he acquired. His career in the Air Force shaped Colonel Falzarano's personal leadership style. His three R's (Respect, Readiness, and Responsibility) complimented the service values of the Air Force. His embodiment of these characteristics was seen in every sphere of his life. None more prevalent, however, than the relationship that he had with his wife Stacey and children Trevor, Spencer, Michael, Thomas, and Valentina. Competence in every aspect of the profession of arms is a moral obligation for those accepting a commission. For those under his command, Colonel Falzarano set the example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and service. He did not take lightly the responsibility of mentoring, inspiring, and challenging the sons and daughters entrusted to him. His strategic assignments and personal decorations after graduating the Air Force Academy in 1994 speak to his proficiency and exemplary performance as an Officer. His personal decorations and career advancement paled in comparison, however, to the pride he exhibited when speaking about the Airman he was fortunate enough to lead. He met with spouses and families throughout the 21st Space Wing--ensuring their voices and concerns were heard. He took time to mentor Airmen under his charge; he listened to squadron commanders, group commanders and first sergeants in order to fully understand the needs and concerns of the Airmen. Regardless of rank, he met and followed up with every individual seeking his expertise. He embodied the aspects of servant leadership. He made it a point to learn the job of everyone under his command so that, when the time came, he could advocate on their behalf. This included standing shoulder to shoulder with Airmen of the 21st Civil Engineer Squadron filling potholes, shadowing security forces throughout his area of operations, suiting up with EOD to participate in a bomb simulation; meeting with the space operators from the 10th Space Warning Squadron and the many Air Force civilians that made the mission possible. He took time to speak with, listen to, and thank everyone from the commissary bagger staff to the public affairs team that allowed his Airmen to focus on their task at hand. Colonel Falzarano believed that the entire 21st Space Wing family had a role to play, and if he could invest in the lives of those under his charge, the Airmen would have exponential success in their mission. He was a Commander that understood the impact his physical presence had on the units he led and made the well-being of his Airmen a priority. Through his character, competence, and leadership, he made a difference in the lives of everyone with whom he came in contact. Colonel Falzarano's positive impact throughout the enlisted, commissioned, and civilian ranks will have a ripple effect on Air Force leadership for generations to come. It was a privilege to have met Colonel Falzarano and it is an honor to recognize his incredible life.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Donald G. Stratton, who passed away on February 15, 2020 after a lifetime of service to his country. Mr. Stratton was a dedicated husband of 69 years, a father, grandfather, great-grandfather, New York Times best- selling author, USS Arizona Survivor, and a champion of the memory for those who did not make it home. Mr. Donald Stratton was born July 14, 1922 in Inavale, Nebraska to Robert and Jessie Stratton. After growing up in Nebraska and graduating from Red Cloud High School, Donald attended Navy bootcamp in 1940. After graduation from bootcamp he was given orders to join the USS Arizona in dry dock at the Navy shipyards in Bremerton, Washington. Upon completion of her maintenance and retrofit in Washington, the USS Arizona steamed across the Pacific to join her fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in early 1941. On the morning of December 7, 1941, Seaman First Class Stratton was on his way to visit a shipmate in sick bay when the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor began. He immediately raced to his battle station, winding through ship spaces and climbing three ladders to reach the Arizona's sky control platform, where he yelled coordinates to the gun crews firing at the incoming waves of Japanese bombers. Just minutes after he arrived, a bomb struck a direct blow to the Arizona hitting the ammunition stores, lifting the 35,000 ton ship out of the water, and sending a fireball hundreds of feet skyward. Seaman First Class Stratton and his shipmates in the director were surrounded by flames. He and five other sailors were able to navigate the burning wreckage and signal for help. Boatswain's Mate Second Class Joe George from the USS Vestal came to their rescue and saved their lives by repeatedly throwing a heaving line until the men were able to secure it and climb seventy feet, hand over hand, to safety above the inferno that raged below. Boatswain's Mate Second Class Joe George disobeyed a direct order to cut away from the Arizona and instead courageously fought to provide a means of escape for the sailors. Mr. Stratton credited Joe George for saving his life that day and petitioned for years to have his actions recognized. Mr. Stratton called and wrote numerous letters, ultimately meeting with President Trump before Joe George was awarded the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device for his heroic actions that day. Mr. Stratton was medically discharged from the Navy in 1942 and returned to Nebraska. Ever the fighter, he decided to reenlist a year later, deny orders to a stateside posting, and eventually joined the USS Stack on its way to the Pacific. He fought in the invasion of the Philippines, the invasion of Okinawa, and on patrol missions throughout the Pacific theater. After returning from war, Donald Stratton traveled the world, raised a family, and devoted his life to preserving the story of what happened that day. Donald is survived by his wife of 69 years Velma, son Randy (Kathy) Stratton, brother Willie Stratton, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. Mr. Stratton was a hero. A selfless American who dedicated his life to our country and fought to have his shipmates remembered long after they, or he, had passed to another life. It was a privilege to have met Mr. Stratton and it is an honor to stand and commemorate his incredible and full life.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for his leadership. I rise in strong opposition to this package of divisive and partisan bills. Collectively, this package of ideologically driven bills impact lands in Colorado, California, and Washington by creating nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness, designating 843 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and creating 100,000 acres of National Monument expansion. In Colorado alone, H.R. 2546 would designate approximately 570,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 23,000 acres of expanded wilderness, and 14,000 acres of potential wilderness. These new designations would be in addition to the already existing 3.5 million acres of public land in Colorado that is already designated as wilderness. Now, I commend my colleague from Colorado for her efforts to work with local shareholders to address some of their concerns, but the bills contained in this package do not achieve the type of balance and local consensus necessary for bills of this magnitude. Many of the local communities impacted by this wilderness package have raised significant concerns, including the loss of motorized access and recreation, the elimination of multiple use, and the overall threat to local economies. If wilderness designation is imposed, fewer people will have access to these lands. Engaging local stakeholders and considering their on-the-ground expertise are critical steps in making decisions about public lands management. Local communities have concerns with many aspects of this bill. At the July 10, 2019, subcommittee hearing on this bill, the committee heard testimony from Montezuma County Commissioner Keenan Ertel, who shared the county's concern that this bill would negatively impact ``individual landowners, agricultural entities, water providers, first responders, and especially the recreation tourism industry.'' Garfield County also opposes this legislation due to concerns with restricting access and increased risk of catastrophic wildfires due to the restrictive management regimes imposed by this legislation. In addition to local grievances, the affected land management agencies have noted that this bill is inconsistent with previous designations and existing land uses by arbitrarily adding wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers in areas where those designations are not appropriate. Supporting the declaration of areas that do not actually possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as well as the existing lands that do possess those features. Because of these concerns, the Trump administration has rightly issued a veto threat against this partisan bill. To quote from the Statement of Administration Policy: ``This bill would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on more than 2.5 million acres of land in Colorado, California, and Washington State, including nearly 1.5 million acres in the form of wilderness designations. These restrictions will greatly reduce opportunities for multiple uses on these public lands, limit access to them, and significantly reduce the available productive acreage in working forests, rendering them more prone to catastrophic wildfires.'' This highly partisan package is in stark contrast to the omnibus lands package that was passed overwhelmingly last year by both Chambers and signed into law by President Trump. That package was the most sweeping conservation legislation in the last decade. It had begun under the Republican House and was successful because it featured the input of a wide coalition of our colleagues, and it earned the support of a broad, diverse coalition of advocates for public lands, economic development, and conservation. Mr. Chair, we are wasting our time here. I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. You know, I have seen thousands of amendments during my time here in Congress, but this is the most dangerous I have ever seen. It is far more restrictive than the War Powers Resolution, and it is historic in that it handcuffs the President in advance by undermining his ability to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to try to harm. No Member of Congress wants to be at war with Iran, if given the chance, but deterrence is achieved through credible strength, not by publicly tying the hands of the Commander in Chief in advance. While no American wants to be at war with Iran, Iran believes it is certainly at war with America. Now this amendment gives Iran's terrorist forces freedom of movement throughout the region, allowing them to plan and prepare attacks on the U.S. Forces with impunity. The rulers of Iran are an evil regime and have been for a long time. They were designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, after killing 241 marines in Beirut. Today, it is the source of chaos in the Middle East, fostering conflict throughout the region and fueling wars in Yemen and Syria which have caused death and suffering on an apocalyptic scale, and yet this amendment would require the President to wait until after our troops have been attacked to use force against the terrorist forces of Iran. And that is not all. Then he has to wait until Congress gets its act together to authorize a response. He could only use force to defend our troops, under the language of this amendment, ``if Congress enacts specific statutory authorization for such use of force.'' Our troops conducting counter-ISIS missions in Iraq and Syria will be proactively prevented from taking action against Iranian forces or proxy forces to stop an imminent attack. So passage of this amendment rewards the Iranian regime's growing aggression and it emboldens the IRGC, a designated terrorist organization, and their proxy forces in Iraq and Syria, granting legitimacy and freedom of movement to the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this historically ill-advised and dangerous amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise during this week to celebrate school choice. Americans lose their freedom when parents aren't allowed to decide on their own where to send their children to school. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't encourage growth for the next generation of Americans. In March, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments for the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The Court's decision could have important ramifications for public funding of private and public schools. In my district, I am proud of the work being done by Steve and Joyce Schuck, champions of the school choice movement in Colorado. Steven Woodford is also doing great work for the homeschool communities of Colorado. These key leaders in our community are enabling students to have educational opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have. Colorado is making great strides in the school choice movement, and I am proud to represent both the community leaders who facilitate it and the talented students of this generation.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I stand today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. Taechin ``TC'' Kim, who passed away on December 29, 2019, at the age of 72. Mr. Kim was a key leader of the prayer community and prayer movement in the Pikes Peak region. As a former Korean businessman, TC dedicated his life as a prayer missionary to seeking authentic transformation of our city and nation. TC was a naturalized American citizen who cherished the Biblical, founding principles of our nation and lived an exemplary life as a true patriot. As the National Facilitator of Transform USA, he had a profound impact on Colorado Springs and beyond by organizing two weekly public prayer gatherings and constantly promoting outstanding Christian citizenship. Colorado's 5th Congressional District is truly blessed by TC's believing and living 2 Chronicles 7:14, ``if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.'' TC Kim was born in 1947 in the city of Taegu, South Korea. He graduated from Yonsei University, Seoul with a BA in Business and received his MBA from the University of La Verne in Southern California. His professional career includes nearly 30 years as: General Manager, Samsung Trading Company; Vice President, NCH Corporation; and Asian Pacific Operations Sales Director, Otis Elevator Company/United Technologies. In 2000, he transitioned into service with a global non-profit organization Eron/Loving Concern as a missionary, providing medical supplies to South America and Africa before moving to Colorado Springs in 2007. In 2007, TC was commissioned by several national and global ministry leaders at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. to serve as the National Facilitator of Transform USA. Soon after, TC and his wife, Soonae, moved to Colorado Springs where he began to connect with local pastors, ministry leaders, everyday people of faith, as well as many across the nation for the purpose of relationship, support and collaboration towards transforming America together. In the summer of 2007, TC launched a weekly Wednesday morning prayer meeting which continues to this day. He also began a monthly national conference call to provide a networking platform for servant leaders to share about their regional/national ministry of serving others which also continues into 2020. At both the weekly local prayer meeting as well as the monthly national conference calls, TC always encouraged and inspired people of faith to be the positive change makers in the spheres of business, education, public service, media, arts/entertainment and religion. In 2014, TC was granted space in Colorado Springs' City Hall to launch a weekly Friday evening meeting to pray for our city. Throughout TC's years in Colorado Springs, he always looked for opportunities to serve the needs of our community. He also convened several special Transform USA gatherings in our region including the 2011 D-Day Prayer and the 2018 Transform USA Summit. TC continued to ``fight the good fight'' even after he was diagnosed with stage four cancer in 2015, and ``finished the race'' at the end of 2019. TC Kim lived a transformed life through loving and honoring all those around him both as a global businessman and missionary and both a local and national ministry leader. He represented Christian virtues well and many in our region, nation, and around the world have been blessed by his service. The Pikes Peak Region and beyond will continue to thrive through the lives he impacted. TC is survived by his wife Soonae, sons Andrew and Sean, their wives, and five grandchildren. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to remember the life and legacy of Mr. Taechin ``TC'' Kim.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mark, with sadness, the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This tragic Supreme Court decision has resulted in the loss of over 60 million unborn babies' lives. This surpasses the number killed by Stalin and Hitler, combined. In a country, today, where so many social and technological advancements have been achieved, how is it that we still fail to value the most fundamental part of human society--a human life? The repercussions of Roe have been disastrous. Over 60 million children have lost their lives because of Roe. I am dismayed by the arguments I hear coming from those who call themselves pro-choice. Those 60 million unborn were not given a choice. I have two wonderful and lovely daughters-in-law who are expecting babies as we speak right now. I am so glad that these two principled women and their husbands value life. Now, our choice is to be the voice for the voiceless. I am proud to stand here with my colleagues in Congress for the cause of life.

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. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, but there is something even much more important this week in Congress. In 2012, President Obama was caught on camera giving Russia's then- President Medvedev a secret message to be given to his soon-to-be successor, Vladimir Putin. President Obama said: ``On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it is important for him to give me space. This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.'' In other words, President Obama's secret promise to reward Russia with flexibility on missile defense and other issues, to the detriment of U.S. national security, was if the Russians did not stir up trouble during his Presidential campaign. This exchange between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev is an actual quid pro quo. President Obama's offer was accepted and was acted upon by the Russians. Both sides exchanged something of value. President Obama's quid pro quo led to specific actions by his administration. He was weak against Russia in many respects, he broke missile defense agreements with our beleaguered Eastern European allies, he tried to stop or delay nuclear parity with Russia, and he repeatedly blocked attempts by Republicans to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. By the way, under President Trump, we are finally strong against Russia. We are now building a more robust NATO, enhancing our missile defense agreements and troop presence in Eastern Europe, and finally sending the lethal aid to Ukraine that President Obama had refused to send. But President Obama engaged in an actual quid pro quo with Russia to give him political advantage. It came at the expense of Ukraine, an ally. It sounds a lot like what the Democrats are accusing President Trump of. Why were the Democrats silent back then? These two scenarios, that and the present-day impeachment proceedings, sound similar, but there is at least one big difference: the alleged quid pro quo between Presidents Trump and Zelensky never translated into even an understanding by the Ukrainians that they had to do something. In fact, they never did anything, such as announce a corruption investigation of the Bidens, which I believe was a situation crying out for an investigation. When you come right down to it, the real abuse of power was by President Obama. Was it a horrible judgment call to trade favors with the Russians? Yes. Was it impeachable? Republicans who were in control of the House then did not think so. That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans may not always like what a President of the other party does, but we don't elevate policy differences into a nuclear war involving impeachment, a constitutional remedy that should be reserved for things like criminal acts and treason. This week's impeachment proceedings are nothing more than a political vendetta by the Democrats masquerading as a constitutional remedy. Let's stop this charade now and kill this impeachment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. I support it; I urge its adoption. I have to take this opportunity to address another vital issue that we are addressing this week in Congress, but we are not having any time to debate, practically speaking. All special orders have been shut down, all 1 minutes have been shut down, practically speaking, so I am going to take this moment and address the impeachment issue, which we will be voting on as early as Wednesday. I rise to highlight the work of the late President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who wrote the book, ``Profiles in Courage.'' In this book, then-Senator Kennedy highlighted six Senators who each took a stand for what they knew was right, risking their political futures in favor of their convictions. One of these Senators was Kansas Senator Edmund Ross, who courageously cast the deciding vote against his own political party and against the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson despite enormous pressure from his colleagues in Congress. Senator Ross was a brilliant freshman senator with enormous potential, yet he sacrificed it all with one vote in 1868. During the process, an onlooker overheard him say that he had no sympathy for President Johnson but wanted to see a fair trial. Ross' reverence for the Constitution and the institutions of American government superseded the wishes of his own political party. Today, my friends and colleagues across the aisle would do well to learn from Senator Ross, who put principle and a strong belief in the Constitution over the fads and crazes of the politics of the moment. His reasoning echoes loudly today. If a President could be forced out of office by insufficient evidence that was generated from partisan disagreement, the Presidency would then be under the control of whatever congressional faction held sway. The American people clearly decided in 2016 that Donald Trump is our President. I fear that, throughout this impeachment process, my colleagues across the aisle will choose to cast aside the Constitution and the will of the American people as they carry out this hyperpartisan impeachment. History will long remember those who stood and courageously defended the Constitution, just as Senator Ross did on that fateful day as he forged his profile in courage by bucking his own political party. I wonder if my colleagues understand the legacy they are forging. My question for them simply is this: Who of you will choose to be a profile in courage?