Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a closed rule for House Resolution 767, providing for consideration of H. Res. 755, impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees. The rule provides that the question of adoption of the resolution shall be divided between two articles. The rule limits access to the House floor. It provides, at any time after adoption of H. Res. 755, for consideration of a resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial, if offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, debatable for 10 minutes. No resolution incidental to impeachment relating to H. Res. 755 shall be privileged during the remainder of the 116th Congress. Finally, the rule provides that the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary may insert explanatory material in the Congressional Record. Madam Speaker, 232 years ago, as he walked out of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin stated that the Founders had just created ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' He understood that nothing was preordained, that our Nation would continue to be shaped decision-by-decision, vote-by-vote, not by some other leaders in some other time but day in and day out, both through the regular work of government and during historic moments like the one we face today. Our Founders crafted the fundamentals of government to guide us, passages like Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, giving this Chamber the sole power of impeachment. But nowhere does it list exactly what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. In their wisdom, the Founders understood they could not anticipate what the future would bring. They gave subsequent generations--us--the chance to decide precisely what our government would become, to decide with each passing day what a nation defined by the rule of law is willing to tolerate. That is what brings us here today, to decide nearly two-and-a-half centuries later whether the United States is still a nation where no one is above the law or whether America becomes a land run by those who act more like kings or queens, as if the law doesn't apply to them. Yes, Madam Speaker, this really is that serious. Over the past several months, the House of Representatives has been conducting an impeachment inquiry into the 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump. Our inquiry is simply to answer the following question: Did President Trump and his top advisers corruptly withhold official government actions to obtain an improper advantage in the next election? We now know, through the hard work of our investigative committees, and because of the President's own admission, that the answer to that question is yes. The President withheld congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, a country under siege, not to fight corruption but to extract a personal political favor. President Trump refused to meet with Ukraine's President in the White House until he completed this scheme. All the while, leaders in Russia, the very nation holding a large part of Ukraine hostage, the very nation that interfered with our elections, had another meeting in the Oval Office just last week. The President of the United States endangered our national security. The President undermined our democracy. And the President, a successor to the same office as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, betrayed his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. These aren't opinions. These are uncontested facts. Now, I have read the details of the July 25 phone call with President Zelensky, where President Trump said: ``I would like you to do us a favor, though.'' I have seen the televised press conference where his Chief of Staff openly admitted to this deal and told the Nation to ``just get over it.'' Hours and hours of depositions by the Committee on Intelligence, Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Committee on Foreign Affairs have been conducted where witnesses outlined the President's direct involvement in this scheme. The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming. If a President undermining our national security and using the Federal Government for his own selfish, personal gain is not impeachable conduct, then, Madam Speaker, I don't know what is. I have heard some on the other side suggest this process is about overturning an election. That is absurd. This is about protecting our democracy. These facts are beyond dispute. The only question now is whether we are willing to tolerate such conduct, not just today by President Trump but, furthermore, by any President of either party. To not act would set a dangerous precedent, not just for this President, but for every future President. Madam Speaker, 11 months ago, many of us took an oath right here in this Chamber. I have had the privilege to take that oath 12 times now, and I believe it is not just for show. It is a contract between each of us and the people we represent to place the national interest above partisan interests and to preserve those laws that make our country unique. We cannot reconcile the President's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress with the oath of office that we took. Madam Speaker, we are being tested on something greater than our ability to toe a party line, something more than our ability to score the next great television sound bite. This is a democracy-defining moment. History will judge us by whether we keep intact that fragile republic handed down to us by our forebearers more than 200 years ago or whether we allow it to be changed forever. For the sake of our country's future, I hope, and I pray, that my colleagues will make the right decision. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that I sent with regard to the Members' day. Committee on Rules House of Representatives Washington, DC, December 16, 2019. Hon. Tom Cole, Ranking Republican, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Cole: Thank you for your letter dated December 5, 2019, regarding a minority day of hearings on the topic of ``The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.'' I know that it comes from a place of respect for this institution and for the gravity of the matters at hand, and I share your desire to ensure that this process is in compliance with the House rules. You are correct that it is incumbent on committee chairmen to schedule such a hearing, following a request of the minority members of the Committee pursuant to clause 20(j)(1) of rule XI. After a careful review of the legislative history of the rule, the plain text of the rule, and Chairman Nadler's December 12, 2019, ruling, I have concluded that Chairman Nadler has not violated either the spirit or the letter of the rule. At the hearing in question, the Judiciary Committee minority requested and received a witness. The legislative history of clause 20(j)(1) of rule XI makes clear that the intent was to ensure the minority position is represented in hearings, codifying the existing practice of honoring witness requests. The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress proposed this change in their 1966 final recommendations, suggesting that a minimum safeguard be established for ``those infrequent instances when witnesses representing the minority position are not allotted time.'' The Rules Committee report on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which first created the rule, stated that ``by custom, committees ordinarily honor requests from their minority party members to call certain witnesses. Section 114(b) will make this a matter of right.'' Consistent with this original purpose, the rule has largely been used as leverage for the minority to ensure they are not shut out of hearings. It is standard practice across committees for the minority to negotiate adding minority witnesses to the main panels rather than holding a minority day--not to add witnesses in addition to holding a minority day. In the rare instance the minority is shut out, the rule provides them a guarantee that the committee will hear from their side on the topic at hand. The Rules Committee report specifies that in creating this right, ``We do not look upon this as an authorization for delaying tactics but rather as good legislative practice.'' In this instance, Chairman Nadler has complied with the spirit of this good legislative practice as well as following modern committee practice. He accommodated the Judiciary Committee minority's request to place Professor Jonathan Turley on the main witness panel, ensuring minority views on the constitutional ground for presidential impeachment were represented. Chairman Nadler has also followed the letter of the rule by agreeing to work with the minority to schedule a hearing. According to clause 20(j)(1) of rule XI, ``Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.'' As Chairman Nadler correctly stated in his ruling, ``the House rule does not require [him] to schedule a hearing on a particular day, nor does it require [him] to schedule the hearing as a condition precedent to taking any specific legislative action.'' No precedent exists requiring a minority day of hearings to be scheduled before a matter is reported out of committee. In fact, very little precedent exists regarding this rule at all, because it is typically used as a negotiating tool and rarely invoked in practice. The recent practice of the Judiciary Committee, in particular, has not been to delay business in order to schedule a minority day hearing. In his ruling, Chairman Nadler cited a 2018 example in which he and other members properly requested a minority day hearing and never received a response to their request from then-Chairman Goodlatte, let alone a hearing. That was a clear violation of clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI. In this case, however, Chairman Nadler has appropriately said that he will work with the minority to schedule their hearing. Chairman Nadler neither shut the minority out of the hearing on the constitutional grounds of impeachment, nor did he refuse to schedule a hearing. The process we set up through H. Res. 660 even ensured that the President and his counsel could participate in the Judiciary Committee, though they chose not to avail themselves of that right. Impeachment is a solemn responsibility, and I appreciate your concern that we undertake the process in accordance with the House rules. In these partisan times, I am truly grateful for the professional and collegial manner in which members of this committee conduct themselves. The fact that we are able to work together even when we sometimes disagree on the specifics gives me hope for this institution. Sincerely, James P. McGovern, Chairman, House Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I think it is important to correct the Record that there were zero points of order that lie against H. Res. 755. We are here to talk about the President's behavior, and that is what I think we all should be focused on, not just process. But I want to just say that I am proud of the process. Democrats and Republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in the months-long impeachment inquiry. Members of both parties have been involved at every stage of this process, from sitting in and asking questions in closed-door depositions to questioning witnesses in open hearings. The committees took more than 100 hours of deposition testimony from 17 witnesses and held seven public hearings, which included Republican- requested witnesses. They produced a 300-page public report that laid out their findings of evidence. The Judiciary Committee then took that report and conducted two public hearings evaluating the evidence and the legal standard for impeachment before reporting out the two articles.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. President Trump was given the opportunity to participate in the Judiciary Committee's review of the evidence presented against him. He chose not to participate. And President Trump, to date, has not provided any exculpatory evidence but, instead, has blocked numerous witnesses from testifying about his actions. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Mr. McGOVERN. I do not.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I do not.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is passionate about records. I should remind him that we have gotten no records from this White House, not a single document. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if Republicans want to defend the President's indefensible behavior, they can do so, but I would urge my colleagues to stand up for the Constitution and to stand up for this country and our democracy. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Assistant Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record page 69 of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's November 20 open hearing where Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified that the Department of Defense was not able to distribute all of the aid, with $35 million not provided, since it was released so late. Quick question for you. And I think just one question for you, Secretary Hale. Ms. Cooper, was DOD able to put all the security assistance funds into contract before the end of the fiscal year? Ms. Cooper. No, sir. Mr. Maloney. And how much were they not able to obligate? What was left unobligated? Ms. Cooper. I believe the figure was 35 million. It's--we were able to actually obligate 88 percent, total. Mr. Maloney. And I think you mentioned that you were able because of legislation that Congress passed, continuing resolution, to do that. Is that right? Ms. Cooper. So the remainder we are in the process of obligating-- Mr. Maloney. Excuse me. The remainder. Ms. Cooper.--right now because of the provision in the continuing resolution. Mr. Maloney. Right. So, but for literally an act of Congress, you couldn't have spent all the money. Ms. Cooper. If we had not received the provision in the continuing resolution, we would have obligated 88 percent but not the full amount. Mr. Maloney. Right. Which, of course, would be a violation of law, to not spend money that Congress appropriated. Ms. Cooper. Sir, I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. Mr. Maloney. Sure. Thank you. Secretary Hale, where were you born? Mr. Hale. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mr. Maloney. And is your family from Ireland? Am I right about that?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a November 18 AP article entitled, ``U.S. officials knew of Ukraine's Trump anxiety.'' [From the Associated Press, Nov. 18, 2019] U.S. Officials Knew of Ukraine's Trump Anxiety (By Desmond Butler and Michael Biesecker) Washington (AP)--U.S. State Department officials were informed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was feeling pressure from the Trump administration to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden even before the July phone call that has led to impeachment hearings in Washington, two people with knowledge of the matter told The Associated Press. In early May, officials at the U.S. Embassy iri Kyiv, including then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, were told Zelenskiy was seeking advice on how to navigate the difficult position he was in, the two people told the AP. He was concerned President Donald Trump and associates were pressing him to take action that could affect the 2020 U.S. presidential race, the two individuals said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic and political sensitivity of the issue. State Department officials in Kyiv and Washington were briefed on Zelenskiy's concerns at least three times, the two sources said. Notes summarizing his worries were circulated within the department, they said. The briefings and the notes show that U.S. officials knew early that Zelenskiy was feeling pressure to investigate Biden, even though the Ukrainian leader later denied it in a joint news conference with Trump in September. Congressional Republicans have pointed to that public Zelenskiy statement to argue that he felt no pressure to open an investigation, and therefore the Democrats' allegations that led to the impeachment hearings are misplaced. ``Both presidents expressly have stated there was no pressure, no demand, no conditions, no blackmail, no corruption,'' one Republican lawmaker, John Ratcliffe of Texas, argued on the first day of public hearings last week. The central allegation in the impeachment inquiry is that Trump, through his allies, demanded that Ukraine, which is fending off Russian aggression, launch an investigation that would benefit him politically in exchange for crucial military and strategic support. Witnesses have detailed, in closed-door depositions and public impeachment hearings, that allies of Trump pressed Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son while withholding military aid and a coveted meeting between the newly elected Zelenskiy and Trump. The U.S. briefings--and contemporaneous notes on Zelenskiy's early anxiety about Trump's interest in an investigation--suggest that Democrats have evidence in reach to contradict Republican arguments that Zelenskiy never felt pressure to investigate Biden. The Associated Press reported last month about Zelenskiy's meeting on May 7 with, two top aides, as well as Andriy Kobolyev, head of the state- owned natural gas company Naftogaz, and Amos Hochstein, an American who sits on the Ukrainian company's supervisory board. Ahead of the meeting, Hochstein told Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador, why he was being called in. Zelenskiy' s office has not replied to requests for comment about the May 7 meeting. Notes circulated internally at the State Department indicated that Zelenskiy tried to mask the real purpose of his May 7 meeting--which was to talk about political problems with the White House--by saying it was about energy, the two people with knowledge of the matter said. After the meeting with Zelenskiy, Hochstein separately briefed two U.S. Embassy officials, Suriya Jayanti and Joseph Pennington, about Zelenskiy's concerns, said the two people who spoke to the AP. Jayanti and Pennington took notes on the meeting, the people said. Hochstein told the embassy officials about Zelenskiy's concerns and then traveled to Washington to update Y ovanovitch on the meeting. The ambassador, who was facing a smear campaign, had just been called back to Washington, where she was informed that she no longer had the confidence of the president. She was relieved of her duties as ambassador on May 20. Jayanti was also one of three witnesses to a phone call in which Trump discussed his interest in an investigation of Biden with his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. The call occurred while Sondland was having lunch with three embassy officials in Kyiv. David Holmes, political counsel at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, has already detailed to House investigators what he overheard. Jayanti and the third witness, Tara Maher, have not been interviewed. Hochstein, a former diplomat who advised Biden on Ukraine matters during the Obama administration, has also not been questioned in the impeachment proceedings. The Republican arguments about Zelenskiy's lack of concern stem from a Sept. 25 joint media appearance by the American and Ukrainian leaders in which Zelenskiy discussed the July call with Trump that effectively launched the impeachment inquiry. The appearance came shortly after Trump released a rough transcript of the call. ``You heard that we had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. And I--so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed--pushed me,'' Zelenskiy said in the appearance with Trump on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York. ``In other words, no pressure,'' Trump spoke up to add. In the impeachment hearings, Democrats have countered that Zelenskiy's public comments came when he was trying to calm the waters with the U.S. president in the immediate wake of the transcript's release. The burgeoning scandal has brought further uncertainty for Ukraine with its most important Western partner as the country faces simmering conflict with Russia. Zelenskiy's May 7 meeting suggests that he had been concerned about U.S. support from the start.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 23, 2019, New York Times article entitled ``Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense.'' [From The New York Times, Oct. 23, 2019] Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense top officials were told in early august about the delay of $391 million in security assistance, undercutting a chief argument president trump has used to deny any quid pro quo. (By Andrew E. Kramer and Kenneth P. Vogel) Kiev, Ukraine--To Democrats who say that President Trump's decision to freeze $391 million in military aid was intended to bully Ukraine's leader into carrying out investigations for Mr. Trump's political benefit, the president and his allies have had a simple response: There was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know assistance had been blocked. But then on Tuesday, William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Kiev, told House impeachment investigators that the freeze was directly linked to Mr. Trump's demand. That did not deter the president, who on Wednesday approvingly tweeted a quote by a congressional Republican saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had ``provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.'' In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times. The problem was not bureaucratic, the Ukrainians were told. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records. The timing of the communications, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than acknowledged. It also means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations. The communications did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the investigations. But in the communications, officials from the United States and Ukraine discuss the need to bring in the same senior aide to Mr. Zelensky who had been dealing with Mr. Giuliani about Mr. Trump's demands for the investigations, signaling a possible link between the matters. Word of the aid freeze got to the Ukrainians at a moment when Mr. Zelensky, who had taken office a little more than two months earlier after a campaign in which he promised to root out corruption and stand up to Russia, was off balance and uncertain how to stabilize his country's relationship with the United States. Days earlier, he had listened to Mr. Trump implore him on a half-hour call to pursue investigations touching on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Zelensky's efforts to secure a visit to the White House--a symbolic affirmation of support he considered vital at a time when Russia continued to menace Ukraine's eastern border--seemed to be stalled. American policy toward Ukraine was being guided not by career professionals but by Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Taylor testified to the impeachment investigators that he was told it was only on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Mr. Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence in Warsaw that the Ukrainians were directly informed by Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, that the aid would be dependent on Mr. Zelensky giving Mr. Trump something he wanted: an investigation into Burisma, the company that had employed Mr. Biden's younger son, Hunter Biden. American and Ukrainian officials have asserted that Ukraine learned that the aid had been held up only around the time it became public through a news article at the end of August. The aid freeze is drawing additional scrutiny from the impeachment investigators on Wednesday as they question Laura K. Cooper, a deputy assistant defense secretary for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. This month, Democrats subpoenaed both the Defense Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget for records related to the assistance freeze. As Mr. Taylor's testimony suggests, the Ukrainians did not confront the Trump administration about the freeze until they were told in September that it was linked to the demand for the investigations. The Ukrainians appear to have initially been hopeful that the problem could be resolved quietly and were reluctant to risk a public clash at a delicate time in relations between the two nations. ``They didn't even know the money wasn't paid,'' Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter last month. The disclosure that the Ukrainians knew of the freeze by early August corroborates, and provides additional details about, a claim made by a C.I.A. officer in his whistle-blower complaint that prompted the impeachment inquiry by House Democrats. ``As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it,'' the anonymous whistle-blower wrote. The complainant said that he learned that the instruction to freeze the assistance ``had come directly from the president,'' and said it ``might have a connection with the overall effort to pressure Ukrainian leadership.'' Publicly, Mr. Zelensky has insisted he felt no pressure to pursue the investigations sought by Mr. Trump. ``There was no blackmail,'' Mr. Zelensky said at a news conference this month. He cited as evidence that he ``had no idea the military aid was held up'' at the time of his July 25 call with Mr. Trump, when Mr. Trump pressed him for investigations into the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Mr. Zelensky has said he knew about the holdup of the military aid before his meeting in Poland on Sept. 1 with Mr. Pence, but has been vague about exactly when he learned about it. ``When I did find out, I raised it with Pence at a meeting in Warsaw,'' he said this month. In conversations over several days in early August, a Pentagon official discussed the assistance freeze directly with a Ukrainian government official, according to records and interviews. The Pentagon official suggested that Mr. Mulvaney had been pushing for the assistance to be withheld, and urged the Ukrainians to reach out to him. The Pentagon official described Mr. Mulvaney's motivations only in broad terms but made clear that the same Ukrainian official, Andriy Yermak, who had been negotiating with Mr. Giuliani over the investigations and a White House visit being sought by Mr. Zelensky should also reach out to Mr. Mulvaney over the hold on military aid. A senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak publicly about the issue said on Monday that Mr. Mulvaney ``had absolutely no communication with the Ukranians about this issue.'' Ukrainian officials had grown suspicious that the assistance was in jeopardy because formal talks with the Pentagon on its release had concluded by June without any apparent problem. In talks during the spring with American officials, the Ukrainians had resolved conditions for the release of the assistance, and believed everything was on schedule, according to Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine's former vice prime minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration. But by early August, the Ukrainians were struggling to get clear answers from their American contacts about the status of the assistance, according to American officials familiar with the Ukrainians' efforts. In the days and weeks after top Ukrainian officials were alerted to the aid freeze, Mr. Sondland and Kurt D. Volker, then the State Department's special envoy to Ukraine, were working with Mr. Giuliani to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky to deliver that would commit him to pursuing the investigations, according to text messages between the men turned over to the House impeachment investigators. The text messages between Mr. Volker, Mr. Sondland and the top Zelensky aide did not mention the holdup of the aid. It was only in September, after the Warsaw meeting, that Mr. Taylor wrote in a text message to Mr. Sandland, ``I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.'' After being informed on Sept. 1 in Warsaw that the aid would be released only if Mr. Zelensky agreed to the investigations, Ukrainian officials, including their national security adviser and defense minister, were troubled by their inability to get answers to questions about the freeze from United States officials, Mr. Taylor testified. Through the summer, Mr. Zelensky had been noncommittal about the demands from Mr. Volker, Mr. Sandland and Mr. Giuliani for a public commitment to the investigations. On Sept. 5, Mr. Taylor testified, Mr. Zelensky met in Kiev with Senators Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, and Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut. Mr. Zelensky's first question, Mr. Taylor said, was about the security aid. The senators responded, Mr. Taylor said, that Mr. Zelensky ``should not jeopardize bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.'' But Mr. Sondland was still pressing for a commitment from Mr. Zelensky, and was pressing him to do a CNN interview in which he would talk about pursuing the investigations sought by Mr. Trump. Mr. Zelensky never did the interview and never made the public commitment sought by the White House, although a Ukrainian prosecutor later said he would ``audit'' a case involving the owner of the company that paid Hunter Biden as a board member. Mr. Giuliani has said he had nothing to do with the assistance freeze and did not talk to Mr. Trump or ``anybody in the government'' about it. ``I didn't know about it until I read about it in the newspaper,'' he said in an interview last week.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 9, 2019, a Politico magazine article entitled ``This Is What a Legitimate Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look Like,'' which explains that legitimate requests are made through the DOJ's Office of International Affairs and pursuant to the United States Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. [From POLITICO Magazine, October 9, 2019] This Is What a Legitimate Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look Like (By Samantha Vinograd) President Donald Trump insists there's an innocent explanation for the July 25 phone call in which he asked Ukraine's president to investigate political rival Joe Biden. ``I don't care about Biden's campaign,'' he told reporters on Friday, ``but I do care about corruption.'' Now, congressional Republicans seem to be bolstering that defense. Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday that he will invite Rudy Giuliani, a key player in Trump's dealings with Ukraine, to testify on corruption in the country--an odd choice when Graham could have asked, for example, a U.S. government official who is an authorized expert on corruption in Ukraine. When it comes to the Bidens, asking a foreign country to investigate an American, when there is no domestic criminal investigation into him, is a non-starter. We have domestic law enforcement avenues for that. But there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and no criminal investigation into his activities. If Trump were really, legitimately focused on rooting out corruption in Ukraine, however--whether at companies like Burisma, which employed Hunter Biden, or within the government--there are U.S. government processes for doing so, when there is a credible case. Here's what they are: Step 1: Stop cutting State Department anti-corruption funding There is an entire State Department bureau--the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)--focused on law enforcement efforts overseas, including investigating corruption. INL is headquartered in Washington, but it has experts serving at many U.S. missions overseas. The officials at INL work with their foreign diplomatic counterparts--some willing and some less so--as well as non-governmental organizations and law enforcement agencies at the local, national and international level to support foreign governments' efforts to build sound institutions by sharing best practices, training and giving grants. In Ukraine, that work has included supporting the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. INL and its partners can investigate and report on corruption and even take actions to punish it, like barring entry to the United States for certain foreigners. Strangely, while Trump has a new-found interest in fighting ``corruption''--at least that associated with his political rivals--his administration has requested less money for INL, not more. In fiscal year 2019, the bureau was granted $5 million, but State requested $3 million for fiscal year 2020. If the president were really concerned about corruption in Ukraine, he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should have requested more resources for INL work there. Step 2: Alert the Ukraine ambassador, and let him deal with it If Trump and Pompeo really wanted to police corruption in Ukraine, they would have first alerted the acting U.S. ambassador there to specific concerns, like Ukrainian executives laundering money or a Ukrainian official misusing his or her position (such as the former prosecutor general mentioned in Trump's phone call). Ambassadors can't interfere in a corruption investigation or direct that one be opened, but they can pass information along to experts at the embassy--including INL experts and Department of Justice personnel. Those U.S. law enforcement professionals in the foreign country could see if there were a basis for them to open a criminal investigation based on that concern, and U.S. anti- corruption experts there could review suspect activity and decide how best to address them with the relevant Ukrainian officials. If there were law enforcement concerns about an American's involvement, DOJ could coordinate on that with Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. For instance, the charge d'affaires in Kiev, Ambassador William Taylor, and his team could send a ``demarche''--an official statement of U.S. policy with respect to a corrupt activity or individual--to Ukrainian officials at the Ministry of Justice or in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's office and try to sort out ways to address them. EU Ambassador Gordon Sandland and former special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker had to have been aware of these official channels for addressing corruption. Step 3. Request cooperation (officially) Trump and his team have another tool at their disposal to investigate corruption in Ukraine related to an ongoing criminal case: the United States' Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with the country. MLATs are international agreements that establish a formal process for one country to gather evidence in another country for a criminal investigation. If there were an actual U.S. government investigation into alleged criminal activity by Americans in Ukraine, or foreigners suspected of violating U.S. laws, a request for cooperation could have been made through a formal process that's run by DOJ's Office of International Affairs. Once MLAT requests are vetted by the DOJ, they are transmitted to a foreign country's ``central authority''--in this case, Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. If granted in the foreign country, this arrangement could allow the DOJ to obtain documents, locate people, take testimony, request searches and seizures, freeze assets and more. If the United States were actually pursuing criminal investigations into corruption in Ukraine, U.S. officials would have made a request under our MLAT for cooperation. The United States even has a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAA) with China, the country that Trump called on last week to investigate Biden, after the whistleblower complaint was made public. There is no shortage of official options when it comes to cooperation on criminal matters and fighting corruption with a foreign country--whether it be with the Ukrainians or the Chinese or anyone else. If the president actually cared about addressing corruption in Ukraine more broadly, he would ensure that experts like INL staffers at the State Department have the resources they need to do their jobs. The fact that Giuliani was his answer suggests that something very different is going on here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a December 5, 2019, Boston Globe editorial entitled ``Impeach the President.'' [Editorial: Boston Globe, December 5, 2019] Impeach the President From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and the nation. The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020 election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of congressional power if allowed to stand. The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient, and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting articles of impeachment is warranted. Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials, was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his own. But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political favors in exchange for an official act--the textbook definition of corruption. The fact that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle- blower complained, is immaterial: The act of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse of the president's power. Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act. To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future oversight of presidents of all parties. Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations to impeach him.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the December 11, 2019, USA Today editorial entitled ``Impeach President Trump: The President's Ukraine shakedown and stonewalling are too serious for the House to ignore.'' [From USA Today, Dec. 12, 2019] USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Impeach President Trump (The Editorial Board) ``Put your own narrow interests ahead of the nation's, flout the law, violate the trust given to you by the American people and recklessly disregard the oath of office, and you risk losing your job.'' USA TODAY's Editorial Board wrote those words two decades ago when it endorsed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Now, in graver circumstances with America's system of checks and balances at stake, they apply to another president facing impeachment, Republican Donald Trump. The current board has made no secret of our low regard for Trump's character and conduct. Yet, as fellow passengers on the ship of state, we had hoped the captain would succeed. And, until recently, we believed that impeachment proceedings would be unhealthier for an already polarized nation than simply leaving Trump's fate up to voters next November. Trump leaves Democrats little choice Unless public sentiment shifts sharply in the days and weeks ahead, that is the likely outcome of this process-- impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives followed by acquittal in the GOP-controlled Senate. So why bother? Because Trump's egregious transgressions and stonewalling have given the House little choice but to press ahead with the most severe sanction at its disposal. Clinton was impeached by the House (but not removed by the Senate) after he tried to cover up an affair with a White House intern. Trump used your tax dollars to shake down a vulnerable foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election for his personal benefit. GOP leader on House Judiciary Committee: Articles establish nothing impeachable and allege no crime 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 reelection. This isn't partisan politics as usual. It is precisely the type of misconduct the framers had in mind when they wrote impeachment into the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton supported a robust presidency but worried about ``a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper'' coming to power. Impeachment, Hamilton wrote, was a mechanism to protect the nation ``from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Approve articles of impeachment Both articles of impeachment drafted by the House Judiciary Committee warrant approval: Abuse of power. Testimony before the House Intelligence Committee produced overwhelming evidence that Trump wanted Ukraine's new president to announce investigations into the Bidens and a debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. To pressure the Ukrainian leader, Trump withheld a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in congressionally approved security aid, funding that was released only after an unnamed official blew the whistle. To former national security adviser John Bolton, the months-long scheme was the equivalent of a ``drug deal.'' To Bolton's former aide Fiona Hill, it was a ``domestic political errand'' that ``is all going to blow up.'' To Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, ``it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.'' And to Ukrainian soldiers, fighting to fend off Russian aggression in the eastern part of their country, the money was a matter of life and death. Obstruction of Congress. Trump has met the impeachment investigation with outright and unprecedented defiance. The White House has withheld documents, ordered executive branch agencies not to comply with subpoenas and directed administration officials not to testify. Allowing this obstruction to stand unchallenged would put the president above the law and permanently damage Congress' ability to investigate misconduct by presidents of either party. The president's GOP enablers continue to place power and party ahead of truth and country. Had any Democratic president behaved the way Trump has--paying hush money to a porn star, flattering dictators and spewing an unending stream of falsehoods--there's no doubt congressional Republicans would have tried to run him out of the White House in a New York minute. Twenty-seven Republicans who voted to impeach or convict Clinton remain in Congress. If they continue to defend Trump, history will record their hypocrisy. Our support for Trump's impeachment by the House--we'll wait for the Senate trial to render a verdict on removal from office--has nothing to do with policy differences. We have had profound disagreements with the president on a host of issues, led by his reckless deficits and inattention to climate change, both of which will burden generations to come. Policy differences are not, however, grounds for impeachment. Constitutional violations are. Bill Clinton should be impeached and stand trial ``because the charges are too serious and the evidence amassed too compelling'' to ignore, the Editorial Board wrote in December 1998. The same can be said this December about the allegations facing Donald Trump. Only much more so.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).