Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon, the Committee on Rules marked up and favorably reported H. Res. 660, directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for our country. Over 230 years ago, when the Founders of our country wrote the Constitution, they entrusted us with the gift of self-government, but they knew the persistence of this gift was not assured. It may be taken for granted today, but having just shaken off a tyrant, the Founders knew better. They understood that the very foundations of our country are dependent on safeguarding against one branch of government encroaching on the others. That is what the idea of checks and balances is all about. Within that system, the Framers gave only this Congress the power, if need be, to impeach a President over possible wrongdoing. This fact-- that no one is above the law--is what separates this country from so many others. Because of its seriousness, the impeachment process has been rarely used for Presidents. For just the fourth time in our Nation's history, Congress is now investigating whether to impeach a President of the United States. Our authority to do so under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States and the Rules of the House of Representatives is clear, and the courts have recently agreed. For all the disagreements I have with President Trump, for all of his policies, his tweets, and his rhetoric that I deeply disagree with, I never wanted our country to reach this point. I do not take any pleasure in the need for this resolution. We are not here in some partisan exercise. We are here because the facts compel us to be here. There is serious evidence that President Trump may have violated the Constitution. This is about protecting our national security and safeguarding our elections. That is why the Intelligence Committee has been gathering evidence and hearing testimony. Like any investigation, reasonable confidentiality has been paramount. Witnesses should not be able to coordinate testimony in advance. The truth must be allowed to prevail. Republicans have been a part of every single proceeding conducted so far. Republicans conducting these depositions, along with their staffs, have had an opportunity to question each and every witness. Now, Madam Speaker, we are entering the public-facing phase of this process, and I commend the investigative committees and their staffs for the professional manner in which they have conducted themselves. I would also like to commend the courageous public servants that have bravely come forward to tell the truth. Without their courage, this possible wrongdoing would never have seen the light of day. The public should not be left in the dark. They should see the facts about the President's conduct firsthand. That is why I introduced this resolution. It establishes the next steps of this inquiry, including establishing the procedure for public- facing hearings conducted by the Intelligence Committee and the process for transferring evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary. It is about transparency, and it is about due process for the President. Some on the other side will never be satisfied with any process that uncovers the truth of what the President did. Madam Speaker, none of us know whether or not President Trump will be impeached or convicted. Only the facts, and how we respond to them, will dictate the outcome. But I truly believe that, 100 years from now, historians will look back at this moment and judge us by the decisions we make here today. This moment calls for more than politics. It calls for people concerned not about the reactions of partisans today but of the consequences of inaction decades from now. If we don't hold this President accountable, we could be ceding our ability to hold any President accountable. At the end of the day, this resolution isn't about Donald Trump. It isn't about any of us. It is about our Constitution. It is about our country. I urge my colleagues to not just think about the political pressures of the moment. These will pass. Please consider the heavy responsibility you have today to this institution, the Constitution, and to our country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I do not. Request to Extend Debate Time

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, briefly, that this resolution provides better protections for the President than those Presidents Nixon and Clinton received. And just like under Nixon and Clinton, in the Judiciary Committee, the President's counsel can submit additional testimony or evidence for the committee to consider. The President and his counsel can attend all hearings and raise objections. They can question any witness. This is going beyond Nixon and Clinton. This resolution allows the President's counsel to ask questions at the presentation of evidence. Under our procedures, the ranking minority members of the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee may issue subpoenas if authorized by a committee vote. These are the same subpoena powers that the ranking minority member was given during Clinton and Nixon. Our resolution allows for greater Member participation than under past impeachment procedures, including a robust process for the minority to propose witnesses and even issue subpoenas if authorized by committees. And let me just say, I think the fact of the matter is I don't think there is any process that we can propose that Republicans who prefer to circle the wagons around this President and prevent us from getting to the truth would accept. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record H. Res. 581 from the 105th Congress, the Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution that contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution. Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper. SEC. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require-- (1) by subpoena or otherwise-- (A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and (B) the production of such things; and (2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation. (b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised-- (1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision, or (2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee. Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For the purposes of this section, ``things'' includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record H. Res. 803 from the 93rd Congress, the Nixon impeachment inquiry resolution, which also contains the same minority subpoena powers as this resolution. Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper. Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require-- (1) by subpena or otherwise-- (A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee) ; and (B) the production of such things; and (2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation. (b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised-- (1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision; or (2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee. Subpenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For the purposes of this section, ``things'' includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects, and other things of any kind. Sec. 3. For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee, and any subcommittee thereof, are authorized to sit and act, without regard to clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, during the present Congress at such times and places within or without the United States, whether the House is meeting, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings, as it deems necessary. Sec. 4. Any funds made available to the Committee on the Judiciary under House Resolution 702 of the Ninety-third Congress, adopted November 15, 1973, or made available for the purpose hereafter, may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the investigation authorized and directed by this resolution.

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 gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article entitled ``Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported Concerns'' in which Colonel Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who was on the call, said, ``I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,'' and ``This would all undermine U.S. national security.'' [From the New York Times, October 28, 2019] Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported Concerns (By Danny Hakim) The top Ukraine expert at the White House will tell impeachment investigators he twice reported concerns about President Trump's pressure tactics on Ukraine, acting out of a ``sense of duty.'' Washington--A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine's president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a ``sense of duty,'' he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times. He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ``I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine,'' Colonel Vindman said in his statement. ``I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.'' Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden's son served while his father was vice president. ``This would all undermine U.S. national security,'' Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump's comments in the call. The colonel, a Ukrainian-American immigrant who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb and whose statement is full of references to duty and patriotism, could be a more difficult witness to dismiss than his civilian counterparts. ``I am a patriot,'' Colonel Vindman plans to tell the investigators, ``and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.'' He was to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees, in defiance of a White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. The colonel, who is represented by Michael Volkov, a former federal prosecutor, declined to comment for this article. In his testimony, Colonel Vindman plans to say that he is not the whistle-blower who initially reported Mr. Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine. But he will provide an account that corroborates and fleshes out crucial elements in that complaint, which prompted Democrats to open their impeachment investigation. ``I did convey certain concerns internally to national security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command,'' he plans to say. He will testify that he watched with alarm as ``outside influencers'' began pushing a ``false narrative'' about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests. According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, was leading an effort to prod Kiev to investigate Mr. Biden's son, and to discredit efforts to investigate Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his business dealings in Ukraine. His account strongly suggests that he may have been among the aides the whistle-blower referred to in his complaint when he wrote that White House officials had recounted the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky to him, and ``were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call.'' Colonel Vindman did not interact directly with the president, but was present for a series of conversations that shed light on his pressure campaign on Ukraine. He will also testify that he confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, the day the envoy spoke in a White House meeting with Ukrainian officials about ``Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president.'' Even as he expressed alarm about the pressure campaign, the colonel and other officials worked to keep the United States relationship with Ukraine on track. At the direction of his superiors at the National Security Council, including John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, Colonel Vindman drafted a memorandum in mid-August that sought to restart security aid that was being withheld from Ukraine, but Mr. Trump refused to sign it, according to documents reviewed by the Times. And he drafted a letter in May congratulating Mr. Zelensky on his inauguration, but Mr. Trump did not sign that either, according to the documents. Colonel Vindman was concerned after he learned that the White House budget office had taken the unusual step of withholding the $391 million package of security assistance for Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. At least one previous witness has testified that Mr. Trump directed that the aid be frozen until he could secure a commitment from Mr. Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens. While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English. On two occasions, the colonel brought his concerns to John A. Eisenberg, the top lawyer at the National Security Council. The first came on July 10. That day, senior American officials met with senior Ukrainian officials at the White House, in a stormy meeting in which Mr. Bolton is said to have had a tense exchange with Mr. Sondland after the ambassador raised the matter of investigations he wanted Ukraine to undertake. That meeting has been described in previous testimony in the impeachment inquiry. At a debriefing later that day attended by the colonel, Mr. Sandland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with investigations into Mr. Trump's political rivals. ``Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,'' Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement. ``I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate'' and that the ``request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was going to get involved in or push,'' he added. The colonel's account echoed the testimony of Fiona Hill, one of his superiors, who has previously testified behind closed doors that she and Mr. Bolton were angered by efforts to politicize the interactions with Ukraine. The colonel said that after his confrontation with Mr. Sandland, ``Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.'' Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs, also reported the incident to Mr. Eisenberg. The colonel went to Mr. Eisenberg a couple of weeks later, after the president's call with Mr. Zelensky. This time, the colonel was accompanied by his identical twin brother, Yevgeny, who is a lawyer on the National Security Council. The picture painted by Colonel Vindman's testimony has been echoed by several other senior officials, including William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who testified last week that multiple senior administration officials had told him that the president blocked security aid to Ukraine and would not meet with Mr. Zelensky until he publicly pledged to investigate Mr. Trump's political rivals. While the White House has urged witnesses subpoenaed by Congress not to participate in the impeachment inquiry, failing to comply with a congressional subpoena would be a risky career move for an active-duty military officer. As tensions grew over Ukraine policy, the White House appears to have frozen out Colonel Vindman. Since early August, he has been excluded from a number of relevant meetings and events, including a diplomatic trip to three countries under his purview: Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. Colonel Vindman said he had reported concerns up his chain of command because he believed he was obligated to do so. ``On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities,'' he said. ``I believe that any good military officer should and would do the same, thus providing his or her best advice to leadership.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I get it. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about process, process, process, but it is interesting that not one of them wants to talk about the President's conduct, and that speaks volumes. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentlewoman wants to talk about a sham process; let's talk about a sham process. Instead of respecting the constitutional authority of the House of Representatives, the White House has obstructed our investigation, ignored our duly authorized subpoenas, withheld key documents, prevented witnesses from testifying, and intimidated witnesses. They have tried to disparage Members of Congress who are trying to fulfill their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States. Article I of the Constitution gives the House the right to investigate the President, and we are taking our responsibility seriously. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we do.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).