Inquiring whether the House of Representatives should impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House of Representatives.

Each time I am afforded this opportunity, I have tried to savor the moment knowing that it is not eternal and knowing that, at some point, we will no longer have this preeminent privilege. But I do appreciate having the opportunity to serve the people of the Ninth Congressional District and to serve my country. I love my country.

I thank the gentlewoman for what she has done with H. Res. 257. I support this resolution, and I would like to compliment the lady for what she has done since she has arrived in Congress.

She has truly hit the ground running. She came from the State house. She is a lawyer. She has been an advocate, and she understands the issues associated with criminal justice. So I thank her for what she has done and what she is doing with this resolution.

Madam Speaker, it was never intended for the executive branch of the government to investigate itself.

The Framers of the Constitution, in Federalist 65, addressed this. Federalist 65, the Federalist Papers.

I invite people to please read the Federalist Papers. If you can't read them all, just read Federalist 65 and 69.

Some things are made perspicuously clear. One of the things made clear is that impeachment is solely within the province of the House of Representatives.

Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America; Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America--these are the authors of the Federalist Papers, and they were prophetic with some of their writings.

While I would not agree with all that they did in their lifetimes, I will tell you that what they have done with reference to impeachment is prophetic, because they understood that at some point you could have a President who was unfit to hold office, but who had not committed a crime but should be removed from office before the next election because of the harm the President is imposing upon society.

Understanding this, they were in support of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which deals with treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as the means by which a President can be removed from office after having been elected.

They understood that there might be a time such as this and a President such as Trump.

They understood that we, the Members of this august body, should be empowered such that we could take up the cause of the American people. Not because we are Democrats, because it is not about Democrats; it is about democracy. Not because we are Republicans, because it is not about Republicans; it is about the Republic and what Franklin said when he called to our attention: You have a Republic if you can keep it.

It is about maintaining this Republic. They were prophetic. They understood that you cannot allow the executive branch to investigate itself, because if you allow such to happen, you find yourself with what has happened with Mr. Mueller.

He has investigated, but he cannot hand it over to us because he is an agent of the executive branch of government. And, as an agent of the executive branch of government, he is required to submit his report to the executive branch, a report that is all about the head of the executive branch of the government.

This is why the Framers understood that it was necessary to empower another branch of government to do this. How prophetic and how wise they were to do so.

It was not intended that we would outsource this investigation to the executive branch, which is, in essence, what has occurred. We have allowed the executive branch to assume what is truly the responsibility and the duty and the obligation of the House of Representatives.

This is ours. This is what we must do.

When there was a Republican administration in this House, I indicated that I wouldn't get in the way of that investigation, but I also indicated that the House should do its job.

And if the House is to do its job, it is contemplated that the Judiciary Committee would do exactly what the Representative from the 13th Congressional District in Michigan is doing now and, that is, take up the question of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee by way of a resolution such as what she has called to the attention of this Congress.

I salute her for doing so because this is what was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution. This is what Madison contemplated, Jay contemplated, and Hamilton contemplated.

And, to give further evidence of what they contemplated, we but only have to review the impeachment in 1868 of Andrew Johnson.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in Article X of the Articles of Impeachment against him for speaking ill of Congress.

There is no requirement that the President commit a crime, that the President commit an offense for which he must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a President can be impeached.

Congress determines what the standard is for impeachment. Unfortunately, we have allowed what happens on the judicial side of the law to be conflated with what happens on the political side of the law.

The judiciary, or the judicial side, would have a crime. This is what Mr. Mueller was investigating, to see if a crime had been committed--a crime. And, if a crime is committed, of course the President can be impeached for committing a crime.

But the President can also be impeached if he has not committed a crime, but he is doing harm to society. This is the law.

When we say no person is above the law, we are talking about not only the law as it is codified with reference to criminality, but also the law as it has been codified such that impeachment can be the punishment in the sense that the President would be indicted.

It is not the same as an indictment, but it is quite similar, and the President would then have to face trial in

the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

There is no punishment, per se, with this entire process. It is just a means by which a President is removed from office. And, if he has committed a crime, he can, of course, still be prosecuted for the criminal activity.

So, tonight, we are here to thank the Member for what she has done in filing this resolution, H. Res. 257. We are here tonight to acknowledge that the Framers of the Constitution contemplated what she has done. She is in order.

We are here tonight to acknowledge that it is now within the hands of the Judiciary Committee, this resolution, and it is my prayer that the Judiciary Committee would take this resolution and bring it to a vote.

I believe that it is time for us to do what the Constitution contemplates by way of the words of the Framers and by way of what Federalist 65 has called to our attention.

However, I still stand tonight where I stood when I initially took to the floor of the House of Representatives and indicated that this President should be impeached. I stand where I stood then, and I also stand on the premise that, if the Judiciary Committee does not act, any Member of this august body can bring impeachment to a vote.

I stand on this. This is what the rules allow. And as a Member of Congress, I have given an assurance that there will be another vote on impeachment in the House of Representatives.

I will do it. I don't like using personal pronouns because my mother always said: ``Alexander, whatever you will do, you will do with others.''

But, because of the way the process is codified, I will do it because I love my country.

I will do it because I understand that we have a person who is unfit to be President holding this office.

I will do it because I want to protect the democracy.

I will do it because I believe in the Republic.

I will do it because I salute the flag and I believe in liberty and justice for all.

I will do it because I believe that Lincoln was right when he spoke of government of the people, by the people, for the people being forever a part of our country, our land.

I will do it because it is the appropriate thing to do at a time such as this, with a President such as Trump.

And finally this, Madam Speaker, I have not suggested that I have whipped or would whip, meaning encourage others to vote a certain way. I have consistently said you should vote your conscience.

I still stand by it. Vote your conscience. Vote your conscience, knowing that, at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time--at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time, there will be people who will review our actions through the vista of time.

And, when they review our actions, the query will be: What did they do when they had an opportunity to take up the cause of justice?

They will want to know what did we do. And the only way they can know what we did is for there to be a vote.

At some point, we have to move beyond talking points to action items. The only way to make this an action item is for there to be a vote.

And those who look through the vista of time, perhaps generations unborn, when they look through the vista of time, they will want to see the record. And the record will show where we stood when we had the opportunity to remove an unfit person from office, an unfit President.

The record will show where we stood, but, more importantly, it will give them some clues as to what was happening in this House at the time. It will give them some evidence of where we were.

And I assure you, Madam Speaker, at some point on this infinite continuum, people are going to ask the question: What was wrong with them? What was wrong with them?

They had a President who was separating babies from their mothers at the border, with no means of reuniting them.

Babies are still separated from their parents.

They will want to know: What was wrong with them? They allowed this?

They will want to know: How could you decide that you are going to take up the cause against persons who make commentary in the House, but you won't take up the cause against a President who went so far as to say there were some fine people among the bigots, the racists, the xenophobes, the homophobes, the Islamophobes, the nativists; among those persons who marched and proclaimed ``Jews will not replace us,'' persons who said, ``blood and soil.''

How could you allow this to go unchallenged?

They will want to know: What was wrong with them? Why would they allow such a person to continue in office, a person who demeans the country when he demeans its heroes, a person who demeans persons by simply deciding that name-calling is more appropriate than debating issues.

And, by the way, calling a person who is a bigot a bigot is not name- calling. That is properly labeling the actions of a person, the behavior of a person.

And, by the way, for those who may not have paid attention, if you have been following these various TV programs, news programs, information sources, host after host, persons who are being interviewed, have said that the President is a racist. They have said that the President is a bigot.

I understand that it is difficult for some to say. Not for me. Not for me. I know what bigotry looks like. I know what racism smells like. I know what it sounds like. I know what it tastes like. I suffered through it.

I would not want to see what I had to endure become a part of the fiber and fabric of this country ever again. Whenever we see evidence of this ugliness rearing its head, we should do what we can to stare it down and stop it.

I stand here tonight believing that we have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to allow what this Congresswoman has called to our attention to move forward. I stand on the Constitution in saying this, and I will stand with her. I am proud to be associated with her and what she is doing.

When we do bring this to a vote, my hope is that every Member will vote his or her conscience. That is all that I ask, just vote your conscience, and let the record reflect where we stood.

As Dr. King put it, the truest measure of a person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience. The truest measure of a person is where you stand in times of challenge and controversy.

These are times of challenge and controversy. The question is, where do we stand? The record will show where we stand.

There are some who will say that this is going to be a hard vote. I have a sense of what hard votes are like. I have had to take some hard votes since I have been in Congress. I have had to take some hard votes and never had a person say thank you for taking that hard vote. I have taken my share of hard votes.

I have some members of the clergy that still have not found favor with some of the votes that I have taken, but I took them because it was the principled thing to do, because it was the constitutional thing to do, because it was not only the right thing to do, but the righteous thing to do. So I know what hard votes are like.

People expect me to take hard votes, and they expect me, after I take my hard votes, to go back and convince my constituents that I did the right thing. Nobody seeks to protect me from hard votes. I know what hard votes are like.

I understand when people say this would be a hard vote. I understand it. But that is why we came. We were elected to take hard votes. If it were easy, then we wouldn't be here. Other folk would do the easy things. People who get elected to Congress are expected to take hard votes, to do that which is difficult.

Let us understand that the record will reflect the vote. It will give people who look through the vista of time some indication as to why we are doing what we are doing and have not done what we should have done.

Madam Speaker, again, I am proud to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I never take for granted this preeminent privilege. I will always be grateful to the Speaker

of the House and all the various officers of this House for permitting the time. I am grateful, and I thank them for being as magnanimous, if you will, as they are, but also for following the rules and allowing me to speak. This is a great opportunity.

I pray that we who hold public trust will honor the Constitution of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I grew up in the district I serve where I have seen firsthand the results of the failing to hold those in power accountable to the laws of the land. From corporate polluters who continue to violate the Clean Air Act with no real enforcement to stop the violations that hurt our public health, I have also seen firsthand a megabillionaire who directly violated Federal and State processes that resulted in thousands of trucks to rumble through our local neighborhoods where one in five children have asthma.

Do you know why those in power looked the other way? Because of political influence on my colleagues who then became conflicted.

This is why I rise today to put forward H. Res. 257, which creates a transparent process to ensure the protection of our democracy. That ensures that we don't have a lawless society that results in irreparable harm to the American people.

Doing nothing when we are seeing a blatant disregard of the United States Constitution and our ethical norms is dangerous. No one, Madam Speaker, including the President of the United States, is above the law.

I know many have focused on actions that were conducted prior to his taking the oath of office, and that is important. However, as critically important are the actions by the President after he swore to uphold the United States Constitution before all of us.

He is not a CEO, Madam Speaker, anymore, but a public servant who is held accountable not to shareholders and investors, but the actual American people, real people, people who expect all of us to follow the laws.

In the 2 years since he took office, President Trump racked up more than 1,400 conflicts of interest involving the government, those trying to influence it and The Trump Organization, according to a report released by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

President Trump used the Presidency to enrich himself by repeatedly promoting his businesses as extensions of his administration. Political allies, wealthy donors, special interests, and foreign governments have adopted a key tactic of patronizing Trump's businesses to garner favor with the Trump administration.

Here are some of the key findings from CREW's tracking of Trump's conflicts of interest:

President Trump made 118 visits to his properties in his second year in office, bringing his 2-year total to 281 visits to properties he still profits from while serving as President of the United States.

In his second year in office, President Trump and other White House staff promoted Trump businesses on at least 87 occasions. More than 150 political committees, including campaigns and party committees, have spent nearly $5 million at Trump businesses since he became President. At least 13 special interest groups lobbied the White House since Trump's inauguration, some for the first time, around the same time they also patronized a Trump property.

At least three foreign governments held events at Trump properties during Trump's second year in office. Two of those countries did so after holding similar events elsewhere in previous years.

Not only has President Trump still refused to divest from his businesses, he seems to have doubled down by reinforcing the idea that The Trump Organization is an extension of the Trump administration.

These offenses must be investigated.

In total, CREW found more than 900 conflicts in the second year of the Trump administration. This presents a clear picture of a Presidency used to turn a profit and the President's businesses serving at points of access to the corridors of power.

This report shows that special interests, foreign governments, and political allies continue to pour money into Trump's bank accounts while the American public is left in the dark about whether or not the President's policy decisions are made in the best interests of our country, or is it in the best interests of the President's bottom line, benefiting himself personally.

We have been sent here to legislate. I am thinking about the historic For the People Act we passed right here in this Chamber, the gun reform package we passed, legislation to protect our lands, to increase and strengthen healthcare for Americans, and much more.

I am proud of my first bills. One protects our public health in regards to petroleum coke exposure, and the other, which has a wide range of support, would prohibit the use of credit scores by the auto insurance industry.

However, Madam Speaker, none of these bills is free from the harm that comes from the current administration and the President of the United States not complying with the clauses of the United States Constitution. When these conflicts and direct violations to the Emoluments Clause are not investigated, we set a dangerous precedent that those issues we passed in this Chamber are not important.

I think about the recent announcement that T-Mobile and Sprint would like the Federal Government to approve a merger between the two companies. In the same breath, T-Mobile spent close to $200,000 at the D.C. Trump hotel. This is what we call an upgraded version of pay to play, and it dangerously corrupts our democracy.

When President Truman sidestepped the Constitution and went to war, every sitting President had done the same. One of the first major challenges to the War Powers Act came in 1981 when President Reagan deployed military personnel to El Salvador without consulting or submitting a report to Congress.

In 1999, President Clinton continued a bombing campaign in Kosovo beyond

the 60-day limit cited in the law. A more recent War Powers Act dispute arose in 2011 when President Barack Obama initiated a military action in Libya without congressional authorization.

You see, Madam Speaker, when we do nothing, we set a precedent and allow it to become the norm. I can't stress enough how dangerous this is to the core of our democracy.

This will not be the last billionaire CEO who runs for President who will attempt to not divest from his business interests.

Now, what we have witnessed from this administration are acts that could very well be impeachable offenses outside of the scope of the Mueller investigation. We have a duty in this Chamber to inquire about these acts, to investigate them, to find out if there was any wrongdoing, and to seek accountability if it has been found.

That is why, today, I have introduced a resolution that calls on the Judiciary Committee to inquire into these activities that may be impeachable offenses. There are serious pieces of evidence out there, many that have come through the various committees of this body, in the media, and things within the public eye. An investigation will take a look at all of those things with the question: Are these impeachable offenses? Is our President acting above the rule of law?

As Congress, we have a job to ensure that is exactly what is not happening. If, at the end, it gets the President to comply, then we have done our job. If the President doesn't, then we move forward and, at the very least, put any future President on notice: Congress will hold you accountable and will require you to divest in your businesses.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.