Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I thank the Honorable Bobby Scott for the opportunity to be heard. I will be terse.

Madam Speaker, unions protect people. Unions protect people because those workers will organize and make sure that there is a safe work environment.

This is important because if not but for the union, many companies would simply build into the cost of doing business the injuries that may be sustained. I am a member of Local 1550 of AFSCME and proud to say it.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation because it will save lives.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise.

My dear friends, you say you have a bill. Where was your bill when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and you could have passed it?

You say you have a bill. The same bill that you had to replace the Affordable Care Act that you never passed?

The same bill that you had to rebuild the infrastructure across the length and breadth of this country that you never passed?

Where is the invisible bill?

I rise to support this bill that will deal with elimination of deadly force racism that can take the lives of Black people with impunity.

I rise against your invisible bill.

And still I rise, Mr. Speaker.

You used God to enslave my foreparents. You used God to segregate me in schools. You used God to put me in the back of the bus.

Have you no shame? God created every person in this room. Are you saying that God made a mistake?

This is not about God; it is about men who choose to discriminate against other people because they have the power to do so.

My record will not show that I voted against Mr. Cicilline having his rights. My record will show that when I had the opportunity to deliver liberty and justice for all, I voted for rights for all.

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, when my Republican friends had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they passed an approximately $1.5 trillion tax break for the very wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, the wealthy weren't suffering. There was no pain. They were not about to be evicted. There were no mortgage payments behind. But they got $1.5 trillion approximately in tax breaks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my dear friends on the other side to see this, if they will: As a tax break for the working class, let's let people who are making $75,000 a year have an opportunity to acquire some money to help them. If it goes into a bank account, it will come out. They are not wealthy. At some point we have to realize that those who are among the working class cannot do more with less, while the wealthy need more to do more.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to save this country, save these people who are suffering. I will vote for this resolution. I will vote for reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I had tears well in my eyes as I heard Mr. Hoyer, and I know that hearts are hurting. This is a very sad time in the history of our country. No one is celebrating. No one wants to see this occur.

Mr. Speaker, I was at the Committee on Rules by way of Zoom. I was there for the entire hearing. Those Members on the other side, this is something that they understand and they take seriously. Regardless as to what is said, I could sense that they are hurting too.

I just want to thank everyone for all that has happened and the appreciation that has been shown.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the healing that we talk about that has to begin, the healing has to start with some of these people who were there initially, who helped to lay this foundation, 110 people.

I want to recognize Congresswoman Maxine Waters. A lot of them were threatened. Their lives were disrupted.

Mr. Speaker, I include their names in the Record.

Members Who Voted for Impeachment

Total Number: 110

Mr. Speaker, may God bless our country as we go forward.

MR. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my good friend, distinguished Republican Member, our leader of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise; because I love my country, I rise.

And I rise today to ask a question of all people of good will. I rise today to pose a question: What do you do when the leader of the free world, when the leader of the country that extolls liberty and justice for all--government of the people, by the people, for the people, all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights--what do you do when the leader of the free world is a racist? What do you do?

Well, here is what you do: You file a resolution, a resolution condemning the President for racist comments directed at Members of Congress.

What do you do? You file Articles of Impeachment impeaching the President of the United States of America.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can condemn for the comments that have been made, and we can impeach for the harm that the comments are causing to our society.

Both of these things can be done, and neither will interfere with the Mueller report. The Mueller report--some 90 days now the President has been above the law since the Mueller report was made public.

What do you do? You pass this resolution.

I intend to support it, and I thank the gentleman who filed it for doing so. I believe it is a good resolution.

One of the statements in this resolution that has been reported widely is that the President presented racist comments that have legitimized fear and hatred. I will salute and support the resolution, but you also will hear this resolution to impeach. I would like to read to you what it says in part:

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United

States.

Then it goes on to read:

The aforementioned, Donald John Trump, has, by his

statements, brought the high office of President of the

United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute;

and has sown discord among the people of the United States;

has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has

betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the

manifest injury of the people of the United States; and has

committed a high misdemeanor in office. Therefore, Donald

John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United

States, is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment,

trial, and removal from office.

Those who tolerate bigotry perpetuate bigotry.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high misdemeanors.

Resolved, that Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is unfit to be President, unfit to represent the American values of decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty and propriety, reputability and integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals that have made America great, unfit to defend liberty and justice for all as extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance, is unfit to defend the American ideal of all persons being created equal as exalted in the Declaration of Independence, is unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity as lauded in the preamble to the United States Constitution, is unfit to protect the government of the people, by the people, for the people as elucidated in the Gettysburg Address, and is impeached for high misdemeanors that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of itself, of the people of the United States, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high misdemeanors committed as President constituting harm to American society to the manifest injury of the people of the United States:

Article I.

The House of Representatives on July 16, 2019, strongly condemned President Donald Trump's racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should ``go back'' to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as ``invaders,'' and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants, or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants, do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.

In all of this, the aforementioned Donald John Trump has, by his statements, brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute, has sown seeds of discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has betrayed his trust

as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and has committed a high misdemeanor in office.

Therefore, Donald John Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I love my country, and I rise today because it is important for us to understand this impeachment process. Whether you agree with the bringing of impeachment or not, it is appropriate to understand the process.

Today, I would like to share a few words about the impeachment process some 85 days since the Mueller report was presented wherein Mr. Mueller all but indicated that impeachable acts occurred. I have my mnemonic notes that I shall refer to.

The impeachment process itself starts and ends in the House. The House of Representatives and only the House of Representatives can impeach a President. It is very similar to an indictment but not the same as an indictment. Once the impeachment actually takes place, then the process moves to the Senate.

Today, I am going to focus on the House of Representatives. Perhaps we will talk about the Senate on another occasion.

The impeachment process is not an appealable process. Once the House gives its verdict, if you will--a majority of persons present voting for impeachment--there is no appeal. It doesn't go to a friendly court that a President might have. It won't go to the Supreme Court ultimately, where some would contend that the Court is divided along party lines.

I happen to think that judges ought to vote based upon what they perceive the law to be. I tend to give judges the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making their decisions, but there are many who perceive this to be the case.

It is not appealable. It is something that is totally within the province of the House of Representatives.

This vote is a vote of conscience, and this is where I would like to focus a good deal of my energy today.

A vote of conscience means that you vote based upon what your conscience dictates. There will be no instructions given to persons who will vote. Generally speaking, a jury would receive some sort of instructions, indicating that they should make certain findings. There will be no instructions. There will be no indication that we have to do this based upon clear and convincing evidence, that we have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that something occurred, or that we should do it by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no standard that will be given to Members as they cast their ballots. It is something that each Member does, and it is a vote of conscience.

Now, the question can become, ``Whose conscience will it be?'' because if you take another person's recommendation and you vote based upon that recommendation, then you could conceivably vote another person's conscience.

I will vote my conscience. I will not be guided by what others, who may be voting based upon political expediency, think. Members can vote based upon political expediency if they so choose. I will vote based upon a moral imperative.

I will vote my conscience, and I will do this because I believe that in this country, the country that I love--I rise because I love my country--that we ought not allow any person to be above the law.

The law of which I speak is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. No one should be above the law, but this is the law that governs impeachment. No one should be above the law, and I believe that for some 85 days now since the Mueller report, we have evidence that the Chief Executive Officer has been above the law.

There will be a vote on impeachment. Each Member of this august body has a preeminent privilege of bringing impeachment before the body. I happen to be a Member, and I want to assure all that impeachment is not dead.

I read a story today where there was an indication that it has stalled or has slowed. I want my colleagues to know that I may stand alone when I do this, as this is what my conscience dictates, but I believe that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all.

I will stand. There will be another vote. I am asking that all do what I believe is expected, and that is to vote

your conscience, knowing that there is no appeal, knowing that you don't have to worry about the Supreme Court, and knowing that there will be history to judge us all.

Mr. Speaker, still I rise. It has been some 84 days since the Mueller report was made public, some 84 days now that the Chief Executive Officer of this country has been above the law, some 84 days that we are aware of since the Mueller report. But in truth and in fact, before the Mueller report was presented, we knew that the Chief Executive Officer was behaving in a fashion that would indicate that he thought he was above the law, 84 days above the law, 84 days disrespecting the law.

He disrespects the Supreme Court of the United States of America. After it makes a ruling on the Census, he decides to just simply disregard that. ``Maybe I will use an executive order.''

The Supreme Court has already spoken. There was a time when the President of the United States of America would respect a decision of the Supreme Court.

He disrespects Congress, encourages witnesses not to testify, and refuses to surrender proper documents after they have been properly subpoenaed.

He has no respect for the Court and no respect for Congress.

Eighty-four days above the law since the Mueller report was presented--as heartbreaking as that is, I would also add many days since these babies at the border were separated from their parents.

What kind of country are we allowing ourselves to metamorphose into when we will allow this to go unchecked, when we will allow babies to be taken from their parents? What kind of a country are we metamorphosing into?

We have a responsibility, a duty, and an obligation to ensure that no one is above the law. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is the law. We in this House have the responsibility to enforce that law. If we do not enforce that law, there will be no guardrails. A ruthless, reckless, and lawless Chief Executive will continue to disobey the law, knowing that he can do what he will and what he may and that we will not challenge him.

But I do believe this: I believe that time is running out. I believe that there be will be a vote to remove this Chief Executive. Let me correct that: a vote to impeach.

I don't know what the Senate will do, but I believe he will be impeached. I believe he will be impeached not because of but in spite of a good many people who hold public trust, I might add. In spite of them, he is going to be impeached. Because of some who hold public trust and in spite of some others who hold public trust, he will be impeached.

The tintinnabulations of history, the bells of history, are sounding. History is starting to drive this, and history will drive some people. There are people who make history, and there are people whom history will make. History is going to make some people assume their responsibilities and take up the challenge that the Framers of the Constitution have afforded us.

I believe that this is going to take place in the near future. I believe that this House is going to do what it is supposed to do, that we are not going to place the blame on others and that we will take up our responsibilities.

I believe that when it happens, America is going to be on a proper course. We will set a proper course so that we will show that no one is above the law.

Let the Senate do what it may, but the House will have taken up its responsibilities and placed an indelible stain on the Chief Executive Officer for his attempts to remain above the law and to abuse these children with policies that would separate them from their parents.

No one is above the law, not even the Chief Executive Officer in the most powerful country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to present this legislation, but I am more honored to acknowledge something that is exceedingly important.

The chairwoman of the committee, the Honorable Maxine Waters, has, under her leadership in this Congress, produced many pieces of bipartisan legislation. This is but a continuation of her legislative record. I want to commend her for her efforts, and I would also like to salute Mr. McHenry and the persons who are across the aisle for their efforts, as well, in producing bipartisan legislation.

I thank Mr. Barr for his assistance and his help. He is the Oversight ranking member, and he and I will be working together on many pieces of legislation.

I am honored today to say that this piece of legislation was born as a result of honorable intentions metamorphosing into unintended consequences, honorable intentions.

When we passed Dodd-Frank in 2010, we sought to add additional protections for whistleblowers above and beyond what was accorded in Sarbanes-Oxley. In so doing, with the best of intentions, we found that this legislation was taken before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and the Supreme Court concluded--and I don't quarrel with their conclusion, but the Supreme Court concluded that the legislation would apply only if the person who was a whistleblower took the concern to the SEC first.

I don't quarrel with what the Supreme Court ruled. This is why we have this piece of legislation to correct the best of intentions that metamorphosed into unintended consequences.

Let's talk for just a moment about whistleblowers.

It is exceedingly important to do this because I want people to know that whistleblowers are extraordinary people in the sense only of they do extraordinary things. They are really ordinary people, but they do extraordinary things.

These are the people who are willing to put their livelihoods on the line. These are the people who are willing to take that step that many of us would not take because, when you take that step as a whistleblower, you will sometimes stand alone. But they understand that it is better to stand alone than never to stand at all, and in so doing, they are protecting us: consumers, members of the public.

So I commend the whistleblowers of the world who take these extraordinary steps.

But we also want to do more than commend them. We want to protect them. This legislation will protect those who are willing to step forward, those who will see something and say something, something that we encourage people to do.

You can't encourage people to see something and say something and then allow them to do this without the protections that we should properly accord them and that we intended to accord them under Dodd- Frank. So I am honored today to have this piece of legislation that will give whistleblowers the protection that we intended and will also send a message that the companies that they work for can have the

opportunity to take corrective action before the SEC is informed.

Many of these companies want to do the right thing, and if given the opportunity, they will--not all, many. I think we ought to give them an opportunity to do the right thing; and to do so, we would want whistleblowers to report internally before they take this to an external source such as the SEC.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is bipartisan. I am honored to tell you that, among the persons who are the cosponsors, we have the Honorable Carolyn Maloney; the Honorable Representative Gerald Connolly; the Honorable Gregory Meeks; the Honorable Joyce Beatty, who is here in this room with us currently; and the Honorable Vicente Gonzalez, all of whom support it, along with the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver.

I would also add, it is endorsed by the National Whistleblower Center, endorsed by the North American Securities Administrators Association, endorsed by Public Citizen, endorsed by the Government Accountability Project, endorsed by the Project On Government Oversight, and endorsed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

It is another example of how, under the leadership of the Honorable Maxine Waters, we continue to produce bipartisan legislation. I am honored, Mr. Speaker, to have this honorable chairwoman presiding today.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud American, and I am especially proud today because I rise to acknowledge that we have filed a resolution, H. Res. 464, that is styled the Original LGBTQ Pride Month Resolution of 2019.

I am proud to be a sponsor of the Pride resolution, but I am not doing it alone. There are 78 Members of Congress who are original cosponsors of this resolution. ``Original'' meaning their names will be right there on the resolution when it is filed.

I am so proud to be a sponsor of the Pride resolution, and I am proud to read just a couple of passages from this resolution and to address them rather briefly. It was my hope to have some 30 minutes to an hour of time to speak on the resolution, but circumstances in Congress will not permit such to take place.

This resolution acknowledges the 50 years since the uprising at Stonewall, which will be commemorated on June 28 and will last for some 6 days because that is the length of time that the Stonewall uprising, or as some would call it, the Stonewall riots or Stonewall rebellion, but 50 years since Stonewall.

I would like to read the whereas as it relates to Stonewall. It reads: ``Whereas, those who took a stand for human rights and dignity at the Stonewall Inn in New York City on June 28, 1969, were pioneers of the LGBTQ movement, including two transgender women of color, Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, who were brave visible leaders in the uprising at Stonewall Inn.''

Mr. Speaker, it is said that a great person will always rise to the occasion, but the truth is, it takes a greater person to make the occasion. These two trans persons were the greater people who made the occasion that we will commemorate on June 28 and the 6 days that ensue, two persons who took a stand among many.

There were others, but there were two among the many who took a stand that literally has helped to shape the course of history. Sometimes, it really does take just a few to get the job done of starting a movement that can change society.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all the change that has manifested itself since the Stonewall uprising, there are still things that must be done. There is still great work to be done because being an LGBTQ person, that alone can get you fired. Coming to work and saying you have just married someone of the same sex as you can get you fired.

LGBTQ persons do not have the same rights that we have, those of us who are allies of the community. They don't have the same rights. They have them, but they are not being identified and recognized. These rights don't come from people. They really are something we are born with. Human dignity is something that is accorded every person by birthright.

Unfortunately, in our society, we still allow this level of discrimination against LGBTQ persons.

I want to acknowledge that while there is still great work to be done, we still must commemorate and celebrate the great work that has been done. As a Member of Congress, I pledge to do all that I can to make sure that I pay a debt that I owe to the LGBTQ community.

Finally, I would say this: A person who helped to organize the march on

Washington was named Bayard Rustin. In 1963, he was one of the persons who made the occasion. He was Black. He was Quaker. He was also LGBTQ.

I owe a debt, and I am here today to repay some portion of that debt with this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country, and I rise now knowing that we are some 69 days since the Mueller report, which means that we are some 69 days with the President being above the law since the Mueller report was made public.

I rise today with a special message. This message has to do with leadership. I rise today with this message, and I would like to harken back, if I may, to April 16 of 1963. I have my mnemonic notes in front of me. April 16 of 1963 is when Dr. King wrote his letter from the Birmingham City Jail.

Dr. King did not wake up one morning and decide: I think I will go down to Birmingham and get arrested, and I will write a letter from the Birmingham Jail. That was hardly the case.

Dr. King was responding to a letter from some of the leading citizens in Birmingham. These were persons who were cloaked with the robe of the clergy. These are people who had moral positions. They took firm, hardcore positions when it came to morality.

These were the persons who would set the standards, if you will, and maintain the standards for morality. There were eight of them. They decided to write a letter to Dr. King, explaining to him why he should not do what he was about to do in Birmingham.

By the way, they were also aided and abetted by some of the leading Negro citizens. In fact, in their letter, they mentioned that we should--meaning them at that time--allow persons to meet with our leading Negro citizens--they didn't say ``leading'' but ``our Negroes''--and let's try to work this out with dialogue.

I marveled at how persons in positions of great leadership with great responsibility can be so wrong on some of the crucial issues of our time.

Dear brothers and sisters--I say ``brothers and sisters'' because I believe that there is but one race, and that is the human race. I think that all persons are created equal. As Dr. King put it, on God's keyboard, we are created equal, from a bass black to a treble white. I think that we are all created equal, and I call you brothers and sisters.

Dear brothers and sisters, this issue concerning these babies at the border, I just thank God that the media has finally discovered this issue and is taking it and bringing it to the forefront, to the extent that they are. I thank C-SPAN for the opportunity to be heard, C-SPAN and all the outlets that allow this opinion to be voiced.

I am pleased that this is being taken up now by the major media because what is happening to these babies at the border is unconscionable.

Some months ago, after visiting the border, I indicated that the ASPCA would not allow animals to be housed in the conditions that we see at the border currently. This is a tragedy not in the making but a tragedy that continues to exist because of inaction and because of actions that have been taken by the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America in an attempt to deter people from coming to this country.

How heartless can someone be to use babies as a means of deterring people from coming to the country?

I am here today because I love my country. I believe that we cannot allow this to continue. Some 69 days above the law for this President, he knows that we are not going to do anything. This is why he behaves the way that he does. He knows that he can do this without guardrails because, back when he fired Mr. Comey and it was called to our attention that this was obstruction, we did nothing.

I thank God that Members are signing on now and understand the importance of it. The question is no longer: Who is going to be among the first to sign on to impeach? The question is: Who will be the last to sign on to impeach?

I beg all who have not to please give serious consideration to this notion that you can be a part of this impeachment because we cannot allow this injustice to continue.

Finally, I am working on a manuscript, a book, if you will. The title of it is ``You Can't Walk Back History.''

You can walk back your comments, but you can't walk back history.

The history associated with this time will be: How did we vote when we were given the opportunity to vote on impeachable bigotry emanating from the policy of the Presidency?

There will be more to say and more to come.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 399.

Madam Speaker, I stand here today in support of Michael Phuong Minh Nguyen--a proud American citizen, a loving husband to Helen Nguyen, and a doting father of four young daughters.

However, it saddens me deeply that Mr. Nguyen has been unjustly detained by the Vietnamese government for over eleven months now-- nearly a year--which has caused immense suffering for his family and his entire community.

Mr. Nguyen was arrested on July 7, 2018 while visiting relatives in Vietnam, detained without official charges, and is only now finally to stand trial next week on June 24, 2019 in Ho Chi Minh City.

Mr. Nguyen has been an upstanding, model citizen of the United States for some 40 years and, to my knowledge, has no criminal record.

In fact, he is an entrepreneur and a small business owner.

He is also a man of faith and is actively involved in his local community church.

One of our most sacred duties as elected officials is to protect our citizens from harm--on both domestic and foreign soil--and indeed I have never given up on my constituents even after they have been deported or detained abroad.

This is why, since his detention last year, I have consistently urged, to both the United States and Vietnamese governments, swift action be taken to expeditiously return Mr. Michael Nguyen home.

I am tremendously grateful to my colleagues in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle for their tireless advocacy on behalf of Mr. Nguyen and his family.

Madam Speaker, I close by respectfully imploring the Vietnamese government to do the right thing--ensure a fair trial, a speedy resolution, and justice for Michael Nguyen.

And still I rise, Madam Speaker, because I love my country and because I have reason to be concerned, and I believe that every American has reason to be concerned about the issue that I shall address today.

Those of us who are in the House of Representatives should be especially concerned because the issue involves war and peace. It involves the sons and daughters of Mr. and Mrs. America--war and peace.

We have, by and through our Chief Executive Officer, the President of the United States of America, caused a Nimitz-class battle group to go into the Gulf region.

For those who do not know, this is the ultimate expression of American military prowess, a Nimitz-class battle group. Above it, we have the generationally reliable B-52 bomber. They can rain lethality on anything within their range. Beneath the battle group, you have, lurking, a submarine that can launch without surfacing.

But the centerpiece of a Nimitz-class battle group, especially this one, is the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Abraham Lincoln is an aircraft carrier that is 1,092 feet long. It can carry 90 fixed- and rotary- winged aircraft. The Abraham Lincoln has two A-4 Westinghouse nuclear reactors. When it is fueled and it is sent out on a mission, it does not have to come back for 25 years. It is the centerpiece of American military prowess.

To borrow a term from where I grew up, you don't send the Abraham Lincoln if you are shucking. You send it when

you are not bluffing. You don't send the Abraham Lincoln, Madam Speaker, unless you want to make a statement.

This is the ultimate in American military prowess. It has the ability to rain lethality unlike the human mind can imagine. This is the Abraham Lincoln, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, a part of a battle group. It is the equivalent of sending a military base. You don't send it to bluff.

This is why we must be concerned. We have to be concerned because, if you send it because you are bluffing, Madam Speaker, you are playing with American military prowess; and if you send it because you are going to use it, you have to come to Congress. Congress has to give the word.

We don't play with this kind of lethality. There is a reality associated with this lethality that we cannot imagine. We have no way of predicting what can happen if we use this ultimate form of military force.

We obviously have it to defend ourselves and defend our allies. I don't object to the defensive nature of military action, but I am concerned if you send in this level of lethality because you are bluffing.

So I am calling on all Americans to please pay attention to what is happening in the Gulf region, and I am saying to my brethren and my sisters here in Congress: We are going to regret it if this level of lethality is being used and we did not exercise our duty, our obligation, and our responsibility to review impeachment of this President. We are going to regret it if it happens.

This is the ultimate in lethality. You don't send it because you are bluffing. It is time for us to do what we should do here in this Congress: require an Authorization for Use of Military Force; make sure that we play our role in this process. This is the Congress. We declare war. Don't let all of our authority be usurped by the executive branch.

We ought to have some sense of duty to what the Constitution requires of us. We see what is coming, and we are going to regret it if this ultimate in lethality is utilized in this Gulf region for a bluff that, unfortunately, was called.