Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the many who have concluded that enough is enough. I rise today to speak on behalf of the many persons who believe that Article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America has meaning and that it is something that is appropriate for a time such as this, appropriate for a time when there is one among us who seems to incite hatred, bigotry, and invidious discrimination.

I rise to speak on their behalf today, Mr. Speaker, and I do so understanding that I am not doing it on behalf of Republicans, generally speaking, or Democrats, generally speaking. The people whom I reference are Americans, generally speaking.

So I rise to speak on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Articles of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in the Congress of the United States of America.

Resolution.

Resolved, that Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, has undermined the integrity of his office with impunity and has brought disrepute on the Presidency with immunity, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the American people and is unfit to be President, and is impeached pursuant to Article II, section IV of the Constitution of the United States of America, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the

United States of America against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated as political, not requiring the commission of a crime, and exclusively the jurisdiction of the United States House of Representatives for impeachment purposes.

Article I: That Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of his high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and the harmony, respect, and courtesies, which ought to exhibit and be maintained in American society, has under the inane pretext of dispensing with political correctness, produced a demonstrable record of inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting, and disparaging women and certain minorities.

In so doing, Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, has fueled and is fueling an alt-right hate machine and its worldwide covert sympathizers engendering racial antipathy, LGBTQ enmity, religious anxiety, stealthy sexism, and dreadful xenophobia, perfidiously causing immediate injury t American society, to wit:

On September 23, 2017, Donald John Trump incited race-baiting and racism, engendering stealthy sexism and racial antipathy, when he disrespected, disparaged, and demeaned mothers of professional football players by calling them dogs as he made the widely published statement:

Won't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when

somebody disrespects our flag, say, Get that son-of-a-B-I-T-

C-H off the field right now, out. He's fired. He's fired.

On September 23, 2017, Donald John Trump incited race-baiting and racism, engendering racial antipathy, when he disrespected and disparaged professional football players, approximately 70 percent of whom are reportedly African American, by calling them sons of dogs as he made the widely published statement:

Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when

somebody disrespects our flag, say, Get that son-of-a-B-I-T-

C-H off the field right now, out. He's fired. He's fired.

On September 30, 2017, Donald John Trump incited bigotry and race- baiting, engendering racial antipathy, when he disrespected, disparaged, and demeaned Puerto Ricans, who are Americans, by implying Puerto Ricans want others to do for them what they won't do for themselves, as he made the widely published claim:

They want everything to be done for them when it should be

a community effort.

Further, on October 3, 2017, while in Puerto Rico, as was widely shown on American television, Donald John Trump incited bigotry, engendering racial antipathy, when he disparaged Puerto Ricans by stating:

I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you've thrown our

budget a little out of whack because we spent a lot of money

on Puerto Rico, and that's fine. But we've saved a lot of

lives.

The President did not make similar widely published statements about Texas or Florida.

On January 27, 2017, Donald John Trump incited xenophobia and hate against Muslims in the United States of America, engendering religious anxiety, when he disrespected Islam by issuing Executive Order 13769, fulfilling a campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States of America. This widely published campaign promise is dated December 7, 2015, and reads as follows:

Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,

New York, New York, December 7, 2015. Donald J. Trump is

calling for the total and complete shutdown of Muslims

entering the United States until our country's

representatives can figure out what is going on.

On March 4, 2017, Donald John Trump incited race-baiting and racism, engendering racial antipathy, when he defamed, disrespected, and disparaged President Barack Obama by making the widely published statement, which has since been disclaimed:

Terrible. Just found out that Obama had my ``wires tapped''

in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This

is McCarthyism.

On July 26, 2017, Donald John Trump incited bigotry, engendering LGBTQ enmity, when he disparaged and disrespected transgender Americans by indicating that the costs of their medical care outweighs the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country as he made the widely published statement:

After consultation with my generals and military experts,

please be advised that the United States Government will not

accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any

capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused

on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened

with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that

transgender in the military would entail.

In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony, respect, and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained within American society, has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and, as a result is unfit to be President.

Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America.

Article II: That Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained within American society, did betray his trust as President and bring shame and dishonor to the office of the Presidency by associating the majesty and dignity of the Presidency with causes rooted in White supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, White nationalism, and neo-Nazism when he, to wit:

On August 15, 2017, Donald John Trump made a widely published statement characterizing a group of anti-Semites, bigots, racists, White nationalists, and Klu Klux Klansmen who rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, as ``very fine people.''

Thereafter, on August 23, 2017, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released a 2-page decision in which it was stated that they were ``disturbed by the failure at the highest political level of the United States of America to unequivocally reject and condemn the racist violent events and demonstrations led by the aforementioned groups, thereby potentially fueling the proliferation of racist discourse and incidents throughout the State party, and deeply concerned by the example this failure could set for the rest of the world.''

On October 7, 2017, hate groups were again back in Charlottesville, Virginia, at the statue of Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general, chanting, ``You will not replace us.'' Since this event on October 7, the President has made many widely published statements about many things including, but not limited to, the National Football League, but has not made one widely published statement condemning the hate groups for returning to the place where an innocent person lost her life at the hands of hate.

In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the integrity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony, respect, and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained within American society, has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, and has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and is unfit to be President.

Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and the disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America.

Article III: Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of his high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained in American society, did engage in perfidy by making the widely reported claim that 3 to 5

million people voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential election and, further, expending tax dollars to establish a commission to investigate his claim, to wit:

On November 27, 2016, Donald John Trump made the widely reported claim that:

In addition to winning the electoral college in a

landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions

of people who voted illegally . . . in Virginia, New

Hampshire, and California. So why isn't the media reporting

on this? Serious bias. Big problem.

On January 25, 2017, Donald John Trump made the widely reported claim that:

I will be asking for a major investigation into voter

fraud, including those registered to vote in two States, and

who are illegal and. . . .

On July 1, 2017, Donald John Trump made the widely reported claim that:

Numerous States were refusing to give information to the

very distinguished voter fraud panel. What are they trying to

hide?

On June 28, 2017, according to highly reported news stories, the commission previously referenced by Donald John Trump requested detailed voter registration data from all 50 States, including names, addresses, and other sensitive data from every voter in the country. Several States refused to send the information, and some States have been prevented by courts from turning over the information.

In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, has undermined the integrity of his office and has brought disrepute on the Presidency and has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and is unfit to be President.

Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America.

Article IV: Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained in American society, while aware of the widely reported history of unlawful abuses and brutality perpetrated by many, not all, police officers against innocent persons in the United States of America, did betray his trust as President, bringing shame and dishonor to the office of the Presidency by encouraging law enforcement officials to violate the constitutional rights of suspects in their custody and control, to wit:

On July 28, 2017, Donald John Trump, in a speech in front of the Suffolk County Police Department in Long Island, New York, stated that:

And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs

being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see

them thrown in--rough. I said, ``Please don't be too nice.''

Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're

protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand

over? Like, don't hit their head, and they've just killed

somebody--don't hit their head. I said, ``You can take the

hand away, okay?''

This statement is injurious not only to the rule of law, which presumes innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law, but also to the administration of justice, which requires that care is given to persons held in the custody of law enforcement. Our Nation is founded upon a social contract where the constitutional rights of the individual are not surrendered because he or she is accused of a crime. To speak to the contrary is a violation of the Presidential oath of office to which Donald John Trump is bound.

In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and the proprieties thereof, and of his oath of office, to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of America, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and is unfit to be President.

Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of high honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in mourning. Many hearts are bleeding.

Mr. Speaker, there is much suffering. Lives have been lost in a senseless and needless manner in Las Vegas.

Mr. Speaker, there is a right time for all things. This is a time for our Nation to mourn and for hearts to heal.

Mr. Speaker, I announce that impeachment is postponed. Let us mourn, and let us heal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include the following CATO article for the Record:

[From CATO.org, Aug. 7, 2017]

(By Gene Healy)

Trying to tamp down impeachment talk earlier this year,

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) insisted that

President Donald Trump's erratic behavior didn't justify that

remedy: ``When and if he breaks the law, that is when

something like that would come up.''

Normally, there isn't much that Pelosi and Tea Party

populist Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) agree on, but they're on the

same page here. In a recent appearance on Trump's favorite

morning show, ``Fox & Friends,'' Brat hammered Democrats

calling for the president's impeachment: ``there's no statute

that's been violated,'' Brat kept insisting: They cannot name

the statute!''

Actually, they did: it's ``Obstruction of Justice, as

defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b)(3),'' according to Rep.

Brad Sherman (D-CA) who introduced an article of impeachment

against Trump on July 12. Did Trump break that law when he

fired FBI director James Comey over ``this Russia thing''?

Maybe; maybe not. But even if ``no reasonable prosecutor''

would bring a charge of obstruction on the available

evidence, that wouldn't mean impeachment is off-limits.

Impeachable offenses aren't limited to crimes.

That's a settled point among constitutional scholars: even

those, like Cass Sunstein, who take a restrictive view of the

scope of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' recognize that ``an

impeachable offense, to qualify as such, need not be a

crime.'' University of North Carolina law professor Michael

Gerhardt sums up the academic consensus: ``The major

disagreement is not over whether impeachable offenses should

be strictly limited to indictable crimes, but rather over the

range of nonindictable offenses on which an impeachment may

be based.''

In some ways, popular confusion on this point is

understandable. Impeachment's structure echoes criminal

procedure: ``indictment'' in the House, trial in the Senate--

and the constitutional text, to modern ears, sounds something

like ``grave felonies, and maybe lesser criminal offenses

too.''

But ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' a term of art in

British impeachment proceedings for four centuries before the

Framers adopted it, was understood to reach a wide range of

offenses that, whether or not criminal in nature, indicated

behavior incompatible with the nature of the office. For

James Madison, impeachment was the ``indispensable'' remedy

for ``Incapacity, negligence, or perfidy'' on the part of the

president--categories of conduct dangerous to the republic,

only some of which will also constitute crimes.

The criminal law is designed to punish and deter, but those

goals are secondary to impeachment, which aims at removing

federal officers unfit for continued service. And where the

criminal law deprives the convicted party of liberty, the

constitutional penalties for impeachable offenses ``shall not

extend further than to removal from Office,'' and possible

disqualification from future officeholding. As Justice Joseph

Story explained, the remedy ``is not so much designed to

punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross

official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his

property; but simply divests him of his political capacity.''

No doubt being ejected from a position of power on the

grounds that you're no longer worthy of the public's trust

can feel like a punishment. But the mere fact that removal is

stigmatizing doesn't suggest that criminal law standards

apply. Raoul Berger once illustrated that point with an

analogy Donald Trump would probably find insulting: ``to the

extent that impeachment retains a residual punitive aura, it

may be compared to deportation, which is attended by very

painful consequences, but which, the Supreme Court held, 'is

not a punishment for a crime.''

Had the Framers restricted impeachment to statutory

offenses, they'd have rendered the power a ``nullity'' from

the start. In the early Republic, there were very few federal

crimes and certainly not enough to cover the range of

misdeeds that would rightly disqualify public officials from

continued service.

Criminality wasn't an issue in the first impeachment to

result in the removal of a federal officer: the 1804 case of

district court judge John Pickering. Pickering's offense was

showing up to work drunk and ranting like a maniac in court.

He'd committed no crime; instead, he'd revealed himself to be

a man ``of loose morals and intemperate habits,'' guilty of

``high misdemeanors, disgraceful to his own character as a

judge.''

As Justice Story noted in 1833, in the impeachment cases

since ratification, ``no one of the charges has rested upon

any statutable misdemeanours.'' In fact, over our entire

constitutional history, fewer than a third of the

impeachments approved by the House ``have specifically

invoked a criminal statute.'' What's been far more common,

according to a comprehensive report by the Nixon-era House

Judiciary Committee, are ``allegations that the officer has

violated his duties or his oath or seriously undermined

public confidence in his ability to perform his official

functions.''

The president's violation of a particular criminal statute

can serve as evidence of unfitness, but not all such

violations do. That's obvious when one considers the enormous

growth of the federal criminal code in recent decades.

Overcriminalization may have reached the point where Donald

Trump, like everyone else, is potentially guilty of ``Three

Felonies a Day,'' but even in Lawrence Tribe's wildest

imaginings, that wouldn't translate to three impeachable

offenses daily. If Trump were to import crocodile feet in

opaque containers, fill an (expansively defined) wetland on

one of his golf courses, or misappropriate the likeness of

``Smokey Bear `` he'd have broken the law, but would not have

committed an impeachable offense.

It's also easy enough to imagine a president behaving in a

fashion that violates no law, but nonetheless justifies his

removal. To borrow an example from the legal scholar Charles

Black, if the president proposed to do his job remotely so he

could ``move to Saudi Arabia [and] have four wives'' (as well

as his very own glowing orb), he couldn't be prosecuted for

it. Still, Black asks: ``is it possible that such gross and

wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for

impeachment''?

A more plausible impeachment scenario presented itself

recently, with reports that President Trump had ``asked his

advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and

even himself'' in connection with the special counsel's

Russia investigation. The president's power to self-pardon is

an open question, but his power to pardon others has few

limits. There's little doubt Trump could issue broad

prospective pardons for Don Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul

Manafort, Mike Flynn, and anyone else who might end up in the

Mueller's crosshairs--and it would be perfectly legal. It

would also be impeachable, as James Madison suggested at the

Virginia Ratifying Convention: ``if the President be

connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and

there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of

Representatives can impeach him; [and he can be removed] if

found guilty.''

Some years ago, I put together a collection of essays on

the expansion of the criminal sanction into areas of American

life where it doesn't belong--published under the title, Go

Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything.

The idea that criminal law concepts had infected and weakened

the constitutional remedy of impeachment wasn't quite what I

had in mind with that subtitle, but it seems to fit.

Congress has made the problem worse by outsourcing its

investigative responsibilities to the executive branch. As

Princeton's Keith Whittington observes in a recent essay for

the Niskanen Center ``relying so heavily on prosecutors to

develop the underlying charges supporting impeachment has

come at a high cost . . . it has created the widespread

impression that the impeachment power can only appropriately

be used when criminal offenses have been proven.''

It's important to get this straight, because confusing

impeachment with a criminal process can be harmful to our

political health. It may lead us to stretch the criminal law

to ``get'' the president or his associates, warping its

future application to ordinary citizens. And it can leave the

country saddled with a dangerously unfit president whose

contempt for the rule of law is apparent, even if he hasn't

yet committed a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that there is much confusion about something that is near and dear to me. There is much confusion about impeachment, and so as to

give some degree of clarity, I have, in this hand, an article that is styled, ``The Overcriminalization of Impeachment.'' It is dated August 7, 2017, by Gene Healy. He is with the Cato Institute.

I commend it to all who have any interest in impeachment, because this will give you a summary that will spare you a lot of reading in the Federalist Papers, reading many other articles. I commend it to you, and I will say more about it at a later time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to make one point. That one point is that a President need not be convicted of a criminal offense to be impeached; in fact, need not be charged with a criminal offense; need not be charged with a statutory offense; need not be charged with a codified offense to be impeached.

But before I make this point, Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that I am always in awe of this well, and I don't take for granted this great opportunity that has been accorded me to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I believe that those of us who have been so blessed should acknowledge our blessings. This is a blessing.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people who don't have this opportunity, so I am going to take one liberty before going into my message. I just want people to know what I see as I stand here in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

As I look forward, Mr. Speaker, I would have those who have not had the opportunity to stand here to know that there is above the doors at the second level a depiction of Moses the Lawgiver.

I would have people know, Mr. Speaker, that behind me, of course, is the flag of the United States of America.

And I would have persons know, Mr. Speaker, that we have these two podiums, and that, typically, Democrats

will occupy this side and Republicans the other. We can go to either side. There is no requirement that I stand where I am standing. I can stand at many other places in this room.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want people to know that this is a special place, and I am honored to have the opportunity to stand here tonight and to speak to the issue of a President not having the necessity of committing a crime to be impeached. There is no requirement that a crime be committed. There is no requirement that a statutory offense be violated.

Let's take, for a moment, a look through the vista of time. Let us go back to the Constitutional Convention, and let us hear now the words of George Mason. George Mason reminded his colleagues that no one should be above justice. His words were: ``Shall any man be above justice?''

These words were put before his colleagues because, at the time, they were considering what they could do to deal with the possibility of a runaway Presidency. What could they do? How could they stop it? What would be the methodology by which a President could be extricated from his position?

And they had good reason to give consideration to this, Mr. Speaker. They had good reason because the President was probably the most powerful person in the country. The President would be the most powerful person in the country. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. The President has the awesome power to pardon anyone, saving himself.

So the question becomes: How do you remove a President from office?

This is what they had to grapple with. And, of course, they considered a judicial process. They considered persons who might be a part of a jury. They considered these things.

The Federalist Papers, if you would care to read, will give you a rendition of what their thoughts were. Start with Federalist Paper No. 65.

But they considered these things, and they concluded that the process should not be judicial. They concluded that if a President is to be removed from office, it should be by persons who are in the political arena. They concluded that this should be something that would be, in fact, political, not judicial. They concluded that a President need not commit a crime to be removed from office.

I am emphasizing this, my dear friends, because there is a lot of confusion about this question. And if you would care to read something that could summarize what I am saying, you might look at an article that was written by a person with the Cato Institute, Gene Healy, August 7, 2017, styled ``The Overcriminalization of Impeachment.'' I would commend it to you. Please read it if you want to read a good summary of what impeachment is all about.

So they had to grapple with this question, and they concluded that it would be a political one, not a judicial question. And in so doing, in concluding that it would be a political one, they incorporated into the Constitution Article II, section 4--Article II, section 4 of the Constitution--that addresses the question of impeachment.

And in so doing, at some point after the codification and ratification of the Constitution, there was a person to be impeached. The first person was a Federal judge, Judge John Pickering. Judge Pickering was not accused of committing a crime. There was not an allegation that he committed a crime.

If you read the Articles of Impeachment, you will find that Judge Pickering, once he was convicted, was convicted, generally speaking, for having loose morals and intemperate habits, not a crime. But the questions did deal with morality.

Shall any man be above justice?

Not above the law. The law codified. Justice carries with it a certain amount of morality.

Shall any man--and today I would say ``any person''--be above justice? Shall any person be above justice?

The Framers of the Constitution concluded that Article II, section 4 would address it, and they, themselves--a good many of them--were there when the first person was impeached in 1804, Judge John Pickering.

So for those of you who are believers in the original intent, the best way to ascertain the original intent of the Framers would be to look at what the Framers did when they had the opportunity.

What did Madison do?

Madison, the father of the Constitution, it is said, and other Framers who were actually there when Article II, section 4 was put in place, found that Judge Pickering, who committed no crime or no allegation of a crime being committed, with reference to his impeachment, should be impeached because of moral reasons and an intemperate habit or habits.

Mr. Speaker, I mention these things because it is important for us to understand that we have made a mistake. We have made a mistake in that we have outsourced--this is from Gene Healy, by the way--the responsibility of investigating the acts of a President to the executive branch itself.

Think for just a moment, dear friends. The Justice Department is an arm of the executive branch. We in Congress have outsourced the investigation to the executive branch by and through the Justice Department.

Mr. Speaker, that can give the appearance of impropriety. We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right; they must also look right. It could look to some like that outsourcing has created a circumstance by which the chief executive, the President, could influence the Attorney General. That is the way it could look.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the intent is that we have in the Constitution, Article II, section 4. That is not the intent. The intent was for the Judiciary Committee in the Congress of the United States of America to investigate. That is where the power to investigate lies, because it is for impeachment.

By outsourcing it to the executive branch, such that the Justice Department might perform dysfunction, we give the appearance that impeachment requires the commission of a crime, because that is what the Justice Department is looking for, criminality, not morality. The Justice Department wants to know what crime was committed, under what circumstances.

And too many people believe that if the Justice Department does not find that a crime was committed, then there is no impeachable offense. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.

Regardless as to what a Justice Department concludes, regardless as to whether a good lawyer would bring charges by way of something from what the Justice Department concludes, the Congress of the United States of America still has the power, the prowess, the potency, if you will, to impeach, notwithstanding any finding of a Justice Department, notwithstanding any conclusions of the Justice Department, because it is not the responsibility of the Justice Department to investigate and then pass it on to the Congress with some recommendation. That is not their responsibility. That is the Judiciary Committee and the Congress of the United States of America.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have given this false impression that somehow there must be an offense committed. But, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that it is not the case, and the evidence is there for those who care to read the article that I have called to your attention. It is a short read.

Or if you care to read the Federalist Papers, Federalist Paper No. 65, you can read some of the conclusions that Madison and others have presented.

This is something that is important to this country. So I am standing here in the well of the House tonight to make one point, a place that I am in great awe of, a place that I consider sacred. I am standing here in the well of the House tonight to make the point that a President need not commit a crime, a statutory offense, to be impeached. Impeachment belongs in one place, and one place only, and that is right here where I stand now, in the House of Representatives.

If the House of Representatives, upon receiving articles of impeachment, should vote to impeach, that means that a President would be indicted. It does not mean that the President--the 218 votes, assuming all persons in the House are present. It doesn't mean that the President is going to be removed from office.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office. Impeachment means that

the President must now face a trial in the Senate, to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That is what impeachment does. It moves it along.

And, by the way, there is no requirement that you assure anyone that you can get the votes necessary to impeach to bring an impeachment before the House. A privileged resolution to impeach does not necessitate your being able to prove before you present it that you are going to prevail with it. That is not the case.

If you can think of it in terms of the real world, while this is real--we say that term loosely, I assure you. If you think in terms of the world beyond these walls where a person might be indicted, in this country, every day, people are indicted who are not convicted. So impeachment is not tantamount to conviction. Impeachment merely means that there is reason now for the Senate to take up this cause.

The Senate, upon taking up the cause, can find the President not guilty or guilty. If the President is found guilty, the President is removed from office. There is no other punishment. The President is removed from office. After the President is removed from office, if the Justice Department or some other agency, some other arm of the government concludes that the President has committed a criminal offense, then a President would be prosecuted.

Now, there is some debate amongst some constitutional scholars as to whether or not a President can be prosecuted while the President still holds office. I think most of them would agree that it would happen after the President leaves office, but that is a debate that I don't care to enter.

My point is the President would be removed from office. Now, that is important to consider because removal from office is not punishment. Criminal acts have punishment upon conviction. The President is not punished. The President is removed from office. That is not considered punishment. The President does not face punishment upon being convicted of impeachment. The President is removed from office.

Now, that, in and of itself, is not something that I believe we should take lightly. I think it is serious, but it is not tantamount to punishment.

For those of you who may just be joining us for this statement that I am making tonight, I have taken this position tonight in the well of the Congress of the United States of America for one reason: to make the point that a President need not be charged with a criminal offense to face impeachment in the Congress of the United States of America. The Constitution doesn't require it. The Framers did not make that an issue when they impeached the first person, Judge Pickering, and it is not an issue to the extent that most of the people who have been impeached have not been charged with a criminal offense--not, N-O-T, charged with a criminal offense.

I close with this. The Framers, very much concerned about a runaway President, runaway Presidency, very much concerned about the awesome amount of power that they were according one person: the power to be commander of all of the Armed Forces; the power to send persons into battle; the power to send people, literally, in harm's way such that many might not return; the power to impeach, nearly with impunity--not with absolute impunity, but nearly with impunity. There are some opportunities for the President to provide a person not with impeachment, but with exoneration for a crime, and that President could be impeached for the way that exoneration took place, depending on the relationship that the person had with the President.

But the point is impeachment is there because it is an awesome power that we have given the President; and because we have given the President this awesome power, it is important that we have a check on the President that does not require the commission of a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the generosity of this Special Order. I thank the leadership as much, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 28, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and stand at the podium designated for Republicans, but I rise not as a Democrat or a Republican. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, not as a Liberal or a Conservative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud American: a person who believes in his country, who salutes the flag, says the Pledge of Allegiance, and sings the national anthem.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to make comments that I never thought I would have to make in the well of the House of Congress. I rise today to defend, denounce, and announce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend any mother who has been called a dog because her son engaged in peaceful protest. I rise, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to defend any son who is called the son of a dog because he engaged in peaceful protest. I rise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to denounce these comments that have been made because they have brought discourse to a new low. Mr. Speaker, this is a level of indecency that is unbecoming of the Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say to the world that this is not what America is all about: calling people SOBs. We know what a ``B'' is. It is a dog.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because my heart tells me that I must do something.

Mr. Speaker, I denounce the comments that were made, and I rise to announce that next week I will bring a privileged resolution before the Congress of the United States of America.

I will stand here in the well of the Congress, and I will call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today I pose the question: Why do many people--too many--how many is too many?

The number that can have an adverse impact.

Why do too many people--not all--why do too many people deny the existence of circumstances that can have an invidious impact upon society? Why?

Why would people deny that there is a link between smoking and cancer?

Why would people deny that invidious discrimination existed when there were laws on the books that encouraged invidious discrimination?

Why would people deny the existence of climate change with all of the empirical evidence available to us to peruse and scrutinize? Why? Why, Mr. Speaker?

Because if you deny it, you don't have to do anything about it. If you deny the linkage between smoking and cancer, you don't have to do anything about it. If you deny the links between invidious discrimination and the impact on persons who are discriminated against, you don't have to do anything about it. If you deny that climate change exists, that there is something going on, then you don't have to do anything about it.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding denials, we have to acknowledge that, as of late, in Houston, Texas, we have had three major events--three major hurricanes--to have to cope with. And these three major events, while there may be some debate about whether they are 100-year floods or 500- year floods, everybody agrees that they are billion-dollar floods, plus, I might add, because the empirical evidence is there to support it.

With all of these hurricanes that are traversing the Atlantic Ocean and coming into landfall here in the United States, the frequency of them has to get our attention. So whether you think it is climate change or whether you think that these are acts of God--and the law recognizes such language--or whether you just can't explain it but you recognize that it is occurring, I think we have to do something about what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer assume that the old normal is going to apply to our circumstances. There is a new normal that we have to cope with, and this new normal has much to do with how we will provide for the welfare and safety of the people of the United States of America.

How will we approach flood insurance?

The National Flood Insurance Program is in debt that we acknowledge to the tune of $24.6 billion. That is what we acknowledge. But after Harvey and after what has happened recently in Florida and in the islands, Mr. Speaker, that number is going up exponentially.

If we are of the opinion that there is no climate change, this is just sort of a freak of nature that is occurring right now and things will go back to the old normal and we just stay with that, then we won't take the necessary steps to provide flood insurance that is going to cover people so that they are not lost in a storm of red tape and bureaucracy.

We have to change the dynamics that relate to flood insurance in this country. We have to find a way to allow that $24.6 billion that is going to go up exponentially to be properly resolved. It has to be eliminated.

Here is why: If you pass that on to the policyholders, then many people will not be able to afford flood insurance. If people can't afford flood insurance, then they are not going to be able to buy homes. If they can't buy homes, then we are going to have an impact on the economy.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for us to do several things with flood insurance. One, resolve the issue of when versus flood as it relates to compensation for damages. Two, eliminate the debt. And, finally, I would say this: We have to, whether we like it or not, acknowledge that there is a new normal, especially after what has happened in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and the territories.

I would also want to be specific about Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Our prayers and thoughts are with them just as they are with those persons in Florida who have been harmed and the many persons across Texas, Louisiana, and other States.

This is our moment in time. This is our opportunity to make a difference. Let's acknowledge the change and make a change.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding for just a moment. I would welcome the opportunity to use the time that the gentleman yields, but I do want to compliment the gentleman for what he has done at this most difficult time and greatly appreciate what he is saying about those who were there to be a help to those in time of need.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to share this thought with the gentleman because he touched upon a salient point, and that is the notion that we can have unity without uniformity. We can maintain our principles, but we can always find higher ground to stand on. The principles that we have, we don't have to relinquish so that we can do things together.

I am honored that the gentleman and I have been able to do a good many things together. As the gentleman knows, annually he and I work together on the abuse of persons in domestic relations. We have decided that that is something that we don't want to tolerate and that we will stand together against it.

I just want to thank the gentleman again for his many years of service and the service especially in that time of crisis. I greatly appreciate the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the gentleman and I have been able to compliment each other, as we properly should, as Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a grateful and prayerful heart. I am grateful to my colleagues, many of whom called to give their expressions of concern.

Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful thing to have your colleagues call to let you know how much they care about what is happening in your congressional district. After all, we are Congresspersons of the United States of America, not just the congressional districts that we just happen to represent.

So I am grateful to my many colleagues and leadership calling, all to give their expressions of concern not just for me, but for the people who we all represent as Congresspersons of the United States of America.

I am also grateful for the many lives that were spared. Many lives were spared. I don't know why some people were able to survive in circumstances wherein they should not have, but I do know that I am grateful that they were spared.

I am also very grateful for the many Good Samaritans who were there to extend the hand of friendship in a time of need, who went out of their way to be a neighbor to people they did not know.

I am so grateful to those who came across county lines and State lines to do what only they could do, because many of them had talents and they had various instrumentalities that were of benefit to us in a time of need. So I am grateful to the Good Samaritans.

I am also grateful that we were able to get the $15 billion that will be a good faith downpayment to those who are still suffering in Houston, Texas, and in other places that this monster visited. I am very grateful that I was in the Speaker's Office and was there to see the actual signing take place. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to be present.

I am prayerful. I am prayerful for those who are still suffering. In my congressional district, there are people who are still in homes that are mold-infested. They need help. I want them to know that there is some help on the way. Obviously, we will have to do more, but I am prayerful that they will have their homes restored.

I am prayerful that they will have their lives return to normalcy. I am prayerful that their children will have the opportunity to get into school as quickly as possible. I am prayerful that they who are suffering will have the hands of our government there to comfort them.

I am prayerful that they will understand that, while others are going to do what they can, only the government of the United States of America can do the heavy lifting necessary. A lot of largesse has come in. A lot of lagniappe is available. But only the government can do this heavy lifting. I am prayerful that they will understand that we are going to do what we can to make sure that they get the help that they need.

I am prayerful for the families that have lost lives. One such family lost a first responder, a Houston police officer. He lost his life on his way to save lives, to help lives, to help people who were in harm's way. It really gives a true definition of what ``in the line of duty'' means. In the line of duty, he was taken away from us.

So I am prayerful that his family, as well as all of the other families that have lost lives, will be able to understand that when words cannot satisfy the concerns that you have, when nothing anyone says can make the difference that needs to be made, I am prayerful that they will understand that they can lean on their faith and that faith can see them through that which they can go through no other way. I am prayerful for them.

I am prayerful for my friends in the State of Florida, where I was reared. I was born in Louisiana, reared in Florida. I attended college in Florida. I went to high school in Florida.

Florida is my home, for all practical purposes, except for Texas, where I call home. I am a transplant, obviously, but Texas is home. I am prayerful for my friends in Florida. I have relatives there. They have a monster headed their way--a monster that is going to, unfortunately, create harm and cause damages.

Now, my hope is that it will skirt Florida and that it will go another way. I believe in miracles, and I am asking for a miracle. But I am prayerful for my friends, for fear that this monster will visit Florida.

My prayer is that I will be able to call every one of my colleagues in Florida and let them know that I care about them and their constituents. As I have said, we are all Congresspersons of the United States of America.

I am prayerful for my friends, prayerful for my family, all of whom are in Florida--not the entirety of my family, not the entirety of my friends, but those who are in Florida.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members of this House, I am grateful to every Member who took the vote to help us in a time of need. I have been here long enough to have the good sense to know that for some it was a hard vote, and I am grateful that you took that hard vote, because I understand that people have principles, they have circumstances that are important to them, and that legislation doesn't always come to everyone the way we would have it come.

I am just grateful for those who took that hard vote because they had rationales and reasons that they could show that, if they were to be consistent, perhaps they would have voted another way. But they took the hard vote, and I am grateful to them.

I am grateful that they did so, and I am prayerful that we will all be able to take the hard votes necessary to accord the people who have been harmed by what happened in Texas and across the Gulf Coast and what is about to happen to those who are in Florida and

other places, I am prayerful that we will have the courage to take these hard votes so that we can make sure that this government does what it is supposed to do, and that is protect its people, provide for their security, and provide for their welfare in times of need.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful and I am prayerful.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the ranking member for her kind words. I would like to thank the chairperson for bringing this to the floor, both of them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a seminal moment in time, a moment in time that can shape the rest of our time. This is an opportunity for those of us who contend that we are our brother's keeper to, in fact, become our brother's keeper. You see, you can't be your brother's keeper without keeping your brother. This is a chance to be your brother's keeper. This is a chance for the unity that we express when we are before the cameras to manifest itself in the votes that we cast here in Congress. This is a seminal moment in time.

This is a moment in time for us to care not only about those who live in the suites of life, but also those who dwell in the streets of life, those who live on benches, those who sleep under bridges. It is an opportunity for us to cast a vote that will send aid, send assistance to those in Houston, Texas, and all across the area that has been devastated by this monster. It is a chance for us to help them.

But this is only a downpayment, only a downpayment. There must be much more. We need help in Houston posthaste, as is the case with other places around the country that have been devastated.

We need help for housing, not only for those who had homes before the monster hit, but also for those who didn't have homes who need to transition to a place that they can call home. If home is where the heart is, where is the heart of the homeless, people who sleep under bridges? Where is the heart of the homeless?

They have to be given a place that they can call home as well, which means, at some point, we have got to have dollars appropriated for the organizations that help those who live in the streets of life: the homeless. We have got to help them, too. If we can help those in the suites, we can help those in the streets.

I would also say to my colleagues: Please understand, people who are here and undocumented have needs, too. They live in places that are horrible. I have been in their homes. I have smelled the mold. I know what it is

like to see the conditions that they dwell in. It is time for us to put aside the politics that divide us from people who need help and help those people, too. Let's send some more money to the organizations that help them.

This is a moment in time. This is a seminal moment in time. It is time for us to step up and help everyone that is harmed, not be selective. If you are in this country and you are hurting, we ought to help you. God bless you.

I thank you, Madam Leader on my side, the ranking member. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I beg that we do what we can to make sure every person in this country receives the help he or she deserves.

City of Houston,

Houston, TX, September 1, 2017.

Mr. Brock Long,

FEMA Administrator, Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC.

Dear Administrator Long: The City of Houston has

experienced a catastrophic event, Hurricane Harvey, and the

assistance of FEMA is critical to the recovery of our

families and community. We are requesting your expeditious

action on the following:

100% federal reimbursement for Categories A (debris

removal) & B (emergency protective measures) as was approved

for Katrina, Rita and Ike.

Advance funding for the Public Assistance program (all

categories of work)

We are seeking the initial advance funding of $300 million

of which $100 million will be used for immediate debris

removal.

As we get more accurate damage assessment estimates, our

goal is to secure total advance funding.

At least 15-20 Disaster Recovery Centers to be adequately

staffed throughout the City of Houston to expedite assistance

to individuals

Deploy 4-5 centers for each quadrant of the City

Provide adequate staffing to ensure that disaster survivors

are promptly assisted

Funding of up to $1.75 billion for a FEMA Sheltering and

Temporary Essential Power (STEP) or Rapid Repair program to

expedite the return of families to their homes and contribute

to a whole community recovery for approximately 50k homes.

We are seeking to increase the cap of this funding to up to

$35,000/home

100% advance funding and expedited processing for First

Responders who lost property in the line of duty.

The City of Houston wishes to serve as a pilot program for

the 100 Houston Fire Department and 200 Houston Police

Department personnel who had significant damage to their

homes and losses due to Hurricane Harvey. Many of these First

Responders are not insured.

The City of Houston will also be asking HUD for an

immediate release for CDBG-DR funds and seek FEMA support in

this request to compliment the recovery efforts. The

coordinated and timely release of funds will enable the City

of Houston to become more resilient and recover faster.

Thank you for your consideration of my requests.

Sincerely,

Mayor Sylvester Turner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Daniel, who arrived at the age of 2 and graduated from the University of North Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the Constitution and avert a constitutional crisis.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to defend democracy. I rise to protect the Republic. I rise to prevent a constitutional crisis that would be created, should any rogue President attempt to pardon himself.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe that a President can pardon himself. The ability to pardon is the ability to forgive. I do not believe that a President can forgive himself for crimes committed. I do not believe that the Constitution allows a President to forgive himself for the most egregious crimes barred by our laws.

I do not believe that a President could pardon himself or forgive himself for the crime of treason. I do not believe that this country would allow such a thing to exist, and if a President attempted to do it, we would have a constitutional crisis.

So I rise today to prevent a constitutional crisis. I don't believe that the Constitution would allow it, but I want to prevent the crisis, should some rogue President attempt it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a simple amendment to the Constitution that would avert this crisis. It reads: The President shall have no power to grant to himself a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the great and noble American ideals that we hold dear and that we protect with everything that is near and dear to us. We use our very bodies to protect it. Our men and women will go to distant places to protect these noble and great ideals, and many don't return the same way they left.

These ideals would be put at risk if some rogue President decided to pardon himself. We would have a constitutional crisis.

I am honored, Mr. Speaker, to say that this amendment will be filed later today, and there are two other Members of Congress that I am proud to have associated with me on this amendment. They are the Honorable Brad Sherman and the Honorable Seth Moulton.

We are filing this amendment not because we believe that a President can self-pardon, but if some President attempted to do it, this amendment would be there for us to act expeditiously and prevent it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the solution that I hope we never have to use. I pray that this amendment never has to be pushed through, but I am so proud to have it there, in the event it is needed.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I will be withdrawing my amendment, but I do desire to make some points.

I am grateful to the chairperson of the committee and the ranking member as well. I know them to be admirable persons who desire to do the very best for our veterans.

I would like to state, Mr. Chairman, that we have many people who are on the front line of democracy. These are the people who go to distant places, and a good many of them don't always return the same way they left, and, Mr. Chairman, as a result of this, they need special attention. They need medical attention.

We have a circumstance in our country that breaks the hearts of a good many Americans each and every day when they see persons standing on the streets with signs indicating that they are veterans and that they need help. Mr. Chairman, what we propose to do with this amendment is to provide that additional help that they need.

This amendment would accord an additional $70 million to medical services for homeless veterans, the veterans that we see living in the streets of life, the veterans who are appealing to us for help. A good many of them need help that goes beyond something that is physically wrong with them. A good many of them may need some help because of some mental illness that they may have.

Mr. Chairman, in Texas, we have, on any given night, about 1,768 veterans who are living on the streets. According to the VA, about 40,000 veterans were homeless on a single night in January of 2016. This is a decrease from where we have been.

The decline is admirable and we ought not overlook the decline, but my belief is we can still do better and we can still help those who are in need of some services. So this amendment would accord the $70 million and bring us back to our 2017 levels.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that the chairperson and the ranking member please understand that my desire is to be of service to our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, if I may engage in a colloquy at this time. You have heard my appeal. My hope is that Congressman Dent and I might be able to work together to do what we can to enhance the services that are needed to provide medical attention for homeless veterans. I am sure that Congressman Dent has seen the evidence of it, and the empirical evidence is available for us to review if we would like to, but I would like as much assistance as we can get.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Dent.

And if I may just say to the ranking member on our side, I greatly appreciate Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz having helped us to bring this to the floor to this extent, and I look forward to working with her as well.

Mr. Chair, the need to help people who are willing to give it all for us is something that we can never overlook, and I am grateful.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the problem with TrumpCare.

The problem with TrumpCare is a too-much-is-not-enough mentality: a too-much-is-not-enough mentality that would cause some to be willing to sacrifice the needy to satiate the insatiable desires of the greedy; a too-much-is-not-enough mentality that would allow some to rob the needy of healthcare to reward the rich with wealthcare--a too-much-is-not- enough mentality.

This too-much-is-not-enough mentality exists at a time, Mr. Speaker, when the very wealthy are doing very well in this country:

The big banks are banking big bucks.

The healthcare industry is quite healthy. In fact, last year the industry's net income was up $13.1 billion. That is 46 percent.

CEOs are doing quite well. The top 10 percent CEOs are raking in millions, annually. Let's look at the number one person on the top 10. This person had an income of $98 million, up 499 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I don't begrudge people from making money. I don't begrudge people from making a lot of money. I do think that they should all pay a fair share of taxes on that money, however. Some of them pay carried interest, which is not the ordinary income tax that other people are paying.

Mr. Speaker, the too-much-is-not-enough mentality not only impacts the way people view healthcare, but it also impacts people who are making minimum wage. Juxtapose the person who made $98 million last year with the person who is making $7.25 an hour.

By the way, all minimum wage workers are making $7.25 an hour except those who are in the service industry, and they make even less. $7.25 an hour, the minimum wage has not been raised in a decade, more than 10 years. CEOs get raises of millions, annually.

Mr. Speaker, the too-much-is-not-enough mentality is keeping wages down, causing those at the top to make more and creating a chasm between the top and the bottom, and the middle as well; and in so doing, we have created a class ceiling--a class ceiling.

Those who are in the working class are not making enough to make ends meet. At $7.25 an hour, you cannot afford to take care of a family. At $7.25 an hour, you can barely manage to take care of your needs, and you cannot afford healthcare.

Those who would take a trillion dollars out of healthcare, those who would reward the rich with billions of dollars as a result, those who would do it so that they can go on to a tax plan where they will cut even more, those who would do this, Mr. Speaker, have a too-much-is- not-enough mentality. It seems that they believe that the poor can do more with less, and that the rich need more to do more.

I refuse to support TrumpCare. I will not support anything developed along the lines of too much is not enough.