March 27, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 53 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H2879-H2880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I grew up in the district I serve where I 
have seen firsthand the results of the failing to hold those in power 
accountable to the laws of the land. From corporate polluters who 
continue to violate the Clean Air Act with no real enforcement to stop 
the violations that hurt our public health, I have also seen firsthand 
a megabillionaire who directly violated Federal and State processes 
that resulted in thousands of trucks to rumble through our local 
neighborhoods where one in five children have asthma.
  Do you know why those in power looked the other way? Because of 
political influence on my colleagues who then became conflicted.
  This is why I rise today to put forward H. Res. 257, which creates a 
transparent process to ensure the protection of our democracy. That 
ensures that we don't have a lawless society that results in 
irreparable harm to the American people.
  Doing nothing when we are seeing a blatant disregard of the United 
States Constitution and our ethical norms is dangerous. No one, Madam 
Speaker, including the President of the United States, is above the 
law.
  I know many have focused on actions that were conducted prior to his 
taking the oath of office, and that is important. However, as 
critically important are the actions by the President after he swore to 
uphold the United States Constitution before all of us.
  He is not a CEO, Madam Speaker, anymore, but a public servant who is 
held accountable not to shareholders and investors, but the actual 
American people, real people, people who expect all of us to follow the 
laws.
  In the 2 years since he took office, President Trump racked up more 
than 1,400 conflicts of interest involving the government, those trying 
to influence it and The Trump Organization, according to a report 
released by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
  President Trump used the Presidency to enrich himself by repeatedly 
promoting his businesses as extensions of his administration. Political 
allies, wealthy donors, special interests, and foreign governments have 
adopted a key tactic of patronizing Trump's businesses to garner favor 
with the Trump administration.
  Here are some of the key findings from CREW's tracking of Trump's 
conflicts of interest:
  President Trump made 118 visits to his properties in his second year 
in office, bringing his 2-year total to 281 visits to properties he 
still profits from while serving as President of the United States.
  In his second year in office, President Trump and other White House 
staff promoted Trump businesses on at least 87 occasions. More than 150 
political committees, including campaigns and party committees, have 
spent nearly $5 million at Trump businesses since he became President. 
At least 13 special interest groups lobbied the White House since 
Trump's inauguration, some for the first time, around the same time 
they also patronized a Trump property.
  At least three foreign governments held events at Trump properties 
during Trump's second year in office. Two of those countries did so 
after holding similar events elsewhere in previous years.
  Not only has President Trump still refused to divest from his 
businesses, he seems to have doubled down by reinforcing the idea that 
The Trump Organization is an extension of the Trump administration.
  These offenses must be investigated.
  In total, CREW found more than 900 conflicts in the second year of 
the Trump administration. This presents a clear picture of a Presidency 
used to turn a profit and the President's businesses serving at points 
of access to the corridors of power.
  This report shows that special interests, foreign governments, and 
political allies continue to pour money into Trump's bank accounts 
while the American public is left in the dark about whether or not the 
President's policy decisions are made in the best interests of our 
country, or is it in the best interests of the President's bottom line, 
benefiting himself personally.
  We have been sent here to legislate. I am thinking about the historic 
For the People Act we passed right here in this Chamber, the gun reform 
package we passed, legislation to protect our lands, to increase and 
strengthen healthcare for Americans, and much more.
  I am proud of my first bills. One protects our public health in 
regards to petroleum coke exposure, and the other, which has a wide 
range of support, would prohibit the use of credit scores by the auto 
insurance industry.
  However, Madam Speaker, none of these bills is free from the harm 
that comes from the current administration and the President of the 
United States not complying with the clauses of the United States 
Constitution. When these conflicts and direct violations to the 
Emoluments Clause are not investigated, we set a dangerous precedent 
that those issues we passed in this Chamber are not important.
  I think about the recent announcement that T-Mobile and Sprint would 
like the Federal Government to approve a merger between the two 
companies. In the same breath, T-Mobile spent close to $200,000 at the 
D.C. Trump hotel. This is what we call an upgraded version of pay to 
play, and it dangerously corrupts our democracy.
  When President Truman sidestepped the Constitution and went to war, 
every sitting President had done the same. One of the first major 
challenges to the War Powers Act came in 1981 when President Reagan 
deployed military personnel to El Salvador without consulting or 
submitting a report to Congress.
  In 1999, President Clinton continued a bombing campaign in Kosovo 
beyond

[[Page H2880]]

the 60-day limit cited in the law. A more recent War Powers Act dispute 
arose in 2011 when President Barack Obama initiated a military action 
in Libya without congressional authorization.
  You see, Madam Speaker, when we do nothing, we set a precedent and 
allow it to become the norm. I can't stress enough how dangerous this 
is to the core of our democracy.
  This will not be the last billionaire CEO who runs for President who 
will attempt to not divest from his business interests.
  Now, what we have witnessed from this administration are acts that 
could very well be impeachable offenses outside of the scope of the 
Mueller investigation. We have a duty in this Chamber to inquire about 
these acts, to investigate them, to find out if there was any 
wrongdoing, and to seek accountability if it has been found.
  That is why, today, I have introduced a resolution that calls on the 
Judiciary Committee to inquire into these activities that may be 
impeachable offenses. There are serious pieces of evidence out there, 
many that have come through the various committees of this body, in the 
media, and things within the public eye. An investigation will take a 
look at all of those things with the question: Are these impeachable 
offenses? Is our President acting above the rule of law?
  As Congress, we have a job to ensure that is exactly what is not 
happening. If, at the end, it gets the President to comply, then we 
have done our job. If the President doesn't, then we move forward and, 
at the very least, put any future President on notice: Congress will 
hold you accountable and will require you to divest in your businesses.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________