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

[Pages H2880-H2882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for 
the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in 
the well of the House of Representatives.
  Each time I am afforded this opportunity, I have tried to savor the 
moment knowing that it is not eternal and knowing that, at some point, 
we will no longer have this preeminent privilege. But I do appreciate 
having the opportunity to serve the people of the Ninth Congressional 
District and to serve my country. I love my country.
  I thank the gentlewoman for what she has done with H. Res. 257. I 
support this resolution, and I would like to compliment the lady for 
what she has done since she has arrived in Congress.

                              {time}  1815

  She has truly hit the ground running. She came from the State house. 
She is a lawyer. She has been an advocate, and she understands the 
issues associated with criminal justice. So I thank her for what she 
has done and what she is doing with this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, it was never intended for the executive branch of the 
government to investigate itself.
  The Framers of the Constitution, in Federalist 65, addressed this. 
Federalist 65, the Federalist Papers.
  I invite people to please read the Federalist Papers. If you can't 
read them all, just read Federalist 65 and 69.
  Some things are made perspicuously clear. One of the things made 
clear is that impeachment is solely within the province of the House of 
Representatives.
  Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America; Jay, 
the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and Hamilton, the first 
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America--these are 
the authors of the Federalist Papers, and they were prophetic with some 
of their writings.
  While I would not agree with all that they did in their lifetimes, I 
will tell you that what they have done with reference to impeachment is 
prophetic, because they understood that at some point you could have a 
President who was unfit to hold office, but who had not committed a 
crime but should be removed from office before the next election 
because of the harm the President is imposing upon society.
  Understanding this, they were in support of Article II, Section 4 of 
the Constitution, which deals with treason, bribery, and other high 
crimes and misdemeanors as the means by which a President can be 
removed from office after having been elected.
  They understood that there might be a time such as this and a 
President such as Trump.
  They understood that we, the Members of this august body, should be 
empowered such that we could take up the cause of the American people. 
Not because we are Democrats, because it is not about Democrats; it is 
about democracy. Not because we are Republicans, because it is not 
about Republicans; it is about the Republic and what Franklin said when 
he called to our attention: You have a Republic if you can keep it.
  It is about maintaining this Republic. They were prophetic. They 
understood that you cannot allow the executive branch to investigate 
itself, because if you allow such to happen, you find yourself with 
what has happened with Mr. Mueller.
  He has investigated, but he cannot hand it over to us because he is 
an agent of the executive branch of government. And, as an agent of the 
executive branch of government, he is required to submit his report to 
the executive branch, a report that is all about the head of the 
executive branch of the government.
  This is why the Framers understood that it was necessary to empower 
another branch of government to do this. How prophetic and how wise 
they were to do so.
  It was not intended that we would outsource this investigation to the 
executive branch, which is, in essence, what has occurred. We have 
allowed the executive branch to assume what is truly the responsibility 
and the duty and the obligation of the House of Representatives.
  This is ours. This is what we must do.
  When there was a Republican administration in this House, I indicated 
that I wouldn't get in the way of that investigation, but I also 
indicated that the House should do its job.
  And if the House is to do its job, it is contemplated that the 
Judiciary Committee would do exactly what the Representative from the 
13th Congressional District in Michigan is doing now and, that is, take 
up the question of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee by way of a 
resolution such as what she has called to the attention of this 
Congress.
  I salute her for doing so because this is what was contemplated by 
the Framers of the Constitution. This is what Madison contemplated, Jay 
contemplated, and Hamilton contemplated.
  And, to give further evidence of what they contemplated, we but only 
have to review the impeachment in 1868 of Andrew Johnson.
  Andrew Johnson was impeached in Article X of the Articles of 
Impeachment against him for speaking ill of Congress.
  There is no requirement that the President commit a crime, that the 
President commit an offense for which he must be found guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt before a President can be impeached.
  Congress determines what the standard is for impeachment. 
Unfortunately, we have allowed what happens on the judicial side of the 
law to be conflated with what happens on the political side of the law.
  The judiciary, or the judicial side, would have a crime. This is what 
Mr. Mueller was investigating, to see if a crime had been committed--a 
crime. And, if a crime is committed, of course the President can be 
impeached for committing a crime.
  But the President can also be impeached if he has not committed a 
crime, but he is doing harm to society. This is the law.
  When we say no person is above the law, we are talking about not only 
the law as it is codified with reference to criminality, but also the 
law as it has been codified such that impeachment can be the punishment 
in the sense that the President would be indicted.
  It is not the same as an indictment, but it is quite similar, and the 
President would then have to face trial in

[[Page H2881]]

the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
  There is no punishment, per se, with this entire process. It is just 
a means by which a President is removed from office. And, if he has 
committed a crime, he can, of course, still be prosecuted for the 
criminal activity.
  So, tonight, we are here to thank the Member for what she has done in 
filing this resolution, H. Res. 257. We are here tonight to acknowledge 
that the Framers of the Constitution contemplated what she has done. 
She is in order.

  We are here tonight to acknowledge that it is now within the hands of 
the Judiciary Committee, this resolution, and it is my prayer that the 
Judiciary Committee would take this resolution and bring it to a vote.
  I believe that it is time for us to do what the Constitution 
contemplates by way of the words of the Framers and by way of what 
Federalist 65 has called to our attention.
  However, I still stand tonight where I stood when I initially took to 
the floor of the House of Representatives and indicated that this 
President should be impeached. I stand where I stood then, and I also 
stand on the premise that, if the Judiciary Committee does not act, any 
Member of this august body can bring impeachment to a vote.
  I stand on this. This is what the rules allow. And as a Member of 
Congress, I have given an assurance that there will be another vote on 
impeachment in the House of Representatives.
  I will do it. I don't like using personal pronouns because my mother 
always said: ``Alexander, whatever you will do, you will do with 
others.''
  But, because of the way the process is codified, I will do it because 
I love my country.
  I will do it because I understand that we have a person who is unfit 
to be President holding this office.
  I will do it because I want to protect the democracy.
  I will do it because I believe in the Republic.
  I will do it because I salute the flag and I believe in liberty and 
justice for all.
  I will do it because I believe that Lincoln was right when he spoke 
of government of the people, by the people, for the people being 
forever a part of our country, our land.
  I will do it because it is the appropriate thing to do at a time such 
as this, with a President such as Trump.
  And finally this, Madam Speaker, I have not suggested that I have 
whipped or would whip, meaning encourage others to vote a certain way. 
I have consistently said you should vote your conscience.
  I still stand by it. Vote your conscience. Vote your conscience, 
knowing that, at some point on the infinite continuum that we call 
time--at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time, there 
will be people who will review our actions through the vista of time.
  And, when they review our actions, the query will be: What did they 
do when they had an opportunity to take up the cause of justice?
  They will want to know what did we do. And the only way they can know 
what we did is for there to be a vote.
  At some point, we have to move beyond talking points to action items. 
The only way to make this an action item is for there to be a vote.
  And those who look through the vista of time, perhaps generations 
unborn, when they look through the vista of time, they will want to see 
the record. And the record will show where we stood when we had the 
opportunity to remove an unfit person from office, an unfit President.
  The record will show where we stood, but, more importantly, it will 
give them some clues as to what was happening in this House at the 
time. It will give them some evidence of where we were.
  And I assure you, Madam Speaker, at some point on this infinite 
continuum, people are going to ask the question: What was wrong with 
them? What was wrong with them?
  They had a President who was separating babies from their mothers at 
the border, with no means of reuniting them.
  Babies are still separated from their parents.
  They will want to know: What was wrong with them? They allowed this?
  They will want to know: How could you decide that you are going to 
take up the cause against persons who make commentary in the House, but 
you won't take up the cause against a President who went so far as to 
say there were some fine people among the bigots, the racists, the 
xenophobes, the homophobes, the Islamophobes, the nativists; among 
those persons who marched and proclaimed ``Jews will not replace us,'' 
persons who said, ``blood and soil.''
  How could you allow this to go unchallenged?
  They will want to know: What was wrong with them? Why would they 
allow such a person to continue in office, a person who demeans the 
country when he demeans its heroes, a person who demeans persons by 
simply deciding that name-calling is more appropriate than debating 
issues.
  And, by the way, calling a person who is a bigot a bigot is not name-
calling. That is properly labeling the actions of a person, the 
behavior of a person.
  And, by the way, for those who may not have paid attention, if you 
have been following these various TV programs, news programs, 
information sources, host after host, persons who are being 
interviewed, have said that the President is a racist. They have said 
that the President is a bigot.
  I understand that it is difficult for some to say. Not for me. Not 
for me. I know what bigotry looks like. I know what racism smells like. 
I know what it sounds like. I know what it tastes like. I suffered 
through it.

                              {time}  1830

  I would not want to see what I had to endure become a part of the 
fiber and fabric of this country ever again. Whenever we see evidence 
of this ugliness rearing its head, we should do what we can to stare it 
down and stop it.
  I stand here tonight believing that we have a duty, a responsibility, 
and an obligation to allow what this Congresswoman has called to our 
attention to move forward. I stand on the Constitution in saying this, 
and I will stand with her. I am proud to be associated with her and 
what she is doing.
  When we do bring this to a vote, my hope is that every Member will 
vote his or her conscience. That is all that I ask, just vote your 
conscience, and let the record reflect where we stood.
  As Dr. King put it, the truest measure of a person is not where the 
person stands in times of comfort and convenience. The truest measure 
of a person is where you stand in times of challenge and controversy.
  These are times of challenge and controversy. The question is, where 
do we stand? The record will show where we stand.
  There are some who will say that this is going to be a hard vote. I 
have a sense of what hard votes are like. I have had to take some hard 
votes since I have been in Congress. I have had to take some hard votes 
and never had a person say thank you for taking that hard vote. I have 
taken my share of hard votes.
  I have some members of the clergy that still have not found favor 
with some of the votes that I have taken, but I took them because it 
was the principled thing to do, because it was the constitutional thing 
to do, because it was not only the right thing to do, but the righteous 
thing to do. So I know what hard votes are like.
  People expect me to take hard votes, and they expect me, after I take 
my hard votes, to go back and convince my constituents that I did the 
right thing. Nobody seeks to protect me from hard votes. I know what 
hard votes are like.
  I understand when people say this would be a hard vote. I understand 
it. But that is why we came. We were elected to take hard votes. If it 
were easy, then we wouldn't be here. Other folk would do the easy 
things. People who get elected to Congress are expected to take hard 
votes, to do that which is difficult.
  Let us understand that the record will reflect the vote. It will give 
people who look through the vista of time some indication as to why we 
are doing what we are doing and have not done what we should have done.
  Madam Speaker, again, I am proud to stand in the well of the Congress 
of the United States of America. I never take for granted this 
preeminent privilege. I will always be grateful to the Speaker

[[Page H2882]]

of the House and all the various officers of this House for permitting 
the time. I am grateful, and I thank them for being as magnanimous, if 
you will, as they are, but also for following the rules and allowing me 
to speak. This is a great opportunity.
  I pray that we who hold public trust will honor the Constitution of 
the United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________