[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 53 (Monday, March 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2453-H2454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I 
rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges 
of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to 
Congress and the American people.
  Whereas, the Emoluments Clause was included in the U.S. Constitution 
for the express purpose of preventing federal officials from accepting 
any ``present, Emolument, Office, or Title . . . from any King, Prince, 
or foreign State'';
  Whereas, in Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton) it is said, ``One 
of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is 
that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption,'' and;
  Whereas, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention specifically 
designed the Emoluments Clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting 
foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the 
period of the Confederation, and;
  Whereas, Article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution states: 
``no person holding any office of profit or trust . . . shall, without 
the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, 
or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign 
State'', and;
  Whereas, in 2009, the Office of Legal Counsel clarified that 
corporations owned or controlled by foreign governments presumptively 
qualify as foreign States under the foreign Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, the word ``emoluments'' means profit, salary, fees, or 
compensation which would include direct payment, as well as other 
benefits, including extension of credit, forgiveness of debt, or the 
granting of rights of pecuniary value, and;
  Whereas, according to The New Yorker, in 2012, The Trump Organization 
entered into a deal with Ziya Mammadov to build the Trump Tower Baku in 
the notoriously corrupt country Azerbaijan in possible violation of the 
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and, by profiting from business with the 
Mammadov family, due to their financial entanglements with the Iran 
Revolutionary Guard may have also violated the Emoluments Clause if 
income from this project continues to flow to The Trump Organization, 
and;
  Whereas, The Trump Organization has deals in Turkey, admitted by the 
President himself during a 2015 Brietbart interview, and when the 
President announced his travel ban, Turkey's President called for 
President Trump's name to be removed from Trump Towers Istanbul, 
according to The Wall Street Journal, and President Trump's company is 
currently involved in major licensing deals for that property which may 
implicate the Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, shortly after election, the President met with the former 
U.K. Independence Party leader, Nigel Farage, to get help to stop 
obstructions of the view from one of his golf resorts in Scotland, and 
according to The New York Times, both of the resorts he owns there are 
promoted by Scotland's official tourism agency, a benefit that may 
violate the Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, at Trump Tower in New York, the Industrial and Commercial 
Bank of China is a large tenant, according to Bloomberg; the United 
Arab Emirates leases space, according to the Abu Dhabi Tourism & 
Culture Authority; and the Saudi Mission to the U.N. makes annual 
payments, according to the New York Daily News, and money from these 
foreign countries goes to the President, and;
  Whereas, according to NPR, in February China gave provisional 
approval for 38 new trademarks for The Trump Organization, which have 
been sought for a decade to no avail, until President Trump won the 
election. This is a benefit the Chinese Government gave to the 
President's businesses in possible violation of the Emoluments Clause, 
and;
  Whereas, the President is part owner of a New York building carrying 
a $950 million loan, partially held by the Bank of China, according to 
The New York Times, when owing the Government of China by the extension 
of loans and credits by a foreign State to an officer of the United 
States would violate the Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, NPR reported that the Embassy of Kuwait held its 600 guest 
National Day celebration at Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., last 
month, proceeds to Trump, and;
  Whereas, according to The Washington Post, the Trump International

[[Page H2454]]

Hotel in Washington, D.C., has hired a ``director of diplomatic sales'' 
to generate high-priced business among foreign leaders and diplomatic 
delegations, and;
  Whereas, according to his 2016 candidate filing with the Federal 
Election Commission, the President has 564 financial positions in 
companies located in the United States and around the world, and;
  Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the Office of 
Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership 
stake in his businesses, and;
  Whereas, the Director of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics 
said that the President's plan to transfer his business holdings to a 
trust managed by family members is ``meaningless'' and ``does not meet 
the standards that . . . every President in the past four decades has 
met'', and;
  Whereas, in the United States' system of checks and balances, 
Congress has a responsibility to hold the executive branch of 
government to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the public 
interest is placed first and the Constitution is adhered to, and;
  Whereas, the House Judiciary Committee has the first responsibility 
among the committees of the House to see that elements of our 
Constitution are adhered to and, in furtherance of that responsibility, 
Judiciary Committee members have historically utilized fact-finding and 
research prior to formal hearings, and;
  Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because 
they contain highly instructive information including whether the filer 
paid taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom, 
whether they have made any charitable donations, and whether they have 
taken advantage of tax loopholes and that such information would be 
material to members of the Judiciary Committee as research is 
undertaken on whether President Trump is in violation of the Emoluments 
Clause of the Constitution, and;
  Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns would be an 
effective means for the President to provide evidence either refuting 
or confirming claims of violations of the Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, the President's tax returns are likely to be essential as 
members of the Judiciary Committee work to research potential 
violations of the Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, the chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Joint 
Committee on Taxation, and Senate Finance Committee have the authority 
to request the President's tax returns under section 6103 of the Tax 
Code, and this power is an essential tool in learning whether the 
President may be in violation of the Emoluments Clause, and;
  Whereas, questions involving constitutional functions and the House's 
constitutionally granted powers have been recognized as valid questions 
of the privileges of the House.
  Resolved, that the House of Representatives shall:
  One, immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. 
Trump for tax years 2000 through 2015 for review by Congress, as part 
of a determination as to whether the President is in violation of the 
Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the 
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence 
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after 
the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentlewoman from California will appear in the Record at this point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________