[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4054-H4058]
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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, and I do so with
the love of my country within my heart, and I do so this evening
because I believe that no one is above the law. No one.
We find this to be the case in our great country: If you are a person
who exceeds the speed limit, you are breaking the law. If you are
caught exceeding the speed limit, there is a price to pay. No one is
above the law.
If you are a person who happens to, in the State of Texas, decide
that you are going to go through the supermarket and pick and choose
certain things that you would like to sample, at some point, if you
partake of more than is reasonable, you will be charged with grazing.
It is a crime in the State of Texas to graze, to take more than what is
reasonable in having a sample of a grape. No one is above the law.
People are prosecuted in the State of Texas for grazing.
In the State of Texas, a good many persons have been prosecuted for
not causing their children to go to school. Thwarting public attendance
in school was a law in the State of Texas. People paid fines for not
having their children in school.
The list of laws is too long to ever mention in a statement such as
this, but the point is, no one is above the law. There are laws that
deal with persons who commit felonies and persons who commit
misdemeanors. When you break these laws, you are prosecuted.
You are not allowed to break the law with impunity, and you are not
allowed to do it with immunity. No one is above the law.
I believe that this is a part of the very hallmark of our criminal
justice system in this great country. We believe that no one is above
the law and that no one is beneath the law, meaning that the law should
apply equally to all. Every person ought to be treated the same when it
comes to the very bedrock principle of whether or not someone is above
the law. No one is in this country.
However, we find ourselves with a unique circumstance now. We have
the highest office holder in the executive branch, the chief executive
officer, if you will, who has refused to cooperate with lawful
investigations of the Congress.
He refused to cooperate in this sense. He has said to witnesses they
should not appear and give testimony in a lawful investigation. He
indicated that subpoenas will not be answered. They were issued
pursuant to lawful investigations.
No one is above the law. If you are not above the law, then if you
are called upon to testify, you must testify. If you have some document
within your possession and there has been a request for it by way of a
subpoena, then you have to produce it. No one is above the law.
Well, we currently have a circumstance where the chief executive
officer is at odds with the legislative branch. This places the
legislative and the executive at odds with each other. They are in a
stalemate, if you will.
When this occurs, you have one branch of government refusing to
cooperate with lawful requests of another branch, the executive
refusing the request of the legislative, then you have a standoff, as I
indicated. No one is above the law.
This, in my opinion, creates a constitutional crisis. Now, there are
people who would differ with me. But remember this: What they are
expressing is what I am expressing, an opinion. This is my opinion.
They have their opinion. There is no hard and fast definition for a
constitutional crisis.
There are some who would contend that to have a constitutional crisis
in this area, the subpoenas that have been issued would have to go to
court. They would have to be litigated. At some point, a court might
say to the executive branch of the government that it must obey the
subpoena issued by Congress, the lawful subpoena.
If the executive officer declines to obey the subpoena, it would be
concluded that you have a constitutional crisis because the chief
executive officer is not only disobeying Congress, he is disobeying a
third branch of the government, the judicial branch, the judiciary. So
you would then have a constitutional crisis.
I differ. It is my opinion that you have a constitutional crisis when
the
[[Page H4055]]
chief executive officer declines and refuses to obey a lawful request
from the legislative branch. I think that when you get to the point
that the President of the United States, or the chief executive
officer, refuses an order from the court, you have a constitutional
crisis, but you also have a collapse.
That is when you have gone beyond a constitutional crisis. It is a
collapse. The crisis leads up to that point. Once this happens and the
President refuses to obey the judiciary as well as the legislative, you
have a collapse.
Right now, we are in a constitutional crisis. In this constitutional
crisis, we have a circumstance that has developed that we cannot
tolerate. You see, it is the legislative branch that has the duty to
provide the check on the executive branch such that we maintain the
balance of power. When the legislative branch seeks to check the
executive branch and it absolutely refuses to cooperate, when this
occurs, the system of checks and balances is being ignored.
The system of checks and balances was put in place by the Framers of
the Constitution to prevent the concentration of power in any one
branch of government. To prevent the executive branch from having a
concentration of power, the legislative branch was given this ability
to check it.
When the legislative branch cannot get cooperation, the ultimate
check that it has is impeachment. The legislative branch prevents the
concentration of power by saying to the chief executive officer: Mr.
Chief Executive Officer, you are out of balance. You are assuming more
authority than the Constitution accords you. Because you cannot do
this, we, the Members of the legislative branch, can bring you before
the bar of justice. We can call on you to answer for your failure to
honor lawful investigative requests of the legislative branch. So we
bring you before the bar of justice, and that is called impeachment.
But it is important to remember that the Framers of the Constitution
put the system of checks and balances in place to prevent a
concentration of power. Why would we want to prevent a concentration of
power? Because if the chief executive officer, the President, is
allowed to have power concentrated beyond what the Constitution
accords, meaning there are no guardrails, the President can do whatever
he chooses.
The President then becomes an officer who is and can be above the
law. He is above the law in this country. No person is above the law.
The checks and balances are in place to prevent the President from
being above the law.
If we don't enforce this system of checks and balances, we then allow
the concentration of power, and we no longer have the form of
government that the Framers intended and that we have enjoyed for these
many years.
We would have a monarchy. We would have a monarch. A monarch has the
power to do whatever he chooses. The monarch is the law.
We never intended in this country for the chief executive officer,
the President, to be the law. We intended for the President to enforce
the law by and through the various agencies that are under his domain,
if you will, but not to be the law itself, not to decide what the law
is on any given day, not to decide that he will obey the law when he
chooses. No one is above the law.
The Mueller report is a good indication of how the law is viewed. The
Mueller report indicates that there are many instances where, but for a
rule that the Justice Department adheres to, the President would be
indicted--but for this rule.
You won't find the words stated exactly as I have stated them, but
that is the essence of what is stated in the Mueller report as it
relates to obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller was assigned the
responsibility of looking into certain aspects of the campaign that the
President participated in before being elected and to ascertain whether
or not there was some collusion, obstruction of justice, if you will.
{time} 1815
The Mueller conclusion is that the President is not exonerated when
it comes to obstruction of justice and that the President but for these
rules that they have, this rule that says you don't indict a sitting
President, the President would likely be indicted. I say, likely be,
because Mr. Mueller didn't say he would be, but he did say that the
President wasn't exonerated when it comes to obstruction of justice.
So the President is not above the law, and if the Justice Department
is not going to prosecute, then where is the bar of justice?
It is here. It is right here in this room; this very august body that
we call the Congress of the United States of America. We then have the
responsibility. If the Justice Department is not going to pursue the
President, then it is left to the Congress. This is the last
alternative for ensuring that the checks and balances are maintained
and that the President is not above the law.
Who agrees with the Mueller Report as I have expressed it?
Some 800 former prosecutors have indicated that if this were any
other person who violated the law as they see it in the Mueller Report,
that this person would be prosecuted. They go on to say that it is
critical that obstruction of justice be prosecuted because if you do
not, then what you are sending is a message to people that they can
interfere with lawful investigations. They don't say it in those exact
words, but that is the import of the message that they do share with
us, some 800 prosecutors, Federal prosecutors, persons who understand
this law.
Many of them have said that there is more than enough evidence here
to prosecute anyone other than the President. But they have been
respectful, and they understand that there is a rule in the Justice
Department--the Office of Legal Counsel has promulgated it--that
indicates that a sitting President won't be prosecuted.
If the sitting President is not going to be prosecuted, then these
800 lawyers are saying to us that the bar of justice has to be the
place where the President will be brought, and that bar of justice is
here in the House of Representatives. No one is above the law.
We now recognize that we are some 34 days since the Mueller Report
was made public. This is the number of days that the Trump
administration has been above the law, some 34 days.
Why?
Because we have one official in the administration who has refused to
honor a lawful request by the Ways and Means Committee to produce
certain records, certain records belonging to the President, tax
records--refused to produce those records in contravention of the law.
Another official, the person who heads the Justice Department, is
declining to respond to requests of the Judiciary Committee.
No one is above the law. So we now have not only the President
refusing, but the persons who are part of the administration are
refusing. Some 34 days now I would say the administration itself has
been above the law.
These are the days since the Mueller Report has been released to the
public, the number of days the Trump administration has been above the
law.
I love my country. I never came to Congress to give the speech I am
giving tonight. I didn't come to Congress to take on the most powerful
person on the planet Earth. I find myself standing here because I
believe that you cannot see that this moral imperative exists to make
sure that the law is followed and treated the same as it relates to all
people and then ignore it. I just don't see how you can do it. I
cannot. I refuse to ignore the fact that the President has obstructed
justice.
The President is not above the law. No one is. I will not allow
political expediency, this notion that rather than deal with this now,
let's just wait and let the next election determine the fate of a
person who has breached the law in the highest office of the land, I
might add. I refuse to accept it. I just cannot.
The President is not above the law. I didn't come to the Congress to
say this, but I love my country, and I see what this is doing to the
country, when we have the chief executive officer saying to law
enforcement officers--and he did say what I am about to tell you--that
you don't have to be nice when you arrest people.
What message are you sending to them in terms of what their behavior
should be when they take people into their care, custody, and control?
You are saying to them you can break the law.
What kind of message do you send when you are at a campaign rally and
[[Page H4056]]
you say to people: Don't worry about how you treat them; if they arrest
you, I will take care of it?
That wasn't the exact language, but that was the message. This is the
chief executive officer. This is the person who is the standard-bearer
for the United States of America--the standard-bearer, the person who
carries the torch of freedom for the United States of America.
What are you saying when you say that you are a person who would
support the breaking of the law and then you would support defending
the person who breaks the law?
You are saying you are above the law and you believe it, and you are
saying you are willing to take care of those who would break the law as
well.
We have seen circumstances in this country that I never thought we
would see: a President sending messages and signals indicating that if
you side with me, I have the magic wand. If you side with me, I have
the power to erase your offenses, your crimes. It is not really
erasing, but I am communicating that it is a pardon. The President has
this power, and he sends signals: break the law, but worry not, I have
your back.
Is this what we expect from the highest office in the land in the
greatest country in the world?
Are we going to allow ourselves to be brought into this complicity
that we see so many people succumbing to?
I don't think so. I will not. We cannot allow ourselves to become
complicit. We cannot allow ourselves to become a party to what is going
on here. The mere fact that we stand silent on it, as Dr. King put it:
at some point, silence in and of itself becomes betrayal.
The silence is betraying our country, it is betraying the
Constitution, and it is betraying the Republic. The silence--no one is
above the law.
When will we cease to be silent on the greatest issue confronting us
at this time?
The Republic is at stake. It is not about Republicans, it is about
the Republic and whether we will maintain it. It is not about
Democrats, it is about our democracy. This is bigger than all of us. It
is bigger. It is bigger than the President. It is about the country we
love and whether we are going to allow one person to destroy the
concept of no one being above the law.
It is bigger than we are, and the truth is it has now become an issue
that is about Congress. This issue is now about Congress. It is about
whether the Congress of the United States of America is going to
fulfill its responsibility. It is about whether the Congress of the
United States of America will see and say--see that the President is
obstructing and say that the President is obstructing.
I marvel at the number of Members of Congress who have said that the
President is obstructing justice, who have said that the President has
committed impeachable offenses, impeachable acts, but notwithstanding
having said it will not say that the President ought to be impeached.
There are some who say that he should be impeached as a matter of fact
and still won't move to impeach him.
The President is not above the law. We are the law, the Members of
Congress, 435 of us. We have been given an awesome responsibility. It
is awesome. I don't take it lightly. It is not something that I think
everybody should have the responsibility accorded to them because there
are a good many people who don't believe that you should prosecute a
President. They think that if the President commits a crime, well, that
is the President. I am not one of them.
They think that you have to commit a crime, by the way, before you
can be impeached, a good many people. I am not one of them. The
President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. It is the
harm that he causes society that the Framers of the Constitution
addressed in Federalist 65, the words of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton.
The President is not above the law. We in this body are now the
issue. The issue is: Will Congress do what the Constitution has given
us as the means by which we can deal with a chief executive officer who
is breaking the law, who sees himself, apparently by virtue of his
behavior, as being above the law?
This is what Congress has to look into. This is what Congress has to
bring before the bar of justice, this whole notion that the President
is not above the law.
So let's just take a moment now and talk about the process of
impeachment because a good many people don't understand. Impeachment
does not mean that a President is removed from office. Impeachment is
sort of like an indictment. It is not the same but very much similar to
an indictment. The Members of the House of Representatives serve as a
body very similar to a grand jury. It is not the same, but it is
similar to a grand jury. The Members of the House of Representatives
determine whether or not a President should be impeached. They do so
with a vote, a majority of the House voting to impeach, and the
President is impeached.
The President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Andrew
Johnson was impeached in 1868. Article 10 of the articles of
impeachment against him for a high misdemeanor that was not a crime--a
misdemeanor is a misdeed, aside from being a minor criminal offense it
is also a misdeed. He was impeached for this misdeed, and we here in
this body can impeach any President for misdeeds.
So if the body impeaches, it doesn't mean that the President is
removed from office. It simply means that the President must now go to
trial in the Senate. There is no requirement in the Constitution for
the House to have to investigate the Mueller Report. The Mueller Report
has been shared with us. There is enough evidence in that report to
impeach the President. The Mueller Report has evidence shared by virtue
of talking to witnesses who gave their testimony under the penalty of
perjury. We can use that as the reason--that report--to send this to
the Senate where a trial will take place.
Remember, impeachment is sort of like an indictment--not the same but
similar. It goes to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
would preside over that trial--the Chief Justice.
In so doing, the House will have persons called managers. These
managers would act as prosecutors. They would bring evidence before the
Senate for the Senate to act upon. The Senate acts upon the evidence.
The Chief Justice is there to make sure certain rules are followed. For
example, if the House prosecutors, the managers, if they would like to
call a witness, the Chief Justice will then be there to assist the
process to get that witness before the Senate.
There is a trial. Witnesses are called. Subpoenas can be issued, and
you don't have to meander through some lower courts, inferior courts,
because all courts, when it comes to the impeachment of the President,
are inferior to the Senate when it sits in trial of the President.
{time} 1830
They are all inferior, all of the courts.
So you have the Chief Justice there to make his ruling. All of this
is done before the public. There will be a trial. All of these
subpoenas that are not being honored, all of the witnesses that are
refusing to testify, take them before the Senate. Call them; have them
sworn; have them give their testimony; and let the world hear and see.
There is a desire to have a trial before the trial in the House, to
have a trial in the sense that witnesses come and appear and are a part
of an investigation. That is not, in fact, the kind of trial that you
think of when you think of the word ``trial,'' but in a sense, we are
having the witnesses come in and give their testimony. There is a
desire to do this.
To be very honest with you, I am not antithetical to the idea, but I
do understand that, if the witnesses are not coming, if the subpoenas
are not being honored, then the option left to us is to impeach and
have that trial in the Senate, where they will have to come. Subpoenas
will have to be honored. That is the means by which we maintain the
system of checks and balances when the President refuses to perform as
expected under the Constitution--as a matter of fact, as required under
the Constitution.
So, given that the President is not following the norms and not
following the law and eventually we could take this through the
inferior courts--they are inferior to the Senate when it sits
[[Page H4057]]
in trial of the President, because that is the ultimate court related
to issues related to the President.
These things can meander through the inferior courts. They are not
inferior in the sense that they are less than efficient and effective
at what they do; they are just inferior to this impeachment trial when
the President has been impeached, the trial to determine whether or not
he should be removed from office. Impeachment doesn't remove the
President from office.
But these subpoenas and all of these issues can go through these
courts. No one knows how long it will take, but everybody
prognosticates, people who know and who are supposed to know, that it
can take months. It can take months, which means that we will, at some
point, engage in paralysis analysis.
Dr. King called it the paralysis of analysis, but analysis paralysis,
meaning this: We will have done all that we can in these courts to try
to bring the President to justice, get the witnesses necessary to bring
the President to justice because he has committed these impeachable
acts, and at some point, you will get so close to an election that
someone will say: Well, let's not do this. Let's just wait until the
next election.
We will have been paralyzed going through the courts such that we
won't get to the issues in time, and, as a matter of fact, it could be
after the next election before some of the courts will rule. We just
don't know. But those who prognosticate say that it will be months.
One would think that maybe there can be an expedited process, but the
courts will determine whether this will be the case.
So, when you have all of this and you are confronting all of these
things, you have to ask yourself: Will the House of Representatives do
its job?
And for those who are saying, well, you have to have bipartisan
support, I would love to see bipartisan support, but there is no
requirement for it in the Constitution.
As a matter of fact, Jay, Hamilton, Madison, they prognosticated that
you would not have unanimity. You won't have the bipartisanship that
you are looking for. They said it would be a time of strife. They
indicated that people would separate along party lines.
Read Federalist 65, not a long read. Read it. You will see. They
prognosticated that there would be divisions. So to say you have got to
have the Republican Party on board before the Democratic Party can do
its job is incorrect--not required.
And, by the way, history is not going to be kind. It is not going to
be kind. History is not going to be kind to us. History is going to
cause a lot of reputations to be soiled. Those who look through the
vista of time are not going to side with us the way we have friendships
and relationships siding with us now.
History is not going to be kind to Democrats or Republicans. History
is going to present us as people who saw an injustice in the highest
office of the land and refused to do our jobs.
It won't be kind to us. Reputations are going to be tarnished. People
who will be saluted and proclaimed heroes today who were just waiting
to do the right thing at the right time, history is not going to be
kind to them. There are too many things on record that they have
already said. And there are too many people who will go back through
these records, videos of what they have said.
They can walk it back now, and they can have friendships now that
will be of assistance to them, but history is not going to be kind to
them.
But there is a means by which we can bring ourselves back in proper
alignment with the Constitution. It is called impeachment. This is what
we can do, and it is never too late to get on the right side of
history.
There are many people in this House who are on the wrong side of
history, wrong side of history. The right side of politics, as they see
it. I would rather be on the right side of history and the wrong side
of politics.
So these persons who are now on the wrong side of history, my hope is
that they will do as I see many of my colleagues doing now, and they
are coming forward and they are acknowledging that enough is enough.
Impeachment is a solution that has to be pursued.
The question no longer is who is going to be the first to engage in
this notion that we have to bring the President before the bar of
justice in the House of Representatives. This is not the question.
The question now is who will be the last person to say we must do it,
because there seems to be a momentum building. There seems to be a
momentum building that is going to cause some people who would have
made history to be made by history.
History can make people, and people can make history. There are some
people who are going to be proclaimed by our contemporaries now as
having made history, but the truth is that history will make them.
History will make them do what they should do and should have done.
They are going to have to face history. Maybe not right away, but, I
assure you, time always tells. The truth is known, and history always
judges.
We are going to be judged, my friends. We all are. We are going to be
judged. So why don't we just get on the right side of history now and
salvage some of the reputation that we have?
They don't have to lose their entire reputation. They don't have to
become adamant about this. They have made their point. Let it go. Get
on the right side of history. We know where this is going. It is just a
matter of time.
There will be additional votes on impeachment right here on this
floor of the House of Representatives. Be on the right side of history
for our children, for our grandchildren, for our great-grandchildren,
for unborn generations. Get on the right side of history.
Yes, history will have made them, but they will have made the right
decision.
History makes people; people make history. Either way, be on the
right side of history. Don't find yourself on the wrong side of history
when you hold yourself out to be a person who adheres to moral
authority, the moral imperative to do the right thing. Be on the right
side of history.
I have heard people say that the soul of the country is at risk. I
concur. But I also say this: Before the soul of the country goes, the
soul of the House of Representatives will have gone, the soul of the
House of Representatives, the very soul that we have in our hands, that
has the moral authority, the moral imperative, to go forward and not
allow political expediency to jeopardize our duty to do that which the
Constitution affords us the opportunity to do if we have but only the
will to do it.
This House is now on trial. The House of Representatives is on trial
in the court of public opinion. Some would say: Well, the court is not
unanimously opposed. Some 40-plus percent of persons say that
impeachment is appropriate.
The public is here today and there tomorrow. The public has no duty
to stay in one place all the time. We are looking at a snapshot in
time, and the public opinion will change. It does.
When Nixon was first brought before the attention of the Senate, as
they were investigating, public opinion was not such that it would call
for his impeachment then. Public opinion changes.
I have a great example--unrelated to impeachment, but a great
example.
I remember when we had to vote on what has been called the
``bailout.'' I remember the calls to my office. People knew that we
were about to, as they saw it, bail out the banks, and the calls were
very strong.
People called in in large numbers, saying: Don't you vote to bail out
those banks. Don't you do it. If you do it--there was at least one
caller, probably more, who said--we will run you out of town.
Well, I remember standing in the back of the Chamber, and as I stood
there, after having cast my vote against the bailout, I saw the votes
go up and the stock market go down.
And having done what I thought was the appropriate thing pursuant to
the requests of my constituents, I could not wait to hear what the
response would be the next day.
The response the next day was: What is wrong with you? Don't you see
what you have done to my 401(k)? What is wrong with you? We are going
to run you out of town.
[[Page H4058]]
I learned a lesson about public opinion. Public opinion can be in one
place today and in an entirely different place tomorrow.
We should do what we believe is the right thing based upon what our
conscience dictates. That is what I do.
I assure you, this is a question of conscience for me, and I am going
to follow my conscience, and I will have done the right thing.
Dr. King said there are times when you have to do that which is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. You do it because it is right.
I am going to do the right thing because conscience dictates that
this is the right thing to do.
Madam Speaker, 34 days the President, the administration, is above
the law--34 days.
But there is one other thing. There are some things that are
indelible, some things that you can't get out of your mind, some things
that you just can't reconcile within yourself.
This baby--and we have all seen this picture, or a good many of us
have--crying, being separated from a parent--babies--at the border. I
don't know the people. I know that they are part of the same race that
I am a part of, the human race. I know that I have a kinship and a
relationship with them.
For our executive office to promulgate a policy, produce a policy
that separates babies from their parents and not have a means by which
they can be reunited is sinful.
Babies separated from their parents and no means of reuniting them in
place at the time you make this separation?
{time} 1845
This is indelible in my mind. There are many other things to think
about, but this I think about a lot, how we have treated people who are
coming to this country who mean us no harm but who are trying to escape
harm's way. I cannot divorce myself from it.
I don't know them. I just know that they are human beings.
I know that there is a crisis at the border. I think we have to deal
with it. I want to deal with the border crisis. But I don't think
separating children from their parents, as we have done it, is a part
of the solution.
I think that persons who would do this are victims. Those Border
Patrol officers are victims themselves for what they have to do. Many
of them, they don't want to do some of the things that they are being
forced to do. They, too, are victims.
But it started at the top. It started at the top with a belief that
somehow this would deter people from coming, people who are fleeing
harm's way.
I only say to people as it relates to me. I say to myself, but for
the grace of God, I could be one of these people. I was just fortunate
enough to be born in this country, in a country where there are great
opportunities. But for the grace of God, it could be me.
Why would I treat someone with this level of indignity? But for the
grace of God, it could be me.
I refuse to let this go. I believe that this, too, is a part of the
overall rationale for impeachment.
Madam Speaker, this is our watch. This is the watch that has been
afforded us. To every woman and man, a watch is given, and this is our
watch.
We can do as best we can to reconcile in our minds that this is okay,
that it is all right. But in our hearts, we can't reconcile it. The
mind can reconcile it, but the heart cannot.
My heart won't let this be reconciled. In my mind, it is indelible.
I say that, on my watch, I want the Record to show that I took a
stand. Even when I had to stand alone, I took a stand. It is better to
stand alone than not stand at all.
But there are others who are standing, and I believe there will be
many more, one of whom happens to be on the opposite side of the aisle.
I thank him for having courage.
I know what is going to happen. He is going to be ridiculed, but
don't let that become the final word. When the pages of history are
properly written, he will be vindicated. He will be vindicated. I
assure him, my dear brother, he will be vindicated.
I don't know him. I have never encouraged him to do anything. Nobody
can say that he and I have any kind of friendship, really, other than I
believe that all of us have collegiality and that we ought to be
friendly with each other.
But he is going to be vindicated. Stay strong. People are going to
say ugly things. He may even get threats. But stay strong, because he
is on the right side of history.
More importantly, he is on the right side of righteousness. The right
side of righteousness, what a great place to be.
Don't let the head convince you that the heart is wrong. The heart
speaks to the soul, to your very being. The head speaks to those who
would listen to you. Let your heart speak to you.
Madam Speaker, I pray that we, in this House, will do that which the
Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution have given us the
opportunity to do in a time such as this with a President such as
Trump.
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.
____________________