[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 104 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4999-H5004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SEVEN FACTORS IMPEDING IMPEACHMENT

  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. It is a 
preeminent privilege to stand here and address this august body--to 
address those who are within the sound of my voice would probably be 
more appropriate--and those who are onlookers by way of various means 
of telecommunications. It is an honor and a privilege to do so, and I 
am grateful to the leadership of this House for extending and allowing 
the privilege. I believe that it is one of the great honors of being a 
Congressperson, to be able to stand and address the Nation, if you 
will.
  So tonight, as a Member of this body, it is my honor to speak on a 
topic very near and dear to my heart and the hearts of a good many 
Americans. I would like to talk about some of the current factors that 
are impeding impeachment.
  I have mnemonic notes that I will refer to from time to time so as to 
address seven different topics that are factors currently impeding 
impeachment.
  The first that I shall address is the belief by many that not enough 
bipartisanship exists as it relates to impeachment, not enough persons 
from both sides of the aisle, and, more specifically, not enough 
persons who are representative of the Republican Party.
  There is this belief that impeachment must be an effort that is 
bipartisan, and it must be to some significant amount of 
bipartisanship. That amount has not been announced, so it is hard to 
say what the significant amount of bipartisanship is that is being 
sought.
  But I think that at this point, so as to address the question of 
bipartisanship, which I believe in, would hope for--I think that 
bipartisanship is a wonderful thing. But to address it, I believe we 
will have to go to Federalist 65.
  For those who are interested, the Federalist Papers consists of some 
85 articles that were published between 1787 and 1788, published by the 
first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay. He was also 
assisted by the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. 
And, of course, the third part of this group of persons was Madison, 
the fourth President of the United States.
  These persons, the three of them, the trio, were to, if you will, 
present reasons to the country why the Constitution should be ratified; 
and in presenting reasons for ratification, they published Federalist 
65.
  Federalist 65 explains what impeachment is all about. It does a 
little bit more than just explains what it is about. It explains what 
one might expect, what we might expect if impeachment is sought.
  And I must say, at this point, that these three Framers of the 
Constitution were prophetic, absolutely persons who could see into the 
future, one might think, because they prognosticated what we are having 
to concern ourselves with currently in terms of what will happen among 
the people and in society should we move toward impeachment.
  Prophetic--they had their flaws; they were not perfect; but on this 
issue, they seemed to have been prophetic, because they prognosticated 
that at a time such as this, there would be division, that you would 
have parties separating in their own corners, if you will, that the 
people among us in society, that they would have very hard opinions; 
that people would sometimes base their opinions upon the circumstances, 
and others, just based upon the knowledge that they might have of the 
person who is being impeached.
  They prognosticated that this would not be a time of great unity, 
that it is more likely to be a time of division. And they knew, 
however, that the Constitution could survive this.
  The Constitution survived the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. 
It was rancorous; there was a lot of divisiveness; but the Constitution 
survived. The Constitution is capable of surviving it, and the people, 
more importantly, are capable of surviving. And society is capable of 
surviving, which means the country can survive impeachment.
  But it is there for a reason. It is there because there is a belief 
that, from time to time, you may have one

[[Page H5000]]

holding public trust in the highest office of the land, the Chief 
Executive Officer, known as the President. The Chief Executive Officer 
may engage in conduct that would cause the trust in the Chief Executive 
Officer to be assumed less than what it should be.
  The Chief Executive Officer might breach his trust that the public 
has in him. The Chief Executive Officer would do harm to society, and 
in doing harm to society, the Framers of the Constitution concluded 
that there should be a means by which the Chief Executive Officer could 
be removed, and this, of course, would be impeachment.
  Impeachment is not something that anyone relishes. We don't seek 
impeachment. It is sometimes forced upon us, something that you have to 
do if you truly believe that no one is above the law.
  Let's look at some of the historic impeachment cases. There are but 
two: Johnson in 1868, and Clinton in 1998. And in both of these, the 
parties were separated. There was not a moment when the Republicans and 
Democrats decided: Yes, this is what we must do, and we will unite and 
get it done.
  Andrew Johnson was not impeached, and the impeachment failed by one 
vote.
  President Clinton was not impeached, but there was not this rush of 
Democrats to support Republicans to impeach President Clinton. It just 
didn't happen.
  So an expectation of national unity is probably setting the standard 
so high that we may not ever impeach.
  The Framers understood that there might not be this unity, probably 
wouldn't be, and prognosticated that unity would not exist in 
Federalist 65. So we are setting the bar pretty high when we decide 
this must be done.
  By the way, no one can impose that standard upon us. That is a 
standard that we can accept, but it doesn't have to be a standard for 
the Members who would vote for impeachment. That is absolutely not the 
case. There is no one person who can impose such a standard on this 
body.
  Each person has the opportunity to make up his or her mind based upon 
the evidence presented using the standard that he or she believes to be 
appropriate. So imposing a standard of national unity is probably 
setting the bar a bit too high.
  Next, there is this notion that we should defeat, not impeach. 
Defeat, not impeach.
  Well, we say that no one is above the law, and I have heard a good 
many Members of this body say so. It has been published: No one is 
above the law.
  And usually there would be the following words thereafter: No one is 
above the law, and this includes the President of the United States.
  Well, if no one is above the law and you believe that the President 
has committed impeachable acts, then you probably wouldn't want to say 
that we should defeat at the next election as opposed to impeach now--
if no one is above the law. Because, in essence, you are saying: No one 
is above the law; however, I won't enforce the law. I won't honor 
Article II of the Constitution. No one is above the law, but I am not 
going to impose the law upon one who has committed impeachable acts.
  I don't see the consistency in doing this, but it is the prerogative 
of people to do what they may. I am merely explaining some of the 
impediments to impeachment. This is one: Defeat, not impeach.
  And if no one is above the law, as I have indicated, and I believe 
this--and this includes the President--then I believe we have a duty, a 
responsibility, and an obligation to move forward with impeachment. I 
don't think you wait until the next election to avoid your duty, 
responsibility, and obligation.
  One salient point that can be made is some ugly things can happen 
when you have no guardrails, when you send a signal to the Chief 
Executive Officer that there is no one to hold you accountable, that 
the Congress is not going to fulfill its responsibilities under the 
Constitution--no guardrails.
  Well, the Chief Executive Officer, who has already committed 
impeachable actions, will proceed probably to do what he may and will 
simply because he knows that he does not have the deterrent that the 
Congress is supposed to impose by virtue of having this awesome amount 
of authority to remove from him office--assuming that the President is 
impeached and the Senate convicts.

  But, if you don't have guardrails, you don't have a Chief Executive 
Officer who is being deterred from doing things that we might find 
totally inappropriate, for example, going to war. The Chief Executive 
Officer could decide: I need not go to Congress to go to war. The 
Congress has the duty and responsibility to declare the war, but since 
Congress isn't going to do anything, why bother?
  Congress is but another entity, not a coequal partner in the 
government with the executive.
  So I think you can't hold the position that you will defeat, not 
impeach, especially when you have said, if you have, that the President 
has committed these impeachable actions.
  Now, there are a good many people who are walking back comments. And 
everybody has a right to walk back comments--happens quite regularly 
here--but you might take note of this: You can't walk back history. You 
can walk back comments, but you can't walk back history.
  So if you have already said that the President has committed these 
impeachable actions and you have already said the President should be 
impeached, you won't be able to walk that back from history.
  Time tells and history judges. The truth is known. The truth will be 
published at some point about what we have said and how we have 
behaved.
  Impeachment cannot be but a talking point to be used for political 
expediency. You can't on one day say, ``Oh, yes, he ought to be 
impeached,'' and then the next day say something that contradicts this 
in an effort to walk it back.
  Well, you can do it, but history will record both of your comments, 
and history will judge you. At some point, that judgment will be 
codified such that the world will know what was said on all occasions, 
not just on the latest rendition of the commentary that is made.
  Time tells; history judges. The truth will be known. Defeat, not 
impeach is not an option if you believe that the President has 
committed impeachable actions.

                              {time}  1945

  Then, there is, of course, the notion that the Senate won't convict. 
There is no requirement that the Senate convict. This is something that 
a person or some persons can require of themselves, a belief that since 
the Senate won't convict, there is no need to impeach. But that is not 
what impeachment is all about. It is about the House of Representatives 
doing its job.
  The House does its job quite routinely here sending bills of great 
importance to the Senate that the Senate doesn't act on. It did so last 
week and will do so again and again. H.R. 1 was not acted on, and a 
good many others. I need not go through all of them. But the point is, 
you cannot conclude because it is impeachment that you have a different 
standard, in my opinion.
  You have to have one standard. Either we are going to decide we will 
not send things to the Senate, and cease and desist, I suppose being 
the House of Representatives, which I would not abide with, but that, I 
suppose, would be a decision that you might make, one might make, but 
not one for me to make.
  I think that we have a responsibility to do our jobs, and then we 
give the Senate the opportunity to do its job. If we do our job, we do 
more than simply impeach, which is important. We act as a deterrent 
that impeachment is to deter the next President; to let the next 
President know that the House of Representatives will not shy away from 
its responsibility; that it will do what it is supposed to do when a 
President commits impeachable actions.
  So this notion that the Senate won't act is a reason for us not to 
act, would mean then that the Senate controls impeachment, which is the 
responsibility of the House of Representatives.
  Do we want to give the Senate the authority to do its will and not 
have the House do its will? Do we want the Senate's will to become the 
will of the House? What we are saying is, until we can get a Senate 
that will follow our lead, we will not take the lead and do as we 
should, do what we, according to Article II section 4, and in my 
opinion, must.

[[Page H5001]]

  We cannot allow the Senate to control the House of Representatives no 
more than we can allow another party, if I am on one side of the aisle 
and we have a party on the other side, we can't allow another party to 
dictate what we would do on this side of the aisle.
  If you have overwhelming majority, you cannot blame the other side 
for your failure to act. That is my opinion. If we have an overwhelming 
majority, then at some point, it will be noted in history that we 
didn't act. And it won't be said in history that we didn't act because 
the minority prohibited us from acting here in the House.
  It won't be said that we failed to act because the Senate had the 
authority to prevent us from acting. The Senate does not trump the 
House of Representatives. We cannot decide that only the Senate can 
determine whether the House should move forward. This is not what the 
Framers intended. But this is, in effect, what we will be doing if we 
predicate our actions upon the actions of the Senate.
  I don't think that is appropriate and I take issue with the notion 
that we must wait until the Senate is ready to act before we can act.
  By the way, no one knows what the Senate would do until the Senate 
has an opportunity to do it. Once the Senate is confronted with having 
to vote, we may find that the Senate will take a different course of 
conduct than that we have presupposed the Senate will do or take.
  The Senate could very well have an epiphanous moment. Probably not, 
but it could, meaning some two-thirds of it, and act. But whether it 
does or doesn't, we have a duty to do our job and then let the Senate 
take a vote, go on record, and we will let the chips fall where they 
may in history.
  I think all of us, we should all be on record. We know what the 
circumstances are. We know the harm that is being caused in society. We 
know that the trust has been breached, and we only have to now do what 
the Framers have given us the way to do, assuming that we have the will 
to do it.
  They gave us the way, but they could not give us the will. We have to 
have the will to act ourselves. Impeachment in the Senate, where the 
trial is to take place, is not to be predicated upon the House 
following the will of the Senate.
  Now, there is another reason that I would like to call to your 
attention, another impediment, and it is the notion that impeachment 
will divide our Nation. I have covered this to a limited extent, but I 
will go back because some things bear repeating.
  In Federalist No. 65, the Framers of the Constitution made it very 
clear that you will not have, as they saw it at that time, this 
national unity. It doesn't work that way. People are going to take 
sides. And when they do, you are likely to have things develop along 
party lines. But we have to still do our job. We cannot set standards 
that may be impossible.
  We can't have the standard be the Senate must decide it will go along 
with us before we will act. That is not a reasonable standard for us to 
have as Members of the House. We are independent. We can't have the 
standard that we can only do this if we have the consent of the 
opposing party.
  What you are doing is putting the fate of the country in the hands of 
the minority. You are putting the fate of the country in the hands of 
the Senate when the House has a duty to act.
  So I conclude with this on this point, the notion that it will divide 
the Nation is something that was prognosticated. Now, I would love to 
have the country in unity. I believe in unity, and I think you can have 
unity without uniformity. We don't all have to do the same thing all 
the time to have unity on certain issues.
  But there is no constitutional requirement that we have the minority 
support what the majority can do, and the Senate be aligned with the 
House before the House can act. There is no constitutional requirement 
for such a thing.
  Next, we have the notion that impeachment can benefit the Chief 
Executive Officer. Impeachment will benefit the Chief Executive 
Officer. It is hard to imagine a Chief Executive Officer wanting to be 
impeached.

  I have seen and heard statements from the Chief Executive Officer 
that would give me reason to believe that the Chief Executive Officer 
really does not want to be impeached.
  There is something called reverse psychology that we are all familiar 
with. Say that you want the thing that you don't want, to the extent 
that you convince the people who can have the impact to do the thing 
that you do want them to do, which is the thing that they think you 
don't want them to do.
  My point is simply this: We cannot assume that we are walking into 
some sort of petard, by virtue of our taking up our constitutional 
responsibility. This is not a trap. This is our responsibility, and we 
should not allow a Chief Executive Officer to convince us that we 
should do this because the Chief Executive Officer thinks that it would 
benefit him, when, in fact, the history of impeachment seems to provide 
evidence to the contrary.
  The history of events is that Andrew Johnson did not get reelected 
after he was impeached.
  And for those who have been in this debate about what happened with 
President Clinton, I assure you, his Vice President did not get 
elected. One would assume that the mantle would be passed on to the 
Vice President. Such was not the case. He was not elected.
  There are those who would say: Well, but the House of 
Representatives--no, the House didn't change hands. The Republicans 
maintained control of the House of Representatives. Well, they lost 
some seats. Well, they did, but they still had 218 and they controlled 
the House.
  The point is, you cannot assume that impeachment is going to be a 
benefit. As a matter of fact, it is an indelible stain on the record of 
the Chief Executive Officer. It would be forever known, whether he is 
removed from office or not, that this Chief Executive Officer was 
impeached. It will have an impact on the Chief Executive Officer's 
brand. This person will forever have the brand of an impeached Chief 
Executive Officer.
  I am not saying you do it just to brand a person. I am talking about 
impeachment, because we would fulfill the responsibilities under 
Article II section 4, which indicate that the President can be 
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery, treason. We would 
fulfill those responsibilities pursuant to Article II section 4.
  In so doing, we would indelibly place the brand of impeachment on the 
Chief Executive Officer. Whether he is convicted and removed or not, he 
still suffers eternally throughout all of time the fact that 
impeachment was imposed upon him, which I think is an appropriate 
remedy. Even if we don't get a conviction I think we should let the 
world know that the House took up its responsibility. The House of 
Representatives did its job.
  Of course, there is this notion now, another standard, that you have 
to have what I am calling a rock-solid case. I hear commentary that 
would lead me to believe that this has to be done only when you have 
evidence beyond all doubt; not a reasonable doubt, which is what we 
might have in court; not by clear and convincing evidence; clearly, not 
by the preponderance of the evidence, which is a very low standard, but 
beyond all doubt.
  I am hearing persons speak such that one could conclude that if you 
didn't see it yourself, whatever the impeachable act is, that we need 
more evidence.
  We have the Mueller report. We were told, let's wait for the Mueller 
report. We waited for the Mueller report. And then, well, we need to 
hear from Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller has spoken and has pretty much said: 
What you see is what you will get. He may ratify what is there, but it 
doesn't appear, based upon what I heard him say, that he will be giving 
nuanced testimony above and beyond what is contained in the report.
  For those who want to hear from Mr. Mueller, I wouldn't get in the 
way of that. Let's have Mr. Mueller come and testify. But the truth is, 
the report, in and of itself, is evidence, because all of the 
statements contained in the Mueller report were taken from persons who 
were giving their testimony at the expense of committing perjury if 
they didn't give truthful statements.
  So perjury was a consequence of giving an untruthful statement to the 
FBI

[[Page H5002]]

agents who were asking these questions. And the Mueller report is 
pretty good evidence. We could use that to impeach if we chose to do 
so.
  I believe that the Mueller report contains some 10 opportunities for 
this Congress to engage in impeachment, bringing impeachment to the 
floor of this House for a vote. And for edification purposes, the 
President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. We won that 
battle. That was one of the first things that was said when impeachment 
was called to the attention of this body some more than 2 years ago. 
What crime has he committed?
  Well, we know now that you don't have to commit a crime. We knew then 
that you don't have to commit a crime. But it seems that there was an 
effort, almost, among some to distort what the law is for purposes that 
I cannot announce. But there seems to have been a desire to convince 
the public that the President must commit a crime to be impeached. That 
is not true.
  What is the evidence of it not being true? The fact that Andrew 
Johnson was impeached in article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment 
against him in 1868 for speaking ill of Congress, which wasn't a crime 
then, and isn't a crime now.
  Speaking ill of Congress is not a crime. He was impeached for 
speaking ill of Congress in article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment 
against Andrew Johnson. That is the best evidence, what has happened.

                              {time}  2000

  What has happened?
  What we know to be the case. So those who would like to change the 
standard, you have got history to deal with, Madam Speaker. If you want 
to change the standard. To change the standard, you would have to 
literally erase what happened with Andrew Johnson.
  There is no requirement that the President commit a crime to be 
impeached. He has to do harm to society. He has to breach the public 
trust--breach the public trust, cause harm to society--and you can be 
impeached if you are the Chief Executive Officer. There is no 
requirement that you commit a crime, no requirement that the Senate has 
to agree with the House before the House can act, and no requirement 
that there must be a national unity government before you can have 
impeachment.
  These are standards that are being set that are, quite frankly, 
beyond the rationale that the Framers of the Constitution provided for 
us.
  Read the Federalist Papers, Madam Speaker, and you will get a better 
understanding. Federalist 65 would be a good read. It is a short read, 
and you will get a better understanding.
  So these standards--these unreasonable standards, in my opinion--are 
such that we will probably end up engaging in expediency and saying 
that we want to impeach for the purpose of expediency, but not making 
impeachment an action item. It is one thing to have political 
expediency, but another thing to turn that into an action item. The 
action item would have to be impeachment. You cannot just talk about 
this with certainty and not act, Madam Speaker.
  The final thing that must be done pursuant to the moral imperative to 
act is to impeach. And I find that we are talking about this to the 
extent that we will do it eventually--if we are not very careful of 
what Dr. King called, engage in the paralysis of analysis--just analyze 
this and set standards. All standards keep changing from time to time.
  But remember this, no one can set the standard for any one of us in 
the House of Representatives. All 435 of us have been given the 
standard of being a Member of the House and making a decision. I say 
this based upon what your conscience dictates and based upon a belief 
that Article II section 4 of the Constitution has been violated.
  Speaking of Article II section 4 and the President not having to 
commit a crime, it is important to note this: high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, you can be impeached for a high 
misdemeanor. It doesn't have to be a high crime and misdemeanor. This 
is what a good many persons are still saying. Not true.
  How do you know that you can be impeached for a high misdemeanor?
  Because Andrew Johnson was impeached for a high misdemeanor. It 
doesn't have to be a high crime and misdemeanor. It can simply be a 
misdemeanor. A misdemeanor, Madam Speaker, can be a minor criminal 
offense or it can be a misdeed. The word ``misdemeanor'' was defined at 
the time the Framers wrote the Constitution, and to this day, as a 
misdeed. Andrew Johnson was impeached for a high misdeed in article 10 
of the Articles of Impeachment against him.
  Make notes. Write that down. Read it. Check. You will find the truth 
is there for a misdeed, a high misdeed, a high misdemeanor, and a 
misdemeanor is a misdeed.
  Let's debunk the notion that impeachment will benefit the President. 
It has been debunked. The notion that you have to have a rock-solid 
case, there is no such thing as a rock-solid case or maybe some other 
term similar. There is no requirement.
  The notion that impeachment is not political, well, that is not what 
the Framers of the Constitution said. That is not what is said in 
Federalist 65. Read Federalist 65. There is no requirement that you 
avoid politics. The Framers used that very word, ``political'', in 
Federalist 65. So the notion that impeachment can't be political is 
contrary to what the people who wrote the Constitution thought should 
be contained therein.
  What is interesting to me is that we have a good many people here who 
believe in the intent of the law.
  What was the intent?
  I am starting to think that it is for convenience some of the time. 
Either you are for intent or you are not, Madam Speaker. Well, the 
intent of the Framers was that this would be political, and it is going 
to be political. You are not going to escape the politics of it with 
clever phrases. It is not going to happen. This is political the notion 
that you have to have a rock-solid case. That is beyond what is 
expected from the Framers. And I am not sure you are going to ever 
finish your investigation if you are going to continue to investigate 
until you have exhausted every possible thing before you move forward, 
and nobody can set that standard for the 435 Members of this House.
  Next, we have the question of bigotry in policy. There are some who 
believe that it is okay to have bigotry intentionally placed in policy. 
Bigotry in policy, to decide that you are going to do something that 
will be bigoted as the Chief Executive Officer and you will put that 
into policy, to decide you are going to ban certain people from the 
country, to decide that you are going to change the rules because 
people may be from what might be called a s-hole country, change the 
rules for those from that s-hole country. And then to give some 
indication that you have bigotry within you by announcing that people 
who would say phrases like, ``blood and soil'', ``Jews will not replace 
us'', protesting out in the street, calling themselves members of 
groups that have been known infamously for behaving in invidious 
discrimination, give us all of the evidence that we need. I guarantee 
you that bigotry in policy is impeachable.
  I assure you of this: I believe in the deepest corners of my soul 
that if a previous President said and did the things that the Chief 
Executive Officer has said and done, he would be impeached. He would be 
removed from office. And I would be one of the persons to support it. 
We cannot have double standards.
  Madam Speaker, you can't have a standard that exists because you have 
a beneficial bigot, a bigot that serves a useful purpose, a bigot that 
benefits your agenda. All of your adult life you have been preaching 
against certain things, and then you get a beneficial bigot, someone 
that might do something such as, appoint persons to the court that you 
would like to have, and then your standards change. You accept bigotry 
in policy against people that I would call the least, the last, and the 
lost.
  You would accept it against these babies, Madam Speaker. You would 
accept, accept, accept having a 4-month-old baby separated from his 
parents. At 4 months old, taken out of the arms of his father. And some 
time thereafter, when the father is trying to gain custody of his 
child, say to the father that

[[Page H5003]]

we will have to deport you, when you take your seat on the plane, we 
will bring your child to you. We will give you the child back.
  This is the United States of America I am talking about. I love my 
country. I don't love that kind of behavior. I have great disdain for 
that level of behavior. Tell this man he is going to get his child, and 
then have him deported without his baby. This was reported some 2, 3 
days ago in a reputable news source--separated. We know babies are 
being separated or have been separated. This is supposed to be the 
youngest, 4 months old. Later on you take the 4-month-old to court, you 
have a hearing. The baby is now with some people who are taking care of 
the baby. And then you finally decide the baby is now 6 months of age 
or there about and you will return this baby to his parents.
  They have suffered greatly.
  Can you imagine, someone taking your 4-month-old baby?
  Can you imagine the pain, the sleepless nights, and the crying?
  Can you imagine how your life would just be torn apart?
  Your baby has been removed. Well, you finally get your baby back. One 
would assume that this would be a joyous occasion, but the baby doesn't 
recognize the parents.
  Imagine the pain of reaching out to your baby, Madam Speaker, and 
your baby withdraws and turns to someone else, because a government had 
a policy of deterring people from coming by separating babies as young 
as 4 months old from parents.
  I just don't abide with this. I cannot accept this. Those who can are 
a better person than I am. They are. It really does not matter what 
happens to me. The story of the Good Samaritan is not the story of the 
person who said: If I cross over and help this person, what is going to 
happen to me?
  The story of the Good Samaritan is the story of the person who said: 
If I don't help this person, what is going to happen to him?
  We use that parable quite a bit in this country.
  The story of the person who is the brother's keeper is the story of a 
person who said: Am I my brother's keeper?
  Well, we know this: you can't be your brother's keeper without 
keeping your brother. Brothers and sisters are our relatives. Distant 
though they may be, they are a part of humanity. They are ours. We 
belong to them, and they belong to us.
  This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I have said before, and I will 
say again and again, if these babies were coming across the northern 
border we would have a different mindset. We would not have the mindset 
that we have now such that we put them in cages.
  I went to the border. I wanted to see for myself, and I saw babies 
lying on a cement floor with some sort of tinfoil blanket over them in 
conditions that the SPCA would not allow animals to exist in.
  If it doesn't touch your heart, Madam Speaker, you are a better 
person than I am, because it touched my heart. When I saw it, it hurt. 
This is about humanity. This is about persons fleeing harm's way. This 
is about a law that allows them to approach one of our agents, make a 
proper announcement, and get a fair hearing.
  It is not about circumventing the law, trying to find clever ways to 
keep people out who are following the law. It is not about that. It is 
about people. It is about humanity. It is about the greatest country in 
the world and what people around the world think of us now.
  I assure you, Madam Speaker, the image that we had is being 
tarnished, I won't say irreparably, but I will say it is being 
tarnished.
  The lady with the golden lamp, or light, if you will, torch, give me 
your poor, you know the rest of the story, your tired, you know the 
rest of it. We have honored that. We took about 11 million people, I 
believe, from Europe. We didn't separate babies from mothers. We 
welcomed them.
  Something has changed. Something has changed. We are witnessing 
before our very eyes a change in the culture and a change in our 
country, because we are witnessing before our very eyes that we seem to 
think that it is okay or that it is not something that we ought to 
address.
  The President doesn't have to commit a crime, the Chief Executive 
Officer doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. We but have to 
have the will to do what we must, in my opinion.
  By the way, my opinion is that we are more likely to impeach than 
not. This is my opinion. I really do believe that in this House there 
will be people who are going to conclude that they will not tolerate 
the level of injustice being perpetrated.

                              {time}  2015

  I believe it. I believe that there will be a majority to do it, more 
likely than not. I believe that it can and will happen. I really do.
  I think that we should be deliberative, but I don't think that we 
should allow the paralysis of analysis to prevent us from doing our 
job.
  I believe there will be enough people who are going to come forward 
to say we will hold the Chief Executive accountable for this behavior 
and other behavior: the whole notion that the Chief Executive can tell 
members of the constabulary, the police, that when they arrest people 
and they have them within their care, custody, and control, that they 
don't have to be nice to them; and the whole notion that the Chief 
Executive can ban people, that he can send out a tweet and kick people 
out of the military who have been serving honorably or prevent people 
from coming in because of who they are.
  I believe that there are enough people who will find this offensive 
and that they will take the action that the Framers of the Constitution 
fully intended we take.
  I close with this, a belief that we have been given an awesome 
responsibility. We were elected to the people's House. We were elected 
to do the work of the people, but we were also elected to do the 
morally righteous thing.
  There are some times when we have to step beyond where the people may 
be at a given time because we know what is right and we are going to do 
the righteous thing. Sometimes, we have to do this. We just have to 
step out.
  We don't take a poll, by the way. This whole notion that, until the 
country is with us, we can't do that which the law requires us to do, 
in my opinion, that whole notion that we can't do it until the country 
is with us, well, that is taking a poll.
  A poll is a snapshot in time. That is all it is, just a snapshot in 
time. Are we going to allow something as necessary as impeachment to be 
governed by a poll?
  I thank God that Dr. King and those who crossed the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge did not do so based upon a poll, that they had huddled and said, 
``Well, Dr. King, what do the polls say?''
  If it is a righteous cause, the polls don't matter. We have to do 
that which is right, be led by the spirit sometimes, as a friend said 
to me, to do the right thing.
  Polls. What if Rosa Parks had taken a poll? ``Let's take a poll 
before you take that seat on the bus, risking everything.'' She had no 
idea what her fate would be.
  ``Take a poll, Rosa.'' Would she have taken the seat if she had 
relied on polls?
  What if Lincoln had said, ``Let's take a poll before we attempt to 
pass the 13th Amendment.''
  Polls can prevent us from doing that which is bold. Bold actions are 
not predicated upon a poll. They are predicated upon the righteousness 
of the cause. If the cause is righteous, we ought to do the right 
thing.
  Dr. King said the time is always right to do what is right.
  I believe that we need not take polls, that we have enough evidence, 
that we shouldn't have unreasonable standards, and that this House can 
and will do its job.
  I say ``more likely than not'' simply because anything is possible, I 
suppose. But I just believe that there are enough people here of 
goodwill who are going to decide that what we have seen is enough 
before we end up seeing something that we cannot reverse, something 
that could be beyond what we would want to see happen, not only to this 
country but to all countries, by way of what happens to one directly 
happens to all indirectly, according to Dr. King, because life is an 
inescapable network of mutuality.

[[Page H5004]]

  I don't want to see something happen, but I do want to say this: 
Given that we know we can impeach right now, if we fail to impeach and 
some dastardly thing occurs, there will be Members of this House who 
will regret not having taken the appropriate action.
  It is bigger than any one of us. This is about humanity. We ought to 
respect the means by which we can preserve integrity, the means by 
which we can preserve the lives that we have been charged with the 
responsibility of caring for as Members of this body.
  Let us move forward.
  I greatly appreciate the leadership for giving me this opportunity to 
be heard.
  My dear friends, unless leadership changes the rules, I will be heard 
again because I plan to come back again and again. I assure my 
colleagues that if no one else does, there will be another vote on 
impeachment on the floor of the House of Representatives, not because I 
want to do it but because I believe I am forced to do it. I have little 
choice if I want to protect the integrity of the Constitution and 
preserve the notion of no person being above the law.
  I believe I have a responsibility to do it. I don't like using the 
personal pronoun ``I'' as it relates to this, but I have no choice. It 
will be done. We will all go on Record.
  I assure my colleagues, I will not approach any individual person to 
try to convince a person that he or she should do a given thing. I will 
talk from this podium, as I have, and I will answer those who may ask 
me questions. But I do believe we have to take this duty seriously, and 
we have to have a vote in the House of Representatives.
  I am thankful for the time, Madam Speaker, and I greatly appreciate 
the opportunity to be a Member of this august body. While I am here, I 
plan to do all that I can to make sure, for the people I have been 
elected to serve, that I do what is in their best interests, even if 
they may not think it is in their best interests.
  There are some things that are bigger than individuals. It is about a 
country. It is about humanity.
  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.

                          ____________________