[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4982-4984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House, and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read 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

[[Page 4983]]

     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 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--
       1. 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.

                              {time}  1715

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California wish to 
present argument on the parliamentary question of whether the 
resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The remarks of the gentlewoman must be 
confined to the question of whether the resolution presents a question 
of the privileges of the House.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, under clause 1 of rule IX, questions of the 
privileges of the House are: ``those affecting the rights of the House 
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its 
proceedings.''
  The dignity and integrity of the House's proceedings have been 
violated, and continue to be violated, because Congress has not had the 
constitutionally afforded opportunity to consent to emoluments being 
received by the President or to enforce, if consent is not given.
  I would note that Congress has the authority to request the 
President's taxes under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and 
use of this authority would not be unprecedented, as it was used in 
1974 to request President Nixon's tax returns that revealed that he 
owed nearly half a million dollars in back taxes.
  I would note that issues of the Constitution and the House's 
prerogatives under the Constitution have a precedent in using rule IX 
as a privileged resolution.
  For example, if a revenue measure is initiated in the Senate instead 
of in the House as required by the Constitution, that is a matter of a 
privilege of the House. I would argue that the Emoluments Clause is at 
least as important, possibly more important, than the origination of a 
revenue measure in either the House or Senate.
  I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for 22 years. I am 
well aware of how the Judiciary Committee operates and the need for 
individual Members to do research before any official action is taken 
in that committee. And since it is the Judiciary Committee, it has the 
first responsibility for adhering to the Constitution among the 
committees of the House. I think it is absolutely essential for the 
President's tax returns to be released so that the members of the 
Judiciary Committee can do their job to research whether the Emoluments 
Clause has been violated and whether permission should be given to the 
President to receive payments from foreign states.
  I would note that there is no question that the Emoluments Clause of 
the Constitution was placed there to prevent corruption in the system. 
It was based on a sad experience during the Articles of Confederation. 
It is necessary to make sure that the President and all other officers 
of the United States have loyalty to only one thing, and that is to the 
United States of America, not to any foreign power.
  In order to do that, we need to review the data. As I say, the 
dignity and integrity of the House requires that the Constitution be 
upheld, and in order to uphold the Constitution, we must have this 
information.
  For these reasons, the resolution raises a question of the privileges 
of the House and should be permitted, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California seeks to 
offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House under 
rule IX.
  In evaluating the resolution under rule IX, the Chair must determine 
whether the resolution affects ``the rights of the House collectively, 
its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''
  The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California directs the 
House to request the President's tax return information as part of a 
determination as to whether the President is in violation of the 
Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
  Section 702 of the House Rules and Manual states that ``rule IX is 
concerned not with the privileges of the Congress, as a legislative 
branch, but only with the privileges of the House, as a House.'' As 
such, reviews of extramural activities, even with regard to 
constitutional prerogatives, have not met the standards of rule IX.
  The Chair would also cite the proceedings of May 21, 2009. On that 
date, a resolution proposing a review of the accuracy of certain public 
statements made by the Speaker regarding communications to Congress 
from the executive branch was held not to qualify as a question of 
privilege, because it necessarily would have required a review not only 
of the Speaker's statements but also of actions by extramural actors in 
the executive branch.
  The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from California does not 
invoke a unique prerogative of the House, as a House. Instead, it seeks 
documents from the President, an actor entirely extramural to the 
House. Accordingly,

[[Page 4984]]

the resolution does not qualify as a question of the privileges of the 
House.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I appeal that ruling.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Flores moves to lay the appeal on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on passage of S.J. Res. 34.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 190, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               YEAS--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     DeFazio
     Sanford
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Duffy
     Marino
     Nolan
     Pittenger
     Posey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Simpson
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1748

  Mr. O'HALLERAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________