No One is Above the Law

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I grew up in the district I serve where I have seen firsthand the results of the failing to hold those in power accountable to the laws of the land. From corporate polluters who continue to violate the Clean Air Act with no real enforcement to stop the violations that hurt our public health, I have also seen firsthand a megabillionaire who directly violated Federal and State processes that resulted in thousands of trucks to rumble through our local neighborhoods where one in five children have asthma.

Do you know why those in power looked the other way? Because of political influence on my colleagues who then became conflicted.

This is why I rise today to put forward H. Res. 257, which creates a transparent process to ensure the protection of our democracy. That ensures that we don't have a lawless society that results in irreparable harm to the American people.

Doing nothing when we are seeing a blatant disregard of the United States Constitution and our ethical norms is dangerous. No one, Madam Speaker, including the President of the United States, is above the law.

I know many have focused on actions that were conducted prior to his taking the oath of office, and that is important. However, as critically important are the actions by the President after he swore to uphold the United States Constitution before all of us.

He is not a CEO, Madam Speaker, anymore, but a public servant who is held accountable not to shareholders and investors, but the actual American people, real people, people who expect all of us to follow the laws.

In the 2 years since he took office, President Trump racked up more than 1,400 conflicts of interest involving the government, those trying to influence it and The Trump Organization, according to a report released by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

President Trump used the Presidency to enrich himself by repeatedly promoting his businesses as extensions of his administration. Political allies, wealthy donors, special interests, and foreign governments have adopted a key tactic of patronizing Trump's businesses to garner favor with the Trump administration.

Here are some of the key findings from CREW's tracking of Trump's conflicts of interest:

President Trump made 118 visits to his properties in his second year in office, bringing his 2-year total to 281 visits to properties he still profits from while serving as President of the United States.

In his second year in office, President Trump and other White House staff promoted Trump businesses on at least 87 occasions. More than 150 political committees, including campaigns and party committees, have spent nearly $5 million at Trump businesses since he became President. At least 13 special interest groups lobbied the White House since Trump's inauguration, some for the first time, around the same time they also patronized a Trump property.

At least three foreign governments held events at Trump properties during Trump's second year in office. Two of those countries did so after holding similar events elsewhere in previous years.

Not only has President Trump still refused to divest from his businesses, he seems to have doubled down by reinforcing the idea that The Trump Organization is an extension of the Trump administration.

These offenses must be investigated.

In total, CREW found more than 900 conflicts in the second year of the Trump administration. This presents a clear picture of a Presidency used to turn a profit and the President's businesses serving at points of access to the corridors of power.

This report shows that special interests, foreign governments, and political allies continue to pour money into Trump's bank accounts while the American public is left in the dark about whether or not the President's policy decisions are made in the best interests of our country, or is it in the best interests of the President's bottom line, benefiting himself personally.

We have been sent here to legislate. I am thinking about the historic For the People Act we passed right here in this Chamber, the gun reform package we passed, legislation to protect our lands, to increase and strengthen healthcare for Americans, and much more.

I am proud of my first bills. One protects our public health in regards to petroleum coke exposure, and the other, which has a wide range of support, would prohibit the use of credit scores by the auto insurance industry.

However, Madam Speaker, none of these bills is free from the harm that comes from the current administration and the President of the United States not complying with the clauses of the United States Constitution. When these conflicts and direct violations to the Emoluments Clause are not investigated, we set a dangerous precedent that those issues we passed in this Chamber are not important.

I think about the recent announcement that T-Mobile and Sprint would like the Federal Government to approve a merger between the two companies. In the same breath, T-Mobile spent close to $200,000 at the D.C. Trump hotel. This is what we call an upgraded version of pay to play, and it dangerously corrupts our democracy.

When President Truman sidestepped the Constitution and went to war, every sitting President had done the same. One of the first major challenges to the War Powers Act came in 1981 when President Reagan deployed military personnel to El Salvador without consulting or submitting a report to Congress.

In 1999, President Clinton continued a bombing campaign in Kosovo beyond the 60-day limit cited in the law. A more recent War Powers Act dispute arose in 2011 when President Barack Obama initiated a military action in Libya without congressional authorization.

You see, Madam Speaker, when we do nothing, we set a precedent and allow it to become the norm. I can't stress enough how dangerous this is to the core of our democracy.

This will not be the last billionaire CEO who runs for President who will attempt to not divest from his business interests.

Now, what we have witnessed from this administration are acts that could very well be impeachable offenses outside of the scope of the Mueller investigation. We have a duty in this Chamber to inquire about these acts, to investigate them, to find out if there was any wrongdoing, and to seek accountability if it has been found.

That is why, today, I have introduced a resolution that calls on the Judiciary Committee to inquire into these activities that may be impeachable offenses. There are serious pieces of evidence out there, many that have come through the various committees of this body, in the media, and things within the public eye. An investigation will take a look at all of those things with the question: Are these impeachable offenses? Is our President acting above the rule of law?

As Congress, we have a job to ensure that is exactly what is not happening. If, at the end, it gets the President to comply, then we have done our job. If the President doesn't, then we move forward and, at the very least, put any future President on notice: Congress will hold you accountable and will require you to divest in your businesses.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source