Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Still I rise, Mr. Speaker, because I love my country and I love the people in this country. I love them because we are all created from a common Creator. I love the people of this country. Not all of the people in the United States, those who are citizens, live within the continental United States. A good many of them live in Puerto Rico. I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico who are suffering because moneys that have been appropriated by the Congress of the United States of America have not been given to the people of Puerto Rico and have not been delivered to the people of Puerto Rico. I cannot understand how Congress can appropriate--bills signed, money available--yet we cannot get it to the people who need it. I am told that hospitals are closed. I am told that some people are sleeping in the street. I am told that there is suffering. I haven't been there to see it myself, but the reports are available for all of us. There is suffering taking place in Puerto Rico, and we in this House would allow what we have signed, sealed, not to be delivered? What is wrong with us? People are suffering. We can help. At some point we will have to pay for this, and we are not going to have to pay for it by losing a congressional office. That is easy. That is not the kind of punishment we are going to get for the way we are treating people. There is going to be a day of reckoning for all of this, knowing that people are suffering and you withhold the money. The chief executive officer of this country knows what is going on, and we who are here in Congress are aware of what is being denied. All it takes is for the chief executive officer to send it, and it will be done. But it is not taking place. So I appear today, and I rise because I love my country. I love the people of Puerto Rico. They are Americans by the way, citizens by the way. I love them and I refuse to allow this to happen on my watch without my at least standing here and calling it to the attention of the American public. I have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to say something about this type of behavior, especially when there are 435 of us who could do something about it and have done something about it, but there is one person who declines to allow justice to be done. Mr. President, what is wrong with you?

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise because I love my country, and I rise today to talk about impeachment and the trial thereof, the trial associated with impeachment. Madam Speaker, there is much to be said. However, I assure all that I will not say it all. I do want to call to the attention of those who are paying attention that we are now about to embark upon a trial in the Senate. Impeachment was a function of the House of Representatives pursuant to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the trial is a function of the Senate pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. The trial is to take place in the Senate. The House has done its job. The House acts similar, not the same, but it behaves in a fashion similar to that of a grand jury--similar but not the same. The House determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial to take place, simply put--similar but not the same as a grand jury. Then it becomes a function of the Senate to have a trial. The Senate is the only place on planet Earth where a President can be tried. The President will not be punished at this trial, assuming that the President is found guilty. There is no punishment. The President can be removed from office, but there won't be any punishment similar to what we call punishment, as it were, with a court, for example, wherein you might be fined or accorded some sort of incarceration. None of that has to do with removal from office. There was a big debate about this trial of the President. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton speaks at great length about the trial of the President. It was contemplated in making a final decision that perhaps the Supreme Court would be the place to try the President. With much debate, without going into the nuances, the details, this was not concluded to be the appropriate place for a trial of the President. It was finally concluded that the trial would take place in the Senate but that, in doing this, there would be a presiding officer, and this person would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate tries the case with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. In Federalist Paper No. 65, there was much talk about this trial and how it might move forward. Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution contemplated that the trial would receive evidence, that there would be evidence received. Clearly, a fair reading of Federalist Paper No. 65 would cause one to conclude that. Of course, the Federalist Papers, as it were, there was a conclusion drawn that in this trial, there would be evidence presented. The evidence would be presented, of course, by the House. We call the persons presenting the evidence managers. They will act as lawyers. The Senate will receive this evidence. It was anticipated, in my opinion, after perusing Federalist Paper No. 65, that the trial could consist of evidence beyond what the House might present because at a trial, it is expected that one might call witnesses and present documents, present additional evidence. It is my opinion that this is especially true, and I believe a good many constitutional scholars agree with me, this is especially true if it is known that there are witnesses who have evidence that would be of great value, witnesses who have evidence, material evidence that is relevant, would be of great value in coming to a just conclusion, a trial that would have a just conclusion, a trial that would afford not only the accused to have witnesses to testify but also the managers to have witnesses to testify. You see, the country, the United States of America, is entitled to a fair trial. The President should have a fair trial, but the people should have a fair trial. If the trial is to be fair in the Senate and there are witnesses available, then those witnesses ought to be called. If the witnesses are not called, and it is known that there are witnesses, then the question becomes: What are we doing? What is the Senate doing? I say ``we''; I mean as a country. I am not a Senator, obviously. What is the Senate doing? If there are witnesses who are available and are willing to testify, and the Senate decides to simply dismiss the case, what is the Senate doing? Before I answer that question, let me just share this with you. The truth be told, not only will the President be on trial but also the Senate would be on trial. I will answer what the Senate is doing, but I must say first that the Senate is on trial. People are watching not only here in the United States of America but across the globe. The world wants to see the kind of justice that the United States of America accords. The world wants to know whether the United States of America will pursue justice such that witnesses who are material and relevant will have the opportunity to testify. What is the Senate doing if the Senate declines to hear from these relevant witnesses? The Senate is having something less than a trial. No question, because a trial contemplates witnesses and evidence. If the Senate is going to have what may amount to a briefing, then there is no need to have Chief Justice Roberts. The Framers constituted a trial. They contemplated a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If we are going to have only a briefing, why have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court present? This would be tantamount to a briefing, to simply call the Senate to order, receive some comments, some statements, and perhaps whatever the House has sent over. But knowing that a witness is available--multiple witnesses, I might add--and not call any of the multiple witnesses would be tantamount to a briefing. If the Senate but engages in a briefing, what would we call the results of a briefing? In my opinion, justice delayed, if not denied-- justice delayed, if not denied. The Framers of the Constitution contemplated a trial. Federalist Paper No. 65 contemplates a trial. The Senate acts as the triers of fact. They conclude with their findings with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. One can easily conclude that the simple dismissal of a case, wherein others are available to give testimony, would cause something less than a trial and, quite frankly, will be an embarrassment to the Senate, to the country, and to our sense of justice. It would be an embarrassment to do such a thing. As I have read in various publications, this is being contemplated, to simply dismiss the case knowing that there are additional witnesses to be heard. Could it be that in so doing, whether by accident or with intent, whether by accident or design, if this occurs, could it be that we are now seeing a coverup, a coverup if you know that there are witnesses who are available and who would testify but you denied them the opportunity to testify by simply dismissing the case? Are you participating in a coverup? I pray that there are enough Senators who will say: ``I will not participate in what appears to be a coverup,'' and will ask for witnesses to testify. If a majority of the Senators should so ask, there will be testimony presented. We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right. They must also look right. It would not and will not look right if the Senate knows that there are witnesses available and declines to call them. It won't look right. Some would say it is right because the Constitution doesn't have strict guidelines, in terms of how the Senate is to perform. But I assure you, the Framers contemplated a trial. If there is no trial, a simple dismissal, there are many people who will say that the Senate has engaged in a coverup because evidence that should be revealed has been concealed, has been covered, has been pushed aside. The Senate, in my opinion, will do our country a disservice if it simply dismisses this cause. It is my belief that the Senate will not dismiss the cause summarily. It is my belief that the Senate consists of honorable people who are going to take an oath, and they are going to abide by the oath that they will take. I was a judge of a small claims justice court. I will tell you that I marveled at how people, after taking the oath as jurors, would rise above the many things that would ordinarily influence them and see to it that justice was done. It is a wonderful thing to see how people take an oath and take that oath seriously. I believe that a majority of the Senators will take the oath seriously, and I believe that there will be witnesses, or at least one, called to testify. I believe that this will happen because I think that the Senators who will do this will understand that justice is in their hands and that this justice has much to do with what the witness will say, but it also has much to do with the balance of power that they are there to protect. The Senators are there to protect the balance of power as it relates to the cause that has been presented to them. The Senators will have to decide whether or not the House of Representatives is going to become less than a coequal branch of government because one of the articles deals with the fact that the President has blocked the appearance of witnesses in the House and has blocked the presentation of certain evidence, documents, if you will, in the House. Now it is left up to the Senate to determine whether or not they are going to allow a President to block the presentation of evidence and walk away without some consequence. Blocking evidence without consequence, that is going to be one of the considerations before the Senate. Will you protect the balance of power? Will you assure this country that no one is above the law? Madam Speaker, I assure you that if the Senators do not take this cause seriously and simply dismiss it out of hand, they are simply saying that the President is above the law. The President deserves a trial. The country deserves a trial. We ought to have witnesses presented. There ought to be some degree of deliberation. The Senate acts as the trial jury, the petit jury, if you will, similar to a petit jury, a trial jury, but not the same. It is not the same because they can make decisions about whether evidence will be presented. I had a constituent ask me whether or not the Chief Justice could decide to receive the evidence, and I had to tell the truth. The response is that the ultimate judge of whether evidence will be received will be 51 Senators. The Chief Justice can make rulings, but the Senators can overrule the Chief Justice with a vote. The world is watching, and the House of Representatives hangs in the balance, as it relates to the balance of power. If this Senate simply dismisses out of hand, we will have a President with no guardrails. There will be no guardrails. It doesn't matter how you feel about the President. The question is: How do you feel about the country that we love? How do you feel about the notion that no one is above the law, a very bedrock principle in this country? How do you feel about this? What happens once can happen twice, and what happens twice can happen multiple times. We should not allow this to take place. My clarion call to my brethren, my friends, the ladies and gentlepersons of the Senate, is: Do more than have a briefing. Do more than simply dismiss the cause out of hand. There will have to be 51 who will conclude that there will be more than a briefing, that there will be a trial. I assure you that there are many of us who are waiting to see what will happen. Some of us will traverse great distances across the country to be in Washington, D.C., to make it clear that they want to be a part of this history for various and sundry reasons. The world is watching. We have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to the country to have a fair trial, a trial where witnesses are called and witnesses are examined. This is not unusual. This is what every person in this country anticipates if he or she is charged with an offense. Why would we have the President be above this basic premise of calling witnesses to have a fair trial? Why would we have one person in the country who is above this, above the law? Every person is subjected to the law in this country. Madam Speaker, I will close with these words: It is not enough for things to be right. They must also look right. If the Senate does this simply because it has the power, meaning if the Senate simply dismisses because it has the power and doesn't call witnesses, that won't look right, and in my opinion, it won't be right. The Senate has a responsibility to have a trial, and witnesses must be called. I do believe that witnesses will be called. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. I rise today with my mnemonic notes in hand to discuss impeachment. As we all know, there is an expectation of a trial in the Senate. The people of the United States of America expect a fair trial, not a fake trial. Well, what is a fake trial? A fake trial exists when you have the equivalent of the foreperson of the jury indicating that he is coordinating efforts and working with the person who is accused; that is the President. The majority leader is indicating that he is working with the President, and he is a part of the jury. That is a fake trial. You have a fake trial when you don't allow material, relevant witnesses to come forth and give their testimony. It is undisputed. It is agreed to by most persons with some understanding of what is going on, that Mr. John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, former, is a material witness and should be heard. He has not been heard and has indicated that he will testify if subpoenaed. Mr. Bolton ought to be subpoenaed and he ought to be heard so that we can have a fair trial; not a fake trial. It won't be a trial. Here is what it will be: It will be a briefing. If you simply call the Members to order, Mr. Majority Leader, and if you simply read what has been presented to you from the House, that is nothing more than a briefing. And if the end result is something other than the President being convicted, all you have done is postpone justice. That is it. You are just postponing justice, but you also have done one additional thing. You will have said to the people of this country that the balance of power that you are there to protect is something that you would neglect. The balance of power is something that we must have if we are not to have a monarchy. If we are to maintain democracy, there has to be a balance of power. The House of Representatives has to have the opportunity to investigate. The President blocked witnesses, blocked evidence that is of another nature--written evidence, if you will. He has blocked evidence and witnesses, and witnesses are evidence, and we and the Members of the House have impeached him--and he will be impeached forever, by the way. We have impeached him for impeding a congressional investigation. In so doing, we expect the Senate to at least protect the balance of power. That is what the House is here for. We are the sword of Damocles when it comes to the President. We are there, hanging there to let him know that he can be punished in the Senate by virtue of the House having impeached--punished in the sense that he will be removed from office, not in the sense that he would ever go to jail. Finally this, on the question of war or peace: Mr. President, I believe Iran has given you an off-ramp. I think you ought to take the off-ramp that is going to lead to deescalation because it also leads to the road of peace. I am a person who believes in peace. Choose peace. Choose the off- ramp that has been given to you and give us an opportunity to move forward with the work of the country. You will still be impeached, however.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. Madam Speaker, I rise because I love my country, and, Madam Speaker, ``Shall any man be above justice?'' That is the question posed in 1787 by George Mason at the Constitutional Convention. Shall any man be beyond justice? Madam Speaker, if this President is allowed to thwart the efforts of Congress with a legitimate impeachment inquiry, the President will not only be above the law, he will be beyond justice. We cannot allow any person to be beyond justice in this country. In the name of democracy, on behalf of the Republic, and for the sake of the many who are suffering, I will vote to impeach, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. No one is beyond justice in this country.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, with love of country at heart and my mnemonic notes in hand. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, remembering something from my childhood. My grandfather was a minister, and he reminded the grandchildren that there is no one so blind as he who chooses not to see. 20/20 vision, but the person who chooses not to see is the blindest of all. No one is so blind as those who choose not to see. I bring this to the attention of those who are listening for a specific reason. I cannot impose understanding. I cannot cause people to say that they understand that which they already understand but choose not to acknowledge. What I can do is this: I can encourage us to open our eyes and see what is happening to our country, the country that I assume we all love. I encourage us to see what is happening to public discourse, to pay attention to things that are happening in the public arena that are greatly different than the things we have been acclimated to. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that we should have, in our public discourse, the Chief Executive Officer saying things that we don't want our children to repeat. The Chief Executive Officer is to be a leader in many ways. We tell our children: One day you can grow up and be the Chief Executive Officer. You can be the head of state. And we want people to look up to the Chief Executive Officer, to the head of state. I don't think most of us would have our children go to a public rally and engage in some of the discourse that we have seen, some of the scatology, the profanity that seems to become a part of this discourse and is almost commonplace now from the Chief Executive Officer. My dear friends, there is something happening to us. While it may not occur all in 1 day, over a period of time, it can become commonplace. Have you not noticed how on the various talk shows people are using a level of discourse that we would find unacceptable, that I find unacceptable, that was not commonplace some years ago, not so very long ago? I am hearing more profanity being used. I am not a perfect servant. I am a public servant. I am not a perfect person. I don't claim to be perfect. But I can say to you that I want to live in a country where children are proud to grow up and say they want to be like that person who happens to be the Chief Executive Officer. At some point, something has to say to us that something is going on here that is unacceptable. When you weaponize hate so that you can have an advantage, there is something wrong. We ought not weaponize hate and bigotry to gain an advantage. We ought not try to, with intentionality, create ashes on the dreams of others, turn them into ashes so that we can fulfill some desire. We ought not, with intentionality, say things that we know are not true that can be harmful to others. I am not a perfect servant, but I see something happening to my country, and I beg that we open our eyes and look at this for what it is. The level of hate is increasing. The level of harm being done to people by others that they don't know who will traverse great distances just to hurt them because they happen to be of a certain ancestry, who go into a certain neighborhood to hurt people because they happen to be of a certain religion, we are seeing more of this level of hate. I say to you that we must open our eyes and see what is happening to our country. There is a desire to believe that this is just something that we can laugh at, that it is just amusing. This discourse that we see when the Chief Executive Officer has throngs of people around him making light of things that at one time we would not tolerate. There is something wrong when you start to tolerate this. Those who tolerate hate perpetuate hate. We are going to be a part of the reason why this continues to grow, to propagate, to infect our society. We can do something about this. We should not allow this level of discourse to continue. By the way, the something that we can do about it is not allow it to be something that we accept. We don't have to do anything more, for some of us, than change the channel. Maybe that will send a message, when they don't get good ratings. Or don't attend events where these kinds of things are taking place. We don't have to make this something that is acceptable to any one of us. I mention all of these things because I know that this level of ugly discourse is going to be something that we are going to have to live with for a lot longer than we choose, unless we choose to do something about it. I ask of you just to pay attention to what is happening to our society. Pay attention to the words that are being said and the way people are being demeaned by the Chief Executive Officer, who sets the standard, who is a standard-bearer. Pay attention to what is going on. I beg that, please, let's open our eyes and see how a single person is corrupting the discourse, not only, by the way, at rallies and among those who are on talk shows but also here in the Congress of the United States of America. I arrived here in 2005. Since then, the discourse in Congress has changed to the extent that people are saying things that I thought we would never hear in the Congress in terms of scatology, profanity, demeaning commentary. Now, I am not saying don't speak truth. Speak truth. But what I am saying is what we are saying to hurt people just to be harmful, to let people somehow be demeaned just to demean people, I find that unacceptable. I just beg that we would not be so blind as those who choose not to see. I think that society is not lost overnight, but the genesis of the loss is discourse, public discourse that degenerates to the extent that the humanity of every person is lessened, where people at some point conclude: Those people, they don't belong. Those people, they don't count. Every human being means something and counts. We ought not allow ourselves to allow things to happen to babies in cages. We ought not allow ourselves to conclude that certain religions are unacceptable. What can happen to one religion can happen to any religion. Every child is precious. We ought to respect the humanity of every person and accord a certain amount of decency to all people. I cannot believe some of the things that we are now tolerating. There was a time in this country when we would not tolerate having a person acknowledge that, among racists and bigots, there were some very fine people or nice people. There was a time when we wouldn't tolerate that, but we do now. There was a time when certain tropes that are being used and propagated, we wouldn't tolerate it, but we do now. My comment to America, to our country, and to the people who care is, at some point, this level of hate is going to become a bigger problem than we care to deal with, unless we deal with it now. We should. We should deal with it. We cannot allow it to become something that future generations will have to contend with. It is easy to believe that this is a temporary condition until it is no longer a temporary condition. ``Irreparable harm'' is a term that we use in law. At some point, this becomes irreparable harm. At some point, there are some people who will suffer to the extent that they can't recover. I know of people in the Latino community who live with a great degree of apprehension. People born in this country, Americans, live with a great degree of apprehension because of what happened in El Paso. I know of people who are of a certain faith, citizens of this country, who live with apprehension because of what happened in Charlottesville. We ought not allow the discourse, this incitive discourse, to create circumstances where people are harmed. We are seeing it happen, but I think that some of us choose not to see the harmful impact that it is having on our society. My message is very simple today. I beg, let's take a look, just open our eyes and let's look at what is happening to our country. If we can do this, we can change this. This ought not be the case in the greatest country in the world. There is no one so blind as he who chooses not to see. I hope that understanding will prevail and that we will decide that we will not tolerate the level of hateful discourse that we are suffering and that many people suffer from because there are other persons who hurt them after being exposed to this incitive discourse, this incendiary language, this weaponization of hate. People are hurting. I don't say these things because I want to make sure I personally am protected. I come to this podium to bring these words and this message because I know of the suffering in various communities. Those who are suffering from anti-Semitism, I know about it. Those who are suffering from racism, I know. Those who are suffering from the various insidious forms of hate related to who you happen to be, I know about it. The homophobia, the Islamophobia, the xenophobia, all of the various phobias that are harmful to people, I know. I have constituents, and I know that they expect me to do this. They expect someone to say that people are quietly suffering. They expect us to do this. They send us to Congress to do this. We ought not tolerate this level of hate because we perpetuate it, and we ought to do something about it. In the beginning was the word. This is the word. I am talking about it now. But there is much more that we can do, and I pray that we will become, each of us, a committee of one to do something about the hate that is being perpetrated among people in this country that is causing harm to other people in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise with love of country at heart and my mnemonic notes in hand. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the preeminent privilege and singular honor of paying tribute to a great American institution. I do so with H. Res. 760, commemorating Houston Methodist Hospital for 100 years of service, 100 years of world-class healthcare, 100 years of saving lives, 100 years of groundbreaking research. Houston Methodist Hospital, the world's first multiorgan transplant hospital; first coronary bypass, grafting with the patient's leg vein; ranked the number one hospital in Texas for 8 consecutive years and a national honor roll hospital by U.S. News and World Report. Houston Methodist has eight hospitals, employing more than 23,000 persons, 1.3 million patient encounters last year alone, acknowledged for their outstanding specialties in neurology, neurosurgery, pulmonology, orthopedics, cancer, cardiology, heart surgery, and urology. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to say that all of my colleagues in the Houston area are cosponsors of this resolution--original cosponsors, I might add. This would include the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, the Honorable Lizzie Fletcher, the Honorable Pete Olson, the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, the Honorable Michael McCaul, the Honorable Randy Weber, the Honorable Brian Babin, the Honorable Dan Crenshaw, and the Honorable Kevin Brady. Houston Methodist has a great president who not only responds to congressional inquiries, but also to the patients themselves. I know. I have known of patients who have actually had the opportunity to see the president of the hospital. Dr. Mark Boom is the president. He is a medical doctor himself, and he is the chief executive officer. This great institution is one that I am proud to have in my congressional district, I am proud to represent, and I am also proud to say is a part of the great institutions in the United States of America. Houston Methodist Hospital is celebrating its centennial, 100 years of faithful service and saving lives, not only in Houston, Harris County, in the State of Texas, but across the world.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise with love for my country at heart. Mr. Speaker, if I appear to have a pensive persona, it is because I am experiencing a melancholy moment, a melancholy moment because some 2-plus years ago I came to the floor of this House, stood in the well, and called for the impeachment of the President some 2 years ago. That moment is now at hand, and I do feel a sense of thoughtfulness, pensiveness because, to be very honest, I am saddened about what is about to happen. It is not something that I want to see occur in my country. I love my country. This is not something that I came to Congress to be a part of, but it is about to happen. The House will vote. The President will be impeached, after which his case will go to the Senate. The Senate will have a trial. If the Senate convicts and removes the President from office, this will bring this ignoble chapter in Presidential history to an end. But if the Senate does not convict, then the President is still subject to impeachment for other acts that are impeachable. I have always brought my Articles of Impeachment to the floor. I have always had a rationale for my actions. I never said to just impeach the President because he ought to be impeached. I never felt that way. I do not feel that way currently. Impeachment is a serious undertaking, and I always have been serious about my actions. I do believe that, if the Senate does not convict, other Articles of Impeachment may be considered. Currently, we are considering two Articles of Impeachment--abuse of power and obstruction of Congress-- but there is much more to be considered. It is my opinion that we will still have work to do if the Senate does not convict. To this end, I want to use an example so that people will understand the point I am making. The President himself has said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue--these are the President's words--and he would not lose his base of support. Well, if he does that with malice aforethought and if someone is hurt, regardless as to what happens in the Senate, if the Senate does not convict, the President can be brought before the bar of justice again. This is the bar of justice for a President who commits impeachable acts. This is the only place where the President can be brought before the bar of justice while he is President--right here. If he does such a thing with malice aforethought, I would bring Articles of Impeachment before this august body for consideration. My prayer is that the Senate will do its job and not only receive the Articles of Impeachment but also act on them because I believe that the President ought to be convicted and removed from office. I have said before and say now: He is unfit to be President. My prayer is that we will soon end this ignoble chapter in Presidential history. I love my country, and I stand here with my love for my country at heart, but equally as important is my love for these babies, for people who are being harmed by what this President has done to our society. It fits perfectly in what Alexander Hamilton called to our attention in Federalist Paper No. 65, for what has happened to our society? I appreciate the articles that are being brought now, but the harm to our society has not been eradicated. We have an unapologetic President who continues to cause harm to this society in the vein and sense that Alexander Hamilton reminded us would be impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I love my country.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and for her outstanding service as a member of this august body. I would also like to thank my friend from Louisiana, my home State, for his outstanding presentation as it relates to this piece of legislation. Seated next to the gentleman from Louisiana is our dear friend, who is cosponsoring this piece of legislation, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Taylor for all that he has done to bring this to fruition. And, of course, we could not do this without saying a word about the chairperson of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. I want to thank Mr. Thompson for not only bringing this legislation to my attention but, also, allowing it to get to the floor, such that we might have this opportunity for passage. I would like to address immediately the concern that my friend raised about this piece of legislation not being perfect, and I confess that it isn't. I do think it is good legislation, but I want to allay any consternation that Members may have. Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken to staff, and I have agreed that we should be flexible in trying to work to make sure that what we present to the Senate and what we ultimately get from the Senate will be something that we can all agree to. Just as we have been able to bring this to the floor with bipartisan support, I would like to see bicameral support and continue this bipartisan relationship. I think it is an imperative for us if we are going to do this in an effective way. One thing to talk about very briefly, of course, is the subpoena power. I think this is a thing that some people are afraid might somehow be abused. I am concerned. I believe that this type of authority should be handled with the greatest degree of sensitivity. Mr. Speaker, we pledge to you to do all that we can to make sure that, as we move forward, that level of sensitivity is something that we embrace in a holistic way so that all parties concerned will ultimately conclude that we have come up with the perfect formula to get this to the President for his signature. I would like to say this, finally: This piece of legislation is something that I think is sorely needed. What it does is it will confer upon the CRCL officer the same authorities granted to DHS privacy officers. That same level of authority is something that I believe would be of great benefit to the Department and to the people that the Department will embrace by way of their services. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my friends and colleagues, and I am going to be as pithy as I can be and simply say ``amen'' to what has been said.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, with my mnemonic notes. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. I rise because I love my country. And because I love my country, I do not rise with any degree of schadenfreude. I take no pleasure in what this House is about to do. I am not gleeful. I rise because I believe that we must do what Dr. King called to our attention when he said that, on some issues, you must do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular. You do it because conscience tells you it is the right thing to do. I rise to announce that I believe that we are about to do the right thing. And I know that we are doing the right thing for a multiplicity of reasons, one of which is you cannot allow the Chief Executive Officer to send a letter of absolute, intractable defiance indicating that there will be no level of cooperation with the lawful constitutional body that is investigating actions--actions taken by the President. You cannot allow this kind of recalcitrance to exist, because, if you do, there are no guardrails. We cannot allow a President to move through the land without guardrails. He has to know that there are boundaries. So I rise to say, today, that this House is moving in a historic direction, that, when it is written across the pages of time that this House took the action that I believe it will take, I think we will all find that it was the right thing to do. I rise also to say this: The Constitution allows a President to be impeached more than once. If we impeach now or at some time in the near future for one issue that we dearly should, then we find later that the President has other issues that merit impeachment, we can impeach again. There is no limit on the number of times. I don't think you do it needlessly. Every time I have called it to the attention of this House, there was purpose and reason behind it, and I believe that we can do it more than once if it becomes necessary. I think the Senate ought to act. I think the Senate ought to convict. But if the Senate does not convict, it does not mean that the House is now hamstrung and cannot move forward again with impeachment. So I rise with no degree of schadenfreude. I rise with love of country and heart, and I rise understanding that Dr. King was eminently correct: There are times when we must do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular. We do it because it is the right thing to do. I rise because I believe we are embarking upon the right course for this House and for our history.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the opportunity to speak, and I commend her for her stellar effort to bring justice to the housing circumstance in our country. I am honored to say that I did visit her congressional district, and we had a field hearing that was quite successful. She truly is engaged and involved in making a difference in her community. Madam Speaker, I was there in 2008 when we had the housing crisis. I remember when Secretary Paulson came before the committee. He was there in need of some funds for what were called toxic assets. He was there because the market was in a free fall. He was there because there was an imminent crisis that had to be contained. I remember him asking for a large sum of money with few pages, probably less than 5 pages. He wanted us to infuse capital into a process that would allow us to purchase these toxic assets. He was indicating to us that this was an emergency. He did not ask for hundreds of millions of dollars. He did not ask for tens of billions of dollars. He requested hundreds of billions of dollars. I do recall that I spoke to constituents, and being the judicious person that I was, I did pay attention to my constituents who encouraged me and insisted that I not bail out the big banks. That was the language that was used: Do not bail out the big banks, Al. I was judicious. I listened to my constituents. When we took the vote on the floor to accord the sum of 700-some billions of dollars, I remember standing over in the door and looking at the vote. I could also see the stock market at the same time. As the bill was failing, the stock market was crashing. It was a day that I will never forget. I went back home, and I visited with my constituents. The constituents said to me: Al, what is wrong with you? You did not vote to save my 401(k). You let the market fall. You could have voted to support us. I learned an invaluable lesson that day. The lesson is this: there are times when you have to do what you know to be the best thing, even when your constituents might stand in opposition to it. That is the lesson that I carry with me to this day. I came back. We had a second vote, and I voted for the funds necessary to deal with the toxic assets. One of the reasons why I was so concerned about this was because I understood what was happening. There were instruments that were in the marketplace that were not suitable for everyone. We had something called a 327 and a 228; 3 years, 2 years of a fixed rate, and then 27 years or 28 years of a variable rate. This was not suitable for everyone. We had no-doc loans, meaning no documents necessary, and you could walk in and work out some means by which you could acquire a loan, Madam Speaker. We had negative amortization, a process that allowed you to at some point continue to owe more than you initially borrowed. We had something called the yield spread premium. The yield spread premium allowed the person who originated your loan to originate a loan for you for an amount in excess of what you qualified for. Here is how it worked: That person would check to see what you were eligible for as a rate. You could qualify for a loan at 5 percent, but at that time because of the yield spread premium, the person originating could come out and say, good news, I have a loan for you for 8 percent. You qualify for 5, you get a loan for 8 percent interest, and the person would never have to tell you that you qualified for the 5 percent. The money between 5 and 8 was called the spread, and the yield on that spread could be shared with the person who originated the loan and the lender, the yield spread premium. Poor people, well, people who are of little means who acquired homes with these 327s and 228s, that I mentioned where the rate would go up and down, they lost homes. It is said that in the African American community a generation of wealth was lost--a generation. The community is still recovering from the 2008 downturn. I believe that we do have to reconsider how we address housing in this country. There are some people who are born into poverty. They are not born into plenty. For those who are not born into poverty, it is not easy to work your way to plenty. So we have to have housing as a means by which they can acquire and accumulate wealth. One of the things that I tried to do--and there are many things that can be done--is to use something called alternative credit scoring. This is where you will score a person's light bill, gas bill, water bill, phone bill, and cable bill and use that information with the traditional credit to allow that person to have maybe the little additional help needed so as to acquire a loan. It is a pilot program. We have passed the bill out of committee. It is H.R. 123. This piece of legislation will allow many, many persons with thin files and with little credit, because they haven't been in the credit market, to get a home. Many people who are paying now X number of dollars for rent will be able to acquire a home for X minus some amount, meaning less than what they are paying for rent, they will be able to acquire a home. I am pleased to say that many of the prudential agencies are in agreement and are encouraging this. Just today we had a hearing with the Housing, Community Development and Insurance Subcommittee, and Mr. Montgomery, who is the head of FHFA, was there. I will be visiting with him. He and I agreed to have an appointment so that we can talk about these things and see what we can do to help with homeownership for persons who were not born in the suites of life and many who now find themselves living in the streets of life. This is something that is an imperative. It is a moral imperative. It is something that we have to do because we want to have a just society, and a just society would afford an equal opportunity to all to have a place to call home. In the richest country in the world, every person ought to have a fair opportunity to have a place to call home. I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to share, and I encourage her to continue on her mission to bring justice to those who find themselves living in places that, quite frankly, most people in Congress would not live in under any circumstances, but, unfortunately, we are not doing enough to help others to be extricated from the circumstances of which we speak.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, with my mnemonic notes in hand. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country, but I also rise today with heartfelt regrets. Mr. Speaker, it hurts my heart to see the Judiciary Committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment, one of the seminal issues of this Congress, hearing experts, Mr. Speaker, and not one person of color among the experts. What subliminal message are we sending to the world when we have experts, but not one person of color? Are we saying that there are no people of color who are experts on this topic of impeachment? What is the message that we are sending? Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, I will apologize; but if the committee is wrong, if the Congress is wrong, what will it do? Mr. Speaker, people of color, for too long, have been ignored by one party and taken for granted by the other. Too often this happens. Not always, but too often it happens. Mr. Speaker, I refuse to be ignored and taken for granted. I came here to represent the people who are ignored and taken for granted. Not one person of color among the constitutional scholars. It seems that there is a desire among some to have the output of people of color without input from the people of color. It seems to me that we have reached a point wherein we have got to have this debate about what these committees are going to do when we have our various persons appear before us as witnesses. We ought to have balance as it relates to all aspects of society, and that would include people of color. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great regret. I rise today to say that this is not about Democrats; it is not about Republicans. It is about fairness. It is about whether or not we have matured to the point in this country where we are going to treat all people equally. It is about whether we have metamorphosed to a point where we will not allow committees to have persons appear without considering the diversity and the richness of that diversity within this country. I support people of color. I do so not because I am a person of color. I do so because I believe that, in this country, the words of the Pledge of Allegiance are important, that we should have liberty and justice for all.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, the gentlewoman from North Carolina and I are very dear friends, and I have great respect for her. In fact, I have a deep, abiding affinity for her humanity. But, today, I am reminded of the words of Ruth Smeltzer. Ruth Smeltzer reminds us that: Some measure their lives by days and years, Others by heartthrobs, passions, and tears; But the surest measure under the Sun, Is what in your lifetime for others you have done. Madam Chair, this day provides us an opportunity to do something for others who are in harm's way, who are caregivers, and who are doing what they can to provide the kind of healthcare services that we need. They do it at great risk. We are the people who can minimize that risk. It is our responsibility to do for others what we would have others do for us. If I were a healthcare worker, I would want Congress to take this kind of appropriate action to protect me. I also would remind my colleagues that if we do nothing, at some point, we will find people reluctant to go into this area of endeavor. Who wants to go to work with the fear of being harmed? I love my dear lady from North Carolina, but we respectfully disagree. The buck stops here. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, may I inquire what time is remaining.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I am proud to be a sponsor of H.R. 1309 for a multiplicity of reasons, and I thank Mr. Courtney for introducing this legislation. Madam Chair, I am proud to tell you also that within my congressional district in Houston, Texas, we have the largest medical center in the world. Madam Chair, annually, the Houston Medical Center encounters 10 million patients. The Houston Medical Center also, Madam Chair, has 106,000 employees. The Houston Medical Center is 17 times larger than the average city in the United States of America. We understand the scope of this problem, and there is a problem. But, sometimes, problems are not best explained with statistical information. Sometimes, the words of people can make the difference in understanding a problem. I have within my hand a letter from the National Nurses United organization. Hear now their words: Violence on the job has become endemic for RNs and other workers in healthcare and social assistance settings. Nurses report being punched, kicked, bitten, beaten, and threatened with violence as they provide care to others. Far too many have experienced stabbing and shootings. Madam Chair, the evidence is overwhelming. We do have a problem. To understand the scope of the problem, you have to have some intelligence accorded some repository so that it can be properly assessed. The Secretary of Labor will be the repository. We will get the information to the Secretary. But this is not enough, to merely have the Secretary of Labor have the sense of what the scope is. The buck stops with Congress. Congress needs to know the scope of the problem. If changes are necessary and not being made, the buck stops with us. We will have to encounter this, and we will have to take up our duty, responsibility, and obligation to provide the proper legislation. With this understanding, we have filed amendment No. 6. This amendment understands that the Secretary will receive the information, and then this amendment would require the Secretary to annually report to Congress so that Congress will have the transparency that the Secretary has so that Congress may take appropriate action when necessary. Understanding the scope of the problem helps you understand the scope of a necessary solution, if there is one. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the For the People Agenda generated by this House, and I am antithetical to the Senate's provision, which is a for-the-President agenda. We, the Members of the House, have passed legislation for gun safety. The President has merely talked about it. We have passed legislation to help with personal and financial security for women. The President says ugly things about women. We pass legislation that will help the Dreamers. The President is about ending the dream. We have passed legislation helping those who are being discriminated against in the LGBTQ community. The President ignores this community. We passed legislation to help with election and democracy security. The President wants to do all that he can to help Putin and those in Russia with their security, ignoring ours. In our House we have, for the people, passed a bill to increase the minimum wage. The President seems to be antithetical to it. If we have our For the People Agenda and we pass these bills and send them to the Senate, the least that the Senate can do is generate their own version so that these bills may go to a conference committee. They don't have to have a for-the-President agenda. I am for the people. The Senate is for the President.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise tonight with a degree of sadness because we have this day, this national Transgender Day of Remembrance. It is a sad thing such that you have to have an occasion such as this. You should never have to set aside time annually to remember those who have lost their lives to violence. But because it happens, we must be here. What Dr. King reminds us was right then and is right now: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Injustice against the trans community is a threat to every community. It seems that murder of Black transgender women is becoming almost a crisis in this country. Fatal antitransgender violence in the United States is on the rise, and most of the victims are Black transgender women: the largest number of transgender homicides, a record number in 2017, 29 killed; last year, 26 killed, most of them Black. Why is this happening? Well, one reason might be because this administration tends to promote a narrative that marginalizes people who are already being marginalized. Such a narrative has a means of trickling down. The tone and tenor of society is set by those at the top. Those at the top have to be mindful of the messages that they send. So I am honored to observe this day, and I would like to speak very tersely about someone whose story cannot be told in 5 minutes. Itali Marlowe was my constituent. She was found in the driveway of a local residence, shot multiple times, the 19th trans person to die by violence in our Nation this year. All but one of these victims has been a trans woman of color. This day allows us to memorialize those who have been murdered as a result of transphobia. But I pray for a day when this day will no longer exist, when all people will be accepted in a society that proclaims liberty and justice for all. Income Inequality and Collective Bargaining Rights

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today for a very special purpose. I rise because this House on Monday passed H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019. I rise today, because in thanking people on Tuesday, I neglected to thank one person who was extremely important in the passage of this legislation. The majority leader Mr. Hoyer not only worked to help us bring the legislation to the floor, Mr. Hoyer also improved the legislation. When it left our committee, it was a good bill. It had the unanimous consent of the committee. Some things bear repeating. One hundred percent of the people on the Financial Services Committee supported this legislation. Mr. Hoyer helped us by infusing it with some additional language that deals with resiliency that will help us to rebuild better and stronger after there has been a disaster. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Hoyer for his leadership. Especially he is thanked for making a good bill a much better bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the staff really worked diligently and tirelessly to get this bill passed as well. But the bill itself, after natural disasters in this country, we have been relegated to starting a process to accord various areas in the country that are impacted funding to help them rebuild, to help them restore order to their lives. In doing this, we have not codified the methodology by which we would perfect the assistance that is needed. We never codified it. Twenty-six years ago, HUD received the responsibility to respond, but we didn't give any codified rules. The HUD OIG indicated that there was a necessity to codify some rules so that we could respond in a timely manner but, also, do it in an efficacious manner such that we would not reinvent the wheel each and every time, which is what we have been doing, reinventing the wheel. Well, this bill does that. It codifies the whole process of dealing with management after a disaster. FEMA deals with the emergency side of it, in terms of an immediate response, providing persons with someplace to live, providing persons with the necessities of life. But the long-term response is what HUD deals with. Under this long-term response legislation that we passed yesterday, HUD now can work with municipalities directly, in some cases. If a municipality has demonstrated that it can handle large sums of money, then funding can go from the Congress to the municipality, as opposed to some other agency within the State and then trickle down to that municipality. Houston, Texas, by way of example, has demonstrated that it can handle these large sums of money. They have a great accounting department. Mayor Turner is there, and he has done an outstanding job. With this kind of opportunity to get direct funding, people will receive help more efficaciously. They will receive it immediately. Also, in small areas of the country, small cities, they will get a better understanding of how they can approach this process and how they can get the funding accorded them in a faster way. The bill really is something that has been needed, not only for the hurricanes and the flooding but also for the tornadic activities, for the earthquakes that will visit some parts of the country, and for the fires that we will have. This legislation is meaningful, and I will say more about it in the future.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country, and I rise today with a very special message concerning some of the disasters that confront us in this country. I rise because, last night, this House passed H.R. 3702. This was a piece of legislation designed to deal with emergency management after these disasters. It is styled the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019. This is an important piece of legislation that passed, and because it has passed the House, it is most appropriate that we do several things. The first is to acknowledge the support that it had in the House and give thanks to those who have supported the legislation. I have to thank all the 290 Members of this House who voted to support this legislation--290 Members. It was bipartisan. Mrs. Ann Wagner was the Republican lead on this bill, and she did great work in bringing along the bipartisan effort that was necessary to pass the legislation--Mrs. Ann Wagner, a cosponsor of the legislation to deal with natural disasters. I would also like to thank my chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the Honorable Maxine Waters, who fought fearlessly to help us get this passed. But I cannot do this without acknowledging the ranking member, the Honorable Mr. McHenry, who also fought to get it passed. In fact, it passed out of the committee unanimously because of Waters and McHenry, and because of the Honorable Ann Wagner. It passed out of the committee unanimously. The bill came to the floor, and again, 290 of the Members of this Congress voted for it. I salute all the persons who helped to make this possible. Just a quick word about the bill, and 5 minutes is not nearly enough to thank all the people associated with it. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a long list of persons, not the least of which, of course, will be the staff. Rep. Wagner, Chair Waters and Ranking Member McHenry, Leaders Hoyer and McCarthy, Democratic and Republican Staff, Office of Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson, Chair DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves, Chair Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, Harris County Judge Hidalgo, Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Harris County Commissioner Adrian Garcia. Endorsements National Housing Resource Center. National Fair Housing Alliance. National Low Income Housing Coalition. Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition, 800+ members, including: The Arc of the United States, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, Disaster Law Project, Enterprise Community Partners, Fair Share Housing Center, Habitat for Humanity International, Hispanic Federation, Local Initiatives Support Coalition, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Coalition for Healthy Housing, National Community Development Association, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Texas Low Income Housing Information Service.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4029) to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to enable Indian Tribes and tribally designated housing entities to apply for, receive, and administer grants and subgrants under the Continuum of Care Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as amended.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4029, the Tribal Eligibility for Homeless Assistance Grants Act of 2019, which makes Tribes and tribally designated housing entities eligible to receive McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grant funding. Mr. Speaker, Native Americans and Alaska Natives face some of the worst housing and living conditions in the United States. They face high poverty rates, unemployment, overcrowding. Standard housing conditions are not something that they enjoy; in fact, they enjoy substandard conditions. And they have unique issues for developing housing. As a result, Native Americans tend to be overrepresented among the homeless population. Despite the prevalence of homeless in Native communities, Tribes and tribally designated housing entities are not currently eligible to compete for HUD McKinney-Vento Continuum of Care grants. Current housing assistance for Native communities fall substantially short of meeting their affordable housing needs, and this bill would direct more housing resources to address homelessness on Tribal lands. I am proud to see that Members have worked together to put forth a bipartisan bill to better address homelessness among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for introducing this important legislation that is aimed to help address Tribal homelessness. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3702) to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to provide disaster assistance to States, Puerto Rico, units of general local government, and Indian tribes under a community development block grant disaster recovery program, and for other purposes, as amended.