Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act. H.R. 2 has significant goals which I proudly support. During this time of unrest as a result of different tragic encounters with police officers, I am especially proud of the inclusion of language that embraces my bill, H.R. 169--the Driver and Officer Safety Education Act. The language included in H.R. 2 would establish a grant program for states with specific standards for education and training programs concerning civilian and law enforcement encounters during traffic stops and other in-person encounters. Originally intended to memorialize the fatal shooting of Philando Castile during a 2016 traffic stop in Minnesota, this language is both timely and extremely necessary given the recent tragic deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks who both died as a result of encounters with local law enforcement. Their lives mattered. The inclusion of my bill H.R. 169 in H.R. 2 advances us toward a better understanding of how police and civilians should interact during traffic stops and other in-person encounters to save lives. However, to take the much-needed step toward effective reformation, we must also aim for reconciliation. My resolution, H. Res. 992, calls for a Department of Reconciliation that would report directly to the President and be charged with eliminating systemic racism and invidious discrimination from all aspects of American life. I thank my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for including H.R. 169, and I look forward to H.R. 2 passing the Senate and hopefully being enacted as law. We cannot allow the multifaceted issues disproportionately affecting low-income communities and communities of color to go unaddressed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Waters. It is always an honor to serve under her leadership. I thank the gentlewoman greatly for including H.R. 6760 within this bill, H.R. 7301. I am grateful because the gentlewoman is imminently correct when she says that people can't wait. They can't wait because invidious discrimination still exists, and it is increasing. The National Fair Housing Alliance surveyed their members, their organizations, and here is what they found as it relates to the declared pandemic, declared on March 11, 2020. They found that 13 percent indicated that there is an increase in complaints related to sexual harassment, 16 percent related to domestic violence, an 8 percent increase related to national origin of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. But here is one that will really capture your attention. With reference to persons who have disabilities--didn't say that they were of a specific hue, nothing about their sex--those with disabilities, a 45 percent increase in complaints. They need help. Yes, we can wait, but they can't, and we have to do something to help them. That is what this bill does. It affords additional money for enforcement of laws that already exist with reference to discrimination in housing. It also will give people an opportunity to get some additional education. Some people make mistakes, but we don't know that they are making mistakes until we give them an opportunity to be educated. So we will give them the opportunity. And finally, this: These complaints are increasing in part because of the incendiary, incitive comments made by the President when he uses terms related to the virus that relate to people, and there are some people who take these statements to extremes and they discriminate against people. So I am proud to support the legislation. I ask my colleagues to do so, because the people who are being discriminated against cannot wait.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to serve in the Congress of the United States of America under Chairwoman Waters' leadership. Madam Speaker, Ms. Waters and I both know that the CRA was not born to create luxury homes in opportunity zones. The CRA was not birthed to provide opportunities in what are being called banking deserts that may not be LMI communities. The CRA was born to correct the harm that the government had done in the 1930s. At that time, the government, by and through the FHA, decided that it would craft maps, and these maps had red lines on them. These red lines became communities that were undesirable, but more appropriately, they were deemed unsafe, and as a result, lending institutions would not lend in these redlined areas. The CRA was born to end the discrimination, the redlining, but this bill takes a step back to the 1930s. This bill will not undo the harm that was done; it will increase the harm. I cannot support it. The CRA was created to help LMI, low-to-moderate income, communities have banking privileges that they were denied under the law. This bill doesn't help us with the LMIs. It is going to give those big guys an opportunity to acquire these funds. I stand against it. Madam Speaker, I support the chair of the committee and I stand for justice for the LMI communities.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the following letters to be included in the debate on H.J. Res. 90. The following letters express support for H.J. Res. 90. National Community Reinvestment Coalition, June 23, 2020. House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we are writing to urge you to cosponsor and support H.J. Res. 90, a disapproval resolution that would overturn a poorly constructed rule change on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) hastily finalized in May, days before Comptroller Otting's resignation from the agency, and published this month. At the outset, it is critical to note that the Trump Administration is split on the CRA final rule. With a lack of interagency coordination among the nation's bank regulators, different banks will be held to different reinvestment standards depending on their regulator--an outcome that both banks and advocates have cautioned against. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell testified just last week that he expects the agency to move forward with CRA updates intended to garner ``broad support among the community of intended beneficiaries'' something he considers to be ``one non- negotiable condition for it.'' The OCC's final rule achieved no such support or consensus. The vast majority of public comments--about 90 percent--opposed the CRA evaluation measure and presumptive ratings framework that remains at the heart of the final rule, but the OCC adopted it anyway. The OCC's final rule makes a series of changes to the CRA regulatory framework that reduce incentives for banks to lend to low-and-moderate income (LMI) families and invest and serve LMI communities: home buyers and homeowners, small businesses, community development projects that primarily benefit and serve LMI people. It also expands the number of banks that will have no review of how they open and close bank branches and provide key bank services in LMI and underserved neighborhoods. These harmful changes could not come at a worse time. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and widespread social unrest that is gripping the nation has hit LMI and communities of color the hardest and brought gapping disparities to the forefront. The changes to the CRA being pushed through by the OCC would do little to address the pressing national priorities of reducing the racial wealth gap, of better serving those traditionally underserved by the nation's financial system or stimulating an economic recovery from COVID-19 that is equitable. While the OCC claims its aim is to increase CRA activity, the lack of interagency agreement among this Administration's regulators should serve as a dire warning about that claim. We do not yet know the full impact of COVID-19 on local mortgage markets, small business resiliency, or how LMI households, neighborhoods, local jobs, and key sectors will recover. Weakening CRA at this moment is a blueprint for a crisis after the crisis. For all these reasons and more, we urge you to cosponsor H.J. Res. 90 and support it when it is considered on the House floor. Sincerely, National Groups National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC): AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Community Progress, Consumer Action, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), NACEDA, National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders (NALCAB), National Housing Resource Center, National Housing Trust, National NeighborWorks Association, National Urban League, Prosperity Now, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, UnidosUS. Alabama Titusville Development Corporation. Arizona Arizona Housing Coalition, Local First Arizona, Local First Arizona Foundation. California California Coalition for Rural Housing; California Reinvestment Coalition; California Resources and Training; CDC Small Business Finance; EAH Housing; Grounded Solutions Network; High Impact Financial Analysis, LLC; Peoples' Self- Help Housing; The Greenlining Institute; VEDC. Colorado Urban Land Conservancy. Connecticut Neighborhood Housing Services of Waterbury. District of Columbia Africa Diaspora Directorate. Delaware Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc.; Edgemoor Revitalization Cooperative, Inc.; The Ministry of Caring Inc. Florida Affordable Homeownership Foundation, Inc.; Community Reinvestment Alliance of South Florida; Goldenrule Housing & Community Development Corp Inc; Metro North Community Development Corp.; Solita's House. Hawaii Hawai`i Alliance for Community-Based Economic Development. Illinois Accion Serving Illinois & Indiana; Chicago Community Loan Fund; Chicago Rehab Network; Housing Action Illinois; NW HomeStart, Inc.; Woodstock Institute. Indiana Continuum of Care Network NWI, Inc.; HomesteadCS; Legacy Foundation; Prosperity Indiana. Kentucky River City Housing. Louisiana Multi-Cultural Development Center. Massachusetts Greater Boston Legal Services, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance. Maryland African American Chamber of Commerce of Montgomery County, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, Rebirth Inc., Residential Housing Counseling Agency. Maine Coastal Enterprises, Inc. Michigan Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, GenesisHOPE, Habitat for Humanity of Michigan, Southwest Economic Solutions. Missouri Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council. Mississippi Hope Enterprise Corporation, Montgomery Citizens United for Prosperity (MCUP). Montana Montana Fair Housing, Inc. North Carolina Reinvestment Partners. New Jersey NCRC Housing Rehab Fund, LLC; New Jersey Association on Correction; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey Community Capital. New Mexico Southwest Neighborhood Housing Services. New York Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development (ANHD); Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association; Beaulac Associates LLC; BOC Capital Corp. CDFI; Business Outreach Center Network; Center for NYC Neighborhoods; Chhaya Community Development Corporation; Community Capital New York; Community Development Venture Capital Alliance; CNY Fair Housing, Inc.; Community Loan Fund of the Capital Region, Inc.; Fair Finance Watch; Fidelis Federal Credit Union; Fifth Avenue Committee; Genesee Co-op FCU; Greater Jamaica Development Corporation; Habitat for Humanity New York City; Habitat NYC Community Fund; La Fuerza CDC; Neighbors Helping Neighbors; NYS CDFI Coalition; Oswego County Federal Credit Union; PathStone Enterprise Center, Inc.; Renaissance Economic Development Corp.; The Knowledge House; Three Jewels Outreach Center; University Neighborhood Housing Program. Ohio Cleveland Neighborhood Progress; Columbus Compact dba Columbus Empowerment Corp.; County Corp.; Homes on the Hill, CDC; Ohio CDC Association; The Fair Housing Center for Rights & Research; Working In Neighborhoods. Oregon Housing Oregon. Pennsylvania Amani Christian Community Development; Beltzhoover Consensus Group; Berks Latino Workforce Development Corporation (BLWDC); Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation; Chester Community Improvement Project; Fair Housing Rights Center in Southeastern Pennsylvania; Good Bricks Ventures LLC; Hilltop Alliance; Housing Committee; Jave Jive Coffee LLC; Mount Washington Community Development Corporation; Northside Leadership Conference; PHDA Pittsburgh Housing Development Association, Inc.; Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations; Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group; Rising Tide Partners; Southwest CDC; The Enterprise Center; Tube City Renaissance; Wilkinsburg Community Development Corporation. Rhode Island HousingWorks RI. Texas Our Casas Resident Council INC., Recon Foundation, Southern Dallas Progress Community Development Corporation. Utah Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation. Washington Low Income Housing Institute. Wisconsin Citizen Action of Wisconsin; Disability Justice; Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council; Movin' Out, Inc.; United Community Center; Urban Economic Development Association of Wisconsin (UEDA); Washington Park Housing Comm; YWCA Southeast Wisconsin; Revitalize Milwaukee.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 51--the Washington, D.C. Admission Act--introduced by my colleague, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. This bill would not only establish the District of Columbia (``D.C.'') as the 51st state of the United States, but it would also grant long overdue voting representation at the federal level to the residents of D.C. I remain committed to the principles this country boasts: democracy and representation. Since 1801, the residents of D.C. have been denied federal representation. They pay their taxes and have fought and died in every American war, yet those armed service members and their families are deprived of the freedoms they have fought to protect. Statehood is the only remedy that provides full representation in Congress for the residents of Washington, D.C.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I am here for a special purpose, and I shall not deviate from the cause that has brought me to this podium tonight, but I do assure you there are things that have been said that at an appropriate time, I will respond to. Tonight, I rise to call to the attention of this House H. Res. 1014, Encouraging the celebration of the month of June as LGBTQ Pride Month. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the many original cosponsors of this resolution. There are 60. I would like to thank the Human Rights Campaign for the work that it has done to help us construct this resolution. I would like to thank the Center for Transgender Equality, the Equality Caucus, and Dignity Houston. I rise tonight because 51 years ago, the Stonewall riots in New York heralded in the beginning of the end of a shameful period in our history, because 51 years ago, Madam Speaker, in June 1969, police raided The Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, New York, causing a civil uprising and clashes between the police and thousands of protesters. Those historic events catalyzed a generation of activists who birthed a civil rights movement for LGBTQ equality. I rise tonight because I am an ally of the LGBTQ-plus community. I rise tonight because I didn't get here by myself. There were people of all stripes who made it possible for me to stand here in the House of Representatives. I rise tonight because 51 years ago being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender was illegal in most States in this country. Another way of putting it is this: It was illegal to be who you were in this country. Fifty-one years ago, no Federal or State laws existed to secure the rights of lesbian and gay people to live openly in a relationship with their partner. Fifty-one years ago, no law precluded even the most overt discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Fifty-one years ago, our legal system afforded LGBTQ-plus persons no protections under the law to live free from discrimination in employment, in housing, in finance, in education, or in healthcare. I rise tonight because 51 years ago, there were few openly gay politicians or public figures in this country. I am honored to say that the Honorable Barney Frank, whom I served with in Congress, has been and continues to be a part of this resolution. Each resolution that I have sponsored has honored the Honorable Barney Frank, a Member of Congress from 1981 to 2013, and recognized him as an honorary cosponsor of this resolution. I rise because 51 years ago, being openly gay was a finable offense, a crime, in many Federal agencies and a per se bar to obtaining a Federal security clearance. But today, thanks to the resolution and thanks to the revolution that began this month 51 years ago at Stonewall, I am proud to say that several openly gay persons serve proudly on my congressional staff. I am proud to have them, and I am proud of the work they do. Today, I am even more proud that as of last Monday, when the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, each member of my staff and all LGBTQ persons in the United States of America now enjoy the same legal protections against employment discrimination as all other persons without regard to sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. In that historic 6-3 decision, the Bostock court resoundingly affirmed that the prohibitions of Title VII bar all discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation or gender identity. Today, we recall the painful, bloody, and often deadly toll of the 51 formative years between Stonewall and Bostock. Today, we remember each LGBTQ-plus victim of discrimination, violence, and prejudice in the intervening years--51 years, I might add--who were shut out, subjugated, or even killed. Today, we mourn each one of the Black transgender women who have been murdered in this year alone. And today, with consideration of this Pride resolution, we continue the tradition that I began as an original sponsor of Congress' Pride Month resolution. I am proud of how far we have come as a Nation in our struggle for full LGBTQ-plus equality. And in this season of Pride, it is fitting to celebrate that remarkable hard-won progress. But today, I also recognize that, although we have come a long way in 51 years, we still have far to go. Today, we must ensure that full inclusion for LGBTQ-plus persons does not take another 51 years or even 51 weeks. It is now time that we must complete the march toward full legal equality for all persons, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. Today, I call upon the Senate to take up and pass the Equality Act, H.R. 5, without further delay. I am proud to be the original sponsor of this resolution. I am grateful to all who have become original cosponsors. It is not too late for persons to cosponsor the resolution, and I would beg that persons would do so. So now, having finished my comments on the Pride Month resolution, I would like to step over to the next microphone. Valuing Order and Law Instead of Law and Order

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise because now I must say it was most difficult to sit in this House and hear some of the comments made by my colleagues tonight. They seem to value statues above human life. All the vandalism and crimes that have been committed, I don't support that, and I don't think that the protesters who were out there peacefully protesting supported it either. I don't think you ought to paint all protesters with one brush, just as I don't paint all peace officers with one brush. I never conclude that all officers are bad, but those who are bad ought to be punished. I find it quite fascinating that my colleagues who came here and spoke so eloquently tonight, I haven't heard them on the floor in prior times talking about all of the atrocities being committed against people of color at the hands of the constabulary. I just question why is it that they don't come to the floor and stand up for people of color. I stand up for all people. It doesn't matter your color, your sex, your sexual orientation. I have been on this floor consistently doing this, but I don't see that from the other side. I see them here for what I call order and law, not law and order, and here is how that works: You have a President who goes before members of the police community, and he says to them: When you arrest a person, you don't have to be so nice. Now, he is talking about a person who is in the care, custody, and control of the police, and that person does not have to be treated so nice. He sent a message. That message was, you maintain order, do whatever you have got to do, and I will provide the law to support you. That is order and law. I support law and order. I have an uncle who was a deputy sheriff. He influenced my life. I am probably in Congress today because of words that he spoke to me, so I support policing. I understand the necessity to have persons who are going to assure us that we can be protected. But what I don't support is a belief that peaceful protesters are all somehow a part of a mob. You can peacefully protest and go to jail. I know; I have been there. I was there with the Honorable John Lewis. We were peacefully protesting, but we went to jail. Peaceful protesters go to jail. Peaceful protesters get in the way. Peaceful protesters disrupt. That is what protest is about. If people don't get uncomfortable, then your protest has accomplished very little. Dr. King was in jail when he wrote the letter from the Birmingham jail. He was peacefully protesting, but he went to jail. It happens. That is a part of the protest movement. When I went out to protest, knowing that I would likely go to jail, I had somebody to post my bail. Peaceful protest does not mean that you are not disruptive. It means that you have a message that has to be heard. As Dr. King put it, protests can be the language of the unheard, peaceful protest especially. So I am here to say to my colleagues, I regret that you cannot see the hurt that is being felt by people of color. I don't understand why my tax dollars have to support a statue along some thoroughfare of Robert E Lee. You can have it. Take it to a museum. Tuck it away for whatever purposes you like. But you don't have to impose it upon me. We don't allow--or, more appropriately, Germany does not have statues of Hitler in the public squares. And I refuse to stand by and allow statues of people who wanted to keep my ancestors in chains, in slavery, which is a nice way of saying rape, murder, kidnapping, stripping babies from their parents, and sending the parents one way and the children another. It is too nice a word for what happened to my ancestors. So, I am not going to celebrate them. I have never celebrated them, and it is time to remove them. I am not going to go out and pull one over and push it off into some corner. But I don't see my colleagues helping with the means by which they can be removed, and you take them and put them wherever you would like to have them. I have no problem with your ownership of them, but don't expect me to celebrate them and have my tax dollars take care of them. There was one in my congressional district, a Confederate soldier named Dowling. It has been removed, and I am proud to know that was removed. So I rise now, as I close, to say just simply this: I love my country. I love my country. I love it because of many of the good things that have happened to me. But I also love it in spite of many of the things that were not appropriate that have occurred. And I will continue to love my country. But I refuse to accept symbols of racism and hate. I will never honor them, and I would badly have my colleagues take them to some other place out of the public square. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for those who are not sure as to why we are here today, please allow me to explain it to you. We are here today because Ahmaud Arbery's murder was captured on video. We are here today because Ms. Cooper was captured on video as she used incited language, the language of a Black man assaulting a White woman, to summon the police. We are here today because all 8 minutes and 46 seconds of George Floyd's demise were captured on video. And the American people don't like what they have seen. They don't agree with what they see. They know that they have been lied to. They know that, if these things hadn't been captured on video, we would not be here today. Carlyle was right: ``No lie can live forever.'' William Cullen Bryant was right: ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again.'' Dr. King was right: ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'' We are here today to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise because I love my country. I rise because the winds of change are blowing across America. The winds of change are blowing through this House of Representatives. There will be changes in this House, and these changes are taking place because we are not respecting the will of the people. The people are speaking to us, and we must listen. The winds of change are blowing. We have an opportunity to do more than talk about invidious discrimination. We have an opportunity to do more than talk about racism. We have an opportunity to do something that can change the course of history. H. Res. 992 addresses the change that we need. To my dear brother who just spoke, I would have you sign on to H. Res. 992. It would provide a department of reconciliation. Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was not a declaration of reconciliation. It is time for us to reconcile. We have survived slavery, but we didn't reconcile. We have survived Jim Crow's laws and Bull Connor's dogs, but we didn't reconcile. It is time to reconcile. All the commissions are fine, and I support them, but a department that reports directly to the President of the United States of America is in order. We need a secretary of reconciliation, someone who wakes up every morning with his mission of reconciling by way of developing a strategy and implementing a strategy to eliminate racial segregation as it exists in many places still, but racism, more specifically, and invidious discrimination. Every day, invidious discrimination and racism will be addressed. This is the means by which we can also get updates on progress. We can institutionalize a methodology by which we can realize true racial reform in this country, racial equity, as it were. This department would have as its mission to eliminate discrimination against all the protected classes. The secretary of reconciliation will report to Congress twice a year and explain the progress that is being made, or lack thereof. This department would be funded with a minimum of 10 percent, or the equivalent of 10 percent of what the Defense Department's budget is, a minimum of 10 percent of the equivalent of the Defense Department's budget. We know that the Defense Department's budget will be funded; that means that the department of reconciliation will be funded. Those who do not recognize the winds of change, those who believe that we can go back to bigotry as usual, you are mistaken. This resolution is a means by which we can send a message to all Americans that we understand that the time has come for change. Now is the time to bring about the change by way of a department of reconciliation. I close with this. We don't have to listen, but I guarantee you we will feel the effects of not listening. The winds of change are blowing through this House of Representatives.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following Proclamation. Certificate of Congressional Recognition Presented to The Floyd Family In Remembrance of the Life of Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr. Whereas, Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr. was born on October 14, 1973, to George Perry Floyd, Sr. and Larcenia Jones Floyd, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, was reared in Houston, Texas, and most recently resided in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, until his untimely passing; Whereas, Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr. was well-known as a ``gentle giant'' by his community, revered for his kindness and athleticism having been a star football and basketball player at Jack Yates High School where he was a proud member of the class of 1993; Whereas, Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr.'s athleticism allowed him to play both sports at the collegiate level--a rare but commendable accomplishment for any athlete, playing basketball at South Florida Community College and then football at Texas A&M Kingsville; Whereas, Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr. met his tragic demise on May 25, 2020 while in police custody, and the events that led to his death have sparked a global demand for justice for George Floyd, a call to action against police brutality, and an end to systemic racism; and Whereas, Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr. leaves to cherish his memory his five children, two grandchildren, three sisters, three brothers, as well as a host of aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and close friends. Now, therefore, be it resolved that, on behalf of the constituents of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas, I take great pride in joining the City of Houston, the United States of America, and the entire in remembering the ``Gentle Giant''--Mr. George Perry Floyd, Jr. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Floyd Family during this time of remembrance. His legacy will stand the test of time. June 9, 2020. Al Green, Member of Congress.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, as I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to speak the truth about the circumstance as it relates to African Americans in the United States of America. I rise to say, Mr. Speaker, that Black lives do not matter as much as White lives. If Black lives matter as much as White lives, Mr. George Floyd would still be breathing. If Black lives matter as much as White lives, Ahmaud Arbery would have finished his jog. If Black lives matter as much as White lives, Christian Cooper wouldn't have been falsely accused. Black lives do not matter as much as White lives. Why? Because we tolerate hatred, bigotry, and invidious discrimination. We tolerate it. And because we tolerate it, we allow it to be perpetuated. We in this country have the power to do something about the racism that exists as it relates to Black people. We have tolerated it since 1619 and the arrival of Black people in the Americas. But it is time for us to do something about it. We have had the opportunity to do something. When the Chief Executive Officer of this country is a racist and a bigot, we should do something about that. And we had the opportunity to, but we did not. We tolerated it. And there were some who went so far as to almost justify it with some of their commentary about the comments that were being made: Oh, he is just a jerk. Black lives matter, and we ought not tolerate it to the extent we have. I believe that we in the Congress of the United States of America have a duty to do what has been done in the past. We declared a war on poverty. We declared a war on drugs. Why not declare a war on racism? Why not decide that, here and now, we are not going to allow racism to continue in this country to the extent that people lose their lives? What happened to some of the persons who have lost their lives as of late is almost predictable, because we have seen circumstances similar occur and we have not taken aggressive action. The officers in the Floyd case should not only be arrested; they ought to be prosecuted. I was a magistrate. I know probable cause when I see it, and there is probable cause to arrest and prosecute those officers. Black lives matter. And those who have not allowed the Black Lives Matter movement to continue, to become the movement that could make a difference in the lives of people in this country, have some responsibility because they fought the very movement that was going to make a difference in the lives of people, may have saved some lives of people. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say that we in Congress have some responsibility to the people we serve; and a part of that responsibility is to assure them that they can go jogging and return home, that if they are arrested by the police, they won't be suffocated to the extent that they lose their lives. We have to make sure that we tell this country, in no uncertain terms, that Black lives do matter. And, finally, this: It is not about Democrats and not about Republicans. I am not blaming the Republicans for what is happening. I am not blaming the Democrats for what is happening. I am blaming people who hold public trust and tolerate hate and invidious discrimination. We are the people who can make a difference, and we ought to make a difference. We ought to demand that the people running for public office make public statements about how they plan to end invidious discrimination, not how they plan to tolerate it, how they plan to manage it. How do you plan to end it? How do you plan to end it in banking? How do you plan to end it in hiring and promotions? This is our time. If we don't do it now, when will we do it? No candidate should be off limits. Every one of them ought to have to tell us what they plan to do. And, finally, as my final comments: I love my country. And because I love my country, I feel that I have this duty, obligation, and responsibility to speak up when these kinds of injustices occur. I love my country, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the richest country in the world is facing a looming humanitarian crisis. Hunger looms large in the land, Mr. Speaker. This bill provides a $14 billion solution with a humanitarian response to feed the hungry. Homelessness looms large. Evictions are afoot. This bill provides $100 billion to keep people in their homes. This humanitarian crisis necessitates a humanitarian response. This bill provides that response.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the President, if you want to make America great again, Mr. President, have the Senate pass a bill to protect first responders by sending money to local governments. If you want to make America great again, put money in the pockets of the persons who are in food lines miles long so that they can feed their families. If you want to make America great again, admit that what you said was a hoax and let the healthcare workers and advisors give the advice on healthcare.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know that their government will be there for them. They want to know that their tax dollars will pay dividends for them. They want to know that we will promote the general welfare as extolled in the preamble to the Constitution. They want to know that we will not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. This is not a perfect bill. It is a good bill. I will support it. The American people need certainty. They want to know that we will be there for them.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, and still I rise. And I rise as a very proud American, proud of my country, proud to be a part of this great Nation. I am also proud to be a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, speak truth to power, speak truth about power, a liberated Democrat. And I rise tonight with a very special message at this time in the history of our country. We find ourselves now in a state of fear. Unfortunately, too much of what we have based our response on to the novel coronavirus has been fear, not facts. We should act on facts, not fear. My hope is that after I say a few words tonight, I will at least cause some persons to rethink some of what they have already concluded. I am a person who believes that there is a philosophy, an adage, if you will, of live and let live. This is not my philosophy, live and let live. It simply says: You go your way and live your life; I will go my way and live my life. If this philosophy prevailed, I would not be in the Congress of the United States of America because a good many people did not embrace live and let live. Dr. King did not embrace it. A good many people embrace a philosophy that I now embrace, and that is live and help live. It is because of other people who made great sacrifices that I am able to stand here in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. It was a live and help live philosophy that made it possible for me to be here. There were persons who lived and some who died so that I would have this opportunity. I can bring Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney to your attention. Schwerner and Goodman were not African Americans, by the way. They lost their lives in the cause of freedom along with Goodman, who was an African American. They were trying to help somebody. That was a live and help live philosophy. There was John Shillady in Austin, Texas, an NAACP fieldworker, who was beaten by a mob. He was trying to help Black people. In a sense, there is a debt that I owe, and whenever I have the opportunity, I try to repay it. So tonight, with our country in this state of fear, I would like to ask some things of people and share some thoughts. The first thing that I want to address is what we expect from others. We now expect others who are sick to stay home. If you are sick and you think that you have a virus and you are concerned, we want you to stay home. Of course, see your physician, get an opinion from your physician, but if you are ill and you may be contagious, we believe that you should stay home. That is what we are saying to people across the length and breadth of the country. We believe that this is a patriotic thing to do, to stay home. Do what you can from home. Work from home. Well, that can work for a lot of people. It can work for Members of Congress because we will be paid if we work from home. We will be paid, and we will be appreciated for staying home because we don't want to spread an illness from one person to another by being in the workplace. That works quite well for Members of Congress. But what about the person who works for minimum wage? $7.25 an hour is still the minimum wage, the Federal minimum wage in this country. A good many places pay more than $7.25 an hour, but it is the Federal standard for the minimum wage. $7.25 an hour, that is not a lot of money for most of the people who work here, but to a good many people it is the means by which they maintain their dignity and keep food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and others. A good many of them are not in jobs that will pay them if they stay home. They are being patriotic Americans. They are doing what we are asking, but they won't get paid. They have to make a choice: Do they stay home and do that which we deem to be prudent and necessary, or do they come to work so that they will be able to put food on the table, so that they will have the shelter necessary to protect them from the environment? Will they have the necessary clothing so that they may continue to traverse through the elements? But even at $7.25 an hour, there is another case to be made, because some workers make less than the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. These are the persons who work and they receive tips. They make $2.13 an hour. We expect them to stay home if they are sick. Many of them work in the food service industry. They will serve our food. We want them to stay home if they are ill because we don't want them to contaminate the food. But these persons who serve our food, $2.13 an hour, patriotic Americans, if they stay home and they are not paid, they have a choice: Do they stay home or do they come to work ill? I say to the employers: Please give consideration to your minimum wage workers, $7.25 an hour. Perhaps it is $15 an hour. Give some consideration to them. And especially those who are working for $2.13 an hour. Give them some consideration. Help them through this time of crisis, because they are helping us through this time of crisis. They are there for us by staying home. They are doing the patriotic thing. We should do the patriotic thing and give them some consideration. I plan to support legislation, hopefully, that will emanate from this House that would give persons some amount of money. I think that we are at a point in our history when people who are going to have to stay at home are going to have to be accorded some sort of emolument because we don't want them to come to work and contaminate others. We don't expect them to do that which we would deem to be unpatriotic, so we have to help them. I heard a person this morning talk about $1,000 for persons who need help or $1,000 to persons in general, some amount. I am not sure what the exact amount should be, but I do know we have to give some consideration to persons who are working for minimum wages and especially persons who are working for $2.13 an hour, for tips. There are those who contend that if you are working for $2.13 an hour, you will get a lot of money in those tips, and you will be able to do what some will say, that ``I did.'' That is not me saying the ``I,'' but I am now speaking the words of others. They will say: ``I was able to work my way through college on tips.'' Well, good for you. A good many others are not able to do such. A good many others are barely getting by on $2.13 an hour. I talk to people when I eat at these various cafeterias, and I have spoken to people who work in cafeterias in Houston, Texas, who tell me that they have gone home and made not more than $2.13 for each of the hours. They didn't get any tips. There are days when they get no tips. I would hope that they would get an abundance of tips, but the truth is, there are days when they do not. And they deserve some help because they are doing what we are asking when they stay at home. So, if they stay at home and don't come to work, I would hope that we would give them some consideration. Live and help live. That is the philosophy I embrace. That is the philosophy that will cause an employer to conclude that he or she, or the company, should help people who we are asking to stay at home. Live and help live, not live and let live: ``I am going to live my life. You stay at home. Sorry. Can't help you.'' No, let's help those persons who have to stay at home because they are ill and are wage earners. Live and help live. Live and help live is a philosophy that I think we should embrace when we speak of persons who are of different ethnicities. More specifically, now, I am going to talk about persons of Asian ancestry. I am standing here tonight to speak up on behalf of persons of Asian ancestry, and I am going to speak on their behalf as it relates to the novel coronavirus because ugly things are happening to persons of Asian ancestry. I am here because I want to live and help live. I want to help them through this time of crisis when they are having to experience xenophobia and nativism. I have here some examples of what persons of Asian ancestry are experiencing, and I am here to live and help them live. I believe that somebody helped me to get where I am, and I have a debt that I owe, that I pray that I will be able to repay. Tonight, I would call to everybody's attention a person in New York, a woman on a subway who was attacked by persons who said that she was diseased. They used a word that I would not use--the b-word is what it is called in this forum tonight--because she had on a face mask. People have assumed that this is beneficial. It may not be. Many scientists--the persons who are supposed to know, the persons who deal with these things, who have studied these things--are saying to us that the mask doesn't help people, in general. It does help the persons who are aiding and assisting us, perhaps the physicians and nurses. Be that as it may, if a person chooses to wear the mask and happens to be of Asian ancestry, that person ought not be attacked, that person ought not be spoken to in harsh language. People have a right in this country to wear the type of face gear that they choose. If they choose to wear a mask, so be it. We ought to respect people and not assume things and say things about them because of their ethnicity, because of their ancestry. Another example, a person who is of the Hmong ancestry was checking in at a hotel and was told that Asians are not welcome. That is not a live-and-help-live philosophy. That is a form of nativism and xenophobia that is invidious, that is harmful to our society and harmful to this person trying to check into a hotel. I remember a time in this country when there were certain places that I could not check into simply because of the hue of my skin. I was not allowed. There were signs that said: ``No coloreds allowed.'' Those were the polite signs. There were some that had words that I will not repeat. But I remember this. And when I remember this, I relate to persons of Asian ancestry told that they can't come into a given business place simply because of who they are. I am here because I believe in live and help live, and I want to help them through this time of crisis. In California, a 16-year-old high school student was sent to the emergency room after being attacked by bullies who accused him of having the coronavirus simply because of his ethnicity. I have been attacked in my life, chased because of my ethnicity. I reflect on this, and it causes me to understand the plight of this person. I stand here tonight to speak up, to speak on behalf of people of Asian ancestry who are being assaulted, who are being accused, who are being denied simply because of who they are. I have an indication that even just looking Asian has been enough to incite attackers, to hurl insults and accuse individuals of being disease carriers. Friends, this is a time for us to band together and come together as a Nation. This is not a time for us to engage in this sort of phobia, this xenophobia, this nativism. This is not the time. This disease is not something that is related to any ethnicity. It is not related to any party. It doesn't assault or attack Republicans or Democrats because they happen to be of a certain party. It doesn't matter what your gender is. This disease attacks you because you are a human being and because you have been exposed to it in such a way as to allow it to enter your body. We ought to see each other now as people of one race, the human race. We ought to see each other as people who we should help live. We should embrace the philosophy of live and help live. Help the minimum wage worker. Help those who are not as fortunate as we are. Help those who may not be of the same hue as you. Help those who have been accused and attacked. This is a time for us to send a message that we won't tolerate it. I am here because I believe that Asian Americans, those of Asian ancestry, should not have to defend themselves by themselves. I think that it is important for persons who are not of Asian ancestry to send a message that we stand with them, and we stand against the Islamophobia that might ensue, the homophobia, all the various invidious phobias that can ensue from persons deciding that they are going to attack people because they are different. I have moved on from the Asian ancestry now to persons who are different. In this country, we ought not attack people simply because they are different. I believe that the differences that we have can make a difference in the culture, and it makes us richer for having these various differences. They are good for the country. Please, let us send a message that we will not tolerate persons being assaulted because of who they are, that we will not tolerate persons being denied the opportunity to have access to various places within our society that we ordinarily would have access to simply because we happen to have the bill of fare. If we can pay our way in, pay for the hotel room, then I think we ought to allow people to have access. More important than all of these, I think that it is important for us to treat each other with dignity and respect simply because we are people of the same creator. That creator, I believe, expects us to treat each other the same, regardless of our hues, regardless of our various differences. This is an opportunity for us to pull together. I believe that this is a great adversity, but I also believe that it provides us a great opportunity to come together and stand up for each other. Let us live and help live. Let us not live and let live, simply leave people to find their way as best they can. Let's help people through life. I am here because somebody helped me, and I want to be there to help others. I promise that I will do what I can to be of service to man, to humans, more specifically, to men and women in this society. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, I missed the following votes: 1. H. Res. 387--Condemning continued violence against civilians by armed groups in the Central African Republic and supporting efforts to achieve a lasting political solution to the conflict, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill. 2. H.R. 4508--Malala Yousafzai Scholarship Act, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill. personal explanation

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, proud to be an American, proud to be a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. I rise today because I refuse to accept the notion that we should get back to bigotry as usual in the House of Representatives. I am one who has fought bigotry most of my life, and I will continue to fight it for the rest of my life. Today, I want to talk about bigotry, not only within the country, but I also want to talk about those who aid and abet bigotry in the House of Representatives. Right here in this House there are people who aid and abet bigotry. I spoke last on the floor about a Newsday report. It concerned an investigation that took place in the State of New York. And within this investigation it was uncovered that, with reference to real estate agents, after having tested them, it was uncovered that 19 percent of the time Asian Americans were treated unequally when compared to White Americans. Thirty-nine percent of the time Hispanic Americans were treated unequally. And 49 percent of the time African Americans were treated unequally. We sought to do something about this in the Financial Services Committee. We have a piece of legislation that will provide for testing and expand the testing that was started in this country by President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan gave us the paradigm which we seek to enhance, which we seek to expand because that is the means by which we can eliminate this kind of invidious discrimination. It is not a question of way; it is a question of whether we have the will to challenge it and take it on. I want to tell you that in my committee there were those who would aid and abet. They came up with specious arguments, fallacious contentions, the notion that we can do without, without saying we can do without the improvements. I believe this kind of aiding and abetting is the reason we still have this level of invidious discrimination in this country. There are people in this Congress who aid and abet racism and discrimination. We have to call this out. We cannot continue to pretend that it does not exist right here in the Congress of the United States of America. I plan to come back to this podium, and I am going to say more about what happened and who caused it to happen. Those who tolerate bigotry and racism perpetuate bigotry and racism. I refuse to be among those who tolerate it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairperson, and the ranking member as well, for bringing this legislation to the floor today. I also thank the majority leader, who happens to be in the room. Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation is more than 100 years in the making, and it does deal with lynching, but truth be told, more than a lynching took place. Emmett Till's body was mutilated. He was shot in the head, and he was thrown in the Tallahatchie River. His mother insisted on an open casket. This was the thing that sent shock waves across this country, causing people to rethink what was happening in the South. Yes, he was lynched. Yes, this is the unfinished business of this House. And we have much more unfinished business. Madam Speaker, I do want to commend Congressman Bobby Rush for the outstanding job that he has done, as well as his cosponsors, in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is time. In fact, it is past time. And I am grateful that this House is taking up this legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise a proud American, proud to be a citizen of the greatest country in the world, proud to proclaim that I am a liberated Democrat, speak truth to power, truth about power, unbought and unbossed. I am also proud to be aided today with my mnemonic notes. I would like to talk to you about invidious discrimination in the United States of America, the greatest country in the world. I know of no one in this House who believes that invidious discrimination is appropriate. I believe that every Member of this House will go on record indicating that invidious discrimination should not exist in this, the greatest country in the world. But what I would like to do is give some empirical evidence of the existence of this invidious discrimination and then say a word or two about possible remedies. Newsday had a testing investigation. On November 17, 2019, Newsday released a scathing report detailing an investigation into the nature and extent of real estate sales practices on Long Island in New York. Now, do not confuse the fact that this was in New York on Long Island with the notion that it doesn't happen in other places. It could have happened in my city, Houston, Texas, and my belief is it happens every day in a good many places around this country. The evidence continues with this. The report, titled, ``Long Island Divided,'' was the culmination of a 3\1/2\ year comprehensive investigation entailing 240 hours of secretly recorded meetings with real estate agents and analysis of 5,764 house listings. It appears that the Newsday report revealed a 19 percent rate of discrimination against Asian Americans, 39 percent rate of discrimination against Latinos, and 49 percent rate of discrimination against African Americans. It appears that the persons who were the agents, the agents who were the persons being spoken to by persons seeking opportunities, it appears that these agents refused to provide service to customers of color--some of them, not all of them. They showed borrowers of color far fewer homes than their White counterparts, provided inaccurate information to borrowers of color, made inappropriate statements based on race, placed higher requirements on borrowers of color, and steered potential customers based on race. Nobody in this House would agree to this as appropriate. Everybody in this House, I believe, would condemn this. But here is where the rubber meets the road. It is one thing to condemn it and to say that it is wrong. That is a talking point. We can have the greatest talking points in the world, but this will continue until we make those talking points an action item. There are things that we can do to prevent this level of invidious discrimination. The question is not whether there is a way. The question is: Do we have the will to challenge and take on this level of invidious discrimination? Because of the many remedies proposed, the one that stands out the most is that of increasing the fund for fair housing testing, to do exactly what they did with this report, to go into various venues and test and acquire this empirical evidence. Nobody wants to see this happen, but we cannot stop it by simply talking about it. We have to have an action, and the action item is testing. I will be saying more about this later on this week because there is legislation right here pending in this House that we can bring to the floor of this House, pass, and we can prevent this kind of behavior from taking place because, when we acquire the empirical evidence, we can then confront those who do this. We can also educate them, and we can pass on a legacy to future generations of success in ending invidious discrimination.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I am greatly honored to support this piece of legislation, especially honored that Chairwoman Lowey has put language in there that will streamline the process that Mr. Hoyer helped to develop. I would just like to add this. I know what it is like to live in harm's way. In Houston, Texas, we have billion-dollar floods that take lives, and these are supposed to be 100-year floods. Unfortunately, they are happening all too often, and sometimes on a yearly basis. So I stand here today to say thank you to all involved, especially to Mrs. Lowey for what she has done to streamline this process. It will be helpful to persons in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but, also, in the long run, it will be helpful to the people of Houston, Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California's Eleventh District. I also thank, if I may, the persons who are associated with the Rules Committee who worked tirelessly to get these bills to the floor. And I also thank the House leadership for allowing the bills to come to the floor. Madam Speaker, I am honored today to say that I traveled to Puerto Rico after one of the hurricanes hit, Hurricane Maria. I was there with the Honorable Bennie Thompson. This was a Homeland Security codel. And while I was there, I had the opportunity to meet with various and sundry NGOs, met with some of the emergency responders, the Corps of Engineers, the National Guard. I had a firsthand opportunity to see the devastation that Puerto Rico suffered from. And this was prior to the 6.7 earthquake that hit on January 7. Madam Speaker, I believe that it is time for us to act. I believe this legislation provides the means by which we can act appropriately and efficaciously. I believe that this bill, with what it contains from my bill, H.R. 3702, which was the CDBG-DR, disaster recovery bill, this legislation contains language from that, my bill, and I would like to just share some of the things that are important. The bill includes the rigorous timelines for allocation action plan approval and grant agreement execution that was contained in the bill. It contains language that HUD will be required to allocate funds no later than 60 days after enactment of the supplemental. HUD would be required to review and approve or disapprove an action plan within 60 days of its submission to the Department, and HUD will be required to allocate funds no later than 60 days after the date of approval of a grantee's plan. Madam Speaker, I think we have reached a point now where an emergency has become something that we must act upon immediately, if not sooner. The sooner would be today, but unfortunately, we will have the rule today. Immediately will be the vote tomorrow. I beg that all would support the bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, with the love of my country at heart, and I rise today on this day when the Senate has concluded its trial of the President. I rise to say that this House can be very proud of the job that it has done because, notwithstanding all that has been said, this House had the courage to do what the Constitution required pursuant to Article II, Section 4, in terms of the standard for finding a President guilty. The House did what it was supposed to do. The House impeached this President, charged this President with two Articles of Impeachment. One was the obstruction of Congress. I like to think of it as an obstruction of a congressional investigation. The other was abuse of power. The Senate did not find the President guilty of either of the Articles of Impeachment, but the House still did its job because the House has the duty, the responsibility, and the obligation to move forward, notwithstanding what may be the case in the Senate. The House doesn't act based on what the Senate is perceived to do or not do. The House must act based upon the evidence that is before it. And the House did act. And the House did impeach. And as a result, regardless as to the finding of the Senate, the President is impeached forever. And it will be forever written in history that this President was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Why is this so important? It is important because notwithstanding the finding in the Senate, the President knows now that the House has the courage to do its job. The House will put the guardrails up. The President knows that he cannot escape the House because this is where the bar of justice lies in terms of presenting Articles of Impeachment such that they can go to the Senate. The President has to know now that the House is the sword of Damocles. For those who may not know, Damocles was a courtier. He was a person who would flatter the king, let the king believe and tell the king that he was great and that all of his subjects loved him. The king, on one occasion, decided to allow Damocles to occupy the throne. But in so doing, he wanted Damocles to understand that occupying the throne carries with it more than the accolades and all of the kind words that were being said. So he had a sword hung above Damocles by a single hair from a horse's tail. As Damocles sat there, he understood that, at any moment, the sword might fall upon him and do him great harm. To some extent, he was proud and pleased to occupy the throne, but the reality was he realized that it was not the easy occupation that he thought it to be. So he begged the king to release him and allow him to remove himself from under the sword that was hanging over him. The House is the sword of Damocles. We hang there above the President so that he will know that if he commits impeachable acts that the House will act. Now, I understand that there will be those who will say that the Senate acted and found the President not guilty. Yes, ``not guilty,'' not ``innocent.'' The Senate did not proclaim the President innocent. They simply said he is not guilty--a lot of difference between not guilty and innocent. To be innocent means you have been found to have done absolutely nothing wrong, you are totally without blame, and you are a person who can claim that you have done absolutely nothing wrong without any blame at all. Well, ``not guilty'' simply means that the evidence presented, as they reviewed it, they did not conclude that the President could be found guilty. So he was found not guilty, but he was not proclaimed innocent by the Senate. And the Senate cannot proclaim that a President who has been found not guilty cannot be impeached again. The Senate deals with the question of a trial, and there is some question as to whether or not this was an appropriate trial pursuant to the Constitution. But the Senate deals with the trial. It is the House that deals with impeachment. As such, the House found that the President should have been impeached, did impeach, but also, the law under the Constitution allows the House to impeach again if the President is found to have engaged in impeachable offenses. The House is not allowed simply one opportunity to impeach a reckless, ruthless, lawless President. The House can impeach each and every time the President commits an impeachable act. And if the President has committed an impeachable act, the House can impeach. There will be those who will say that we are now calling for impeachment again. This is not true. I will make it perspicuously clear: Not the case. Not calling for impeachment at this time, but indicating that the rules, pursuant to the Constitution, allow for impeachment at any time the President commits acts that are impeachable. Madam Speaker, I must say if the President does commit another impeachable act, I believe that this House will uphold its responsibility, its duty, and its obligation, as it has done. I am proud to be associated with the House and what it has done because I am proud to say we have upheld the Constitution. This is what we were required to do, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and not allow a President to simply do as he would without any restrictions on him. I understand that the President has decided that, as the executive, he can dictate the rules for a trial, the rules for impeachment, but the House did not allow him to do so, such that it would retreat from its responsibility. The House has said: Mr. President, there are guardrails, and these guardrails we will not allow you to simply ignore. The guardrails are such that you will have to conform to the Constitution. I believe that what the Senate has done has not benefited the country, but I also know that what the House has done was send a message that the President is not beyond reproach, that the House of Representatives still stands here as a sentinel on duty to assure this country that if the President steps out of line and does something that is impeachable, the House will indeed act upon what the President may have done. I believe in the separation of powers. I believe that the executive branch has certain powers. I believe that the judicial branch has certain powers and that the legislative branch has certain powers. But I know that only the House has the power to impeach. And I know that the President cannot withhold witnesses, cannot withhold evidence from the House such that it cannot move forward with the proper investigation. I know that he cannot do this with impunity. He can't do it with immunity of some sort. He is not immune, and the House has demonstrated this, that he is not immune. Notwithstanding his behavior, the House can still move forward with its duty and responsibility as it did and impeach. It is also now clear that the House does not have to find out a crime has been committed, in the sense of a statutory, codified offense. There does not have to be a crime that has been defined in law such that it is penally punished. Not so. The Constitution doesn't require it. In fact, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for offenses that were not crimes, in the sense that they were something defined by statute, something that has already been codified. It wasn't required then; it isn't required now. Andrew Johnson was impeached on Article X of the articles against him for acts rooted in his bigotry and his hatred. He was impeached, and the root of it was he did not want the freed slaves to enjoy the same rights as other people in this country. He fought the Freedmen's Bureau. He did everything that he could to prevent them from having the same rights as others in this country. The radical Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868 for having utterances and statements that were harmful. He demeaned the House of Representatives. But it was all rooted in his hate and racism, and as a result, no crime, but he was impeached. We now know that this can be done. And this President has done some things that are dreadful, some things that I would not want to see a President do and that, in my opinion, are in violation of the Constitution. You don't have to commit a statutory offense to be found guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. We know this now. When we first started this journey, we had to fight this battle to convince people, and people have finally been convinced. There are some outliers who will contend that you have to commit a crime in the sense that it is defined and codified as a statute, but this is not the case. All of the leading scholars agree with the comments that I am sharing with you tonight. So we know now that, if the President inculcates bigotry into his policies, he can be impeached. For bigotry in policies emanating from the Presidency, he can be impeached. We don't have to have bigoted policies emanating from the President. We don't have to have this. There is no requirement in this country that we must suffer a President who presents bigotry into public discourse. There is no requirement. We have an obligation in this country to defend all people. All of the people in this country should have equal protection under the law. We can't allow anyone in this country to present circumstances or cause circumstances to come into existence that may cause harm to people. When you say ugly things about people and you tell police officers that you don't have to be nice when you are arresting a person, you are inviting harm to be caused to a certain person who may be arrested. Anybody who is arrested should still be treated as a human being with certain dignity and respect simply because that certain person is in the care, custody, and control of the authorities. The authorities have a duty to respect the people that they arrest. Well, you don't invite persons to behave otherwise, which is something this President has done. So I want the persons within the sound of my voice to know that I am proud of what the House has done. The President now knows that he can be impeached, that we are the sword of Damocles. The House has a duty and responsibility to do what it did, and it can do it again if the President commits additional impeachable acts. The President has said he could go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and do it with immunity. He didn't use those exact words. Well, if he does, using his phraseology of going out and doing this dastardly deed, he will be impeached. We will not allow a President to do such a thing. And I, quite frankly, think it is inappropriate for him to joke about such a thing. I say it only because I want people to know that I take seriously the possibility of the President doing something else, not going out on Fifth Avenue, but doing something else. The President has demonstrated that he is a recidivist, and he will engage in recidivism; and when he does engage in recidivism, we have a responsibility to the Constitution to impeach him for his misdeeds. Finally, this: I love this country. It means something to me to be a citizen of this country. I respect the opportunity that I have to be a part of this Congress. I don't want it said that, on my watch, when we had a reckless, ruthless President, I failed to live up to my responsibilities. I want it said that, though I may have had to stand alone at some point, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I want it said that I recognize the fact that, if you tolerate bigotry, you perpetuate it. And I want it said that I did not tolerate it, and that I did all that I could to bring a President who engaged in bigotry and racism and Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, nativism, all of the invidious phobias, anti-Semitism, that I did all that I could to bring him to the bar of justice in the House of Representatives. But I also would want the record to show that I said tonight that I will do all that I can, if he engages again, to bring him before the bar of justice, and that certain offenses that he has committed have not been brought to the bar of justice and that it is never too late, as long as he is in office, to bring the President before the bar of justice. This is where it all starts, right here in the House of Representatives. I am so proud of my colleagues who voted to impeach this President. The House can be proud of what it has done. The President knows that here there is courage and there is the courage to bring him to justice. He will forever be an impeached President. He may have been found not guilty, but the impeachment is not eradicated, it is not obliterated, it is not eliminated by virtue of the fact that the Senate chose not to find the President guilty. I happen to absolutely, totally, and completely disagree with the Senate and its findings. I think the Senate made the wrong decision, but it made a decision, and that decision will stand. But I also know that that decision can be appealed. The decision of the Senate can be appealed, and it will be appealed to a higher court, the court that will convene in November. I believe that that court will have a different finding in November of this year. I love my country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I rise today because I have a question. I have a question for posterity. I have a question for those who reside and dwell within the Senate. I have a question, but I also have a predicate for the question. The predicate is this: Knowing what you know, knowing that the National Security Advisor was in the room with the President, knowing that he has indicated that there were concerns within him with reference to the President's dealings with other countries, heads of state, knowing that he took his consternation to the Attorney General of the United States of America, knowing that the Attorney General expressed some concerns as well, knowing what you know, that the National Security Advisor, not just another person in the room but the person who advises the President on concerns with reference to our security, knowing this, how can you possibly thwart efforts to have the National Security Advisor give testimony before the Senate in the impeachment trial? I have another question. This question is one for eternity. Knowing that the hands of history are writing your legacy, knowing that future generations, that your grandchildren, that the people who will look to you for leadership will read what the hands of history will record, knowing that history will afford you the opportunity to be on the right side, the right side of history, how can you possibly decide that you will conduct yourself in a trial for the ages such that history will record that you were on the wrong side of history? My dear friends, this is bigger than you. It is bigger than all of us. This is about the country we love and government we have. We have a great opportunity to do justice in the Senate, and the only way we can do justice is to have witnesses testify. I said before that I believe that there would be 51 Senators who would vote to have witnesses. Today, I am absolutely confident that there will be 51 or more Senators who will move to have witnesses present themselves and give testimony. To do otherwise would allow the greatest country in the world to have history record that, when we had the opportunity to stand up for the Constitution, some of us turned our backs and looked the other way. This is your time, Senate. This is your time, Members of the great deliberative body. I beg that you will do what you must and have witnesses present themselves so that we will have history record that we did the right and just thing.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, because I love my country. I rise today to address the trial that will start in the Senate, the trial to impeach the President of the United States of America. This trial, Mr. Speaker, will not end until the last person has testified. In a sense it is like an opera, and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the opera isn't over until there is a song that is sung; and until the last witness sings, the opera isn't over, this political opera as it were. There are witnesses who must be heard. I believe that there are 51 Senators who will find agreement with what I have said. I believe that there are Senators who understand that when they take that oath, they have to step outside of the normal rhetoric that they may have espoused. I think they have to stand on the Constitution, and I think the Constitution requires them to hear all of the relevant and material evidence. There are documents that should be heard. There are witnesses that must be heard. I believe that the Senators will vote such that documents and witnesses that have not been produced will be produced and the witnesses will be heard. I believe that this is one of the seminal moments in time for the Members of the Senate, and I think they will understand that this is not just about this time, it is about all time. It is about what historians will say about this date, about the days that will follow. It really is about who we are and what we stand for in the eyes of the world. Because it is not just about the Members of the House examining what is going on; the people of our country, and, indeed, the people of the planet Earth are viewing this, and they are doing so with great anticipation. They fully expect that the United States that has been a champion for liberty and justice for all, the United States that has the Statue of Liberty, the United States of America that stands for freedom around the world, that the United States of America will live up to its billing, will live up to what we have said, will live up to what we have done in the past, and will allow all evidence to be presented. I believe this. I also believe that if all of the evidence is properly presented, no one can say that there wasn't a fair trial. The verdict may not be something that I would agree with, but there will have been a fair trial. If you don't do this, then it is not a fair trial. It is just a fake trial. If you don't do this, there is no need to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court present if all you are going to do is receive reports from the House, that is just a briefing. You don't need the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court there with all of the majesty of the court. You don't need it. I say have a trial, not a briefing. If we only have a briefing, this will be justice delayed if not denied. There is a court of appeals and that court of appeals will assemble in November of this year because the Senate itself is on trial. The court of appeals in November will make decisions as to whether or not the Senate has governed itself under the Constitution and has presented itself such that it should continue with its current makeup. The people of this country will have the last word.