Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise on this 9/11, a day that will live in the annals of history eternally, a day when there were more questions than answers, a day when we thought that our country was--and, indeed, what we thought was correct--under assault. I remember the day because I was at work, and as the judge of a small claims justice court, we were so moved by what was happening that we paused to sing God Bless America. I remember at least one person sobbing. It was a day when people within that courtroom were faced with uncertainties unlike we had seen before, a day when all of our first responders were challenged. But allow me, please, for just a moment, to talk and say a few words about those who were there at the site of the Twin Towers. We could see on television the cloud of dust as it started to emerge and settle, people rushing, bodies covered. It was intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this was not a place to run to. As a matter of fact, you could see people running away. But there were those who took their duties and responsibilities seriously, and as others were rushing away, as fear would have us do, they were rushing in. These were the people, many of whom lost their lives trying to save the lives of others. These were the people, many of whom still suffer today because they were bound by duty to do that which most of us would not. These are the people whom we must never forget. Their lives have been changed and altered forever. But we have a duty and a responsibility here to share our thoughts and our feelings with them, but also to make sure we take care of their health issues. There is something to be said about this term, ``in the line of duty.'' Until you have had the opportunity to visit one of the memorial services, it just may not impact you as it can. It will never impact me the way it impacts the family members. But I want this country to know that those who lost their lives in the line of duty on that day will never be forgotten, and those who served and still serve will always be remembered. So I take this moment for my personal privilege, and I will lower my head for a moment of silent prayer. God bless the United States of America.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise with love of country in my heart and, I must say, I rise today, unfortunately, some 146 days since the Mueller report was released, some 48 days since Mr. Mueller testified, some 48 days for the President to be above the law since the testimony of Mr. Mueller, 146 days above the law since the report was presented to Congress. And still I rise, with a very special message, however. I want people to know that there is more than hope. I rise today to say that there will be an impeachment. The President will be impeached. Some things bear repeating. The President will be impeached. There will be a vote taken sometime this week, I am told, for the Judiciary Committee to make some sort of official announcement. I rise to say that the President will be impeached, in spite of some and because of others. I rise today to say that he will be impeached because the hands of history are piloting his ship of fate. And I believe that history will not allow us, the Members of this august body, to allow the President to be above the law. I believe that if we fail to do so, it would make Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution meaningless. It would have no application to the term that we quite often use, ``no person is above the law.'' We would then have to say: No person is above the law, saving at least one person. Article II, Section 4, if it is to have meaning, means that the President will be impeached. So I rise to stand here on the floor of the House and announce that it will happen. But there is one question that is outstanding, and that is whether the bigotry emanating from the Presidency is going to be a part of that impeachment. I believe that if the radical Republicans in 1868 could impeach Andrew Johnson, who was the bigot of his time, if they could impeach Andrew Johnson, it seems to me we ought to be able to impeach this President for bigotry emanating from the Presidency as well. Andrew Johnson was opposed to the Freedmen's Bureau. He fought the notion that the persons who had been freed should have the same liberties that other in this country enjoyed, and he was impeached. Republicans did it. Radical Republicans did it. I believe that we ought to have the same standard today that we had in 1868, and if we should, I believe that there will be an impeachment. So I am announcing today that there will be an impeachment. One final point. After the vote, whenever it takes place in the Judiciary Committee, I will have some additional special statements to make, but I am reserving them for after the vote. I love my country. Democracy hangs in the balance. Liberty and justice for all must prevail. And if it is to prevail, there must be and will be an impeachment. The hands of history are piloting the ship of fate. And still I rise.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country, and I also rise because I believe that we are currently in a constitutional crisis. The executive branch of the government is refusing to honor subpoenas lawfully issued by committees of the Congress. The executive branch of the government does not respect the judiciary. We are in a constitutional crisis. We have a duty, an obligation, and a responsibility to do something about this. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, some 99 days after the Mueller report was made public. The Mueller report has been thoroughly vetted by the Members of Congress to the extent that we have talked about it and have proclaimed that there are impeachable acts that are clearly indicated within the Mueller report. The Mueller report has been discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseam by Members of Congress. I am not saying that everybody knows what is in it, but I do know that there is a notion that there is a Mueller report and that that report has information in it--evidence, if you will--that is antithetical to the President and would, in some circumstances, be such that we would bring Articles of Impeachment. I would also indicate that we are now 1 day since Mr. Mueller testified before the Congress of the United States of America, the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Mueller has written his report. He has testified before Congress, and now the question really becomes: What are we going to do? Will we seek additional testimony? I am not opposed to it, but I do believe this: At some point, we will start to see evidence of what Dr. King called the paralysis of analysis. I believe that we are now seeing the initial evidence, if we haven't seen it before, of the paralysis of analysis. This paralysis is something that will stall us to the extent that someone will move forward and say, rather than impeach, let's defeat. I am not one of them. I believe that, if we violate Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, then we ought to enforce that law. No one is above the law in the United States of America. We must honor Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which deals with impeachment. If we do not, history will not be kind to us. It especially will not be kind to those of us who are in control of this House. We decide what comes to the floor. We decide what the agenda is. History will not be kind to us if we don't take up our duty, responsibility, and obligation pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, we are at the crossroads of accountability. Either we will hold the Chief Executive accountable, or we will be held accountable. I pray that we will do that which the Framers of the Constitution fully intended, and that is to proceed with impeachment when you have a Chief Executive who is causing harm to society. This is a seminal moment in time for those of us who are in charge of this House. Either we will act, or we will be acted upon.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, proud to be an American and, today, I would also say, proud to be a member of the Nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP. I am especially proud to be a member of the NAACP today because, yesterday, the NAACP became the first of the civil rights and human rights organizations to take a stand against bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, hatred, and racism by passing a resolution at its national convention calling for the impeachment of the President. And still I rise, proud, Mr. Speaker, to be associated with this organization. This is not its first time taking a stand on behalf of the American people. It was the NAACP that filed Shelley v. Kraemer and Barrows v. Jackson, outlawing restrictive covenants that prevented people of color from living in certain neighborhoods. It was the NAACP that filed and won Brown v. Board of Education, which, literally, took on and eviscerated segregation--lawful segregation, I might add--in this country. It was the NAACP that guided the Supreme Court of the United States of America for almost a quarter of a century under the leadership of Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall. He was the lawyer who took Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court. He was the lawyer who was the chief legal counsel for the NAACP. He sat on the Supreme Court. He guided the Supreme Court. The NAACP, again, makes history, and I am proud to be associated with this great organization. Mr. Speaker, I would also add that we are now some 98 days since the Mueller report was called to the attention of the public, 98 days since it was made public, 98 days since the Chief Executive has been above the law. Mr. Mueller is testifying today. Tomorrow, I will start another acid test wherein I will show the number of days that the President has been above the law since Mr. Mueller himself testified in Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are living in some very challenging times--very challenging times--but Dr. King reminded us that the truest measure of a person in times such as this is not where you stand in those times of comfort and convenience but where you stand in these times of challenge and controversy. I am proud to know that the NAACP stands for liberty and justice for all, stands for the people of the United States of America, as it has historically. And I shall continue to stand and be a member of the NAACP.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise with love of country in my heart, understanding that, Mr. Speaker, we have gone from ``lock her up'' to ``Jews will not replace us,'' to now ``send her back.'' ``Send her back.'' Mr. Speaker, bigotry, hate is on the rise in the country, and I am so proud of the 95 persons who, yesterday, voted against bigotry and hate. We must not allow this to continue. We now are moving on; we are marching on until victory is won. We first had 58, then we had 66. Now, we have 95. We are marching on to 212. And, Mr. Speaker, let me close with this: This is an important time in our country. These are dangerous times. Every Member of this House needs additional security. I am going to file a bill asking for more security for the Members of this House. Leadership has adequate security. Members do not have adequate security. I want to thwart the efforts of those who might want to harm a Member of this House.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 495.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a resolution previously noticed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud American. But I am especially proud, Mr. Speaker, of this House of Representatives because, yesterday, this House engaged in the first part of a bipartisan--bipartisan--effort. It was bipartisan yesterday, but it is a bifurcated effort as well. Bifurcated because, yesterday, this House voted with a vote of 244 to condemn the President. Yesterday's vote was to condemn, the first part of the bifurcated process. Today's vote is to determine whether or not we will punish the President. The effort yesterday was wonderful. I supported it. But it does not punish the President. It does not fine him. He will remain in office. Today, we will deal with the question of what his punishment should be. Today, between 4 and 5, somewhere in there, there will be Articles of Impeachment voted on. This will be the opportunity for us to go on record letting the world know where we stand. If we vote to table, we are voting not to advance impeachment. If we vote to send it to the Committee on the Judiciary, we are voting not to advance impeachment. I will not vote to table. I will not vote to send it to the Committee on the Judiciary. I will want to move forward so that we can move to vote to impeach. This President has committed impeachable offenses. Yesterday, we condemned him for them. Today is our opportunity to punish him for them. And for those who might say, ``Well, if you do this, there may be some people who won't like you,'' well, there are times when you have to do that which is neither safe nor politic nor popular. You have to do it because it is right. But I would also say this: If we voted yesterday to condemn him, those who are not going to like you are not going to like you any more today when you vote to impeach than they will if you vote not to impeach. They are still going to be where they were when you decided that you were not going to support what the President has been doing since he has been in office. Finally this, Mr. Speaker. I love my country. It means something to me to be a part of the fiber and fabric of this country. And because I love it, I will not allow anyone to be above the law. The President has been above the law some 91 days since the Mueller report was presented--some 91 days. I think that it is time for us to send the President a clear message that he is not above the law. I think it is time for us to impeach. I also believe that this, and understand, what we are doing today with impeachment, does not impact the Mueller report. It does not impact what the Committee on the Judiciary is doing or any other committee investigating obstruction. Obstruction has nothing to do with what we will vote on today. This is about what the President has done. You cannot incite people to harm other people with your words. You can't yell, ``Fire,'' in a crowded theater. The President has committed an impeachable offense, and we ought to take it up. He ought to be impeached. I will vote to advance to impeachment, and I pray that this President will be impeached today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high misdemeanors. Resolved, that Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is unfit to be President, unfit to represent the American values of decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty and propriety, reputability and integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals that have made America great, unfit to defend liberty and justice for all as extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance, is unfit to defend the American ideal of all persons being created equal as exalted in the Declaration of Independence, is unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity as lauded in the preamble to the United States Constitution, is unfit to protect the government of the people, by the people, for the people as elucidated in the Gettysburg Address, and is impeached for high misdemeanors that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate: Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of itself, of the people of the United States, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high misdemeanors committed as President constituting harm to American society to the manifest injury of the people of the United States: Article I. The House of Representatives on July 16, 2019, strongly condemned President Donald Trump's racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should ``go back'' to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as ``invaders,'' and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants, or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants, do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America. In all of this, the aforementioned Donald John Trump has, by his statements, brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute, has sown seeds of discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and has committed a high misdemeanor in office. Therefore, Donald John Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise; because I love my country, I rise. And I rise today to ask a question of all people of good will. I rise today to pose a question: What do you do when the leader of the free world, when the leader of the country that extolls liberty and justice for all--government of the people, by the people, for the people, all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights--what do you do when the leader of the free world is a racist? What do you do? Well, here is what you do: You file a resolution, a resolution condemning the President for racist comments directed at Members of Congress. What do you do? You file Articles of Impeachment impeaching the President of the United States of America. These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can condemn for the comments that have been made, and we can impeach for the harm that the comments are causing to our society. Both of these things can be done, and neither will interfere with the Mueller report. The Mueller report--some 90 days now the President has been above the law since the Mueller report was made public. What do you do? You pass this resolution. I intend to support it, and I thank the gentleman who filed it for doing so. I believe it is a good resolution. One of the statements in this resolution that has been reported widely is that the President presented racist comments that have legitimized fear and hatred. I will salute and support the resolution, but you also will hear this resolution to impeach. I would like to read to you what it says in part: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States. Then it goes on to read: The aforementioned, Donald John Trump, has, by his statements, brought the high office of President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute; and has sown discord among the people of the United States; has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States; and has committed a high misdemeanor in office. Therefore, Donald John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United States, is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office. Those who tolerate bigotry perpetuate bigotry.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I love my country, and I rise today because it is important for us to understand this impeachment process. Whether you agree with the bringing of impeachment or not, it is appropriate to understand the process. Today, I would like to share a few words about the impeachment process some 85 days since the Mueller report was presented wherein Mr. Mueller all but indicated that impeachable acts occurred. I have my mnemonic notes that I shall refer to. The impeachment process itself starts and ends in the House. The House of Representatives and only the House of Representatives can impeach a President. It is very similar to an indictment but not the same as an indictment. Once the impeachment actually takes place, then the process moves to the Senate. Today, I am going to focus on the House of Representatives. Perhaps we will talk about the Senate on another occasion. The impeachment process is not an appealable process. Once the House gives its verdict, if you will--a majority of persons present voting for impeachment--there is no appeal. It doesn't go to a friendly court that a President might have. It won't go to the Supreme Court ultimately, where some would contend that the Court is divided along party lines. I happen to think that judges ought to vote based upon what they perceive the law to be. I tend to give judges the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making their decisions, but there are many who perceive this to be the case. It is not appealable. It is something that is totally within the province of the House of Representatives. This vote is a vote of conscience, and this is where I would like to focus a good deal of my energy today. A vote of conscience means that you vote based upon what your conscience dictates. There will be no instructions given to persons who will vote. Generally speaking, a jury would receive some sort of instructions, indicating that they should make certain findings. There will be no instructions. There will be no indication that we have to do this based upon clear and convincing evidence, that we have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that something occurred, or that we should do it by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no standard that will be given to Members as they cast their ballots. It is something that each Member does, and it is a vote of conscience. Now, the question can become, ``Whose conscience will it be?'' because if you take another person's recommendation and you vote based upon that recommendation, then you could conceivably vote another person's conscience. I will vote my conscience. I will not be guided by what others, who may be voting based upon political expediency, think. Members can vote based upon political expediency if they so choose. I will vote based upon a moral imperative. I will vote my conscience, and I will do this because I believe that in this country, the country that I love--I rise because I love my country--that we ought not allow any person to be above the law. The law of which I speak is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. No one should be above the law, but this is the law that governs impeachment. No one should be above the law, and I believe that for some 85 days now since the Mueller report, we have evidence that the Chief Executive Officer has been above the law. There will be a vote on impeachment. Each Member of this august body has a preeminent privilege of bringing impeachment before the body. I happen to be a Member, and I want to assure all that impeachment is not dead. I read a story today where there was an indication that it has stalled or has slowed. I want my colleagues to know that I may stand alone when I do this, as this is what my conscience dictates, but I believe that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I will stand. There will be another vote. I am asking that all do what I believe is expected, and that is to vote your conscience, knowing that there is no appeal, knowing that you don't have to worry about the Supreme Court, and knowing that there will be history to judge us all.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, still I rise. It has been some 84 days since the Mueller report was made public, some 84 days now that the Chief Executive Officer of this country has been above the law, some 84 days that we are aware of since the Mueller report. But in truth and in fact, before the Mueller report was presented, we knew that the Chief Executive Officer was behaving in a fashion that would indicate that he thought he was above the law, 84 days above the law, 84 days disrespecting the law. He disrespects the Supreme Court of the United States of America. After it makes a ruling on the Census, he decides to just simply disregard that. ``Maybe I will use an executive order.'' The Supreme Court has already spoken. There was a time when the President of the United States of America would respect a decision of the Supreme Court. He disrespects Congress, encourages witnesses not to testify, and refuses to surrender proper documents after they have been properly subpoenaed. He has no respect for the Court and no respect for Congress. Eighty-four days above the law since the Mueller report was presented--as heartbreaking as that is, I would also add many days since these babies at the border were separated from their parents. What kind of country are we allowing ourselves to metamorphose into when we will allow this to go unchecked, when we will allow babies to be taken from their parents? What kind of a country are we metamorphosing into? We have a responsibility, a duty, and an obligation to ensure that no one is above the law. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is the law. We in this House have the responsibility to enforce that law. If we do not enforce that law, there will be no guardrails. A ruthless, reckless, and lawless Chief Executive will continue to disobey the law, knowing that he can do what he will and what he may and that we will not challenge him. But I do believe this: I believe that time is running out. I believe that there be will be a vote to remove this Chief Executive. Let me correct that: a vote to impeach. I don't know what the Senate will do, but I believe he will be impeached. I believe he will be impeached not because of but in spite of a good many people who hold public trust, I might add. In spite of them, he is going to be impeached. Because of some who hold public trust and in spite of some others who hold public trust, he will be impeached. The tintinnabulations of history, the bells of history, are sounding. History is starting to drive this, and history will drive some people. There are people who make history, and there are people whom history will make. History is going to make some people assume their responsibilities and take up the challenge that the Framers of the Constitution have afforded us. I believe that this is going to take place in the near future. I believe that this House is going to do what it is supposed to do, that we are not going to place the blame on others and that we will take up our responsibilities. I believe that when it happens, America is going to be on a proper course. We will set a proper course so that we will show that no one is above the law. Let the Senate do what it may, but the House will have taken up its responsibilities and placed an indelible stain on the Chief Executive Officer for his attempts to remain above the law and to abuse these children with policies that would separate them from their parents. No one is above the law, not even the Chief Executive Officer in the most powerful country in the world.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to present this legislation, but I am more honored to acknowledge something that is exceedingly important. The chairwoman of the committee, the Honorable Maxine Waters, has, under her leadership in this Congress, produced many pieces of bipartisan legislation. This is but a continuation of her legislative record. I want to commend her for her efforts, and I would also like to salute Mr. McHenry and the persons who are across the aisle for their efforts, as well, in producing bipartisan legislation. I thank Mr. Barr for his assistance and his help. He is the Oversight ranking member, and he and I will be working together on many pieces of legislation. I am honored today to say that this piece of legislation was born as a result of honorable intentions metamorphosing into unintended consequences, honorable intentions. When we passed Dodd-Frank in 2010, we sought to add additional protections for whistleblowers above and beyond what was accorded in Sarbanes-Oxley. In so doing, with the best of intentions, we found that this legislation was taken before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and the Supreme Court concluded--and I don't quarrel with their conclusion, but the Supreme Court concluded that the legislation would apply only if the person who was a whistleblower took the concern to the SEC first. I don't quarrel with what the Supreme Court ruled. This is why we have this piece of legislation to correct the best of intentions that metamorphosed into unintended consequences. Let's talk for just a moment about whistleblowers. It is exceedingly important to do this because I want people to know that whistleblowers are extraordinary people in the sense only of they do extraordinary things. They are really ordinary people, but they do extraordinary things. These are the people who are willing to put their livelihoods on the line. These are the people who are willing to take that step that many of us would not take because, when you take that step as a whistleblower, you will sometimes stand alone. But they understand that it is better to stand alone than never to stand at all, and in so doing, they are protecting us: consumers, members of the public. So I commend the whistleblowers of the world who take these extraordinary steps. But we also want to do more than commend them. We want to protect them. This legislation will protect those who are willing to step forward, those who will see something and say something, something that we encourage people to do. You can't encourage people to see something and say something and then allow them to do this without the protections that we should properly accord them and that we intended to accord them under Dodd- Frank. So I am honored today to have this piece of legislation that will give whistleblowers the protection that we intended and will also send a message that the companies that they work for can have the opportunity to take corrective action before the SEC is informed. Many of these companies want to do the right thing, and if given the opportunity, they will--not all, many. I think we ought to give them an opportunity to do the right thing; and to do so, we would want whistleblowers to report internally before they take this to an external source such as the SEC. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is bipartisan. I am honored to tell you that, among the persons who are the cosponsors, we have the Honorable Carolyn Maloney; the Honorable Representative Gerald Connolly; the Honorable Gregory Meeks; the Honorable Joyce Beatty, who is here in this room with us currently; and the Honorable Vicente Gonzalez, all of whom support it, along with the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver. I would also add, it is endorsed by the National Whistleblower Center, endorsed by the North American Securities Administrators Association, endorsed by Public Citizen, endorsed by the Government Accountability Project, endorsed by the Project On Government Oversight, and endorsed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. It is another example of how, under the leadership of the Honorable Maxine Waters, we continue to produce bipartisan legislation. I am honored, Mr. Speaker, to have this honorable chairwoman presiding today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud American, and I am especially proud today because I rise to acknowledge that we have filed a resolution, H. Res. 464, that is styled the Original LGBTQ Pride Month Resolution of 2019. I am proud to be a sponsor of the Pride resolution, but I am not doing it alone. There are 78 Members of Congress who are original cosponsors of this resolution. ``Original'' meaning their names will be right there on the resolution when it is filed. I am so proud to be a sponsor of the Pride resolution, and I am proud to read just a couple of passages from this resolution and to address them rather briefly. It was my hope to have some 30 minutes to an hour of time to speak on the resolution, but circumstances in Congress will not permit such to take place. This resolution acknowledges the 50 years since the uprising at Stonewall, which will be commemorated on June 28 and will last for some 6 days because that is the length of time that the Stonewall uprising, or as some would call it, the Stonewall riots or Stonewall rebellion, but 50 years since Stonewall. I would like to read the whereas as it relates to Stonewall. It reads: ``Whereas, those who took a stand for human rights and dignity at the Stonewall Inn in New York City on June 28, 1969, were pioneers of the LGBTQ movement, including two transgender women of color, Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, who were brave visible leaders in the uprising at Stonewall Inn.'' Mr. Speaker, it is said that a great person will always rise to the occasion, but the truth is, it takes a greater person to make the occasion. These two trans persons were the greater people who made the occasion that we will commemorate on June 28 and the 6 days that ensue, two persons who took a stand among many. There were others, but there were two among the many who took a stand that literally has helped to shape the course of history. Sometimes, it really does take just a few to get the job done of starting a movement that can change society. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all the change that has manifested itself since the Stonewall uprising, there are still things that must be done. There is still great work to be done because being an LGBTQ person, that alone can get you fired. Coming to work and saying you have just married someone of the same sex as you can get you fired. LGBTQ persons do not have the same rights that we have, those of us who are allies of the community. They don't have the same rights. They have them, but they are not being identified and recognized. These rights don't come from people. They really are something we are born with. Human dignity is something that is accorded every person by birthright. Unfortunately, in our society, we still allow this level of discrimination against LGBTQ persons. I want to acknowledge that while there is still great work to be done, we still must commemorate and celebrate the great work that has been done. As a Member of Congress, I pledge to do all that I can to make sure that I pay a debt that I owe to the LGBTQ community. Finally, I would say this: A person who helped to organize the march on Washington was named Bayard Rustin. In 1963, he was one of the persons who made the occasion. He was Black. He was Quaker. He was also LGBTQ. I owe a debt, and I am here today to repay some portion of that debt with this resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country, and I rise now knowing that we are some 69 days since the Mueller report, which means that we are some 69 days with the President being above the law since the Mueller report was made public. I rise today with a special message. This message has to do with leadership. I rise today with this message, and I would like to harken back, if I may, to April 16 of 1963. I have my mnemonic notes in front of me. April 16 of 1963 is when Dr. King wrote his letter from the Birmingham City Jail. Dr. King did not wake up one morning and decide: I think I will go down to Birmingham and get arrested, and I will write a letter from the Birmingham Jail. That was hardly the case. Dr. King was responding to a letter from some of the leading citizens in Birmingham. These were persons who were cloaked with the robe of the clergy. These are people who had moral positions. They took firm, hardcore positions when it came to morality. These were the persons who would set the standards, if you will, and maintain the standards for morality. There were eight of them. They decided to write a letter to Dr. King, explaining to him why he should not do what he was about to do in Birmingham. By the way, they were also aided and abetted by some of the leading Negro citizens. In fact, in their letter, they mentioned that we should--meaning them at that time--allow persons to meet with our leading Negro citizens--they didn't say ``leading'' but ``our Negroes''--and let's try to work this out with dialogue. I marveled at how persons in positions of great leadership with great responsibility can be so wrong on some of the crucial issues of our time. Dear brothers and sisters--I say ``brothers and sisters'' because I believe that there is but one race, and that is the human race. I think that all persons are created equal. As Dr. King put it, on God's keyboard, we are created equal, from a bass black to a treble white. I think that we are all created equal, and I call you brothers and sisters. Dear brothers and sisters, this issue concerning these babies at the border, I just thank God that the media has finally discovered this issue and is taking it and bringing it to the forefront, to the extent that they are. I thank C-SPAN for the opportunity to be heard, C-SPAN and all the outlets that allow this opinion to be voiced. I am pleased that this is being taken up now by the major media because what is happening to these babies at the border is unconscionable. Some months ago, after visiting the border, I indicated that the ASPCA would not allow animals to be housed in the conditions that we see at the border currently. This is a tragedy not in the making but a tragedy that continues to exist because of inaction and because of actions that have been taken by the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America in an attempt to deter people from coming to this country. How heartless can someone be to use babies as a means of deterring people from coming to the country? I am here today because I love my country. I believe that we cannot allow this to continue. Some 69 days above the law for this President, he knows that we are not going to do anything. This is why he behaves the way that he does. He knows that he can do this without guardrails because, back when he fired Mr. Comey and it was called to our attention that this was obstruction, we did nothing. I thank God that Members are signing on now and understand the importance of it. The question is no longer: Who is going to be among the first to sign on to impeach? The question is: Who will be the last to sign on to impeach? I beg all who have not to please give serious consideration to this notion that you can be a part of this impeachment because we cannot allow this injustice to continue. Finally, I am working on a manuscript, a book, if you will. The title of it is ``You Can't Walk Back History.'' You can walk back your comments, but you can't walk back history. The history associated with this time will be: How did we vote when we were given the opportunity to vote on impeachable bigotry emanating from the policy of the Presidency? There will be more to say and more to come.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 399.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. It is a preeminent privilege to stand here and address this august body--to address those who are within the sound of my voice would probably be more appropriate--and those who are onlookers by way of various means of telecommunications. It is an honor and a privilege to do so, and I am grateful to the leadership of this House for extending and allowing the privilege. I believe that it is one of the great honors of being a Congressperson, to be able to stand and address the Nation, if you will. So tonight, as a Member of this body, it is my honor to speak on a topic very near and dear to my heart and the hearts of a good many Americans. I would like to talk about some of the current factors that are impeding impeachment. I have mnemonic notes that I will refer to from time to time so as to address seven different topics that are factors currently impeding impeachment. The first that I shall address is the belief by many that not enough bipartisanship exists as it relates to impeachment, not enough persons from both sides of the aisle, and, more specifically, not enough persons who are representative of the Republican Party. There is this belief that impeachment must be an effort that is bipartisan, and it must be to some significant amount of bipartisanship. That amount has not been announced, so it is hard to say what the significant amount of bipartisanship is that is being sought. But I think that at this point, so as to address the question of bipartisanship, which I believe in, would hope for--I think that bipartisanship is a wonderful thing. But to address it, I believe we will have to go to Federalist 65. For those who are interested, the Federalist Papers consists of some 85 articles that were published between 1787 and 1788, published by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay. He was also assisted by the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. And, of course, the third part of this group of persons was Madison, the fourth President of the United States. These persons, the three of them, the trio, were to, if you will, present reasons to the country why the Constitution should be ratified; and in presenting reasons for ratification, they published Federalist 65. Federalist 65 explains what impeachment is all about. It does a little bit more than just explains what it is about. It explains what one might expect, what we might expect if impeachment is sought. And I must say, at this point, that these three Framers of the Constitution were prophetic, absolutely persons who could see into the future, one might think, because they prognosticated what we are having to concern ourselves with currently in terms of what will happen among the people and in society should we move toward impeachment. Prophetic--they had their flaws; they were not perfect; but on this issue, they seemed to have been prophetic, because they prognosticated that at a time such as this, there would be division, that you would have parties separating in their own corners, if you will, that the people among us in society, that they would have very hard opinions; that people would sometimes base their opinions upon the circumstances, and others, just based upon the knowledge that they might have of the person who is being impeached. They prognosticated that this would not be a time of great unity, that it is more likely to be a time of division. And they knew, however, that the Constitution could survive this. The Constitution survived the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. It was rancorous; there was a lot of divisiveness; but the Constitution survived. The Constitution is capable of surviving it, and the people, more importantly, are capable of surviving. And society is capable of surviving, which means the country can survive impeachment. But it is there for a reason. It is there because there is a belief that, from time to time, you may have one holding public trust in the highest office of the land, the Chief Executive Officer, known as the President. The Chief Executive Officer may engage in conduct that would cause the trust in the Chief Executive Officer to be assumed less than what it should be. The Chief Executive Officer might breach his trust that the public has in him. The Chief Executive Officer would do harm to society, and in doing harm to society, the Framers of the Constitution concluded that there should be a means by which the Chief Executive Officer could be removed, and this, of course, would be impeachment. Impeachment is not something that anyone relishes. We don't seek impeachment. It is sometimes forced upon us, something that you have to do if you truly believe that no one is above the law. Let's look at some of the historic impeachment cases. There are but two: Johnson in 1868, and Clinton in 1998. And in both of these, the parties were separated. There was not a moment when the Republicans and Democrats decided: Yes, this is what we must do, and we will unite and get it done. Andrew Johnson was not impeached, and the impeachment failed by one vote. President Clinton was not impeached, but there was not this rush of Democrats to support Republicans to impeach President Clinton. It just didn't happen. So an expectation of national unity is probably setting the standard so high that we may not ever impeach. The Framers understood that there might not be this unity, probably wouldn't be, and prognosticated that unity would not exist in Federalist 65. So we are setting the bar pretty high when we decide this must be done. By the way, no one can impose that standard upon us. That is a standard that we can accept, but it doesn't have to be a standard for the Members who would vote for impeachment. That is absolutely not the case. There is no one person who can impose such a standard on this body. Each person has the opportunity to make up his or her mind based upon the evidence presented using the standard that he or she believes to be appropriate. So imposing a standard of national unity is probably setting the bar a bit too high. Next, there is this notion that we should defeat, not impeach. Defeat, not impeach. Well, we say that no one is above the law, and I have heard a good many Members of this body say so. It has been published: No one is above the law. And usually there would be the following words thereafter: No one is above the law, and this includes the President of the United States. Well, if no one is above the law and you believe that the President has committed impeachable acts, then you probably wouldn't want to say that we should defeat at the next election as opposed to impeach now-- if no one is above the law. Because, in essence, you are saying: No one is above the law; however, I won't enforce the law. I won't honor Article II of the Constitution. No one is above the law, but I am not going to impose the law upon one who has committed impeachable acts. I don't see the consistency in doing this, but it is the prerogative of people to do what they may. I am merely explaining some of the impediments to impeachment. This is one: Defeat, not impeach. And if no one is above the law, as I have indicated, and I believe this--and this includes the President--then I believe we have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to move forward with impeachment. I don't think you wait until the next election to avoid your duty, responsibility, and obligation. One salient point that can be made is some ugly things can happen when you have no guardrails, when you send a signal to the Chief Executive Officer that there is no one to hold you accountable, that the Congress is not going to fulfill its responsibilities under the Constitution--no guardrails. Well, the Chief Executive Officer, who has already committed impeachable actions, will proceed probably to do what he may and will simply because he knows that he does not have the deterrent that the Congress is supposed to impose by virtue of having this awesome amount of authority to remove from him office--assuming that the President is impeached and the Senate convicts. But, if you don't have guardrails, you don't have a Chief Executive Officer who is being deterred from doing things that we might find totally inappropriate, for example, going to war. The Chief Executive Officer could decide: I need not go to Congress to go to war. The Congress has the duty and responsibility to declare the war, but since Congress isn't going to do anything, why bother? Congress is but another entity, not a coequal partner in the government with the executive. So I think you can't hold the position that you will defeat, not impeach, especially when you have said, if you have, that the President has committed these impeachable actions. Now, there are a good many people who are walking back comments. And everybody has a right to walk back comments--happens quite regularly here--but you might take note of this: You can't walk back history. You can walk back comments, but you can't walk back history. So if you have already said that the President has committed these impeachable actions and you have already said the President should be impeached, you won't be able to walk that back from history. Time tells and history judges. The truth is known. The truth will be published at some point about what we have said and how we have behaved. Impeachment cannot be but a talking point to be used for political expediency. You can't on one day say, ``Oh, yes, he ought to be impeached,'' and then the next day say something that contradicts this in an effort to walk it back. Well, you can do it, but history will record both of your comments, and history will judge you. At some point, that judgment will be codified such that the world will know what was said on all occasions, not just on the latest rendition of the commentary that is made. Time tells; history judges. The truth will be known. Defeat, not impeach is not an option if you believe that the President has committed impeachable actions. Then, there is, of course, the notion that the Senate won't convict. There is no requirement that the Senate convict. This is something that a person or some persons can require of themselves, a belief that since the Senate won't convict, there is no need to impeach. But that is not what impeachment is all about. It is about the House of Representatives doing its job. The House does its job quite routinely here sending bills of great importance to the Senate that the Senate doesn't act on. It did so last week and will do so again and again. H.R. 1 was not acted on, and a good many others. I need not go through all of them. But the point is, you cannot conclude because it is impeachment that you have a different standard, in my opinion. You have to have one standard. Either we are going to decide we will not send things to the Senate, and cease and desist, I suppose being the House of Representatives, which I would not abide with, but that, I suppose, would be a decision that you might make, one might make, but not one for me to make. I think that we have a responsibility to do our jobs, and then we give the Senate the opportunity to do its job. If we do our job, we do more than simply impeach, which is important. We act as a deterrent that impeachment is to deter the next President; to let the next President know that the House of Representatives will not shy away from its responsibility; that it will do what it is supposed to do when a President commits impeachable actions. So this notion that the Senate won't act is a reason for us not to act, would mean then that the Senate controls impeachment, which is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. Do we want to give the Senate the authority to do its will and not have the House do its will? Do we want the Senate's will to become the will of the House? What we are saying is, until we can get a Senate that will follow our lead, we will not take the lead and do as we should, do what we, according to Article II section 4, and in my opinion, must. We cannot allow the Senate to control the House of Representatives no more than we can allow another party, if I am on one side of the aisle and we have a party on the other side, we can't allow another party to dictate what we would do on this side of the aisle. If you have overwhelming majority, you cannot blame the other side for your failure to act. That is my opinion. If we have an overwhelming majority, then at some point, it will be noted in history that we didn't act. And it won't be said in history that we didn't act because the minority prohibited us from acting here in the House. It won't be said that we failed to act because the Senate had the authority to prevent us from acting. The Senate does not trump the House of Representatives. We cannot decide that only the Senate can determine whether the House should move forward. This is not what the Framers intended. But this is, in effect, what we will be doing if we predicate our actions upon the actions of the Senate. I don't think that is appropriate and I take issue with the notion that we must wait until the Senate is ready to act before we can act. By the way, no one knows what the Senate would do until the Senate has an opportunity to do it. Once the Senate is confronted with having to vote, we may find that the Senate will take a different course of conduct than that we have presupposed the Senate will do or take. The Senate could very well have an epiphanous moment. Probably not, but it could, meaning some two-thirds of it, and act. But whether it does or doesn't, we have a duty to do our job and then let the Senate take a vote, go on record, and we will let the chips fall where they may in history. I think all of us, we should all be on record. We know what the circumstances are. We know the harm that is being caused in society. We know that the trust has been breached, and we only have to now do what the Framers have given us the way to do, assuming that we have the will to do it. They gave us the way, but they could not give us the will. We have to have the will to act ourselves. Impeachment in the Senate, where the trial is to take place, is not to be predicated upon the House following the will of the Senate. Now, there is another reason that I would like to call to your attention, another impediment, and it is the notion that impeachment will divide our Nation. I have covered this to a limited extent, but I will go back because some things bear repeating. In Federalist No. 65, the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that you will not have, as they saw it at that time, this national unity. It doesn't work that way. People are going to take sides. And when they do, you are likely to have things develop along party lines. But we have to still do our job. We cannot set standards that may be impossible. We can't have the standard be the Senate must decide it will go along with us before we will act. That is not a reasonable standard for us to have as Members of the House. We are independent. We can't have the standard that we can only do this if we have the consent of the opposing party. What you are doing is putting the fate of the country in the hands of the minority. You are putting the fate of the country in the hands of the Senate when the House has a duty to act. So I conclude with this on this point, the notion that it will divide the Nation is something that was prognosticated. Now, I would love to have the country in unity. I believe in unity, and I think you can have unity without uniformity. We don't all have to do the same thing all the time to have unity on certain issues. But there is no constitutional requirement that we have the minority support what the majority can do, and the Senate be aligned with the House before the House can act. There is no constitutional requirement for such a thing. Next, we have the notion that impeachment can benefit the Chief Executive Officer. Impeachment will benefit the Chief Executive Officer. It is hard to imagine a Chief Executive Officer wanting to be impeached. I have seen and heard statements from the Chief Executive Officer that would give me reason to believe that the Chief Executive Officer really does not want to be impeached. There is something called reverse psychology that we are all familiar with. Say that you want the thing that you don't want, to the extent that you convince the people who can have the impact to do the thing that you do want them to do, which is the thing that they think you don't want them to do. My point is simply this: We cannot assume that we are walking into some sort of petard, by virtue of our taking up our constitutional responsibility. This is not a trap. This is our responsibility, and we should not allow a Chief Executive Officer to convince us that we should do this because the Chief Executive Officer thinks that it would benefit him, when, in fact, the history of impeachment seems to provide evidence to the contrary. The history of events is that Andrew Johnson did not get reelected after he was impeached. And for those who have been in this debate about what happened with President Clinton, I assure you, his Vice President did not get elected. One would assume that the mantle would be passed on to the Vice President. Such was not the case. He was not elected. There are those who would say: Well, but the House of Representatives--no, the House didn't change hands. The Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives. Well, they lost some seats. Well, they did, but they still had 218 and they controlled the House. The point is, you cannot assume that impeachment is going to be a benefit. As a matter of fact, it is an indelible stain on the record of the Chief Executive Officer. It would be forever known, whether he is removed from office or not, that this Chief Executive Officer was impeached. It will have an impact on the Chief Executive Officer's brand. This person will forever have the brand of an impeached Chief Executive Officer. I am not saying you do it just to brand a person. I am talking about impeachment, because we would fulfill the responsibilities under Article II section 4, which indicate that the President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery, treason. We would fulfill those responsibilities pursuant to Article II section 4. In so doing, we would indelibly place the brand of impeachment on the Chief Executive Officer. Whether he is convicted and removed or not, he still suffers eternally throughout all of time the fact that impeachment was imposed upon him, which I think is an appropriate remedy. Even if we don't get a conviction I think we should let the world know that the House took up its responsibility. The House of Representatives did its job. Of course, there is this notion now, another standard, that you have to have what I am calling a rock-solid case. I hear commentary that would lead me to believe that this has to be done only when you have evidence beyond all doubt; not a reasonable doubt, which is what we might have in court; not by clear and convincing evidence; clearly, not by the preponderance of the evidence, which is a very low standard, but beyond all doubt. I am hearing persons speak such that one could conclude that if you didn't see it yourself, whatever the impeachable act is, that we need more evidence. We have the Mueller report. We were told, let's wait for the Mueller report. We waited for the Mueller report. And then, well, we need to hear from Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller has spoken and has pretty much said: What you see is what you will get. He may ratify what is there, but it doesn't appear, based upon what I heard him say, that he will be giving nuanced testimony above and beyond what is contained in the report. For those who want to hear from Mr. Mueller, I wouldn't get in the way of that. Let's have Mr. Mueller come and testify. But the truth is, the report, in and of itself, is evidence, because all of the statements contained in the Mueller report were taken from persons who were giving their testimony at the expense of committing perjury if they didn't give truthful statements. So perjury was a consequence of giving an untruthful statement to the FBI agents who were asking these questions. And the Mueller report is pretty good evidence. We could use that to impeach if we chose to do so. I believe that the Mueller report contains some 10 opportunities for this Congress to engage in impeachment, bringing impeachment to the floor of this House for a vote. And for edification purposes, the President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. We won that battle. That was one of the first things that was said when impeachment was called to the attention of this body some more than 2 years ago. What crime has he committed? Well, we know now that you don't have to commit a crime. We knew then that you don't have to commit a crime. But it seems that there was an effort, almost, among some to distort what the law is for purposes that I cannot announce. But there seems to have been a desire to convince the public that the President must commit a crime to be impeached. That is not true. What is the evidence of it not being true? The fact that Andrew Johnson was impeached in article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment against him in 1868 for speaking ill of Congress, which wasn't a crime then, and isn't a crime now. Speaking ill of Congress is not a crime. He was impeached for speaking ill of Congress in article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment against Andrew Johnson. That is the best evidence, what has happened. What has happened? What we know to be the case. So those who would like to change the standard, you have got history to deal with, Madam Speaker. If you want to change the standard. To change the standard, you would have to literally erase what happened with Andrew Johnson. There is no requirement that the President commit a crime to be impeached. He has to do harm to society. He has to breach the public trust--breach the public trust, cause harm to society--and you can be impeached if you are the Chief Executive Officer. There is no requirement that you commit a crime, no requirement that the Senate has to agree with the House before the House can act, and no requirement that there must be a national unity government before you can have impeachment. These are standards that are being set that are, quite frankly, beyond the rationale that the Framers of the Constitution provided for us. Read the Federalist Papers, Madam Speaker, and you will get a better understanding. Federalist 65 would be a good read. It is a short read, and you will get a better understanding. So these standards--these unreasonable standards, in my opinion--are such that we will probably end up engaging in expediency and saying that we want to impeach for the purpose of expediency, but not making impeachment an action item. It is one thing to have political expediency, but another thing to turn that into an action item. The action item would have to be impeachment. You cannot just talk about this with certainty and not act, Madam Speaker. The final thing that must be done pursuant to the moral imperative to act is to impeach. And I find that we are talking about this to the extent that we will do it eventually--if we are not very careful of what Dr. King called, engage in the paralysis of analysis--just analyze this and set standards. All standards keep changing from time to time. But remember this, no one can set the standard for any one of us in the House of Representatives. All 435 of us have been given the standard of being a Member of the House and making a decision. I say this based upon what your conscience dictates and based upon a belief that Article II section 4 of the Constitution has been violated. Speaking of Article II section 4 and the President not having to commit a crime, it is important to note this: high crimes and misdemeanors. By the way, Madam Speaker, you can be impeached for a high misdemeanor. It doesn't have to be a high crime and misdemeanor. This is what a good many persons are still saying. Not true. How do you know that you can be impeached for a high misdemeanor? Because Andrew Johnson was impeached for a high misdemeanor. It doesn't have to be a high crime and misdemeanor. It can simply be a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor, Madam Speaker, can be a minor criminal offense or it can be a misdeed. The word ``misdemeanor'' was defined at the time the Framers wrote the Constitution, and to this day, as a misdeed. Andrew Johnson was impeached for a high misdeed in article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment against him. Make notes. Write that down. Read it. Check. You will find the truth is there for a misdeed, a high misdeed, a high misdemeanor, and a misdemeanor is a misdeed. Let's debunk the notion that impeachment will benefit the President. It has been debunked. The notion that you have to have a rock-solid case, there is no such thing as a rock-solid case or maybe some other term similar. There is no requirement. The notion that impeachment is not political, well, that is not what the Framers of the Constitution said. That is not what is said in Federalist 65. Read Federalist 65. There is no requirement that you avoid politics. The Framers used that very word, ``political'', in Federalist 65. So the notion that impeachment can't be political is contrary to what the people who wrote the Constitution thought should be contained therein. What is interesting to me is that we have a good many people here who believe in the intent of the law. What was the intent? I am starting to think that it is for convenience some of the time. Either you are for intent or you are not, Madam Speaker. Well, the intent of the Framers was that this would be political, and it is going to be political. You are not going to escape the politics of it with clever phrases. It is not going to happen. This is political the notion that you have to have a rock-solid case. That is beyond what is expected from the Framers. And I am not sure you are going to ever finish your investigation if you are going to continue to investigate until you have exhausted every possible thing before you move forward, and nobody can set that standard for the 435 Members of this House. Next, we have the question of bigotry in policy. There are some who believe that it is okay to have bigotry intentionally placed in policy. Bigotry in policy, to decide that you are going to do something that will be bigoted as the Chief Executive Officer and you will put that into policy, to decide you are going to ban certain people from the country, to decide that you are going to change the rules because people may be from what might be called a s-hole country, change the rules for those from that s-hole country. And then to give some indication that you have bigotry within you by announcing that people who would say phrases like, ``blood and soil'', ``Jews will not replace us'', protesting out in the street, calling themselves members of groups that have been known infamously for behaving in invidious discrimination, give us all of the evidence that we need. I guarantee you that bigotry in policy is impeachable. I assure you of this: I believe in the deepest corners of my soul that if a previous President said and did the things that the Chief Executive Officer has said and done, he would be impeached. He would be removed from office. And I would be one of the persons to support it. We cannot have double standards. Madam Speaker, you can't have a standard that exists because you have a beneficial bigot, a bigot that serves a useful purpose, a bigot that benefits your agenda. All of your adult life you have been preaching against certain things, and then you get a beneficial bigot, someone that might do something such as, appoint persons to the court that you would like to have, and then your standards change. You accept bigotry in policy against people that I would call the least, the last, and the lost. You would accept it against these babies, Madam Speaker. You would accept, accept, accept having a 4-month-old baby separated from his parents. At 4 months old, taken out of the arms of his father. And some time thereafter, when the father is trying to gain custody of his child, say to the father that we will have to deport you, when you take your seat on the plane, we will bring your child to you. We will give you the child back. This is the United States of America I am talking about. I love my country. I don't love that kind of behavior. I have great disdain for that level of behavior. Tell this man he is going to get his child, and then have him deported without his baby. This was reported some 2, 3 days ago in a reputable news source--separated. We know babies are being separated or have been separated. This is supposed to be the youngest, 4 months old. Later on you take the 4-month-old to court, you have a hearing. The baby is now with some people who are taking care of the baby. And then you finally decide the baby is now 6 months of age or there about and you will return this baby to his parents. They have suffered greatly. Can you imagine, someone taking your 4-month-old baby? Can you imagine the pain, the sleepless nights, and the crying? Can you imagine how your life would just be torn apart? Your baby has been removed. Well, you finally get your baby back. One would assume that this would be a joyous occasion, but the baby doesn't recognize the parents. Imagine the pain of reaching out to your baby, Madam Speaker, and your baby withdraws and turns to someone else, because a government had a policy of deterring people from coming by separating babies as young as 4 months old from parents. I just don't abide with this. I cannot accept this. Those who can are a better person than I am. They are. It really does not matter what happens to me. The story of the Good Samaritan is not the story of the person who said: If I cross over and help this person, what is going to happen to me? The story of the Good Samaritan is the story of the person who said: If I don't help this person, what is going to happen to him? We use that parable quite a bit in this country. The story of the person who is the brother's keeper is the story of a person who said: Am I my brother's keeper? Well, we know this: you can't be your brother's keeper without keeping your brother. Brothers and sisters are our relatives. Distant though they may be, they are a part of humanity. They are ours. We belong to them, and they belong to us. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I have said before, and I will say again and again, if these babies were coming across the northern border we would have a different mindset. We would not have the mindset that we have now such that we put them in cages. I went to the border. I wanted to see for myself, and I saw babies lying on a cement floor with some sort of tinfoil blanket over them in conditions that the SPCA would not allow animals to exist in. If it doesn't touch your heart, Madam Speaker, you are a better person than I am, because it touched my heart. When I saw it, it hurt. This is about humanity. This is about persons fleeing harm's way. This is about a law that allows them to approach one of our agents, make a proper announcement, and get a fair hearing. It is not about circumventing the law, trying to find clever ways to keep people out who are following the law. It is not about that. It is about people. It is about humanity. It is about the greatest country in the world and what people around the world think of us now. I assure you, Madam Speaker, the image that we had is being tarnished, I won't say irreparably, but I will say it is being tarnished. The lady with the golden lamp, or light, if you will, torch, give me your poor, you know the rest of the story, your tired, you know the rest of it. We have honored that. We took about 11 million people, I believe, from Europe. We didn't separate babies from mothers. We welcomed them. Something has changed. Something has changed. We are witnessing before our very eyes a change in the culture and a change in our country, because we are witnessing before our very eyes that we seem to think that it is okay or that it is not something that we ought to address. The President doesn't have to commit a crime, the Chief Executive Officer doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. We but have to have the will to do what we must, in my opinion. By the way, my opinion is that we are more likely to impeach than not. This is my opinion. I really do believe that in this House there will be people who are going to conclude that they will not tolerate the level of injustice being perpetrated. I believe it. I believe that there will be a majority to do it, more likely than not. I believe that it can and will happen. I really do. I think that we should be deliberative, but I don't think that we should allow the paralysis of analysis to prevent us from doing our job. I believe there will be enough people who are going to come forward to say we will hold the Chief Executive accountable for this behavior and other behavior: the whole notion that the Chief Executive can tell members of the constabulary, the police, that when they arrest people and they have them within their care, custody, and control, that they don't have to be nice to them; and the whole notion that the Chief Executive can ban people, that he can send out a tweet and kick people out of the military who have been serving honorably or prevent people from coming in because of who they are. I believe that there are enough people who will find this offensive and that they will take the action that the Framers of the Constitution fully intended we take. I close with this, a belief that we have been given an awesome responsibility. We were elected to the people's House. We were elected to do the work of the people, but we were also elected to do the morally righteous thing. There are some times when we have to step beyond where the people may be at a given time because we know what is right and we are going to do the righteous thing. Sometimes, we have to do this. We just have to step out. We don't take a poll, by the way. This whole notion that, until the country is with us, we can't do that which the law requires us to do, in my opinion, that whole notion that we can't do it until the country is with us, well, that is taking a poll. A poll is a snapshot in time. That is all it is, just a snapshot in time. Are we going to allow something as necessary as impeachment to be governed by a poll? I thank God that Dr. King and those who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge did not do so based upon a poll, that they had huddled and said, ``Well, Dr. King, what do the polls say?'' If it is a righteous cause, the polls don't matter. We have to do that which is right, be led by the spirit sometimes, as a friend said to me, to do the right thing. Polls. What if Rosa Parks had taken a poll? ``Let's take a poll before you take that seat on the bus, risking everything.'' She had no idea what her fate would be. ``Take a poll, Rosa.'' Would she have taken the seat if she had relied on polls? What if Lincoln had said, ``Let's take a poll before we attempt to pass the 13th Amendment.'' Polls can prevent us from doing that which is bold. Bold actions are not predicated upon a poll. They are predicated upon the righteousness of the cause. If the cause is righteous, we ought to do the right thing. Dr. King said the time is always right to do what is right. I believe that we need not take polls, that we have enough evidence, that we shouldn't have unreasonable standards, and that this House can and will do its job. I say ``more likely than not'' simply because anything is possible, I suppose. But I just believe that there are enough people here of goodwill who are going to decide that what we have seen is enough before we end up seeing something that we cannot reverse, something that could be beyond what we would want to see happen, not only to this country but to all countries, by way of what happens to one directly happens to all indirectly, according to Dr. King, because life is an inescapable network of mutuality. I don't want to see something happen, but I do want to say this: Given that we know we can impeach right now, if we fail to impeach and some dastardly thing occurs, there will be Members of this House who will regret not having taken the appropriate action. It is bigger than any one of us. This is about humanity. We ought to respect the means by which we can preserve integrity, the means by which we can preserve the lives that we have been charged with the responsibility of caring for as Members of this body. Let us move forward. I greatly appreciate the leadership for giving me this opportunity to be heard. My dear friends, unless leadership changes the rules, I will be heard again because I plan to come back again and again. I assure my colleagues that if no one else does, there will be another vote on impeachment on the floor of the House of Representatives, not because I want to do it but because I believe I am forced to do it. I have little choice if I want to protect the integrity of the Constitution and preserve the notion of no person being above the law. I believe I have a responsibility to do it. I don't like using the personal pronoun ``I'' as it relates to this, but I have no choice. It will be done. We will all go on Record. I assure my colleagues, I will not approach any individual person to try to convince a person that he or she should do a given thing. I will talk from this podium, as I have, and I will answer those who may ask me questions. But I do believe we have to take this duty seriously, and we have to have a vote in the House of Representatives. I am thankful for the time, Madam Speaker, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be a Member of this august body. While I am here, I plan to do all that I can to make sure, for the people I have been elected to serve, that I do what is in their best interests, even if they may not think it is in their best interests. There are some things that are bigger than individuals. It is about a country. It is about humanity. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in support of Michael Phuong Minh Nguyen--a proud American citizen, a loving husband to Helen Nguyen, and a doting father of four young daughters. However, it saddens me deeply that Mr. Nguyen has been unjustly detained by the Vietnamese government for over eleven months now-- nearly a year--which has caused immense suffering for his family and his entire community. Mr. Nguyen was arrested on July 7, 2018 while visiting relatives in Vietnam, detained without official charges, and is only now finally to stand trial next week on June 24, 2019 in Ho Chi Minh City. Mr. Nguyen has been an upstanding, model citizen of the United States for some 40 years and, to my knowledge, has no criminal record. In fact, he is an entrepreneur and a small business owner. He is also a man of faith and is actively involved in his local community church. One of our most sacred duties as elected officials is to protect our citizens from harm--on both domestic and foreign soil--and indeed I have never given up on my constituents even after they have been deported or detained abroad. This is why, since his detention last year, I have consistently urged, to both the United States and Vietnamese governments, swift action be taken to expeditiously return Mr. Michael Nguyen home. I am tremendously grateful to my colleagues in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle for their tireless advocacy on behalf of Mr. Nguyen and his family. Madam Speaker, I close by respectfully imploring the Vietnamese government to do the right thing--ensure a fair trial, a speedy resolution, and justice for Michael Nguyen.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Madam Speaker, because I love my country and because I have reason to be concerned, and I believe that every American has reason to be concerned about the issue that I shall address today. Those of us who are in the House of Representatives should be especially concerned because the issue involves war and peace. It involves the sons and daughters of Mr. and Mrs. America--war and peace. We have, by and through our Chief Executive Officer, the President of the United States of America, caused a Nimitz-class battle group to go into the Gulf region. For those who do not know, this is the ultimate expression of American military prowess, a Nimitz-class battle group. Above it, we have the generationally reliable B-52 bomber. They can rain lethality on anything within their range. Beneath the battle group, you have, lurking, a submarine that can launch without surfacing. But the centerpiece of a Nimitz-class battle group, especially this one, is the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Abraham Lincoln is an aircraft carrier that is 1,092 feet long. It can carry 90 fixed- and rotary- winged aircraft. The Abraham Lincoln has two A-4 Westinghouse nuclear reactors. When it is fueled and it is sent out on a mission, it does not have to come back for 25 years. It is the centerpiece of American military prowess. To borrow a term from where I grew up, you don't send the Abraham Lincoln if you are shucking. You send it when you are not bluffing. You don't send the Abraham Lincoln, Madam Speaker, unless you want to make a statement. This is the ultimate in American military prowess. It has the ability to rain lethality unlike the human mind can imagine. This is the Abraham Lincoln, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, a part of a battle group. It is the equivalent of sending a military base. You don't send it to bluff. This is why we must be concerned. We have to be concerned because, if you send it because you are bluffing, Madam Speaker, you are playing with American military prowess; and if you send it because you are going to use it, you have to come to Congress. Congress has to give the word. We don't play with this kind of lethality. There is a reality associated with this lethality that we cannot imagine. We have no way of predicting what can happen if we use this ultimate form of military force. We obviously have it to defend ourselves and defend our allies. I don't object to the defensive nature of military action, but I am concerned if you send in this level of lethality because you are bluffing. So I am calling on all Americans to please pay attention to what is happening in the Gulf region, and I am saying to my brethren and my sisters here in Congress: We are going to regret it if this level of lethality is being used and we did not exercise our duty, our obligation, and our responsibility to review impeachment of this President. We are going to regret it if it happens. This is the ultimate in lethality. You don't send it because you are bluffing. It is time for us to do what we should do here in this Congress: require an Authorization for Use of Military Force; make sure that we play our role in this process. This is the Congress. We declare war. Don't let all of our authority be usurped by the executive branch. We ought to have some sense of duty to what the Constitution requires of us. We see what is coming, and we are going to regret it if this ultimate in lethality is utilized in this Gulf region for a bluff that, unfortunately, was called.

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 because we are celebrating and commemorating, to a certain extent, Juneteenth, when General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, to alert, announce to the slaves, if you will, that they had been freed pursuant to the Emancipation Proclamation. I am pleased that General Granger did this. I am pleased because liberation is a wonderful thing. Nobody should be enslaved. But I am also concerned that that liberation has not completely obliterated the bigotry that ensued after the liberation. In this country, we still suffer from bigotry, hatred, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, all of the various ugliness that can cause some people to receive less than the American Dream that others receive. And here in this country today, we, in the House of Representatives, have a unique opportunity to do something about bigotry in our country. We have an opportunity to do something about a President who has now been above the law for some 63 days, 63 days since the Mueller report was presented to the public, 63 days above the law since the Mueller report. My contention is he has been above the law since he fired Mr. Comey some 2 years plus ago. But the President being above the law is something that can be remedied. Babies shouldn't be separated from their parents. I read a story just yesterday about the youngest person to be separated, a 4-month-old baby, separated from parents for approximately 6 months. The baby was separated for such a prolonged period of time that the baby did not recognize the parents when the unity took place with the parents, the reuniting took place. I am so saddened by these kinds of incidents, but the truth is, the House of Representatives can do something about bigotry emanating from the Presidency. The House of Representatives can impeach a President for bigotry emanating from his Presidency. And I believe that this House should do this, but I am also saddened by the fact that we appear to be a House that is driven by polls. Polls direct us, snapshots in time, about the opinions of the public. I am saddened by the fact that we seem to be driven by polls because I can only imagine what would have happened had they taken a poll before crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday. I can only imagine what the poll would have said if Rosa Parks had taken one before she took that seat in a racist southern town on that bus. I can only imagine what the polls would have said if Lincoln had decided to poll the country before moving forward with the Emancipation Proclamation or the 13th Amendment. Polls should not drive a righteous cause; a righteous cause should drive the polls. It is time for this Congress that has the authority to move forward with impeachment to do so. We have not served our country well by relying on polls. Polls are wonderful, but not for righteous causes. With a righteous cause, you take a stand, and you move forward. When you don't take that cause, you are not serving a righteous cause well.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. Mr. Speaker, I rise some 56 days since the Mueller report was made public; 56 days, according to some, and I have been among them, to say that the President has been above the law for 56 days pursuant to the Mueller report. But the truth is the President has been above the law for more than 2 years because, more than 2 years ago, I stood at this podium and called for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for his obstruction that we now acknowledge was obstruction--more than 2 years. More than 2 years, now, of analysis paralysis. As Dr. King put it, the paralysis of analysis--more than 2 years. What does this mean, paralysis analysis? Well, I have my pneumonic notes. It means that we are allowing the perfect to be an enemy of the good, that we are waiting for the perfect opportunity to do what we should rather than doing that which is good, which we can do now. It also means overthinking a problem and not analyzing to the extent that you never make a decision, and in some cases, it means allowing perfection protection. Some people will do it simply because knowing you cannot achieve perfection, it becomes a means by which they can achieve perfection-- perfection protection. And along the way, over these 2 years, Mr. Speaker, here is what we have had to deal with. The first question was: What crime has the President committed? Well, we know now that you don't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Constitutional scholars have finally acknowledged it publicly, and others have accepted it--no crime necessary. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 in article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment against him, and it was not for commission of a crime. Then we had to deal with outsourcing of the investigation. Let's not do it ourselves. Let's not do what the Framers of the Constitution intended Congress to do. Let's give it to somebody else. Let's have some special counsel do it. And then, of course, thereafter, there was: Wait for the Mueller report. ``Wait for the Mueller report,'' a constant refrain. We waited for the Mueller report. The Mueller report has been presented, some 56 days it has been made public. And now we are dealing with the whole notion of some of these votes may be hard votes. I know a little bit about hard votes. I have got some ministers who are not as friendly as they used to be because of some hard votes that I have taken right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. And then, of course, we have this notion that we have to have a rock- solid case. Maybe not in these words, but we have to have a rock-solid case. Again, to some extent this is analysis by paralysis. And finally, I will mention today, this, the whole notion that ``I am against impeachment, although I am for it. I am against it, but I am for it.'' Realizing that, in the final analysis, if we don't impeach, ``Well, I was always against it''; if we do impeach, ``Well, I was for it, but I just want to make sure we do it right.'' ``I am against it, but I am for it.'' Don't you know that the American people can see through this facade? This is but a veneer. People can see beyond the veneer. People understand that you can't be for it and against it at the same time. What a paradox. At some point, to impeach, you have to use the term ``impeach.'' At some point, the Judiciary Committee has to be the powerful Judiciary Committee that has been of old. At some point, we have to stand up. Either we will hold a ruthless, reckless, lawless President accountable, or we are all going to be held accountable. People are worried about the general election. Well, there is a primary before the general election. It is time for us to do our jobs. Paralysis analysis cannot prevent us from doing that which the Framers of the Constitution have accorded us as our responsibility. I refuse to allow this to continue. We will have impeachment of this President brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, as time is running out for us to continue to analyze to the extent that we are paralyzed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart, but I still love my country. I rise today, some 48 days now since the Mueller report was made public, some 48 days for all who have said that the President should be impeached and that he has broken the law, some 48 days now the President has been above the law--48 days. But as we continue this journey, let us remember this: There are still children who have been separated from their parents. Let us please remember there is a new story today about this separation. Let us remember separation doesn't always mean that the child was separated from a mother or a father, but perhaps a grandparent or some other person who was a significant other in that person's life, somebody whom the child had some sense of belief in or belonging to. And let us remember, please, that these children are among the least, the last, and the lost. These are not persons who were born into plenty--likely, born into extreme poverty. These are not persons who were born in the land of liberty and justice for all. These are persons who are seeking liberty and justice. These are persons who are trying to flee harm's way. These are babies. One can only imagine what grief a parent suffers knowing that the child has been removed from the custody of the parent and is not able to be reconnected. Let us just imagine ourselves: What would we do if our child were taken from us as we were trying to journey toward freedom, if we were trying to escape harm's way, and when we finally get to a point where we think that the laws that are applicable would apply to us, our child was removed from us? What would we do? This is the United States of America. These laws are in place. Those who bemoan the fact that people are coming and seeking asylum should remember that the law allows what they are doing. They are not breaking the law when they walk up to the border and say, ``I am seeking asylum,'' when they give the pronouncement as to why and it is an appropriate pronouncement. That is the law. And for our President to make this a big issue now, when he had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and never sought to change the law, one can believe that this is done with intentionality to make it an issue such that he can now claim someone else is responsible. But the truth is we are all responsible. The truth is every one of us, myself included, we are all responsible for what is happening to these babies at the border. This President is willing to raid every coffer in the country to build a wall, but he is not willing to go into those coffers to make sure that children are treated fairly at the border. I will close with this, my dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, all of whom I love. I close with this: If these babies and the babies that were seen on television this morning peering through some sort of small space were coming from the northern border--if these babies were coming from the northern borders, if these were babies coming from the northern border--would we have the same mindset? Would we allow this to continue with babies? We are all responsible, and it is time for us to do something about this crisis at the border--and doing something is more than building a wall. A wall will not solve the poverty that they are living in in these other countries, won't solve the persecution that they have to endure. A wall is not a solution to a humanitarian crisis. It is time for us to act on the humanitarian crisis at the border and for this President to lead the way on acting on the crisis at the border. I love my country, and I beg that we would do something to end this crisis.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this is a consumer's dream come true because it gives the consumer choice. It does not deny the business owner, the credit card company, or the bank the opportunity to have arbitration. What it does is it allows the consumer to have the choice to either elect to have arbitration or to go to litigation, and when litigating, the consumer can litigate as an individual. When I was a judge of a small claims court, I had many persons who were litigating their cases before me. I also understand that there are times when people believe that they should have lawyers to represent them. It is not unusual for businesses to have lawyers to represent them. In fact, businesses have lawyers on call to represent them 24 hours a day. Why can consumers not have the same opportunity to litigate that businesses have to litigate? That is what this is all about. My colleague, on the other side, would simply have consumers have no choice, go to arbitration only, and then, possibly, gain some emolument. My belief is that consumers ought to have choice. That is what this amendment is about. Madam Chair, this is part of the reason why consumers are so angry with this Congress. We deny them their constitutional rights, the right to a trial and the right to make a determination for themselves as to whether or not they will engage in arbitration or litigation. Consumers should have choices. Businesses have choices. Consumers should have no less than what businesses have. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?