Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, in defense of the American people who are suffering as a result of more than a trillion dollars in healthcare cuts. I rise to defend them because my colleagues across the aisle would reduce them to freeloaders, would reduce them to persons who don't deserve to be in the country and receive medical care. I rise to call to your attention Mr. Bonner, an American citizen who worked for NASA. Mr. Bonner was in line for a double lung transplant. His premiums went up to the point that he could not afford the premium that would allow him to get the double lung transplant. We had to go out on the internet to secure funds for an American citizen who was in line for a double lung transplant who couldn't get it because of the premiums that went up in January. You would reduce these persons, the Bonners of the world, to freeloaders. They are not freeloaders. These are American citizens who are suffering because of the way you are treating healthcare. I rise in support of the American citizens who don't have money in the stock market and who are not playing the stock market. They have the supermarket as their means of determining how successful they are. When they go there, they cannot afford the necessities of life. They are having to choose gas over food. I rise in defense of the American people that you reduce to freeloaders and persons who don't care enough about this country to want to support it and make sure that all persons have access to healthcare. I rise to defend the American people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise. Once again I rise to address we the people. Once again I rise to address we the people. Those who believe in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those who believe that all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people believe in liberty and justice for all. We the people believe in something as simple and as basic as fair play, as respect, being respectful, showing the proper courtesies, showing the country that we understand that if the country is to have harmony within, we the people have to respect each other within. We the people. I rise in the name of we the people. Today, as I rise in the name of we the people, I would remind us that I am the Al Green who is not only unbought, not only unbossed, not only unafraid, not only liberated, but also censured. I was censured but not silenced; censured but not silenced. My censure took place because in this very Chamber I, at a joint session of Congress, reminded the President that he did not have a mandate, a mandate to cut Medicaid, to cut Medicare, and Social Security. Many members of the press will print that I said he didn't have a mandate. They are being inaccurate, and they are misleading. I think it is done with intentionality because they would want it said that I said he didn't have a mandate, and then there would be a big debate about it. I said he didn't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, and I still stand on this. And the President went on to impose one of the biggest cuts on healthcare ever seen, and we are still suffering from this today. I rise in the name of we the people understanding the consequences of the cuts that were made. I have had an experience with one of my constituents, a constituent who needed a double lung transplant, a constituent who saw his premiums go up exponentially to the extent that he could not afford to pay for that premium that would allow him to have the double lung transplant. I rise on his behalf. His story is a story that needs to be heard and needs to be told. That story is an important story--double lung transplant. I rise on his behalf to show the injustice in what occurred when I took my stand and called it to the attention of the country, the injustice that occurred after I called it to the attention of the country, and the country and the world paid attention and noticed that the injustice took place. We exposed the injustice. It was exposed right here in this House. I rise today to mention that this man who needed this double lung transplant, we had to help him to make sure he got his premiums paid, and we did. He came to our office for help. We wanted to make sure that he got that double lung transplant. I am proud and honored to say he has received the double lung transplant, and he is doing well in spite of, not because of, this President--in spite of. This President doesn't respect the right of human beings to have good healthcare. This is a human right. This is a right that all people should have, especially in this the richest country in the world, good healthcare. The disrespect doesn't end there. It doesn't. This is a President who has portrayed himself as the Pope. The President of the United States of America has the audacity to portray himself as the Pope. The President published this depiction of himself as the Pope. I have on this poster, I trust that it can be read at the bottom, but for fear that it cannot, I will hold it up: Donald Trump is not the Pope. We know this, and he should not depict himself as such, as the Pope. I don't know why it would surprise us, to be quite candid with you, Mr. Speaker, that he would do this after the way he has disrespected the Latino community. He disrespected the Latino community by defining persons who are here undocumented as illegals in such a way as to cause all persons who are Latino, look like they are Latino, or caught speaking Spanish, all persons, to become suspect. Under ICE, these persons who have been suspect have been treated disrespectfully. Mr. Speaker, you don't have to treat people in an inhumane way to police them. You don't have to do it, and you surely don't have to kill them. You don't have to kill them while they are kneeling or face down, Mr. Speaker, shot, many times. You don't have to kill them as they are driving past you in an automobile, Mr. Speaker. You don't have to do that. This is a disrespect for human life that this President is showing. It is a disrespect for human life. I am not sure that it should surprise us to see his disrespect for the Catholic Church and for people who are the followers of Catholicism. It doesn't surprise me that he would do it, but he shouldn't. This level of disrespect is unbecoming the office and the officer who holds the title of President of the United States of America. It is unbecoming, but he didn't stop there. He has depicted the Obamas in a very unpleasing, unpleasant, disgraceful, and disdainful way. He has refused to apologize for a video showing the Obamas as apes. I didn't bring the actual picture. I have it. People are very sensitive, and they don't want to see that. However, we have to talk about that because this is disrespect for people of color. Regardless as to who you are, it is disrespectful. It is disrespectful of people of color. This is the same level of disrespect and indecency that was utilized to enslave people in this country, the United States of America. Good Christians, many of them, not all, but a good many of them justified the enslavement of human beings because in their theology, the human beings were closer to apes than they were to the Homo sapiens, the human beings that you and I happen to be a part of, that class of human beings. This President went out of his way, it seems, to do this and to disrespect the Obamas. He didn't stop there. This President has the audacity and the unmitigated gall to do something that is absolutely inane and insane. He has portrayed himself as Jesus Christ. He has depicted himself as Jesus Christ. You will see on this poster, Mr. Speaker, that I have noted: Donald Trump is not Jesus. Now, he can make specious statements and questionable statements after he has done this and try to convince some people: Oh, no, I was just pretending to be a physician. I was trying to show myself as a physician. Well, most physicians that I know don't have all of this taking place as they are standing over a patient. They don't have what looks like an eagle flying, planes flying through the air, and the Statue of Liberty. They don't have persons looking in awe as the physician lays a hand on a patient. They don't have what appears to be a person or an image of someone that is humanlike, perhaps an angel with wings, above. Mr. President, people are not so low of IQ, as you would say, as to believe that you are not representing yourself as Jesus. You use that term low IQ so you think all of us are low IQ people and all of us would think you are a physician. Mr. President, we are not. People are not. We the People are not, and We the People, Mr. Speaker, find this disgraceful. We find it unacceptable. We find it shameful, and We the People believe that you should acknowledge that you were wrong. You don't have to apologize. Just say you were wrong to do this, but you won't. You won't. That is because you find yourself to be above all and above the law, and, in this depiction, above humanity. Mr. President, I want you to know that there will be a record for posterity. There will be a record for posterity. Earlier I talked about legislation that I have already filed. Now, Mr. President, I am going to mention a resolution, legislation that I will file. I will file legislation, Mr. President, so that those who look through the vista of time will know that at least one person, there may be others, I am not speaking for anybody but myself, so I say at least one person. There may be many others, I don't know. I do know what I will do. I don't speak for any political party. I speak for myself and everybody who agrees with me, and I believe that We the People have among us many who will agree. I have this resolution that I will file. Permit me to read the style of the resolution. It reads: Resolution condemning President Donald J. Trump-- condemning--resolution condemning President Donald J. Trump for his disgraceful, despicable, and disrespectful social media posts depicting himself as Jesus Christ, diminishing the dignity of the Presidency, and bringing disrepute to the office. Diminishing the dignity and bringing disrepute to the Office of the Presidency. It would seem to me, Mr. President, that you knew or should have known that this would be unacceptable. You knew or should have known. In fact, I have made a few points with that language. Here in the resolution, I have language that says: All who hold public trust, especially those who hold the Nation's highest office, bear a heightened responsibility to uphold respect for the diverse religious beliefs of the American people within our population. All of us, especially those who hold public trust. Then I go on to add in the resolution: The President of the United States of America knew or should have known acts by the President of the United States of America that trivialize or exploit any religious symbolism for personal or political purposes are inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect and dignity that underpin a pluralistic society. This is beneath the dignity of the Presidency, and the President knew or should have known this. I go on to say: The President of the United States knew or should have known that respect for religions by the President is essential to maintaining unity and mutual understanding among the people of all faiths and backgrounds in the United States of America. He knew or should have known. I am going to move now to what will be one of my last comments. The President of the United States knew or should have known that the Presidency is an office intended to embody the highest standards of respect, integrity, and seriousness. Conduct such as this undermines the essential qualities of dignity and respect and erodes the respect for the office of the Presidency--the respect that the office is intended to command. The President knew or should have known that he is diminishing the Presidency in the eyes of the world. It is not just a little thing. It is not something of, ``Oh, that is just Donald. He is just misbehaving.'' When we didn't stop him earlier, when he was depicting the Obamas as he did, and we didn't stop him when he depicted himself as the Pope, and we didn't stop him when he disrespected Latinos, he has now devolved into this. This devolution is harmful to the Presidency. As a result of what he has done to cause harm to the Presidency, I have: It is resolved that the House of Representatives condemns President Donald John Trump for his disgraceful, despicable, and disrespectful Truth Social post depicting himself as Jesus Christ on April 12, 2026, diminishing the dignity of the Presidency and bringing disrepute to the office. That is one of the things that we have resolved, but there is another one. It is also resolved that Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, should state publicly that his depicting himself as Jesus Christ was disgraceful and offensive--disgraceful and offensive, not just to those who are Catholics but to all persons of all religions. It doesn't just end with this depiction. This is the genesis of it. There are revelations yet to come as it relates to this. The President knew or should have known that this kind of disrespect is not something that we should tolerate, and I will not. Others may. Let them do what they may. I do what I must. This is why I will be filing this resolution. I will be filing this resolution to condemn the President for this distasteful, disdainful, and disrespectful behavior. I could only say to this country: We have to stop him. I don't mean physically, no. There are proper political and legal methodologies by which he can be stopped. He has to be stopped. He is out of control. This is a supreme, superb example of how far out of control the President of the United States is. He has to be stopped. He has to be stopped. If we don't stop him, he will do what we all perceive he will do. We the people know that this is what his plan is. His plan is to stay on beyond his term of office. How do you know? Because that was his plan at the end of his first term of office. He incited the insurrection. He incited the insurrection. He incited the insurrection. He intends to stay on, again, beyond his term of office. We the people can stop this. We can stop it before he causes harm that is irreparable to our country, the image of the country, and the people within the country. We can stop it. There is one means that we have available to us that we can employ, and I believe we the people must use it. I tried several times, and I plan to try again. That is to impeach him. Impeachment is a lawful, political process within the Constitution that allows we the people to remove a President who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, we the people can do it. By the way, I won't get into what high crimes and misdemeanors are today, but I will tell you this: When Andrew Johnson was impeached, in Article X of the Articles of Impeachment against Andrew Johnson, a high crime and misdemeanor--or high misdemeanor as it was called then--was his speaking ill of Congress. For speaking ill of Congress, Andrew Johnson was impeached. We the people decide what the high crime and misdemeanor is. There is no appeal to any court when the President is impeached. We the people make that determination. We the people in this House of Representatives have more than enough empirical evidence to conclude that impeachment is necessary. We but only have to have the will to do it. The way is there. This level of disrespect is indicative of where he is going. We the people can stop him with impeachment. This is indicative of where he thinks he should be. He has no problems with the word ``authoritarian.'' It does not really offend him. In fact, given that he celebrates and tries to get authoritarians reelected to office--doesn't always succeed. Given that he does this, it appears that he wants to be classed and ranked and styled as an authoritarian. The truth is, that is devolving. He has no problems with that. He is devolving into a dictator in the United States of America. Someone would say that is impossible, not in this country. It is possible if we don't use the political tool of impeachment. It is entirely possible. He has command of the military. He commands the military in ways that are impeachable, but we have not done so. When I say ``we,'' I really mean we here in the House of Representatives. We have the empirical evidence. I am not going through the articles that we might levy against him, but I want you to know that the empirical evidence is there. We only but have to have the will. The way is there. He is devolving our society, our military--his means of managing it-- into a might-makes-right military. Might makes right by whatever means he chooses--by whatever means he chooses--to accomplish the goal that he chooses. If he chooses to go to war without Congress, go to war. Might makes right. It has been said by the Secretary of what I would like to call Defense but is now the Secretary of War that we negotiate now with bombs. That is how we negotiate, with bombs. Might makes right, any means he chooses to accomplish a goal, and then, at the end, he says: Look at what I have done. Couldn't have done that if I had followed the Constitution. Well, every time he does this, a little bit of the Constitution becomes meaningless. At some point, we won't have a Constitution that people will see as meaningful. We won't see it as meaningful. We will see it as meaningless because the President walks on it daily. Might makes right. Any means he chooses--not necessary, but the means that he chooses. This is where he is headed, from here to dictatorship. Yes, I am among the first to say it, and I am saying it right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Remember, unbought, unbossed, unafraid. I say it here so that when I say it back in my community, I will tell people I have already said that. Yes, he wants to be a dictator right here in this country, the United States of America, and impeachment is a means by which we can stop him. We must move forward. We must stop him, remove him from office by virtue of a trial in the Senate, remove him from office by his being found guilty in the Senate. We must remove him from office, let him leave in the shame and disgrace that he has earned. He has earned shame and disgrace, and they know it. My brethren, my friends, my colleagues, brothers and sisters across the aisle and on this side of the aisle know it. He has earned it, and we should bestow it upon him. Let him leave in shame and disgrace, that he richly should be rewarded. As he does so, let us remind ourselves that we will have done what is expected under the Constitution of the United States of America. There are those who would say, Mr. Speaker, that you shouldn't impeach him because the Senate won't convict him. Well, he will still be impeached, and that ought to be on his record. There ought to be those among us who are willing to stand and show and say: This is what he merits for his dastardly deeds done that are contrary to the Constitution, that are impeachable by virtue of being high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, let's let the record show that he was impeached again. He doesn't want to be impeached, and there are people here who want to impeach him, but they don't want to say so. I understand it. Well, I am saying so, he should be impeached. I assure you that when all is said and done, when the last word is written, after all of this kind of insidious behavior, when the last word is said and the last word is written, we the people will have spoken. We the people will have the last word. Donald John Trump will be impeached again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. And I rise tonight to thank the Honorable Jim Clyburn for that fantastic recitation that he accorded us. It was a walk down memory lane. I also am honored to be in the presence of the Honorable Jonathan Jackson, and I thank him for his presence and the many things that he and his family have contributed to the growth of our Nation. I would also like to thank Cleo Fields who gave birth to the notion that we should have such an event tonight. All of these persons, and many more, have made this possible. While I will be terse and laconic, pithy and concise, I will assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I won't say all that I would like to say. I do want to remind people of the thing that caused Reverend Jackson to be set apart from his contemporaries. Yes, he was a brilliant man, and his ability to speak in sound bites was just remarkable. Yes, he had the ability to organize and mobilize huge numbers of people. But the thing that really caused him to be someone very special, an exemplar, was the fact that he had courage. It was courage. It took the courage that he learned as he sat with Dr. King and understood the civil rights movement from genesis to revelation. He understood what the movement was all about, and, as such, he understood that the movement had to metamorphose from civil rights to silver rights. He, quite frankly, was the person who pushed the movement from not just taking care of people who needed housing, who needed a living wage, and people who needed healthcare. All of these issues he still embraced, but he also brought in a new element, and that element to the equation was the silver rights movement. He knew that we had not been treated fairly when it came to integrating the various places that we would want to rest and dine. He knew that, but he also knew something else, that we had to integrate more than people and more than places. He knew that we had to integrate the money. That is where the silver rights movement--the silver rights movement had its genesis with him. I want to say more, Mr. Speaker, but the Honorable Yvette Clarke waits, and I have the good sense to know when to yield to the better person. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Clyburn for according me this opportunity. I don't know what Congress would be without Jim Clyburn. It wouldn't be the same. He is the C in Congress, Clyburn.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I rise tonight in the name of the TSA worker that made an appeal. I rise in the name of justice for the TSA workers. This worker said to me as I made my way through the airport, help us. We have families to feed. Help us. Fight for us. This bill does not help those workers. It is dead on arrival. The bill that can help the workers is the compromised bill that came out of the Senate. This bill is dead. The Senate bill lives, and it will help those workers. They have families to feed. They must put food on the table. This bill doesn't do it. It is the Senate bill. It is the compromised bill. You don't want compromise. You want capitulation. Democrats will not capitulate.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with a very special topic. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because I am a liberated, unbought, unbossed Democrat. I not only speak the truth to power; I speak truth about power. You speak truth to power by simply saying: ``Power, there is a problem. Let's solve it.'' It is a great thing to do. When you speak truth about power, you say: ``Power, there is a problem, and you are it.'' Today, I am going to speak truth about power. I am going to do so because I will not allow the power that I am to speak about to intimidate me. I insist on having the full benefit of my free speech rights, and I will take advantage of them. If it should cost me, I will pay the price. I plan to speak truth, not only to power, but also speak truth about power. Today, I am going to embrace the topic that has caused a good deal of consternation in this Congress, a topic that many people would say that it would be injudicious to embrace because of the consequences, but there comes a time when you have to take a stand. Consequences are things that have to be considered, but when it comes to my country and when it comes to the American consumer, I am willing to take on those consequences. I am willing to do what I believe to be not only the right thing but the righteous thing. Today, I will embrace the topic: Why the crypto industry is spending mega-millions of dollars to control Congress. Why is the crypto industry spending mega-millions of dollars to control Congress, not to have debates in Congress, not to allow the American people to hear all sides of issues, but to control Congress to the extent that but one side is going to be presented? Today, I stand and I speak for all of those people who agree with me. I don't speak for people associated with any party. I don't speak for people associated with any caucus. I speak for everybody who agrees with me, and there are a good many. Not all will say what I say, but they agree with me. By the way, I say what I say, and I don't expect others to say what I say because I think I am uniquely qualified to say what I say. I sit on the Committee on Financial Services. I have chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the Committee on Financial Services. I am proud to say that I have lived under the leadership of the Honorable Barney Frank and the Honorable Maxine Waters, and I am proud to say that at some point, I believe that we will have the leadership on that committee again. This is why the crypto industry is so concerned about Members who might take the position that I take. The topic again: Why the crypto industry is spending mega-millions of dollars to control Congress. Let's start with what is actually happening right now in Congress. The Congress is the House and the Senate. We are in the House of Representatives, but it is the House and the Senate. The Senate has passed a piece of legislation that deals with housing. It is styled the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. I have a section-by-section breakdown. I am not going to go through every section, but I can tell you that there is language in here that, if implemented, will be of great benefit to people in the area of housing, people who are in need of housing, people who are in need of a place to call home. There is language in here that I support. I also want you to know that in this bill that deals with housing, the crypto industry decided that something was germane that I totally, absolutely, and completely disagree with. The crypto industry decided that near the very end of the bill, on the last page of the document that I have, after having topics styled ``Rental Assistance Demonstration program,'' ``Increasing Housing in Opportunity Zones,'' ``Whole-Home Repairs Act,'' and many other things that are beneficial, the crypto industry--this is on the very last page of the summary that I have--found reason to believe that what I am about to articulate is germane. I don't think it is germane, but it is in the bill. The crypto industry has included language in section 1001, section 1001, styled ``Central bank digital currency,'' crypto industry, central bank legislation in a housing bill. Here is what it would do. This section pauses the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, pauses, pauses for approximately 5 years. It pauses it. That pause is not good enough for some people. There are some people who want a permanent ban on a central bank issuing a digital currency. Now, I have to give some edification to many people who are listening. Let's start with this. Right now, if you desire to, you can transfer with crypto dollars--cryptocurrency, I should say--money from one person to another without it going through any other entity or going to any other person, one person to another without going to any other person, friends. That kind of transference is beneficial in many ways to many people. Some people who would do dastardly deeds are indeed enthralled with this methodology. They are enthralled with it because, when they can transfer from one person to another, if they want to transfer funds to someone engaging in some sort of illicit activity, they can make that transfer and remain anonymous. There is something called pseudonymous. They are pseudonymous. They have pseudonymous positions that allow them to be secretive within the transaction. It is called pseudonymity. They have pseudonymity. This pseudonymity allows people to do dastardly things and not be recognized for their dastardly deeds. It makes it very difficult to catch them. For example, someone who wants to send money to a terrorist organization, you can do this anonymously. You have pseudonymity. Also, you might recall some time ago not so long ago, there was a group of people, maybe one person--I am not sure--who wanted to extort money from a very notable family. They wanted that money to be transferred in crypto dollars, crypto fashion, digital currency. They wanted it to be transferred digitally because they knew that it would prevent them from being caught. Now, maybe they would be caught. Maybe there is some super means of spying and finding out, but their chances of being caught were very slim if they could have the money transferred from one person to another, not go through a central bank, and, as a result, claim their ill-gotten gains and go off into the world unknown to people as the criminals they would be. It is great for those persons who want to extort money, this direct transfer of money from one person to another. Now, it would be against the law to do this, but it would also be up to the law to find some means by which you can prevent this or you can at least arrest the people who do this. But with this pseudonymity, they have the ability to do this and not be caught. If they are caught, it would be very difficult to accomplish the actual act of catching them after they committed the crime. So extortion is one means by which this kind of direct transfer can be used. But there is another means. This means is something that applies to people who have large sums of money but don't want to pay taxes. Some things bear repeating. There are people who have large sums of money who do not want to pay their fair share of taxes. With this direct ability to transfer dollars from one person to another, transfer them digitally, transfer them at a later point into a currency that is tangible, this ability to do this also opens the door for them to not only avoid taxes, which is legal, but to evade taxes, which is illegal. It is lawful to avoid; illegal to evade. Many people in this country--I know it is a surprise to some people to know that there are some people who would evade taxes. My dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, there are people in this country who, if given the opportunity to pay zero taxes, they would pay zero taxes, notwithstanding the fact that they have large sums of money. Well, I believe that taxation is something that is necessary. If I want the roads that I traverse, if I want the bridges that I cross, if I want the infrastructure that we have, taxation is necessary. You don't pass an offertory. You don't pass an offertory for infrastructure. We need taxation to help us with hospitals. Sometimes we have to build the infrastructure with tax dollars to aid and abet people who are sick. Aid and abet might not be the best choice of words. Sometimes my diction is less than superb. The point is, we need tax dollars to do things to help people in this country that we have concluded are in need of help, and it is necessary to do so. That is what we do here in Congress. We pass legislation quite regularly to help people, and we decided that this is a good thing to do. But you can't get the tax dollars from people who are evading because you don't know that they are actually in the business of evading until you can prove it, you can't prove it if you can't catch them, and you can't catch them if they are making these direct transfers from one person to another, one entity to another. They are anonymous. I am not saying that all of my colleagues had this in mind when they say they want privacy. Privacy is a big issue. They are saying that the government ought not know that I am moving my money from one place to another, that that's my personal business. Well, it is your personal business until you break the law. Then the question becomes if your position is to break the law, how do we prevent it. The way you prevent it is to have a third entity involved in this transaction, a third entity. That entity, that third entity, can then have some means by which your anonymous position is known. If you go to the bank now and you want to withdraw funds, you can do so. It is your money. You can do so, but you can't withdraw it to send it to a terrorist organization. I think that is a pretty good thing. I don't want terrorists to be able to get money easily. In fact, I don't want them to get it at all. But if we make it easier for them to get it, this system will be utilized. Let me give you an example. I have it on good authority that the drug traffickers--there is a big issue in this country about drug trafficking. The drug traffickers, the people who are dealing with cross-border selling of guns, they use crypto methodologies. They use a crypto method to transfer the dollars involved. Well, we don't want them to be anonymous. We want to catch them. These are the people who are indirectly killing American citizens. We want to capture them. We want to stop this. They can transfer the guns, and once the guns are received, the money is transferred. It is done from one person to another, and the government cannot seem to be able to find a way into that transaction such that the people who are committing the crime can be properly prosecuted. That is pseudonymity, unknown persons transferring large sums of money for unknown reasons. A third entity in this process that allows the money to get into it, digital dollars--we might call it a digital dollar, digital currency-- gets into this third entity, and the identity is exposed. We know that you are transferring this huge sum of money. It is okay for you to transfer it, but we want to know who is getting it. That is what we can do with some sort of third entity that we can call a central digital bank. You can have it by any name, but the point is, a third entity that gets in between the direct transfers of these huge sums of dollars. By the way, currently, without this, you can literally transfer unlimited amounts of money, and no one will know. It is illegal to do some of the things that are being done, but how do you deal with the illegality if you can't deal with the people who are actually engaged in illegal transactions. That is the issue. So the crypto industry has decided: Here is what we will do. All the people who think as I think, we will just take them out of Congress. We will just have a Congress that has one mindset, and that is an absolute ban on any kind of centrality associated with this movement of money, an absolute ban. Now, the bill that I called to your attention, this bill, just has a pause, as it is called in the bill--just has a pause for a period of time, just a pause. There are people in this House who are antithetical to a pause. They want permanency. They are willing to kill a housing bill because they can't have a permanent ban. They will kill a housing bill because they cannot get a permanent ban against some sort of centrality in the digital currency world. This legislation should not have the ban that it has in it. It is a pause. Excuse me. It shouldn't have the pause that it has. Somebody said: Okay, we are going to compromise. The art of compromise is how things get done. I appreciate it. They made a compromise. But a temporary pause is not good enough. There has to be a permanent ban, because they want the permanent ability to move money from one person, unlimited amounts, to another person with anonymity, pseudonymity. It is pseudonymity because they assume an identity that is not necessarily a name that belongs to the person. They get another name of some sort. Mr. Speaker, this shows you the length and the extent that the crypto industry is willing to go to have its way. They are literally willing to kill a housing bill because they cannot have language in it that would prevent the transfers of funds from one person to another in this pseudonymous fashion, this pseudonymity, this means of avoiding and evading. That is not all they seem to be interested in doing. Yes, I am talking about the crypto industry, so call them up and tell them: Al Green is on the floor, and he is doing it again. Yes, here is what Al Green says that they want also. They also are eliminating, as best as they can, the notion of seniority meaning something, the notion of upward mobility in Congress being affixed to some extent with seniority. Seniority is being in a position for some time, understanding of the rules of the road, understanding the bills that have already passed, having the institutional knowledge to bring forth what is necessary to present the counterargument. Seniority is how you acquire this. You can't get it by being anyplace other than here and serving time here--well, serving in Congress. Serving time is not an appropriate way to say it. It is by being in Congress and serving in Congress. You have to be here. They want to eliminate that. If they eliminate this, then, Mr. Speaker, money will rule. Money will be the methodology by which you can acquire chairmanships, and when money becomes a means by which one can acquire chairmanships, the Al Greens of the world will not be in Congress. That is because we don't have the connection to the dollars and because some of us refuse to take certain money. I don't take money from the crypto industry. They graded me out just recently, and I graded an F. I graded an F. When you get an F, Mr. Speaker, that means that they don't like you. That means that when they don't like you, they will do whatever they can, it seems right now, within the law, to expel you and to evict you. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow money to have a greater influence on elections than it already has. There are Members of Congress who are here because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or because of what happened at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They are not going to be here if seniority is eliminated. A good many of us won't be here, a good many. Congress will then become a place influenced by and controlled by mega-dollars. People will have to raise millions of dollars, not just 1 million, not just 5 million, not just 10 million, 20 million, or 30 million. $40 million easily becomes the amount of money that one would have to raise to become a Member of Congress. So it becomes more about money than about issues in general. There will be specific issues that will come to the floor, and they will be unopposed because the crypto industry and the persons of that ilk associated with the industry will have the money to own Congress. At this point, we will literally have the best Congress money can buy. We will have the best Congress that money can buy. It depends on where the money is coming from as to which issues are going to be brought to the well of this Congress and voted on. There will be issues of greater importance that will never get voted on because the mega millionaires won't allow it. They will control Congress. They already have an inordinate amount of influence. They will have an overwhelming amount of influence. They will be able to determine what issues are important in the Congress of the United States of America. I stand in the way. I stand in the way now, and I will stand in the way as long as I am in Congress. They know this, and they know that the Al Greens of the world are the people who are not likely to support what they are doing. I do believe in compromise, so I haven't written off compromise legislation, but this notion of a permanent ban, I think we have got to be very careful. There are additional reasons we ought to be careful. It is because China does not ban centrality. Now, here I am mentioning China. China doesn't have our best interests, China has China's best interests at heart. While we are pausing and banning, they are going to be moving forward with a digital currency, a digital currency that is backed by another form of currency. It will have some backing. There is a war for currency supremacy in this country. There is a war to dethrone the American dollar as the king of reserve currencies. As such, we can borrow money at a lower cost. As such, we are able to impose these sanctions that you hear us talking about, Mr. Speaker, that we can impose. That is because countries hold dollars in reserve. They hold dollars in reserve because they believe that our treasuries, our dollars, are going to be there, and they will be the last dollar standing. If they hold it in reserve, there is another reason why, and I simplify it. There is another reason why they hold it. It is because they know that we have the biggest guns, and nobody is going to take anything from the United States of America. They are not going to take our currency. They are not going to destroy us from within because we can protect ourselves. People value the American dollar. That is why there is this war, this war for currency supremacy. If the yuan replaces the dollar or some other currency, then that means that that country will have lower interest rates when they borrow. It means that that country can then influence the dynamics associated with sanctions across the globe. That country will then displace the United States of America as the preeminent country in the world with the ability to influence geopolitical circumstances with what I would call soft power, the soft power of the American dollar. It is an awesome power that we have. There are people willing to sacrifice this just so that they can make more money and just so that they can hold on to money. Too much is not enough. A billionaire wants to be a trillionaire. Too much is not enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, have all you want. Just do it lawfully, pay taxes on it, and I will salute you, Mr. Speaker. However, this notion of doing things that would damage the American dollar I am going to defend. I defend the dollar. I defend the American consumer, and I defend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Al, why do you bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into this statement? Here is why. It is because my colleagues across the aisle are doing everything that they can to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That is the one entity that is designed to protect the consumer and that would be there to look into illicit transactions of dollars by way of cryptocurrency. They are the one entity they are willing to eviscerate, to decimate, and to eliminate. Mr. Speaker, I do want to have closing comments. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I have been censured but not silenced. In closing, I still say the solution is impeachment. We are still in a countdown to impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And still I rise. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, a liberated, unbought, unbossed, unafraid Democrat. I rise, Mr. Speaker, after having been censured but not silenced. Censured, but not silenced. Yes, I am that person who chooses to take on some of the great social injustices of our time. There are times when taking on these injustices necessitates that we take action right here in this Chamber. I am proud of the things that I have done to call to the attention not only of the Congress, not only of this country, but to the attention of the world some of the injustices taking place in my country. Quite frankly, it is the country that I love because of what it stands for in its great documents, liberty and justice for all, as told in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, I sometimes have to take difficult positions. When I do, I sometimes have to face difficult consequences, but I do so, and still I rise, Mr. Speaker. And still I rise. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to address corruption within the Trump administration, corruption within the Trump family, corruption within Trump politics. I want to show how this corruption is encroaching upon something that is very sacred in this institution. Let me start now, Mr. Speaker, with corruption within the Trump family. Mr. Speaker, I had the preeminent privilege of being a part of a hearing today in Financial Services. This hearing had to do with fraud, fraud being perpetrated. Well, I want to talk about the corruption being perpetrated. I spoke about this at the hearing today, and I shall revisit some of these things that I called to the attention of the public at the hearing today. The first is a news article. It is styled ``Trump meme coin down 96 percent as bitcoin and meme coins slide.'' This is the $TRUMP memecoin. This article is dated February 9, 2026, and I shall read excerpts. It reads in part this: ``Last February, the coin's market capitalization stood at $3.5 billion''--we are talking about now the $TRUMP memecoin, $3.5 billion--``already well below its $14.5 billion peak on the eve of his second inauguration.'' When the Trump administration took on the task of being President again--which I regret occurred, to be quite candid with you, but when it did, it also, at the same time, by and through Trump the person, introduced a memecoin. That memecoin stood capitalized at $3.5 billion. Well, this is $14.5 billion at its peak. It was $3.5 billion later. At its peak, it was $14.5. ``Today, it has fallen to $1.78 billion.'' To repeat, so as to allow people to completely understand, initially it was capitalized at $3.5 billion. It then made an upward move to $14.5 billion. This was at its peak. Today, this is following February 9, it fell to $1.78 billion. Why is this important? Why is it important for me to call this article to your attention? It is because there is something called pump and dump, pump and dump. This is where clever people will create something such as a memecoin, and they will instantly start to put money into it, but they use famous people. In using these famous people, this name identification in and of itself brings credibility to the product that they are placing in the market. That credibility causes the product to move rapidly in its value. It goes up. As it goes up, the people who are pumping it, they then find reason at some point to take out their profits. They take out their profits. They pump it, and then they dump it, meaning they get rid of the product. They no longer want it. When they dump it at its zenith, they take out great profits. They make not only millions, but billions. They remove the profits. Let me read on: The indication is there was ``a large-scale pump-and- dump scheme involving at least 15 cryptocurrencies, including $MELANIA.'' That is the currency of the President's wife, whom I have great respect for, by the way. I really do. I have met her and found her to be a very pleasant lady, but I have observed her from afar, and I have great respect for her. ``The complaint alleged that First Lady Melania Trump was used as a `window dressing for a crime engineered by''' other persons. But the point is this: It was engineered by other persons, but the Trump family made large sums of money as a result. In fact, I have a second article that is styled ``Melania Trump's meme coin architects accused of pump-and-dump fraud in lawsuit.'' This one is dated October 23, 2025, and it is from The Guardian. I would beg that people would peruse these at their leisure so that they might acquire additional intelligence about the articles that I am calling to their attention. This one says: ``The $MELANIA coins were released for just a few cents each on 19 January, the day before Donald Trump was inaugurated as U.S. President.'' The day before he becomes President, the coin is released. Then within hours, this coin price soared to $13.73. It went from a value of a few cents, just a few cents to $13.73. However, it then collapsed almost as quickly and is now only worth about 10 cents. It went from pennies to $13.73, collapsed to less than 10 cents--about 10 cents. That is less than 1 percent of its peak price. This coin traded at a peak of $45.47 and now goes for $5.79. The article also indicates that: ``The Trump family has pocketed more than $1 billion in pretax profits from several cryptocurrency-related products and companies over the past 12 months.'' In 12 months, they pocketed more than $1 billion in pretax profits. Pumping and dumping allowing consumers to be left holding the bag. Many people who assume that because the President's name is associated with it or a family member of the President is associated with it, they assume that it is credible and then they do incredible things. They just buy into it because they assume that the name itself gives it the credibility that will cause them to make large sums of money. Well, some people do make large sums of money. These are the people that introduce these coins. These are the people that pump them up, and these are the people who take their profits right off the top at the zenith of the market for the coin. This kind of scam, this kind of scheme is something that we should not tolerate emanating from the highest office in the land. The President of the United States is in the business of performing what I call a hustle, a hustle of the country itself, of the market itself. The President uses all sorts of scams to make money based upon the fact that he is the President of the United States and his name should bring some sort of credibility to products that other people will buy into and lose money. I regret that this happens, and the best way for us to stop it right now immediately is for people to understand that the President's name is not worth what it appears to be worth. People should not buy into these scams simply because the President associates his name with it. At some point, the President and his family members will take their money out and when that happens, the dumping starts. When the dumping starts, those consumers who bought in in good faith end up losing money. Pump and dump: raise the price, sell, dump, and leave others holding the bag and they take the profits. This kind of corruption is not limited to just the family of the President. Just today, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Noem, has been relieved of duty. There is a good reason why. Just today I spoke about this at the financial services hearing when we talked about this corruption. Here is an article titled: ``Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Secretly Got Money From $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts.'' This is indicating that the Secretary had these contracts within the purview of her jurisdiction and that there were ad companies, companies that were advertising on behalf of the Federal Government. These ad companies received some $220 million in DHS contracts. Now, well, maybe that is not all bad. Ad companies make money. Ad companies should make money when they perform a service, a worthy service, but there is something about this contract and some of these that are a little bit different. By the way, this article is dated November 14, 2025. ProPublica is the publisher, and I will read just a bit more about this before I go on. Let's read: ``Advertising firms make money by taking an often-hefty commission. Federal records show the contracts have gone to two firms.'' We are talking about the Secretary now and her contracts that were let under the jurisdiction of her office on her watch. ``The contracts have gone to two firms. One is a Republican ad company in Louisiana called People Who Think, which has been awarded $77 million.'' That is not the bad news, ``But the majority of the money, $143 million''--I repeat for emphasis--``$143 million has gone to a mysterious LLC in Delaware. The company was created just days before it was awarded the deal.'' Days before receiving a $143 million contract, a mysterious LLC was created in Delaware, $143 million. Mr. Speaker, if it really walks like, looks like, and quacks like a corrupt duck, then that is probably what it is, and that is what this is--$143 million, a just created company. Well, the President and Ms. Noem have had a little bit of a disagreement about this it seems. The President denies any association with this, as he always does. My speculation is that Ms. Noem is correct when she gives the indication that the White House approved of what she was doing and, of course, the President doesn't know anything about anything at all associated with some sort of corrupt activity that he might be aligned with. In this case, Ms. Noem is the person who is going to take the fall. She has been removed from her position. By the way, there were Articles of Impeachment filed against her. I am one of the persons who signed on to them and believe that she should have been impeached. She has been moved now to some other position, but I think that Ms. Noem should be removed from the government, from the offices of the government. The good offices should not have Ms. Noem associated with them after this incident with the contracts, but more important than this, this is about money. I think about what has happened with the human lives that have been lost--innocent persons, two people; American citizens, two people; unarmed, two people participating in peaceful protests--two people who have lost their lives. These people have families that are still in mourning, still in mourning, and the President and Ms. Noem just move on. They go on to the next big scam, scheme. They move on to the next big thing that the President does that is questionable. For example, going to war without conferring with Congress. He decided that on his own volition he can just take nuclear-powered aircraft carriers into a position off of the coast of a country, engage in gun boat diplomacy, and then, after he concludes that the diplomacy has not succeeded, simply decide he is going to go to war and so much as say it. Then we decide here in Congress that we are going to take up the cause of being Congress people because of the Constitution, which accords the power to go to war, conferred upon the Congress, placed within the hands of the Congress. Each Member of Congress will have a voice and a vote. When we decide we are going to take up this challenge and say to the President, you can't do this, this is wrong, and it has to stop. Well, my Republican colleagues will cover, and they do a good job of allowing the very power that has been accorded them, placed and entrusted to them in the Constitution of the United States of America, they now delegate that to the President even when it is in contravention of the Constitution, and it is because there was no imminent threat to this country from Iran. No imminent threat, which is one of the reasons why I voted against H. Res. 1099--I believe that is the number for it--because it had in there that Iran is a threat to the United States. Iran is not a threat to us. We are a superpower. Iran is not capable of harming us. Then they say, well, in 10 years, they could. Well, in 10 years a lot of other things could happen, but I don't think we should simply go to war because someone says to us that Iran is a threat to us when we know better. Our intelligence would tell you better. Iran is just not a threat to the United States of America, and as such, I don't think we should be at war with a country that is not an imminent threat to the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, Iran is not an imminent threat to the United States of America. We shouldn't be at war with Iran. I voted today for the War Powers Resolution, the Khanna resolution. It is a resolution sponsored by two Members of Congress. I mentioned Khanna. This is a resolution that we should respect, and we should make sure that history shows where we stood in such a time as this, when the resolution was presented to us on the floor. I absolutely believe that if there is an imminent threat, then we can take--we can allow the President to have certain latitude. Without that, it should not be done. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Massie and Representative Khanna. Representative Massie was the lead, I believe. Representative Khanna was there with him. I thank them both for what they have done to bring this to the floor, and I regret that the resolution did not pass. Mr. Speaker, moving on to the Trump politics and the corruption in politics, the corruption in politics emanates from the President having decided that he will simply take, in mid-decade, congressional seats from various States wherein Republicans have the ability to do this because Democrats happen to have seats that are coalition seats. These are seats where different groups have joined together, and they are electing representation of their choice. Down in Texas, the President said let's take five seats from the Democrats and award them to the Republicans. The Governor of the State of Texas, being the loyalist that he is to the President, complied completely, totally, and absolutely as best as he could. I am not sure that he will succeed when the final bell rings on election night in November. I am just not sure. They made every effort to do what the President has demanded, being the loyalists that the attorney general and the Governor of the State of Texas are. As a result, these seats were removed. There were five seats, one of them in Houston, when the Ninth Congressional District and the 18th Congressional District were combined. That means one less seat in Houston, Texas, on the Democratic side. When this was done, it created mass confusion, unbelievable confusion. There were people who were prognosticating all kinds of things. People were saying that certain Members were not going to be returning. All of this prognostication has been, unfortunately, derailed because the persons who were engaged in it didn't quite succeed like they thought they would. They won't succeed like they think they will. It is amazing how this corruption now brings in the crypto industry. The crypto industry has decided that they are going to target people around the country, spending not $1 million but millions of dollars. The crypto industry would, if they could, control the Congress of the United States of America. I am one of the people standing in their way. I will continue to stand in their way. They graded me out, and I got an F. I am as proud of that F as any A I have ever received in life. I am very proud to say that the crypto industry does not find favor with me. They believe that those who receive A's from them should be rewarded by eliminating the opposition in Congress that is to them, the opposition to them in Congress. The crypto industry is on a roll now. They are going to go around the country. They are going to buy congressional seats. That is what they are doing. They buy congressional seats. They buy reputations for people who are running on their side of the ledger. They then spend just millions of dollars on ads to try to remove people who are antithetical to what they are doing with their crypto program, the program which entails as little regulations as possible. The best use of cryptocurrency right now seems to be that of allowing those who are engaging in blackmail and extortion to move large sums of money. They move large sums of money without it being traced. There are billionaires who would love and are enjoying knowing that they can move large sums of money without it being traced because these large sums of money can be used for nefarious purposes. They can be used for evasive purposes, evading taxes. These are large sums of money, unregulated, because the money can just move from one person to another in a flash. Blockchain technology is a wonderful thing. The problem that we have--and the thing that I consider a problem for this country--is the impact that crypto may have on the dollar and the fact that these dollars do not move through a central bank, meaning from one person through a central bank to another person. At some point, we will find that cryptocurrency can be used to fund nefarious operations against this country. How do we prove it right away when the money moves from one person to another without going through a central bank? I want to see this regulated. I do. I am going to continue to want to see it regulated, and I am going to continue to fight to have it regulated. This is something that I believe is going to injure our interest rates when we borrow from other countries, if it has an adverse impact on the dollar. The dollar is the reserve currency of choice across the globe, meaning countries hold dollars in reserve in their coffers. We should cherish and protect the dollar as a reserve currency. There are some people who are trying to knock the dollar out of this place. There is a war for currency supremacy. In so doing, the dollar, if it is diminished in some way, our interest rates could go up. We have to be careful in terms of having the supremacy of the dollar continue. Cryptocurrency could conceivably have an impact on the dollar. I have had some tell me that it can, and they are concerned about it. These are experts. My hope is this: We will wake up and understand what is happening with the cryptocurrency purveyors, the people who want to take control of Congress. They are willing to spend millions, untold millions, to remove people from office who are antithetical to them. We have to take a stand against this. I will take that stand. There are many who will stand with them. In doing this, something else is occurring. When they can take the congressional seats by drawing lines and simply taking them, and then if they can take them by using cryptocurrency--and these are friends of the President. They are friends of the President. The President and the cryptocurrency persons who would desire to control Congress, as the President would desire to control it, are all in this together. For the most part, right now, he does. These people, when they use this cryptocurrency, they are using it to take away seniority. They want to get rid of senior Members of Congress, and they are using their crypto dollars--they are really American dollars. They are using this money to remove people from office, and they are going after senior leadership in Congress. Mr. Speaker, senior leadership is important in this Congress. Senior leadership means the persons have been here. They have served. They understand much of how this great institution functions. They also understand how to get things done efficaciously. There is something more important than all of this as it relates to senior leadership. If we decide that seniority no longer has any merit in the Congress of the United States of America--and that is the direction we are moving in. If we decide that seniority no longer has any merit in the Congress of the United States of America, money will rule. When money rules, many persons will lose. A good many of them will be people who just don't have access to billionaires, millionaires, people who are exceedingly wealthy who can fund their campaigns. These campaigns are being funded. There are people who say they don't take money from corporate America or don't take corporate dollars. Well, no, they don't, but they have the money from these corporations in these independent expenditure accounts that are actually funding the campaign. That is a clever way to avoid saying that someone is getting the money into their campaign, although it benefits their campaign. These companies are spreading this money out in huge amounts to benefit campaigns. They are taking the seniority out. Seniority matters. It does in Congress. If we allow this to occur, the seniority, the means by which some people move up, if it no longer exists, then money will rule. If money rules, we will lose. We cannot allow money to dominate more than it does currently because it already has an outsized influence. If we allow money to take complete control--no seniority, I assure you--then people who just don't have access to the billionaires, the multimillionaires, and the very wealthy will not have access to Congress. Then, people who look to certain people to bring up issues that are important to them will get them not as a primary consideration, not as a secondary consideration, not as a tertiary consideration--I am not sure where they would rank in the hierarchy of considerations--maybe quaternary, I don't know, but I do know that they won't be primary. As a result, what happens to people who are here championing the cause of the very poor; the people who believe that Social Security is an investment, not simply an entitlement; the people who believe that there ought to be Medicaid for people who cannot afford insurance and who are living sometimes in the streets of life; and the people who understand that Medicare is something that we have to protect because the insurance companies don't want you after you become a certain age? There are people here who fight for these things. That fight can be minimized. Don't you think for one second that there are not people who wouldn't take that money that is now in Social Security, in the government's hands, and put it in the stock market. There have already been efforts to tamper with Social Security. I stand and fight for these things: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I have a history and a track record of fighting for these things. We fight, and we win. We win because you still have these programs. If we had lost the fight, you wouldn't have Social Security as you know it now. Texas was offered $100 billion for Medicaid expansion and rejected $100 billion--Texas did--and we have to fight to get these things done. That fight will be limited to people who are wealthy in and of their own right and who can afford to take on the crypto giants and the very wealthy. It will be fights among the very wealthy and the puppets of the very wealthy. When that happens, this country is going to be a country that can no longer say that it stands for liberty and justice for all. How can it be justice for all if poor people who need healthcare can't get it? How can it be justice for all if Social Security is minimized or placed in the stock market and is subject to the whims of the market? No. The system that we have is a tried and proven system that works well, so we have to protect it. We have to protect it from the crypto corruption that is finding its way into Congress to take out senior leadership and to destroy the system by which persons get there after having served for some time and being a senior person in line to have the opportunity to serve as a leader. That is pretty important for people who don't know millionaires and billionaires. Mr. Speaker, finally, I think it appropriate to talk about not only how the corruption has permeated Congress and how the corruption is right before our eyes in the stock market, where pumping and dumping is taking place, but how the corruption is taking place as it relates to persons who simply are trying their very best to engage in the process of buying and selling stocks but find themselves on the losing end. All of this corruption is taking place before our eyes, and we have to do something about it. I think that the best way to do something about a thing is to go to the root of it--the root cause. What is it that is at the very essence of the thing? Mr. Speaker, this corruption is aided and abetted by a President of the United States of America, who is engaged in the corruption and the skimming and scamming in the stock market. He is a President who would take seats from one side and award them to another side just to maintain power and to make sure that he stays in office. He said as much that he is afraid that we will impeach him, and he is right. This President is at the root cause of this. If you look around the world, you will see all of the turmoil that he is creating around the globe, across the globe, using the military at a whim. He has taken on certain things that we just never expected a President to do. We always thought Presidents would have a certain amount of dignity, a certain amount of decorum, and a certain amount of principle. This man has no principles. He does whatever he chooses, when he chooses, and he knows that he has the backing of Congress--that would be the House and the Senate on the Republican side, not the Democrats-- and he has, to a certain extent, the backing of certain people on the courts who are loyal to him. I regret to see all of this happening, but I do know this: There is a solution that the Constitution has given us here in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. This is why this was instilled in the Constitution, this remedy that I am calling to your attention. It was put there for a time such as this and a President such as Trump. This is why it is there. This is why we should use it, so that we would honor the Framers of the Constitution and their infinite wisdom and understanding that, when someone is placing himself above and beyond the law and being aided and abetted in the process, then there has to be a means by which that person can be dealt with. It is political. It was intentionally political. The process is political. The process is such that you can bring that person before the bar of justice right here in the House of Representatives and, when that person is brought before the bar of justice here in the House, every Member has a vote. Do not let people calling themselves constitutional scholars try to convince you that it is anything more than what President Gerald Ford said it was. President Gerald Ford said that this process is something that is lawful whenever 218 Members say that it is, assuming that that is the majority on a given day. Whatever the majority says that it is in the House, there is no appealing the decision of the House. No Member has to say why they voted the way they voted. You vote. You vote your conscience with this process. When you vote your conscience with this process, if you vote to do as they did in a bygone era with Andrew Johnson, as they did with him, they voted to impeach him because he spoke ill of the House of Representatives. Don't let people convince you that it has to be something that is more than what the will of the House says that it is because it is not appealable. It is comparable to an indictment in the House--not the same, but comparable. Then, if this process functions as it should, it goes over to the Senate. Then, the Senate takes up the process, and the Senate can try the President. If the President is convicted, the President can be removed from office. This process, you have been wondering what it is, I am sure. This process is one that we have a countdown on, and I am absolutely committed to it. There is a countdown to impeachment. Impeachment is the process. This is what the Framers of the Constitution accorded to us for a time such as this and a President such as what we have: impeachment. There is a countdown to impeachment, and, yes, Mr. President, quake in your boots because I will tell you the truth: You will be impeached. We are laying the foundation for it right now. You are going to be impeached again. There are people who would say that if you can't get him convicted in the Senate, why impeach him in the House? It is because we want posterity to know that the House of Representatives did its job. Let the Senate then have the opportunity to do their job. We send bills to the Senate all the time that we know that the Senate won't pass. We do it all the time. We did it for tens of years with healthcare knowing that we couldn't get it done, and we finally did get what is called ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That didn't happen overnight. Many times, we sent legislation over to the Senate that didn't pass, and we do it now. Yet, when it comes to impeachment, the persons who don't want to see it will say that we shouldn't use that same paradigm. You shouldn't send it over unless you know that the Senate is going to take it up and pass it. If that is the case, we wouldn't send most of what we send over to the Senate right now because we can't pass it, and the Senate won't take it up, for whatever reasons. I am talking about from the Democratic side. We should not allow that to become the asset test for whether we are going to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to impeach him right here, send it over to the Senate, and give the Senate an opportunity to act. I am committed to this process. I do it as a matter of conscience. I do it as a matter of conscience. I do it because I believe that we shouldn't allow this country to just go down the tube or down the drain. I don't want to see my country on the trash heap of history. This is a great country, and it can be great if we remove the stain from its conscience that the President has imposed upon it. This is our time. We are the people, and we can change this because this President is truly unfit to hold the office that he holds. There are people who would defend him to the nth degree, and I cannot understand how you can see all that is happening to this country and still defend this President's actions. We now have found ourselves devolving into authoritarianism. Then what lies beneath authoritarianism? One-person rule. One-person rule meaning more so than one person with cohorts, one person alone ruling a country that extolls liberty and justice for all, government of the people, by the people, for the people. That is where we are headed. I stand in the way, with some others. I don't stand alone on this. There are others who are with me. But the people in this country are going to rise up and demand impeachment. In fact, they are already doing it. They are just waiting on us to catch up. Well, I am going to help us catch up. There is a countdown to impeachment, and I am guaranteeing you and I am assuring you that there will be additional Articles of Impeachment brought before this House of Representatives. I do it as a matter of conscience, and I do it knowing that there are people who are going to spend all kinds of money to prevent me from doing it. Let them spend. But I will leave, if they do succeed, knowing that I gave it my best. Every day that I was here, I gave it my best, and I pledge to you you will continue to get my best. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. The countdown to impeachment continues. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to indicate that I attended the classified briefing yesterday. General Caine was there. The Secretary of State was there. The Secretary of War was there. I stayed from start to finish. Mr. Speaker, after hearing from them, I have concluded that there was not--N-O-T--an imminent threat to this country, to my country, the country that I love. I also concluded something else: that we should not put our young people in harm's way such that they are losing their lives, when the President knew or should have known that there was no imminent threat. I will vote for the resolution. I believe it is an appropriate resolution, and I trust that it will pass. Of course, this is the Massie-Khanna resolution that I speak of.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, supportive of this measure which would bring an end to United States involvement in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Decisions of war and peace are some of the most serious and consequential that could be made by our government, and as such the framers of the Constitution delegated the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, the body meant to represent the will and deliberation of the people themselves. The purpose of this delegation of power was in part to ensure no single person could be influenced by poor judgment to make a deadly miscalculation. This is precisely what is happening to us today. President Trump, emboldened by a questionable operation in Venezuela and manipulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu, has sacrificed American lives and military resources in a regime change operation. The American people have been very vocal with their elected officials. They are tired of war. They want us to focus our energy and treasure on improving American lives at home. War in all its forms is Hell. Only occasionally, and after careful consideration, can this Hell on Earth be considered necessary. It is Congress' duty to conduct this deliberation, and to ensure no one person can declare war. Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority to declare war. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise, Mr. Speaker, a liberated, unbought, unbossed, fearless, unafraid Democrat. I rise, Mr. Speaker, with a special message, one that concerns events that transpired right here on the floor of the House of Representatives last night. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to speak truth to power and truth about power. To speak truth to power, you have to simply say to power: We have a problem, and let us solve the problem. But if you speak truth about power, you say: Power, there is a problem, and you are it. I would like to address both. Let's start with the genesis of what occurred last night, and that genesis is a meme in some worlds, but it was actually something that AI concocted. It had President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama being represented as apes, portrayed as apes. I find this unacceptable, and a good many people of good will found it unacceptable, as well. As a person of good will finding this unacceptable, I wanted to do more than simply tweet something about it or write something about it. I wanted the President to know that people of good will will confront him and let him know that he is doing things that are unacceptable. It is unacceptable to portray Homo sapiens, especially persons of African ancestry, as apes--a little bit more than, in some worlds, of the ape family and a little bit less than a Homo sapien, something that is sort of in a twilight zone, maybe the missing link, if you will. We are not the missing link. We are as human as anybody else, and we are going to demand the respect that everybody else is accorded. This is not a world where you are going to relegate some human beings to a lower life form simply because it pleases you and a host of people who you happen to communicate with. This is unacceptable. So right here, I sat on this row. I was over one seat away from the aisle, but when the President approached, I then approached the aisle. When I approached the aisle, I wanted him to see a sign that I had that simply said--but it was truthful; I believe it was powerful--that Black people are not apes. Black people aren't apes. I flashed that for the President to see. Based upon the way he turned away and tried to move briskly, it appears that he got the message but did not want to embrace the message. As a result of this, he made his way up to give his speech, and I continued to stand silently, holding my signage. My signage was my means of silently protesting. There were other persons over in this area who were protesting, and they were doing it peacefully. They had on signage. It was displayed on a cap--that is what I saw on one person, a cap--and it had language on it. These kinds of things are done in this Chamber quite regularly. If someone thinks it is too often, I won't differ with them, but we all have to stop. If we are going to stop some of us, every one of us will have to behave in a similar fashion. I stood there with my signage, and my colleagues became rather disturbed about it. I did not create a disturbance. I stood there silently. They created the disturbance. They are the people who grabbed and ripped my signage. They are the people who said things to me as I traversed the aisle and tried to make my way out of the Chamber. They are the people who became rather rambunctious and behaved, in some ways, in an unacceptable fashion. If there is to be some concern about who created the disturbance, then you have to look at the video, and you will see. I am saying this to you because I have heard talk of someone wanting to censure me again. I have already been censured. This happened some time ago, and I have signage that I used to indicate that, while I have been censured, my signage indicates that I have not been silenced, and I will not be silenced, censured but not silenced. This was when the President was here for a joint session of Congress. The President was indicating that he had a mandate. I wanted him to know that he didn't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security, and I spoke up. I was seated in that very same area. For this, I was removed, and I was censured. But for this that occurred last evening, there should not be a censureship of me. If anybody is going to be censured, it should be the people who became so rambunctious as to create a disturbance. I didn't do that. I silently stood, and I would do it again. The first time I engaged the President, it was with spontaneity. I did not plan this. I responded to this because I was concerned about Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, and well I should have been because about $1 trillion has been cut from healthcare. We are still fighting to get subsidies so that people can pay premiums that they can afford. This is a part of that affordability that the President refuses to recognize, but I did this with a degree of spontaneity. It was not planned. What I did last night was planned, but it was only planned after I did have a conversation with my staff and asked them to tell me why I should and should not come over. We had that conversation, and I made the decision myself. My staff did not make the decision, but I welcomed their input. I came here to behave, as I did, and engage in peaceful, silent protest--peaceful, silent protest. However, my colleagues caused it to metamorphose into something that was less than what some persons would call the standards that we have set for ourselves here in the House of Representatives. I am not going to give a long message today. I wanted to make this message clear such that people would understand that I believe in what I did. The President should not portray persons of African ancestry as apes. This is unacceptable given the history in this country of caricatures such as this being utilized against people of color at an earlier time. The President would take us back to those ugly days when you could call Black people n-words with impunity, when you could demand that Black people show respect that was not deserved, when the Black people were relegated to the back of the bus. They were relegated to the balcony of the movie and the bottom of the jails. This is unacceptable. Black people are not going back, Mr. President. Black people are going to move forward with the rest of this country. I am giving notice today that we will not tolerate this level of injustice emanating from the highest office in this country, from the Presidency. We will not tolerate it, Mr. President. I speak for a good many people of good will, of all hues, who have decided that they will not tolerate it. Now, one final word on something else before I bring you to my closing. It seems to me that the news media--a good many, not all the outlets--not all of them, but a good many of these major outlets have decided that they will determine when a problem that African Americans are having to suffer--they will determine when it is worthy of being televised, worthy of when it should be challenged, when the problem itself should be taken on, and they will decide who is going to solve our problems. If we allow other people who, for whatever reasons, have a timeline that does not coincide with our suffering, then we do ourselves a disservice. We cannot allow some of these major news sources to decide when they will give us the opportunity to protest our problems. Those who would deny us this opportunity to engage in peaceful protest will only make it possible for other forms of protest to manifest themselves. This peaceful protest is an acceptable methodology by which problems can be brought to the attention of the public, can be properly litigated, and can be resolved, but not when you have a media--and there are many of them that would do this, and I will tell you who they are so that there won't be any question about it. I know that they don't favor me because I talk not only to them but about them. They are the same people, the same networks, who are over in the Russell Office Building--over in the Russell Office Building, named in honor of a bigot and a racist. Richard Russell was a coauthor of the ``Southern Manifesto.'' Richard Russell fought anti-lynching legislation. Richard Russell fought civil rights legislation. We should not honor a bigot and a racist by placing his name on a building paid for with taxpayer dollars. Who are they? They are the people who have themselves stationed above the statute of Richard Russell in the Russell Senate Office Building. They are CNN. They are MSNBC. Yes, they are two of the major components of this group of folks who don't respect us enough to move themselves from the Richard Russell Office Building. Don't leave FOX News out. These are the people who talk as though they are our friends, who give the impression that they want to see our problems solved. Yet, they are part of the problem over in the Russell Senate Office Building. CNN, MSNBC--no longer that--it is MS NOW, and also FOX News, they are a part of the problem. I speak truth not only to power. I told you I would speak truth about power. This is about them, and this is about what they are doing to prolong the suffering that we have to endure by having Richard Russell's name on the building and having them right there over Richard Russell in the Rotunda dedicated to Richard Russell. How shameless are you? Why is it that you, who portray yourselves as the bearers of the torch of freedom, as the carriers of the words of ``liberty and justice for all,'' how can you station yourselves in that building all of these years and not make a to-do of it? You know you have the power to make the change come about. The Senate itself can do it, and you can influence the Senate. But rather than do that, you and the Senate, you are participants in the same coverup of Richard Russell being the racist that he is and having taxpayers pay for his name on a building. Those are the people that I am talking about, and there are others. I just mentioned these three main characters in a sense because they are the ones that hold themselves out to be such great liberty-seeking people and wanting justice for everybody. Shame on you. You don't want justice for everybody. You just want to make the news for yourselves. I marvel at how newspeople have decided now that if the story is to be told, they have to make the news too. Just report the news. Tell the truth about what is happening over in the Russell Senate Office Building. These are the people who want to decide when the problems of people of color can be solved and who will have the opportunity to solve them. Until they decide who it is that will have the opportunity to do this, it won't be done. Shame on you. Become the newspeople that you are supposed to be. Don't pick and choose. Just carry the news. Unfortunately, they have become so interwoven with the various parties that they literally are mouthpieces for one party or another. You are a news source. You are not mouthpieces for any political party, or you shouldn't be. But that is what you have become. Shame on you. Do you have no respect for the profession that you are supposed to represent? Now, as I come to my final close, sometimes I close more than once-- and I am being handed a note, so let me just see what my note says. So please forgive me. All right. I shall honor this request. I am honored to tell you that in my quest, which is not a quixotic quest, I see it as a noble calling. In my quest to bring some scintilla of justice to this cause associated with the President representing a former President and First Lady as persons who are less than Homo sapiens, maybe a little bit above the primates, but still not the human beings that other people happen to be. In my quest to do this, it has become very clear to me that people of goodwill do not want to see us continue down the path that we are currently traversing. People of goodwill want to see us unite and deal with the great issues of our time. But you can't deal with the great issues of the time if you have a President who is continually ignoring the norms, ignoring the rules, ignoring the Constitution. When you have a President who has decided that he can go to war at will, without conferring with the Congress. Who would allow a President to speak for 435 people? Who would allow him to have this awesome power to determine for the hundreds of millions of people in this country that we go to war when he says we go to war? This is totally unacceptable, and it is unconstitutional. The President does not have the authority to unilaterally declare war. He has to consult with the Congress. Well, there is a reason why he is not consulting. It is because there are too many pusillanimous politicians in Congress, people who have decided that they will bend the knee and kiss the ring. There are people who are afraid to speak not only truth to power but truth about power as well. If you won't speak truth to power, I guess it is farfetched to assume you will speak truth about power; but there are too many. The President has assumed the responsibility of Congress to declare war. He does it because Congress has been on the sidelines, not by accident, but with intentionality. They have just decided--and when I say Congress, I really mean my Republican colleagues. Democratic colleagues, please understand this does not refer to you. My Republican colleagues know that I am speaking the truth. They know that the President should not be declaring war without us. Maybe there would be a majority of us who would say yes, let's go to war. Until that happens, we have to assume that there is not a majority of us saying it, and the President cannot assume that he can, on his own volition, just declare war. This is the kind of President that we have. It is difficult to deal with some of these other issues concerning affordability when you have a President who disrespects the separation of powers. He doesn't believe that courts have the ability to make judicial and judicious decisions. He thinks that if they don't agree with him, they are wrong. If they are wrong, he believes that they can be impeached. It took the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to remind him that he does not have that level of authority, that he must recognize the Court's authority as a separate branch of the government, the judiciary, and he has to honor the decisions or he can appeal the decisions. It took the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to influence him--I assume he was influenced by the Chief Justice--to get him to stop flouting court orders. That is what he does. He flouts the orders of courts. He disrespects Congress' right to declare war. He disrespects the power of the judiciary to make decisions and, if you differ with them, to appeal. He also disrespects the notion that the Constitution provides something called due process, the right to be able to simply raise your hand and say: Hey, you got the wrong guy. I am not the person you are looking for. I am not the person who performed this dastardly deed. That is not me. He just believes that if he thinks you are it, then you are it. You can be summarily removed from the streets of this country by persons in military regalia, with a mask and little identification, taken to some distant place, locked up. Family and friends don't know where you are because this President believes that you are somehow a criminal that has breached some code of his, not necessarily the law, given the way he understands the law, and you should be taken away. When you have all of these things happening and then you couple this with the way he demeans people, he stood right there at the podium at the Joint Session of Congress and called Members of Congress lunatics. Well, when he does all of these things, it is difficult to deal with affordability. It is difficult to deal with the housing crisis. It is difficult to deal with what is happening not only in the stock market, which he seems to celebrate and appreciate, but also what is happening in the supermarket. Most of my constituents are more concerned about the prices in the supermarket than the prices in the stock market. They are concerned about the necessities of life, not their ability to store away something so that they can have a better quality of life by virtue of playing what we call the stock market. We have a responsibility to address all of these other issues, but this President distracts us from them, and he prevents us from resolving them. As a result of doing this, he is as much to blame for any of these problems associated with affordability as anybody else in this country. In fact, he is more to blame when you realize that the Supreme Court had to tell him that a tariff is a tax. It is a tax on the American people, and that he doesn't have the authority to impose these taxes. He has got lawyers who are supposed to be advising him if he doesn't know. Most people assume that if you are going to tax something coming into the country, into the hands of a person who is in this country and you put a tax on it--they call it a tariff, but when you put this tariff tax on it, that this person is either going to pay it himself to get the product into the country or the person that is sending it in is going to have to lower the cost or the person bringing it in can pay the cost and then pass it on to the consumer. At some point it becomes something that is passed on to the consumer. That is what has happened. When you have that coupled with the other things I have mentioned, affordability becomes a difficult issue to negotiate. It is easy if you want to capitulate and call that negotiation, but capitulation is not negotiation. Capitulation means, in the President's world, he has won. He talks about winning. He has won, and you have lost. For him, it is an all-win-or-lose game, and he always has to win. The President is the source of the upheaval that we are seeing in this country. Two people killed--American citizens, unarmed, were killed under the color of law by the constabulary. Members of our police protection force killed two people. We saw it with our own eyes. We saw what happened to Ms. Good as she was in a vehicle. We saw how she had her life taken from her. We saw what happened to Alex when his life was taken from him, shot 9 or 10 times, depending on who is counting, while he was unarmed, while he was on the ground, while he was subdued to the extent that he was not a threat to anybody. Yet the President of the United States distracts us with other things, including buying Greenland and taking Canada and making it the 51st State. He goes on to something else. Now we are no longer mourning the lives of those two people that were lost tragically at the hands of the constabulary under the color of law. These kinds of things are distractions that allow him to get away with other things, that allow his family and himself to make huge sums of money, profits. It allows them, while we are being distracted, to drive the market down, and he will then signal to people over his Truth--well, I don't even like to call it Truth--over his means of transmitting messages--he uses that to tell people: It is time to buy. His people buy, the market goes up, and they make billions. This is what is happening. I know. I am on the Financial Services Committee. We have had the empirical evidence presented to us. All of these things--other things are happening while the President is making billions by and through his family, billions of dollars. We fight among ourselves such that we cannot coordinate and unify and acquire the unity necessary to deal with this reckless, ruthless President. We have to find a way to put a stop on his behavior. His behavior is totally unacceptable. I am here to tell you that what I did last night, I would do again. I would do it again by coming in and taking my seat and saying to people what I said because what I said was necessary. It was not performative. It was not to get attention, other than to call attention to what the President is doing. It was not to get attention but to call attention to what the President is doing. I still say that all of these other things that we find ourselves saddled with, they can be solved, but you have to have a President who is willing to behave with some degree of Presidential dignity, according respect to the people of this country, which he seems to have great difficulty doing. He seems to, for whatever reason, want to believe that his moral standards are the standards that everyone concurs with. He has as much as said that the only thing that can get in his way would be his own moral standards. How bold. How can a person have the gall to say such a thing? Do you not want to hesitate and have the good sense to say to yourself that maybe this is not an appropriate thing to say? But I think he believes this. Because he believes it, he imposes it on us, whether we like it or not. Well, Democrats don't like it, and Democrats want to do something about it, but Republicans are in the majority. If there is a problem with these great issues of our time, don't lay them at the feet of Democrats. Democrats are doing as best as they can with what they have to work with, the resources that are available to them. These resources are not unlimited. We just don't have the same opportunity to bring legislation to the floor that Republicans have. We don't have the opportunity to deny things to get to the floor that Republicans can deny. We are in a weakened position because they have 218 votes or more in the House, and they have more than 51 votes in the Senate. They are in the majority. When you are in the majority, don't blame President Biden for what you are doing. President Biden is no longer the President of the United States. He should not be blamed for what is happening currently within the United States. This is Donald Trump's watch. We ought to blame Donald Trump and the Republicans who side with him and prevent us from solving the great issues of our time because they have the power. We have but one power that we can use without the consent of the other side. That one power is impeachment. We have one power: the power to impeach. We are in a countdown. We are in a countdown because, whether the President likes it or not, whether I like it or not, the people of the country want to see him impeached. Whether he likes it or not or whether I like it or not or anybody else, he is going to be impeached before he leaves office again. He should be for what he has done to the country in terms of its devolution into authoritarianism. He should be impeached. Mr. President, you will be impeached for your dastardly deeds done and for the way you have demeaned the Presidency, the way you have harmed society with your behavior. You should be impeached. I say to you: I would, without question, reservation, or hesitation, given the opportunity, bring the Articles of Impeachment to have him at least impeached. I would hope that the Senate would act and remove him from office. But even if the Senate chooses not to act, we should proceed with our countdown to impeachment and impeach him. It is that impeachment that will make the difference in the lives of the people of this country when the signal is sent that we do not agree with his behavior. People are waiting for us to let them know that we don't agree, and this is the best way to signal to them we don't agree, with Articles of Impeachment, where we can make our case, explain it to the public, and then take a vote on it and show the public that a majority of the people in the House of Representatives differ. Someone would say: Why bring impeachment until you have a majority? It is because we, quite often, build up to a majority by presenting legislation on the floor that doesn't get a majority of votes the first time. The best example of this is healthcare. It took us almost one century to get the kind of healthcare that we have, so that people who have affordability problems will have healthcare in this country. It took us almost a century to do it, but we kept bringing it back and back until we were able to get a President, a House, and a Senate that could agree on something and get it done. That is the way it is with impeachment. Somebody has to lay the foundation for it, Mr. Speaker, and when you lay the foundation for it, you are putting the country in a position to move forward with it. I am assuring you, Mr. President, should you continue with what you are doing, articles will be filed whether they are agreed-upon by a majority or not. We will file the Articles of Impeachment, and we will have votes on them. This is what I believe the Constitution not only allows but requires. This is what I think that the Constitution requires. Mr. Speaker, I want you to take these last words to heart: I still rise unbought, unbossed, and a liberated Democrat.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today to state the state of the Union. Madam Speaker, the state of the Union is fragile. It is fragile because we have a President who does not respect democracy. He believes that he can go to war at will without conferring with the Congress of the United States of America. He believes that there is no such thing as separation of powers. He believes that if he thinks it is right, then the courts have to agree. He doesn't believe in due process of the law. He would have people be picked up on the streets and taken off to some distant place without any indication as to where they are, such that family members can understand that they are at least okay. He is a reckless, ruthless President, and what he is doing at the top has influenced things all the way down the line to the very bottom. We now have officers who have taken the lives of two people, two Americans, Madam Speaker. They were unarmed, Madam Speaker. They were not a threat, Madam Speaker. Two American citizens have lost their lives, and we have just moved on. Madam Speaker, our democracy is at risk because we have a President who disrespects the rule of law. He believes that if the ends can justify the means, then any means are available to him to utilize to do whatever he chooses. If we allow this to continue, Madam Speaker, the Constitution will be meaningless. There is but one solution to a reckless, ruthless, lawless President. It has to be utilized because we want history to show that we had the courage to do what was right. Dr. King has given us the notion that the time is always right to do what is right. There is but one solution, and that solution is impeachment, trial, and conviction, but if not trial and conviction, impeachment, so that those who look through the vista of time will understand that we took a stand against a reckless, ruthless, lawless President.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid Democrat. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this is Black History Month, and I have been accorded the honor of presenting annually the original Black history resolution. I am proud to do this in concert with a great organization. This organization has been bearing the torch, carrying the torch--the flame--of Black history now for so many years, founded by the Honorable Carter G. Woodson, who is widely known as the person who established this notion of a Black History Week, Black History Month. So I am proud to recognize this organization. The organization is the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History. This is the preeminent organization of its kind. It is the leader of the pack when it comes to Black history, and I am proud to be associated with them and proud to tell you that this year, for our Black History Month, there is a theme: A Century of Black History Commemorations. A century, 100 years. Today, I have chosen the topic, one that I think embraces something that is a little bit more contemporary and something that gives us reason to understand why we have to celebrate Black history. The topic is Black History: Stolen Legacies. Stolen legacies. Black History: Stolen Legacies. Mr. Speaker, fear not, because I want you to understand that I understand that this theme could be applicable to people of color in this country. It could be applicable to persons who are Latinos. It could be applicable to people who are Asians because the complete history of the country has not been properly documented and recorded. However, since it is Black History Month, I think it appropriate that I take up the cause and explain it as it relates to Black History Month. Before I go on, I think I should remind people that I am also the same Al Green who has been censured. Censured, but not silenced. Censured, but not silenced. I am proud today to take up this cause of Black history in Black History Month. Mr. Speaker, in speaking of legacies that have been stolen, we annually honor General Gordon Granger for going into Galveston and informing the enslaved persons there that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to them and that they were free people, liberated people. When we do this, however, we do not acknowledge the people who made it possible for General Gordon Granger to go to Galveston. These persons were members of the 25th Army Corps, approximately 1,000 persons of African ancestry who went to Galveston prior to Gordon Granger. They made it possible for Gordon Granger to stand in Galveston and deliver general order No. 3. These were the persons who ran the Confederates all the way to the Mexican border--legacies stolen because they have literally been minimized and had their histories somehow sanitized. Today, we want to make sure that we talk about these persons whose legacies have been stolen: 25th Army Corps. Let's bring this forward to the civil rights movement. In the civil rights movement, we honor--and we should honor--Rosa Parks, a Black woman who took her seat on a bus in a racist southern town. When she took that seat, she ignited a spark that started the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks should be honored for what she did. She was incarcerated for what she did. She should be honored, and we do honor her. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the legacy is incomplete because the history of this has not been completely told. If the true history is told, you have to mention Claudette Colvin-- Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old high school student, member of the NAACP. Claudette Colvin, she is a person who, 9 months prior to Rosa Parks taking that seat, did the same thing and was arrested. Legacy stolen, legacy denied. Claudette Colvin, not only did she go to jail and suffer the same indignation and humiliation as the Honorable Rosa Parks, but she did something else. She filed a lawsuit. She was a plaintiff in the lawsuit Browder v. Gayle. This is the lawsuit that brought the Montgomery bus boycott to a legal end because it was under the pen of the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, Jr., a Federal district court judge, who ordered that that bus line be integrated and no longer segregated. This was the dispute that took place when Dr. King was promoted to the leadership of the civil rights movement. This is where he led the people in this bus boycott to make sure that, at some point, Black people could sit on any seat on the bus that they chose to, because they couldn't. You could take a seat on the front or somewhere near the front, and people could simply say: Move back. There is a White person who needs your seat. Then you move back, and if another came on: Move back. There is another White person who needs your seat. This is true history. This is the history that is untold. So Dr. King led the boycott. Rosa Parks started the initiative, but it was Claudette Colvin who took the lawsuit to the Supreme Court, the lawsuit filed that eventually caused a judge, Frank M. Johnson, Jr., to rule that that line had to be desegregated. Claudette Colvin has been denied her place in history. Very little is said about her. Now, I would like to contemporize, and this is going to give people an understanding as to this pattern of denying Black people their proper place in history, this pattern of stealing legacies, of whitewashing history as it relates to Black people--and it happens to people of color, not just Black people--and people of color it has happened to in this country. So, let's now contemporize as it relates to Black history and talk about something that happened in the State of Texas. We have a President of the United States who concluded that he had to have five more seats for the Republican side in Congress, five more seats to hold on to power, five more seats to continue to be the reckless, ruthless, lawless President that he is, five more seats. Because if he loses the House, he loses his ability to do many of the things that the House can constrain him and prevent him from doing, because the House controls the purse strings. He said: I want five seats. Four of the five that he actually identified were minority coalition seats, where minority people were electing the persons of their choice, and they were electing minority people. Well, he wanted five, four of the five being these seats that could elect minority people, minority people coalescing to elect people, a legitimate thing for people to do. Well, in so doing, he ordered the Governor to do this. The Governor got with the attorney general. The two of them worked it out such that seats were taken in Texas. I am just going to focus on one of them. In Houston, Texas, we had the 18th Congressional District, historic as it is called quite often-- and I concur with the persons who would call it such; the historic 18th Congressional District--the 18th Congressional District, the district of Barbara Jordan, the district that had the great Craig Washington, Mickey Leland, Sheila Jackson Lee, Sylvester Turner, the 18th Congressional District, a historic Congressional District. The 18th Congressional District was adjacent to the Ninth Congressional District. We will call it, for our purposes today, the old 18th Congressional District, and you will understand better why in just a moment, located adjacent to the Ninth Congressional District. In fact, if you look north and south, the 18th was at the top, and the Ninth was under the 18th. The Ninth Congressional District was one that elected a person of color, as well. The President and the Governor decided that they would do something called crack. This is where you break a district, and then you pack-- you take it and push the persons in those two districts together, but in so doing, you eliminate a district. In this case, that is what they did. So they cracked, and they packed. They stacked. They put the Ninth and the 18th together. When they put the Ninth and the 18th together, they eliminated the possibility for a person of color to be elected in the Ninth District by moving the lines for it over to another area. Now, I shouldn't say ``eliminate.'' Anything can happen. My belief is that there are capable, competent, and qualified people running, but the prognostication is that the configuration of it in terms of the numbers is likely to elect a conservative person, probably a very conservative person. My hope is that won't happen. In any event, coming back to the Ninth and the 18th, when they combined these two districts, they eliminated the possibility for the people of these two districts to have two Representatives in Congress. They eliminated that possibility, and they made it possible for only one to come from these two districts, only one person from the 18th and the Ninth, only one. When they combined them such that only one person could be elected from the two, that eliminated the possibility of another minority person being elected. Historically, a Black person has represented the Ninth, and Black people have represented the 18th in Congress. When this was done, if you look at it just numerically, the people of the Ninth are losing a Representative if you look at numbers, but if you look at it deeply, within what happened, they put more of the people from the Ninth District in this new 18th than from the old 18th District. Approximately two-thirds of the people in this Ninth District are in the new 18th District. Now, you have a district with 18 on it as its number that is packed with people from District Nine. Another way to look at it, to simplify, if you have two pies, and you take a slice out of one pie and you decide you are going to add it to another pie, but only take two slices from the other, and then you combine them to create three pieces of pie, there would be two pieces from the Ninth District creating this pie and one piece from the 18th. That is almost what has happened here, if not exactly what has happened. Two-thirds of this 18th consists of people from the Ninth Congressional District. Now, why is this such a dastardly thing? Because in Texas, we have struggled for minority people to have representation, from White primaries--and a person in Houston, Texas, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. His name was Lonnie Smith. He was a dentist. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court to defeat White primaries. When the Supreme Court said, no, you can't have White primaries, what did Texas do? Texas decided to have White pre-primaries--true story, White pre- primaries. It had to go all the way back to the Supreme Court, which said, no, Texas, if you can't have White primaries, you can't have White pre-primaries. This is something that is consistent in Texas, in terms of its behavior as it relates to people of color having proper representation in Congress. We now have a circumstance where but one person of color will now be coming from the Houston area because of these two districts. But one will come from the two districts that have been combined. Here is what I have done for our Black History Month. I believe that people who do such dastardly things ought to be recorded in history for their dastardly deeds. That is dastard with a d, not a b. They should be recorded in history as the dastards they are. That is with a b--no, excuse me. That is with a d. As the dastards they are, they should be recorded. Let's talk about the dastards that have perpetrated this invidious discrimination on the people of the 18th and Ninth Congressional Districts. The first dastard to be dealt with is, of course, the President of the United States, so I have a resolution that condemns President Donald Trump for ordering an unprecedented midcycle, racist redistricting effort in Texas--midcycle, racist redistricting in Texas, President Trump. I have this resolution because a court concluded that it was racist. The court concluded under the leadership of the--I say ``leadership,'' the judge who handed the opinion out, who penned the opinion, a conservative judge, I might add, a Federal judge. This conservative Federal judge concluded that the lines were racially drawn--racially drawn. With the lines being racially drawn, this means that they were using racist tactics. We want to condemn what the judge found to be the case in Texas from the three-judge panel, that this is racist. This is what a three-judge panel concluded: This is racist. So, we have a resolution condemning the President for this racist behavior, as we should. We want history to know who these dastards are: the President of the United States of America, five seats, and make sure that in Texas, you combine a couple of them. That is what was done. A couple of them combined so that one Representative is lost to a minority community. Well, they didn't stop there. As I said, the Governor performed this dastardly deed. For doing this, Governor, you should be properly recognized in history for the dastardly deed that you have done. I have a resolution that will honor you as such, Governor. This is a resolution that condemns Texas Governor Greg Abbott for delaying the election in Texas, the 18th Congressional District, beyond a reasonable time. The President ordered it. The Governor followed through, but he didn't stop there. The Governor decided that he would delay the election for a Representative for the new 18th Congressional District. Remember, we have the old one that will no longer exist after this year, and the new one, which will then move forward, that has been-- where we have two districts combined. The Governor didn't just stop with combining the districts. He decided he would delay the election for almost a year. Just recently, a person was elected to represent this old 18th Congressional District, and now we have an election coming up for the new 18th Congressional District. If it sounds confusing, it is. On March 3, there will be an election for the new district, but the Governor delayed the election for the old district for almost 1 year. It was just recently that we had the election for the old 18th Congressional District. For this Governor, for your dastardly deed, we made a record, and we are going to honor you for what you have done in delaying the election for some unreasonable amount of time. History ought to know who you are and what you did. But we are not going to stop there. We have to now recognize that there are some other dastards involved here. We already acknowledged the President as a dastard and the Governor of the State of Texas as a dastard. Now, we have to talk about the Houston Chronicle. The Houston Chronicle, for whatever reasons, wittingly or unwittingly, has joined forces with these two dastards. The Houston Chronicle has published stories, many of them wherein they have indicated in the stories that two Members of Congress passed, and they did, and that, as a result of these two Members passing, the Houston Chronicle believes that ageism is an appropriate thing for them to express continually in their newspaper. The Houston Chronicle has engaged in what I call ageism, and if you read the stories, I think you will come to the same conclusion. So, they decided they would engage in this ageism. Here is what they have done. They continually write stories wherein they talk about the death of these two iconic persons, two great heroes in Texas history. We don't want their stories diminished in any way. That would be the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee and the Honorable Sylvester Turner. The Houston Chronicle, one of the dastards, the Houston Chronicle is engaging in ageism, and here is how they are doing it. The Houston Chronicle has concluded that ageism is appropriate because the two persons who preceded the person who is running now, they died while in office. Somehow, they have decided to charge their deaths with this monthlong, many months long, almost 1 year long delay in an election. They talk about their deaths and convince people that you have to be careful, that people can die. So, if the next person dies, the Governor would do the same thing. Rather than blame the Governor solely, they have now transferred some of this to the persons who died. This is the Houston Chronicle. They are committing ageism by saying that people don't want to have another person who is of a certain age, because if you do that, then that person might die. Who can guarantee life? No one knows for whom the bell will toll next. No one can guarantee life. Young people die every day. No one can know. But the Houston Chronicle has made it their mission to campaign on this issue. Here is what is interesting about what the Houston Chronicle is doing. They only apply that theory to a person of color. Senator Cornyn is running. If Senator Cornyn wins, he gets a 6-year term. Senator Cornyn will be among the oldest in the Senate, but they don't apply that to Senator Cornyn. They have not tried to pressure Senator Cornyn out of a race. In fact, they have endorsed Senator Cornyn. They have gone so far as to endorse Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn has Wesley Hunt running against him. He is a younger person. They haven't said that you ought to elect Wesley Hunt. No, they have said to elect John Cornyn. Well, what is it about these two people that makes them different from the other scenario that I have called to your attention? What is it, Houston Chronicle? Yes, you are going to see this. You are going to see me. I do not fear the Houston Chronicle. What is it about this that allows them to do exactly what they have done? Well, Wesley Hunt happens to be a person of color. John Cornyn happens to be a White man. The Houston Chronicle has a different standard when it comes to John Cornyn. Just think about that. Think about that, a different standard. They have an all-out campaign going on. You might say they are the campaign. Well, for your dastardly deeds, Houston Chronicle, you, too, will be recorded in history with a resolution. Now, I want to say just a few more words about these people that they have demeaned. First, you heard me mention Al Edwards earlier. He is the father of Juneteenth, the father of Juneteenth. We have a resolution honoring him as such. For Sylvester Turner, a person who united diverse communities in Houston for 8 years as mayor, we have a resolution honoring him for his being that person who created a symbiosis in Houston, having people of different hues, different ethnicities, from different places around the world come together. Finally, we have a resolution honoring the life and enduring public service of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. I--personal pronoun--will not allow their legacies to be stolen. I will not. And I will not allow dastards not to be recorded as they properly should be in history. They will not escape history. Mr. President, you won't escape history. Mr. Governor, you won't escape history. Houston Chronicle, you won't escape history. Now, I want to say just a word about the top culprit in the process, and that would be the President. The President is the biggest dastard in the country. President Donald Trump is dastard number one. This says: ``Countdown to Impeachment.'' This is the President of the United States of America seated here. I am proud to tell you that I stood right over there and told the President to his face that you don't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. This was at a joint session of Congress. This dastard said that they weren't going to do it, and, lo and behold, the dastard did it. They cut about a trillion dollars out of healthcare. This is the dastard who perpetrated the deed. He ought to be recognized in history as the person who did the greatest injustice to healthcare the country has ever seen, Donald John Trump. But he has gone beyond this. His behavior is something that is difficult to codify, difficult to explain, but I will tell you this: He went too far just recently. He has gone too far on many other occasions, but recently, he went too far again. This time, this dastard, Donald John Trump, sent out a meme wherein he had the gall, unmitigated as we say, where he had just the low-down, dirty instinct to send out, to post, a picture of the Honorable President Barack Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama, to picture them as members of the primate family. That is what this dastard did to two of our heroes of Black history. If he had his way, there would be no Black history. He is the person who has decided that Black history is going to be minimized because we talk too much about slavery. He wants slavery to be whitewashed. There are people in Texas who call it involuntary relocation. Murder, rape, and 240 years of working without a paycheck is involuntary relocation? This dastard supports these kinds of things, this dastard. That is why we have this across the top of this poster, three words, countdown to impeachment. Countdown to impeachment. Yes, Mr. President, I don't speak for anybody but myself. I don't speak for any party. I don't speak for anyone, well, except myself and everybody who agrees with me. That is whom I speak for. Mr. President, not only are you a subject of impeachment, but now Ms. Noem is a subject of impeachment. Yes, Ms. Noem, I have signed Articles of Impeachment against you. My hope is that you do what you should do, in my opinion, which is resign. I don't think the President would ever fire you, but you have blood on your hands. You have tried your best to cover up what happened when two American citizens, who were unarmed, lost their lives at the hands of the constabulary. You have blood on your hands. You should be impeached. You also should go to jail because you tried to cover it up. There is a law that deals with this kind of behavior. When you know that a felony has been committed--you know that a felony has been committed, and you don't report that felony and then you try to cover it up, that is a crime. Somebody ought to check out 18 U.S.C. section 4. Yes, you committed a crime. You ought to be locked up. People on the other side are notorious for having said: Lock her up, talking about a Democrat. Here is your chance to repeat your chant: Lock her up. Lock her up. Lock up Ms. Noem for what she has done. Impeach Ms. Noem is what we should do. Aside from impeaching her, she gets her marching orders from this dastard; he has to be impeached too. We cannot allow this to go unnoticed and unchallenged. I cannot. I say we and all of the people who agree with me. There are a good many who do not, and I don't want to discredit them in any way, but I cannot. So, we are in a countdown to another impeachment. I am going to call this the Black History Month impeachment because I am going to deal with the racism that this President perpetuates, the racism that he perpetrates, the racism that he places in policies that are harmful to the American public. I am going to deal with that. Then we will give people a chance to decide whether it is as bad as you say it was. You have been on television talking about how this horrible deed was perpetrated by this dastard. Let's see if you really believe what you have said. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for speaking ill of Congress. So don't say you can't impeach for this kind of dastardly behavior from this dastard. Don't say that you can't do it, because we have seen it done. We have seen it done by people who were closer to the drafting of the Constitution than we were. So they probably had a better sense of what impeachment was all about than these so-called scholars who have decided that impeachment has to have so many lofty goals achieved before you should bring articles. That is not true. Whatever the House says impeachment is, that is what it is. It is not appealable. It is a political question. It is not something that requires a violation of a statutory law. So if you believe what you have been propagating when you say that this was such a bad thing that the President did with these memes, then we will give you an opportunity to express that here on the floor of the Congress of the United States of America. I just believe we have an obligation to do this. I don't think that we should stand by, we, meaning the people who agree with me. People who don't agree, they will do what they do. That is okay with me. I am going to vote my conscience. I ask others to vote theirs. Just vote your conscience, that is all I ask. If we vote our conscience, I hope that in the end, maybe not today, but someday--Stevie Wonder has a song where he says: ``someday at Christmastime.'' Maybe someday in this near future, in my lifetime, this dastard will be impeached. I guarantee you this, the Record will show that at least one Member, one Member, stood right here in this House and read Articles of Impeachment to remove this dastard from office for the racism that he perpetrates and perpetuates. For edification purposes, those who tolerate racism perpetuate racism. If you tolerate it, then you perpetuate it. I will not tolerate it. Of course, there are those who will always say: Al, you stand alone. Mr. Speaker, on some issues, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Still I rise, Mr. Speaker, in mourning for the lives that have been lost at the hands and the color of law. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pretti and Ms. Good should not have lost their lives as they did. Yes, I stand for impeachment of Ms. Noem, the Secretary, but that is not enough. I believe that under these circumstances more is required than a simple impeachment. I think it is a good thing to do, and I support it. However, there is some question of criminality involved with this. In such cases of criminality, we must do more than impeach. We must convict. She should do time. It is time for us to send a message to others that you cannot cover up and you cannot condone this kind of behavior when you hold public trust. Mr. Speaker, still I rise, and I stand where I stand.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on this, the birth date of Dr. Martin Luther King, a man so great in the eyes of this country that we honor his birthday as a holiday, but it is more than a holiday. It is an opportunity for us to do some introspection, to examine some of the many things that are occurring within our country that should be addressed in a King-like fashion. Dr. King had something that many other intellectuals of his time did not have. He was an intellectual. He had something that many of the persons who did speak up did not have; he had something called courage. Many of the great intellectuals could expose and expound on some of the great issues of the time, but they didn't have the courage to take a stand, as Dr. King did, to go out into the public--into the streets, if you will--with protest--peaceful protest--to bring about a change in this country, and he did bring about a change. So today, on his birthday, I want to honor Dr. King by speaking from one of his quotes. He had many quotes that are quite quotable, to be quite honest. It is difficult to single out just a few, but today I will mention a couple. But there is one that I will focus on, the third one. He, of course, is known for having said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Injustice in Minnesota is a threat to justice in every other State in the Union. He didn't say that about Minnesota, but he was giving us the words to help us understand that what is happening in Minnesota, if it is an injustice, it can happen in your State. It can happen in Texas, my State. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' I think that is probably one of his most-quoted quotes. But then he also had one that is not quoted too often. This one is one that people don't like to associate with Dr. King because it speaks to his militancy, in a sense, but it also speaks to things that people don't want us to do. We have a State that has as its motto Live Free or Die. Well, it is all right for a State to have that, but Dr. King's quote was: ``A man who hasn't found something worth dying for isn't fit to live.'' A man, a person, who has not found something worth dying for isn't fit to live. Very few people will cite Dr. King for having said this. By the way, I paraphrase a lot of what I am saying in terms of his quotes. ``A man who hasn't found something worth dying for isn't fit to live.'' But the one that I would like to quote today and say much about is his quote that deals with the ultimate measure. ``The ultimate measure of a man . . . '' is the way he put it, but I will be paraphrasing. The ultimate measure--the ultimate measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort--comfort, when all of your bills are paid and you are living the high life--not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience--when everything is at your fingertips. You have at your fingertips all of the luxuries of life, all of the things that make life worth living. The ultimate measure is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience, but, rather, where do you stand in times of challenge--challenge, when you have a reckless, ruthless, lawless President who is breaching the Constitution, who is doing things that we never expected to see in our lifetimes. Where do you stand when you have a President who is doing things within and without the country that we did not anticipate? Dr. King says that the ultimate measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy--controversy because what he is doing is being justified by many people who stand in the corridors of power. What he is doing is being justified by members of the clergy, who ordinarily would take the righteous stand. Where do you stand? ``The ultimate measure of a man. . . .'' Where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy? Let's talk about this. Where do you stand when the President of the United States has replaced Congress with corporate America; when the President of the United States will consult corporate America before he consults Congress; and when the President of the United States goes into another country, Venezuela, bombs this country, and consults with corporate America but does not consult with the Congress of the United States of America? Where do you stand? Well, here is where the Senate has taken a position. Here is where the Senate stands. Let's first read what the Senate has in S.J. Res. 90. This is a resolution brought before the Senate and has been voted on but was voted down. Let's examine briefly an excerpt from the resolution. The resolution reads: ``A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.'' Remember, this is the President, who consulted with corporate America but not the Congress of the United States of America. The Senate has this resolution, S.J. Res. 90. It continues in the Findings. ``Congress makes the following findings.'' I will read a portion of one. This is what Congress finds. This is the United States Senate: ``Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.'' Congress, the sole power to declare war. It goes on to say: ``Congress has not yet declared war upon Venezuela or any person or organization within Venezuela. . . .'' Mr. Speaker, Congress not having declared war, a President who has declared that he visited with corporate America before taking kinetic activity in Venezuela, where do we stand? Well, the Members of the Senate, 50 of them, stood with this resolution. I would stand with them. I stand with them now, 50 of them who stood for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, 50 Members were antithetical to the resolution. When this occurs, the Vice President of the United States has a vote. The Vice President of the United States voted with those who were antithetical to this resolution, S.J. Res. 90. You can research and pull up the entirety of it, and I beg that you would. So where do you stand when the Senate of the United States of America cannot reclaim its power to declare war? And we ought to do it while we can. We are losing it. The ultimate measure of the United States Senate--what is the ultimate measure of it when it has the opportunity to reclaim its power to declare war and it doesn't? We are finding ourselves now with the National Guard being sent into various cities around the country, various States, without a request from the Governors, without a request from the mayors, without a request from the officials who are in a position to make that request, without a request from the people, we the people not making that request. I know that we the people don't make the request; the Governor makes the request. But the point is we the people put the Governor in place. So we the people are not making the request by and through our official agent, Governors, but the President has decided he would do this. And he always concocts some fallacious, some fictitious means by which this should be done, and he does it. And, unfortunately, we have to ask: Where do the courts stand? Some of the courts are yielding to the President's pressure. He has threatened judges. Where do we stand when the President is threatening judges? Where do we stand when the President has decided that there is no separation of powers, that he can determine when a judge is right or wrong and if that judge is wrong, that judge should be impeached? Where do we stand when the Senate holds a hearing to discuss the impeachment of judges who differ with the President of the United States of America? It has been done. I saw it myself. Where do we stand? Where do we stand when, after the President has sent the National Guard into various places, more turmoil has been committed as a result of the Guard being there than was being committed before they arrived? The President is the person who is creating the turmoil so that he can then say: I am justified in sending the National Guard. Where do we stand when a woman seated in her vehicle, a woman, Ms. Renee Nicole Good, seated in her vehicle when she is approached by a member of the constabulary in a rather aggressive way--and I am being kind, because with that aggression was an insufficient amount of profanity, more than sufficient. It was really insufficient, not necessary, profanity. Now, do we expect the constabulary to approach people and in this process swear at them, or do we expect them to be respectful, be respectful even when the person that the member of the constabulary is approaching is disrespectful? That is our job. We are to be respectful, notwithstanding the disrespect we have to suffer. I was a judge. I remember having a man come before me in court and said some very unkind things with profanity. I could have held him in contempt. All I had to do was say: Mr. Bailiff, take this man over to a certain area and hold him until I finish the docket. I have to have a further discussion with him. I could have held him in contempt, but I had heard enough of that case to know that he was right about the facts in the case; he was wrong in how he expressed himself. I never held that man in contempt. I had the black robe on. I had the power. How you use power determines whether you are a person who should possess power, whether you are the person that should be armed with lethality such that you can change a person's family's history and remove a person from existence. Where do we stand when officers approach a person such as Ms. Good was situated and when Ms. Good says to this person: Dude, in a sense, I am not mad at you. I am not mad at you. To the person approaching aggressively: I am not mad at you. And as she is saying these things-- it has been said that these were her last words--another officer comes across, near her, in front of her, and this officer with a video camera has his weapon just with him. This officer, as she turns away, shoots her and then, as she is passing by, shoots again. I assume the first shot hit her. I don't know whether it did or didn't. That is my assumption, so I am saying that. But we do know this: There were additional shots fired as she passed by through her window--the window was not up; it was not elevated--through her window. We do know that she died. We do know because we have seen it. Now, you can justify this if you would like, but you can't justify the Justice Department concluding that it would not cooperate with the local authorities with the investigation, not if you want transparency. Where do we stand when the Justice Department refuses to be transparent after we see what appears to be an injustice to many people? I am one of them. I believe that the killing of Ms. Renee Nicole Good was a grave, gross injustice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. So where do we stand when this is happening? Where do we stand? Sent in armed persons, and they have now taken a life in a way that is quite questionable. Well, where do we stand when the President now is saying that he is declaring martial law? Well, he is not declaring it currently. He is saying that he may have to, talking about martial law. He talked about that some time ago. Actually now he is talking about the Insurrection Act, the Insurrection Act. He is talking about the Insurrection Act. He has spoken of martial law on other occasions long ago, a while ago, but now the Insurrection Act. So that means he is going to send in the military, if he does it, and then the next thing after that could be martial law. So are we going to just stand by and witness the President replace Congress with corporate America, decide that he will send in the National Guard, send it in to cities across the country without a request from the Governor of the State? When he decides that he is going to talk about now the Insurrection Act as his next tool, National Guard already in, using the Insurrection Act, bring in the military, the only thing left is martial law. He hasn't said that he will resort to martial law at this time, but I want to say this: I have been trying to warn you. I have been trying to warn the American people that this President is moving us toward a dictatorship. I was among the very first, if not the first, to say publicly that this was an authoritarian, among the first to say it. It is difficult to be a part of the avant-garde when you are trying to warn powerful people about something that is taking place. I have been trying to warn you. I say it is difficult because Voltaire was right. It is dangerous to be right in affairs where established men are wrong. It is dangerous to be right. It is dangerous to be right when the establishment in this country refuses to acknowledge what is taking place. Thank God for people associated with free speech for people. Thank God for the impeach and removal coalition, people who are willing to be a part of the avant-garde, who are willing to take the proper stand when they see democracy at risk, when they see the President absolutely disregarding the separation of powers, absolutely disregarding the fact that the judiciary has the authority to render opinions about circumstances that have been brought before the judiciary. There are some people who are standing up. I am proud to say that, here in the Congress of the United States of America, there are people who are taking a stand against this President's unconstitutional behavior. They are taking a stand. I am proud to tell you that many Articles of Impeachment have been filed since the first was filed. Many have been filed, and I am on every one of them. December 9, a stand was taken. Articles of Impeachment were filed. I am on those articles. December 10, a stand was taken. Articles of Impeachment were filed. I am on those articles. January 14, a stand was taken. I am on these Articles of Impeachment. I do not require people to stand with me when I take a stand, because I sincerely believe, as I have said here at this microphone many times, on some issues it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I don't lead by telling people you have to follow me. No, I am an example. If you think I am a good example, then you can embrace the example. I am not out whipping people for votes. I am not going to demand that people do something that I think is appropriate. I lead by example, and I try to be a good example. I am not always a good example, so no one should claim that I claim perfection because I do not. I do claim this: On these issues related to the Constitution, I refuse to stand by and see what is happening in my country as it devolves into what I perceive as a dictatorship. I refuse to stand by and see that and say nothing. The truest and the ultimate measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience when you have all of these things happening that I have cited, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy when these things are happening--not when all is right with the world, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy. Do you stand with the President who is behaving in an unlawful fashion as it relates to the Constitution, or do you stand with the Constitution? Do you stand with the Constitution of the United States of America? This is where we Members of Congress now have to make a decision. Are we going to stand with the reckless, ruthless, lawless President, or are we going to stand with the Constitution of the United States of America? I am proud to tell you that when we filed the last Articles of Impeachment--and I have filed many. I plan to file more, just for edification purposes. I will say more about that at a later time. When the last Articles of Impeachment were filed, it was H. Res. 939. With these Articles of Impeachment, there was a vote. I believe that we ought to take a stand. We ought to take a stand. These are times of challenge and controversy. We were elected to take a stand in times of challenge and controversy. Yes, I know that it can put my career at risk. There are people trying to get me out of office, and they are doing a pretty good job. I never know what my next day will bring. I do know this: I will have my record show that I fought all the way out. I didn't come to stay forever, but I did come to make a difference while here on the great issues of our time. Where do we stand? On H. Res. 939, 140 persons voted for H. Res. 939, 140 Members of Congress, not one from the other side of the aisle--140, Members who hold high positions. I am not calling anybody out. As a result, we have identified all of them in this document. This is my copy. But all 140 Members who voted for H. Res. 939 will receive a similar copy, and their names are all listed. Each person's name is going to be highlighted one time, and that one time will be the time that we will acknowledge this person as being in the document by highlighting the name. That will be given to that person. Each person will have his or her name highlighted on the page when no other names are highlighted but that one person's. It is important now for me to read a bit from H. Res. 939. It reads: ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I have to pause a minute and say this. The President said just recently that ``they will find a reason to impeach me.'' Mr. President, we don't have to find a reason. You are giving reasons. You are providing reasons on a daily basis almost. I said ``almost.'' On a daily basis, you are providing reasons for people to file Articles of Impeachment against you. The question is not whether the reasons are there. You are providing them. The question is, Mr. President, will we have the courage to bring you to justice? This is the bar of justice for you, Mr. President. You will be brought before this bar of justice, the House of Representatives, where impeachment is the indictment that will bring you to justice. So, it reads: ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.'' It goes on to read: ``Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an abuser of Presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence''--and he has a done a job--I almost said ``a good job,'' but I hate to use ``good'' in this context. He has ``engender[ed] invidious hate, undermine[d] our democracy, and dissolve[d] our Republic, that he is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.'' They were first exhibited to the House. The House took a vote. One hundred forty persons voted for the impeachment. We had another 47, I believe, who chose to vote ``present.'' For these 140, I have the courage to present to you this document in this fine piece of cover that has a very soft texture to it. We will present this to you. I want to read what it says above the patriotic 140. It reads: Patriotism means to stand. Where do you stand in times of challenging controversy? Remember Dr. King. Patriotism means to stand by the country in times of challenging controversy. That is what patriotism means: Stand by the country. Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President. Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President. Dr. King, today we honor your profound words in the ultimate measure of the man. As it was said at that time, the ultimate measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience but where does a person stand in times of challenge and controversy. The answer is from Theodore Roosevelt. I am a bipartisan guy. The answer is: Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President. This is Dr. King's birthday. I thought it most appropriate to pay tribute to the 140 patriotic Americans who took a stand. For those who have concluded that there will not be impeachment: You are wrong. It is the only solution available to prevent the next Donald Trump, the next would-be, from assuming the position that this Donald Trump has taken and imposed the kinds of horrific atrocities on society that this Donald Trump is the imposing. We need to impeach right here and send it over to the Senate. The Senate would have a trial. Impeach, convict--conviction takes place in the Senate--and remove. The Senate has the power to do this. This is the solution. I understand that the network television programs, for the most part--there are some exceptions, but for the most part, they stand with Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not want to be impeached. He as much as said so, and the networks don't want him impeached. They have said so. I have listened to many persons associated with the networks, and they said so. They don't want to see impeachment. I differ with them. By the way, when you differ with them, they won't let you say that. This is a free-speech country when people will allow you to speak broadly on their networks. So they are not going to let you do that. You won't see me on CNN. You won't see me on MSNBC, but you will hear from me here as long as I am allowed to speak because I just believe in speaking truth about power, not just speak truth to power, but speak truth about power. Speak truth to power, you say: Power, there is a problem. Let's solve it. Speak truth about power, you say: Power, there is a problem, and you are it. That is just as I did from that seat right over to my right when the President was up at that podium and I told him he didn't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. The networks are a status quo institution for the most part. They want to maintain things as they are. I am not a status quo Representative. I want to see change, positive change, change that can make a difference in the lives of people. I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if we don't speak up, stand up, and meet the ultimate measure of the person that Dr. King calls to our attention, it may be too late at some point within the next 3 years for us to do so. Because this President is showing us that he intends to become a dictator. To a certain extent, he is already, to a limited extent, a dictator. So we have to take back our power to declare war while we can before it is too late. We have got to take back the authority in the Constitution to have a separation of powers while we can before it is too late. We have got to stand up to this President. Dr. King, that is what you would have us do. I believe you would have us take a stand. I believe that Dr. King would not sit silently by and witness what has taken place now and do it without taking a stand. Not everybody has to take a stand to impeach. Some people decided that they would peacefully protest. I am a peaceful protester. I will stand by people who peacefully protest. I will not stand by people who do not peacefully protest. If you introduce violence, then you just lost me. I am not with you. It doesn't matter who you are, I am not with you. The ultimate measure of the person in times of challenge and controversy is with the Constitution of the United States of America. That is where I am, and that is where I stand. I assure you as I stand here, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we who believe that Dr. King should be commemorated ought to commemorate his life respectfully. There is nothing wrong with commemorating his life by engaging in peaceful protest. There is nothing wrong with commemorating his life by standing on the authority vested in the Constitution of the United States of America which is imparted to us. The words are without us they just become words. We give meaning to the Constitution. So there is nothing wrong with taking that stand. Stand on the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. King, I know that is what you would have us do. That is what I encourage others to do. I assure you, Dr. King, I am going to bring additional Articles of Impeachment to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and still I rise, a liberated, unbought, unbossed, unafraid Democrat. And still I rise, and I rise today because I have grave and great concern for the American people. I fear for the lives of the American people. I do so, Mr. Speaker, because if the President of the United States and his underlings and his persons who are in charge of very powerful agencies within the Federal Government can convince this country or some significant portion of the people in this country that Ms. Renee Good was a terrorist, I fear for the lives of the people in this country. In fact, I fear for my own life. I am not afraid to speak truth to power. I am not afraid to speak truth about power. I am going to speak truth about power today, but I can tell you that I fear for our lives because if you can justify what happened to Ms. Good after seeing with your very own eyes what took place, and if we can allow the king's men to conclude that only they can investigate this and remove the local constabulary from the process, if this can happen, I fear for our lives. We are now living in a country where people are expected to believe that this mother of three, a Christian woman, seated in her vehicle-- yes, the vehicle was across the roadway--that somehow she was a terrorist. The head of Homeland Security has as much as said so, a terrorist. Mr. Speaker, I fear for our lives because what we saw when this lady, this woman, was accosted--and I say ``accosted'' because men who had on masks in police regalia, I suppose, approached her rather aggressively, it seems to me, and one of them, in approaching, said: ``Get the f out of the car.'' I am not using the profanity, but that is what was said. You can see it for yourselves, and you can hear it for yourselves. That is what was said: ``Get the f out of the car.'' When men can approach a female in a car and say this to her and expect her to immediately respond in a positive manner, and if she does not and attempts to drive away, if they can take her life, I fear for our lives. Do not assume that it can happen only to her. They aggressively approached her. Cars were going around her in various ways, but when she made her move to extricate herself, to move along, to move her car, officers started to shoot. She was shot. One officer shot through the side window as she was moving away. You don't have to know this lady. I don't know her. I don't know who she was other than what I have seen and what I have read, but the truth is, officers ought not be allowed to do what was done to this lady. There should be an investigation that includes the local constabulary. If you truly want to be transparent, if you truly believe in liberty and justice for all, if you want the people in this country to believe that what occurred was the right thing, then you would want the local constabulary to be involved, but no. This administration is shutting out the local investigation, and they are including only the Federal investigation, which means, by some thought processes, that they have no desire to let this go to trial. There are people who believe that this administration has no desire to let this case go to a trial. For edification purposes, I am one of them. I don't believe that they want this case to go to a trial. I think that this is why they have decided that only the Federal authorities will investigate. I also believe that if the case goes to a trial and if there is a conviction and it is a Federal conviction, I believe this President will do for the person or persons convicted, I believe he will do for them what he did for the people who assaulted the citadel of democracy on January 6. I believe he will pardon, and I believe he will do it without question, reservation, or hesitation, just as he did for those persons who assaulted this Capitol. He did it immediately after being sworn in. Mr. Speaker, I fear for the lives of the American people, and again, I say that includes me. I think we have a reckless, ruthless outlaw who has found his way into the Presidency. To further validate my thinking, I have here the words of the President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump. Here are his words when asked if there were any limits on his international power. I know what happened within the country was national. This deals with international power. Give me just a moment, please, of your time so that I might connect these dots. When asked if there were any limits on his international power, here is his response: ``My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.'' Some things bear repeating: ``My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.'' Mr. President, what about Congress? What about the Constitution? What about the power to declare war and where that power is vested? What about it, Mr. President? Only your mind? Only your morality? I won't go into the President's moral standards. I will leave that to you. Mr. Speaker, what the President is saying is, this joint resolution, S.J. Res. 90, over in the Senate--here is a copy of it--permit me to read some excerpts. Mr. Speaker, it reads: ``Joint Resolution--To direct the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.'' S.J. Res. 90, it goes on to say: ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives.'' Eventually, if it passes the Senate, it has to come to the House for our approval. ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ``Section 1. Findings. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause II of the United States Constitution.'' Mr. President, the Constitution still has some relevancy. The Constitution is not meaningless. It goes on to say: ``(2) Congress has not yet declared war upon Venezuela or any person or organization within Venezuela, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force within or against Venezuela.'' Mr. Speaker, it is only his mind and his morality. That is the only thing that can stop him. This resolution won't stop him. Here is what he knows. He knows that if it passes the Senate and he knows that if it passes the House, he knows that he has a vote. He knows that if he votes ``no'' with his veto, he knows or believes that it will not be overridden. Mr. Speaker, I still say this is the right thing to do. I say this because you cannot allow a President to do what he has done in terms of going to another country, bombing the country, to do this and not put some check on him. At least you have to try. You can't just allow it to happen and decide we will wait until we can override his veto. Pass it in the Senate even if it never passes the House. You ought to pass it in the Senate. The House should pass it. If the House doesn't, the Senate is doing the right thing. Pass it. Let him know that there are some people who are watching. By the way, the President has also gone on to say that the five Republicans who voted for this to move forward shouldn't hold public office again. Threats and intimidation, this President spells the word ``respect'' f-e-a-r. That is respect. He wants people to fear him. I don't fear you, Mr. President. I am concerned about your behavior. I am concerned about what you might have your underlings in some way do to me. I want you to know I will not be deterred, just as these Senators are not being deterred. Yes, they are doing the right thing, notwithstanding the fact that you have a vote in this process. They did it, and they are doing it. I support what they are doing. In doing what he has done, the President is doing the following. He is using the noble ends--not always noble--to justify ignoble means. They are noble ends to justify ignoble means. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Only it is noble ends to justify unconstitutional means. I think some Senators seem to agree with me on that: Unconstitutional means to justify what are perceived to be ignoble ends. The President of Venezuela is a part of this, but it is not about him. It is about the Constitution. It is about whether we will have a Constitution. If we are going to allow what are perceived to be noble ends to justify unconstitutional means, at some point the Constitution of the United States of America will become meaningless. He is using noble, perceived ends to justify unconstitutional means. The President should have brought this to the attention of the Congress. He did not do so. He did, however, bring it to the attention of the oil companies. Have the oil companies replaced Congress in the United States of America? Is what they think more important than what we think, given that the Constitution has given us the authority to declare war? I know that this is a difficult topic for some people to embrace, but this is where we are. Congress has become irrelevant in the mind of this President. It is not relevant. It is not. His own morality, his own mind is the only thing that can stop him. Well, Mr. President, you are wrong. Congress is relevant. Just as the Senate took this action, Congress, meaning the House of Representatives, should take action. By definition, the House and the Senate make up the Congress. The House of Representatives should take action. We have the power to do what has to be done. We have the power. Before I go further with that power, I want to come back to, if I may, Ms. Good. If the President believes this about international law, if the President believes that the only thing is his mind, I believe he believes the same thing about domestic law. I think he believes that the only thing that he has to concern himself with is whether he agrees, whether he thinks it is right. I believe he thinks that what those officers did can be justified simply because they are officers of the law. I support officers of the law. I don't support outlaws who are pretending to be officers of the law when they are committing crimes. My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I support officers of the law, but I am not going to support officers who would do what happened to this lady and the President is then going to immediately back them up. The head of Homeland Security immediately backs them up. The Vice President of the United States immediately backs them up. They set the narrative to allow the exoneration of the persons who did these dastardly things. They have put in motion immediately without an investigation. Well, you say: Al, you didn't investigate. No, but I am investigating by virtue of seeing what happened and having read news articles and having looked into it. They didn't do as much. They just immediately concluded that this lady was a terrorist. I am not a terrorist, but if you can conclude that she is, I am not sure that anybody is safe from being captioned, labeled, or designated a terrorist. I am not sure. I am standing up for her today. I am standing up for the American people today. I am standing up for those good law enforcement officers who would have approached that lady with a kinder gesture and not as bullies. They would have approached her and simply said: Ma'am, would you please step out of the car. What is wrong with being kind? You have got the gun. What is wrong with being respectful? No, the President as a bully has passed on his tendencies to those who are under him. It starts at the top. The tone and tenor starts at the top. It starts with a bullying President. Now, you have officers who believe that they can bully people into doing things. I imagine this lady was frightened. I would have been, rushing up to me, mask on, ``Get out of the f'ing car.'' That may have been the last thing I would want to do. It may have been the last thing she wanted to do. The President, in his thinking, believes he is above and beyond the law, whether it is international law or whether it is domestic law. That is his thinking. I come back to where I was when I said the Senate is doing the right thing, and they are. I said the House should do the right thing, and we can. The President fears what the House can do. He fears it because he knows that this is where an indictment can take place, right here in this House. He knows it. He knows that that indictment can be very harmful to him, very harmful to him. He is afraid of what the House can do. He has as much as said it without using those explicit words. He said it. He has said it. He said that they will find some reason to impeach him, find some reason. Mr. President, it is easy to find the reasons because you have given them to us. Venezuela is a reason. We don't have to look very far or very hard to find a reason. It is right before our eyes. The reasons are there. It is not about whether we can find the reasons. The question is whether we can find the will. It is the will. Do we have the willpower to do what should be done? I am talking about bipartisan effort. It should be bipartisan. But if it can't be bipartisan, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop this reckless, ruthless President. If the Senate can go forward knowing the rules and how things are likely to play out, if we can pass legislation here just yesterday that I supported going over to the Senate--there is a good likelihood that their behavior is not going to be acceptable to me. If we can do this, we can also do the same thing with the one thing that can stop a reckless, ruthless, outlaw President, the one thing. That one thing, my friends, is what the President fears most. He fears even having votes on it take place. There are people who will say: ``Well, if you can't pass it, why vote on it?'' Because the American people need to know that there are some people who see the wrong and who are willing to take a stand against the wrong. They see the injustice, and they are willing to take a stand against the injustice, even when that stand may not result in what is the desired end. A noble end, a noble cause, ought not be avoided simply because you can't bring it to fruition today. It ought not be. Yes, this thing that we can do is almost sacred. Yes, it requires considerable thought. Yes, it is something that we should do when we have the evidence. Well, friends, I guess the evidence is comparable to the evidence that we had on January 6 when we saw it before our very eyes. After all, this is an indictment here. The trial will take place in the Senate. There is this one thing that he fears, and he is very much concerned about it and what we will do. I can't speak for anybody else. I don't speak for any of my colleagues who are in Congress. I don't speak for anybody outside of Congress. I speak for one person, so do not now say that the Democrats are doing something. Just say Al Green. Tell the truth. On some issues, I believe that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all, so I am going to take a stand. I am going to agree with what the Senate has said. By the way, I would invite you to read all of it because there is much more to it than what I read to you. I agree with what the Senate has said when they said that Congress has the power to declare war. They go on to say Congress has not yet declared war. You had no right, under the Constitution, to do what you did, but you do have the right to do it if the standard is your mind and your morality. We should not assume that this applies only to international affairs. It applies to domestic affairs as well. I am going to do what the Senate has done, as best as I can, but it will just be me. It is not the Democratic Party. I believe that these are votes of conscience. Let your conscience be your guide, Members. Don't follow my lead, Members. Don't do it because I am doing it. I don't think that there are very many who would. Do it because you believe. If you don't believe, do not do it. I am not asking anybody to vote for it when I bring it to the attention of Congress. I am not asking you to. Don't vote for it if your convictions don't command that you do so. Do what you think is right. The Senate has done what they believe to be correct, and I assure you--without question, I assure you of this--I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States of America for taking our military to war against Venezuela, for doing it based upon some theory that in and of itself does not align with the Constitution, some theory that if you have an indictment, you can now send in the police or the Justice Department and various officers associated, you can send them in to do something--in this case, to seize the President of a country--and use the military to back them up. I marvel at how people will say: ``Well, they did it in Panama. If we did it in Panama, we can do it here.'' God, the list is endless of things that have been done that were wrong that at some point we had to stop. It was wrong to bring folks to this country in chains. They thought it was lawful at the time, I suppose, in their minds, but we stopped it. Regardless as to what has happened prior to this second in time, I say to you the Constitution still rules. The Constitution is above indictments. The Constitution is above the things that are in the mind of a President that he believes would give him the authority to do these things. It is the Constitution that counts. If you are going to have a Constitution, you have to make it count. It doesn't count because the words are on paper. It is how we react and behave in response to the words that are on paper. It is the Constitution that counts. An indictment is no constitutional reason to send the military, to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, to send planes in large numbers, or to send other military paraphernalia. Indictments don't accord you that, Mr. President. The only way we can stop this is with impeachment because that is the only thing. Why is it impeachment? Because, friends, it would say to the next Donald John Trump we will not tolerate unconstitutional means that are justified. You can't decide that you are going to use some sort of means-justifies-the-ends theory to go to war. He needs to be impeached. He needs to be convicted, and he needs to be removed from office; impeached, convicted, and removed. However, if we can't do it now, that doesn't mean that the process can't start now. If we can't do it now or sometime in the near future, it doesn't mean that we should not let the American people know that we know that what has been done is wrong. We should protect the Constitution, not allow this to happen. The only way we can do it-- while I believe that this is good and I support it, S.J. Res. 90. I support it. I believe it is good; but the real remedy, the remedy that can make the difference is to impeach, convict, and remove Donald John Trump from the Presidency. Friends, this is where I stand. I don't do these things to make friends. I do them because I care about my country. I do it because I believe it when I salute the flag in liberty and justice for all. I do it because I believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people, and that includes the people who have the authority to enforce the Constitution. We are the people. We are the ``we'' in we the people. I believe we have to do whatever we can when we can, and this is something I can do, and I will do. By the way, those who say: Well, you are just taking up time. We take up more time in between votes than it takes to vote on Articles of Impeachment. We took up more time just recently in between votes than it takes to vote on Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't take up the time that prevents us from doing other things. All of these things that people will say now in terms of why we can't do it, when we get the opportunity to by their standards, they will push all of these things aside and move forward. Well, I will be there with you. I am not asking you to be here with me, but I will be there with you. I will be there because it is the country, it is the Constitution, and it is the Republic that we must protect. I promise you, friends, I will not be deterred. There is no need, not that anybody would, but there is no need to try and dissuade me. What happened in Venezuela was an act of war. The President doesn't have the authority to do that without consulting with the Congress. The Congress may very well conclude that you shouldn't do it. Maybe the Congress doesn't want to take over Venezuela. Maybe the Congress doesn't want to do this to provide the oil companies with greater revenues. Maybe the Congress has a different point of view. Your point of view is but one. The Congress has the right to have its point of view recognized as well. I must--others can do what they may. I must take this stand. I will take this stand. This President will face Articles of Impeachment for his declaration of war based on his moral standards and his mind, based upon what he thinks he can do without congressional input. I will take a stand. I will bring the Articles of Impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe in the Pledge of Allegiance. I am known to wear this tie that has what I consider to be a meaning that expresses much of what the pledge is all about. There are many people who have said to me that the tie is old, that it appears to be soiled and stained, but it is my favorite tie. It is a tie that I will never surrender. It is a tie that means something to me because it stands for something. It stands for the Pledge of Allegiance. More appropriately, it stands for some specific words within that pledge. Those words are: ``Liberty and justice for all.'' ``Liberty and justice for all.'' I do pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all, and I rise today to thank the courageous persons who, on just yesterday, took a stand for liberty and justice for all. I rise to thank the 140 persons who, on yesterday, voted to support H. Res. 939, House Resolution 939. This resolution, H. Res. 939, impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. I rise to thank the 140 persons who supported this resolution. I rise to thank the 47 persons who did not oppose what we were doing but chose to simply say: I will vote ``present.'' That was a significant vote, as well. I rise to thank them. All of these persons had the courage to say to Donald John Trump: Things are changing in this country. You are likely to face a vote of 218 more persons who would vote to have you impeached. I rise to thank them for their courage, but I also rise with my cane in hand to thank two people. I want to thank John Bonifaz. John Bonifaz. John Bonifaz. Constitutional scholar, John Bonifaz. There are many constitutional scholars in this country. Let me harken back just a moment to make this point perspicuously clear. There were many people who understood what invidious discrimination was, known as segregation but, in fact, was racism. There were many who knew what it was. They understood it. They could articulate it well. They were great orators, but they had something that set them apart from Dr. King. It was a lack of courage. Dr. King was set apart from the intellectuals and great orators of his time because he had courage. It was his courage that allowed him to go to Birmingham and, from the Birmingham jail, to write a letter that explained why the movement existed and why it was so important. It was courage. John Bonifaz, constitutional scholar par excellence. John Bonifaz has something that many of the constitutional scholars just don't have. They are brilliant. They can elucidate and explain to you the Federalist Papers in great detail. They can tell you why you shouldn't or why you should do something, but they don't have the courage of John Bonifaz--the courage to speak not only truth to power. You can speak truth to power by simply saying: Power, there is a problem, and we need to address it. John will speak truth about power, which means you go to power, and you say: Power, there is a problem, and you are it. You are it. John Bonifaz has that kind of power. John Bonifaz has that kind of courage. John Bonifaz, I thank you for what you have done to help me move impeachment to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. I want history to know who you were. I want people to know that you left big tracks--big tracks--in the sands of time. I want people to know that you came from one direction and that you proceeded to another, a righteous direction. I want people to know who you are. I want people to know who Jessica Denson is, who is the mother and founder of the Removal Coalition; who believes that impeachment, conviction, and removal is part of the process, but it is also the solution. Jessica Denson is a courageous woman--a courageous woman who has a voice that is sometimes amazing to me in terms of how she so clearly articulates the issues of our time. I want people to know that she had the courage to be there when we were in front of the Lincoln Memorial--to be there--to be the key, the cornerstone, of the movement that caused us to get to the Lincoln Memorial, which she was there to support but also to push for impeachment, conviction, and removal. She is truly one of the great patriots of our time. I thank you for your courage. I also want to thank the millions of people now who are associating themselves with this courage of Bonifaz; with this courage of Denson; with this courage of the 140 who, on yesterday, voted to support H. Res. 939; with this courage of the 47 who also took a position that I appreciate greatly. There is courage. I have to mention courage because these things don't happen simply because you want them to. It is not easy to do what we did yesterday. It is not. There are all sorts of forces, crosscurrents, winds, and all sorts of energy pushing back: Don't do it. Let me pause for a moment and say this: Those who are antithetical to my views like to say that I--Al Green has gone rogue. It was in the papers today. Al Green is coming before Congress, and he has his cane, and he is just waving his cane. That is what they say. They would have me become a person who is just another person from some dark place who doesn't know what he is talking about, so they talk about waving my cane. Yes, I am waving my cane, and I am pointing it straight at all of you who are antithetical to righteousness, antithetical to what we did yesterday in bringing these Articles of Impeachment to a vote. I am pointing my cane at you. I am pointing at those people who are a part of the news media who will bring me up and say things about me but won't allow me to respond to them. You know who you are. But, as I was saying, I want people to know about this courage and the pushback and the antithetical forces. I want people to know about it, and I want people to know that I understand what happened yesterday. It was comparable to what happened at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Yesterday was a seminal moment in time. It was comparable to what happened. It was comparable to what happened when John Lewis explained it to me. What many people never discuss is the fact that there were many people who thought that you shouldn't go to the Edmund Pettus Bridge; it is too dangerous. If you go to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, you could be hurt. You know what the constabulary will do. There were people who warned them, admonished them, pleaded with some of them, saying: Those people will hurt you. These people are inspired by hate. There are some evil people among them. It was courage, however, that said: Go on to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, go on to the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Not only did they go, but when they reached that crest, they could see a point where the constabulary was there, some on horseback, and they knew at that point that some of those people who admonished them were right, but they marched on. They did not allow fear to prevent them from doing a righteous thing, even when they knew the consequences could be harmful. I keep saying it, and I will say it until I make my transition. John Lewis told me that he thought he was going to die on that bridge, but he marched on. Yesterday, in spite of a lot of admonitions, people marched on. People marched on, and they took a courageous vote: a vote that is going to be marked as a seminal moment in time, a vote that will have an impact on the rest of time because it sent a message to a reckless, ruthless, lawless President indicating that your time in office as a reckless, ruthless, lawless President, your days are numbered. No one wants to see you harmed physically, that is not the case. But there are people who do not believe that you should serve out this term of office given your behavior in office. There are people who believe that you ought to be impeached, you ought to be convicted, and you ought to be removed. I am one of the people. I am one of the people. We, the people of the removal movement, believe that you, sir, should be an example of what a righteous government will do when a person who would subvert the Constitution has slithered his way into office. You, sir, should be the example. You, sir, by your behavior, by your actions, by your words, by your deeds, you, sir, should not hold the title President of the United States of America, and you should be removed. I know that there are some who would want to wait, well, he will leave office in a couple years, and after he leaves office in a couple of years, we will get back to our normal lives. Not the case. This man is having a long-term impact on American society. Not the case. There are others who want to mimic him. There are many Trumps--not many in terms of numbers, although I could argue that there are large numbers, but there are many in terms of being smaller now who would like to enlarge their persona, enlarge their image, enlarge their reach, enlarge their power, many Trumps who want to be another Donald Trump. They are out there, and we need to do something to let people know that when you behave as he has behaved, justice will be served. Yesterday, the sword of justice swung across the House of Representatives, and it left its indelible mark. People know now that we mean business. Yes, we mean business. To the millions of people who have joined the impeach, convict, and removal coalition, I thank you for being there. I especially thank the persons who were on The Mall at the Lincoln Memorial. Now, I would like to respond to the question, if I haven't already: Why are you doing this, Al Green? That really is not the question. The question really is: Why wouldn't I do it? Why wouldn't I do it, when I have in my hand language that motivates me to do it? Let me read what I bear in my hand. It says here Dick Cheney's statement. For further edification, that would be Vice President Dick Cheney. This is his statement on Donald Trump's statement, talking about Donald Trump. This is something that NPR published September 6, 2024, per Vice President Dick Cheney. By the way, he was a Republican. I need not say it, but I think that it adds to what I am about to say. I am a Democrat. I think we were in different places politically, but when it comes to the country, we are in the same place. We were in the same place then, and we are in the same place now. Here is what he said: ``In our Nation's 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat'' to American democracy--correction--``a greater threat to our Republic than Donald Trump.'' Let me repeat it. ``In our Nation's 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our Republic than Donald Trump.'' Then, he goes on to inspire because he says: ``As citizens, we each have a duty''--I would add the word ``responsibility.'' ``We each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution,'' to put our country above partisanship and defend our Constitution. Those words inspire me. I believe that he is right. We have to put country above partisanship. We have got to defend the Constitution. That means defend liberty and justice for all, not in the Constitution, but it is symbolic of what the Constitution represents. It means, defend your Fifth Amendment rights, right to due process, 14th Amendment also, defend your right to free speech, defend your right to say that members of the military don't have to follow illegal orders. In fact, they must not follow illegal orders. That is what he is talking about. That is the Constitution. That is what comes out of the Constitution, although it may not be explicated with this kind of specificity within the Constitution, but that is it. You have got a right to say it. Don't follow illegal orders. That is a mandate. It is not something that is optional. You have got a right to say it. And you have got a right to say it without having someone indicate that you somehow have done something wrong and that you somehow ought to be hanged. Now, I will say more about that in just a moment. I have much to say about that, but before I say it, I want to say this: If you, any one of you, if I, if I threaten the President of the United States of America, I have got a punishment here in my hand, if you are convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 871 of threatening the President of the United States, you can suffer consequences including up to 5 years in a Federal prison, fines of $250,000, a permanent felony record, possible restrictions on future employment, firearm ownership, and other rights. Now, if I or anyone of you should indicate in some way that the President ought to somehow receive a death sentence, or if I or one of you should indicate that the President ought to be hanged, I guarantee you this President would have you arrested. I guarantee you, you would be incarcerated. I guarantee you, because you can indict a ham sandwich, they say, you would be indicted. I guarantee you, you would go to trial. If you do something that is considered threatening, if you say--here is a good word: If you say the President ought to receive death, be punishable by death, or if you say that he ought to be hanged--as the President has said here when he posted a third-party's post indicating, ``hang them, Washington would,'' indicating here that their behavior was ``seditious behavior, punishable by death.'' Now I am talking about the person who did the right thing, the righteous thing, the lawful thing of saying to people in the military: Don't follow illegal orders. They found themselves, not the President but themselves, being suspect. The President who has threatened execution, some people don't want him impeached. Now, there are some who do, but they have various reasons for why they can't take the stand. They can't say it. Well, I can. For all of you who want to say it and can't say it, I am saying it for you. I am saying he should have been impeached. I am saying that if ever there was a President in the history of the United States of America who should be impeached, it is Donald John Trump for what he said. He should be impeached. Now, there are people who will say that you do know that he went over to FOX News, that he slithered his way over there and after being there, he indicated that he didn't intend for anybody to be killed. Maybe not in those exact words, but he didn't intend. He didn't intend for that to be the case. Do you really think that if I said the President ought to be hanged that I could go over to FOX--well, FOX wouldn't allow me to say it, but some news source--and say, oh, no. Forgive me. I made a mistake. It was a slip of my tongue. No. This President would not allow it. He would consider this a threat. I would be facing a fine. I would be facing going to prison, but the President is with impunity, saving what happened yesterday, with impunity making threats against judges, making threats against Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, for those who say, well, that is just Congress and they are just judges, let me tell you how it impacts your life. If you go before one of the judges that the President has threatened and you believe that the President's threats can make a difference, will you question the judgment of the judge? He puts the judiciary in question, the judgements. When he can intimidate judges to the extent that you think judges are acting because of the President's actions that he has taken against the judge. This is bigger than you are as a person. It is about all of us as people. Threatening the judiciary, threatening the independence of the judiciary, not respecting the separation of powers, it impacts you and me. We all can be judged at some point. We want to believe that the judge is going to be objective, that he is not going to be subjected, that he is not going to or she is not going to subject her most precious judicious thoughts to the whims of a President who is reckless, ruthless, and lawless. That is what you want to believe. Okay. Well, maybe that takes care of the judges, Congressman Green, but what about Members of Congress? He is just threatening them. Remember, we had a Member of Congress who was wounded. There was an attempt to assassinate her. There were innocent bystanders there with her who were harmed, deadly. It is about all of us. It is about when we are out in the public. It is about some person taking to heart what the President said when he said ``death,'' when he said ``hang them.'' It is about all of us. Mr. Speaker, I have no regrets for what I have done. Zero. I would challenge anyone to come and stand over here or here and stand with me. I challenge you to come and stand and point out why I shouldn't have done what I have done, or we shouldn't have done what we have done, meaning those who were part of the removal coalition. Come. I challenge you. Let's talk before the world, any one of you. I am proud of what I have done. I would do it again. I want you to know that in doing this we are putting the country above some people. We are. Because it is the country that contains all of the people. All of the people are more important than some one or two, 10 people maybe, maybe 23. More important than 23 people. It is the country we are trying to save. Well, how do you save the country without having control of the House of Representatives, Al? By showing the country that what is happening to this country is going to cause us to dissolve into something that we have been fighting. We are already at the point of having a person who is maybe less than a dictator but an authoritarian, we are getting close. When the President controls one side of the aisle that has a majority, the Republicans in the House, when a President controls one side of the aisle called Republicans in the Senate, when a President has stacked the Supreme Court of the United States--yes, he stacked the deck--and gets rulings that people never thought the Supreme Court would render, all that is left is impeachment. That is all that is left. There are those who would say, well, let's just wait. Why don't we wait. They told Dr. King to wait. One of the things that Dr. King said in response to this notion that we must wait was: ``The time is always right to do what is right.'' Now, I say to you what we did yesterday was not only right, it was righteous because everything in those articles is true. It is righteous, and we don't have constitutional scholars coming out and saying, well, it really doesn't comply with Federalist number whatever. That is not the argument. The argument is this is not the time. I differ. The time, as Dr. King put it, is always right to do what is right. Now, Dr. King didn't expect everybody to do what was right when he was doing it. I don't expect everybody who believes that what we are doing is right but won't do it themselves to do what is right with us. I understand, but what I don't want you to do, and I beg that you not do, is assault the people who are standing up for you in clever language. Don't do that. Don't assault us. We may fight back, but don't do that. I have bigger things to do. I am not going to say ugly things. My point is this is bigger than any one of us in this Congress. It is bigger than the Congress, the House and the Senate together, and the judiciary. This is about the country. What kind of country will he leave when he leaves office? That is what we are dealing with. My friends across the aisle are very much aware of how he is encroaching upon the separation of powers, the judiciary, how he is threatening the Supreme Court, and threatening judges with abusive, vituperative language. When you are threatening one judge, you are threatening them all. Let's not kid ourselves. He is doing it. I am going to share this with you. I know who this President is. I want to make sure that you understand that I am going to a different topic in sharing with you who he is. I want to tell you who he is because, in telling you who he is, I will be going to a different topic. I made my point about impeachment, but I want to tell you who he is, because I have seen him before. I know him. This is a different topic now because there is more to be said about this President than what was said in the Articles of Impeachment. I want to say that more has to be said at this time about who he is that wasn't in the Articles of Impeachment. To say that, I am going to move to another podium. I am going to move to another podium, so give me just a moment as I move to another podium. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I rise now to explain to the world who Donald John Trump is. I have seen him before. I have seen his cousins. I have seen his relatives. I am going to tell you who he is. I saw him on June 11, 1963, when he stood in the schoolhouse door. He was George Wallace. I saw him when he fought desegregation in this country. I saw him. He metamorphoses. He changes. He is a shape- shifter. He changes his makeup, his appearance. Now, there are those who are going to take that literally and say, gosh, he thinks that Donald Trump was George Wallace, but there are other people who understand that I am saying: George Wallace was a forerunner of Donald Trump. I saw him. I know who he is. He wasn't Wallace, but he is, in a sense, his cousin. He was George Wallace's cousin. He is a relative, not because of ethnicity, not because of race, but because of behavior. They are related in terms of their behavior. I know he is. I saw him in 1964, when he was Lester Maddox. He had an ax handle, and he used his ax handle to threaten people of color. I saw him with that ax handle when he wouldn't allow Black people into his restaurant. I know who he is. I saw his cousin, Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate, who, after the Brown v. Board of Education decision was rendered, he went public and said let's use vouchers to maintain segregation. That is another way of saying let's use vouchers to maintain racism, because that is what segregation was. It was racism. I know who he is because I have read about him and what he did on May 18, 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that allowed invidious segregation to bloom and blossom and permeate society. I know who he is. Some of you don't know. You have not had a chance to review his history as I have. I know his cousins. I know his relatives. I know who he is because I have read about what his relatives did on March 6, 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, when they concluded, this Chief Justice, that a Black person had no rights that a White person had to respect. I know who he is. I know the people who were there before him to pave the way for him to do what he is doing now. I know him, and because I know him, I have to fight him. I know what he did in my lifetime. He didn't have a personal hand in what happened, but when I say he did, I am talking about the people who have made it possible for him to do what he is doing now. Let's just say I know what they did so that FOX News and some of the many others who are antithetical to hearing the truth--maybe they won't obliterate the truth to the extent that they are perfectly capable of doing. Here is what I know: I know what happened in my lifetime when I had to go to the back door to get my food. I remember when I had to drink from a filthy colored water fountain when there was a pristine White water fountain right next to me. I know. I lived it. I remember how I had to sit in the back of the bus, and if there weren't enough seats for Anglos--we called them White people. I don't like the term. But when there weren't enough seats for Anglos, then I had to move. I know. I know what is going on. I see it. Well, you say, that is not happening right now. No, but we are headed in that direction. I don't want to return to that past where I was a suspect simply because of the color of my skin. I was a suspect. We are now at a point in this country, to tie this together, where there are people who are suspects because of the way they look, just as I was a suspect because of the way I looked. If you are Latino in the United States of America, given the behavior of the king's men--that would be President Trump--you are a suspect. You are a suspect, and the king's men can show up with a mask, faces covered, collect you--that is a very kind way of saying it--put you in some vehicle, and then storm away to some distant place and lock you up. Relatives don't know where you are--no due process. I know. I know who you are. I know where you are going. I know what you want to do. I have suffered what you would return to if you could. I know. Yes, I see how you have decided that you, and you alone, determine what the law is in this country. You, and you alone, will decide whether a person should be locked up or released, unlike what the Constitution requires. I know who you are. Mr. Speaker, I know who you are. I understand that there is an attempt to roll back the clock. People of color are becoming suspect in this country. You can be African American; you can be Asian; you can be Latino; we are moving toward your being suspect. There are people of good will of all colors who are going to fight this. I pray that we will succeed. There are people of good will who are White and who are standing with us. It is easy to see, if you care to look, at how the President has now said: Yes, I said there were s-hole countries. Yes, I said it. The President is now saying in South Africa there is genocide. We will bring in the White South Africans. If you are from one of the 19 countries--actually it is 18--predominated by people of color, we will put a hold on you. There is no one so blind as he who won't see, not he who can't, but he who chooses not to see. I know who he is. I know what he has done to lay the foundation, not him personally, but the many who came before him and who know how to use hate as a weapon to change society. That is what he is doing. He is using hate. He is using beneficial bigotry. How does beneficial bigotry work, Al Green? Here is how it works. You go to someone who is a principled person, someone who has been fighting for liberty and justice for all. You do them a favor. In exchange for that favor, you only require one thing: Loyalty. Just give me your loyalty. Give me your loyalty in the future. The thing that he has done can sometimes be of benefit to the person. Most of the time it is. It can also be detrimental to some other people. He uses beneficial bigotry. It is beneficial bigotry that he has used against the Palestinians. It is beneficial bigotry to say they should be obliterated and to say that the Palestinians don't deserve a country. He has used it to do all that he can to eliminate the possibility of a two-state solution. That plan that he has is nothing more than a land grab. I know who he is. I see what he is doing. Others do, too. They just don't have the ability to stand in the well of the House of Representatives and say it. I am saying it. Yes, he is a beneficial bigot. Then those who benefit from his bigotry are loyal to him. These are people who would never allow a person to do such a thing if he hadn't done favors for them. They would speak out and speak up against his bigotry. They don't because he has done favors. Those who are part of the evangelical movement see what is happening to the country. They have an opportunity to preach on Sunday all of the righteousness, and then on Monday they benefit from the bigotry. As a result, righteousness becomes secondary to the loyalty that they pledged because he did something for them. I say to my dear friends in this part of my message today that I am not going to relent. There are some who would have me go away. There are some who have already indicated--there was a news story out today about how I will be defeated at the next election and I will just become part of a bygone history. They have already prognosticated my defeat and called me a rogue. Friends, all of this may happen. I will say this. It won't change my opinion, and it won't change who I am. I believe in this flag. I believe in liberty and justice for all. I don't support beneficial bigotry. I don't support people who would desecrate what the flag really means as it relates to the Constitution. Those are not the last Articles of Impeachment that will be brought to the floor. H. Res. 939 is not the last to be brought to the floor for a vote to remove Donald John Trump from office. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my reasons that I will not be voting to fund Israel's military, most of which are contained in the letter that was delivered to Speaker Mike Johnson's office on December 10, 2025. I ask that funding for our military not be linked to funding Israel's military. I support our military. I do not approve of attaching my support for our military to Israel's military. We, who support our military should be allowed to do so without having to fund Israel's military. Those who support Israel's military should be able to do so in a standalone bill. I cannot in good conscience vote to authorize sending our tax dollars to a military whose prime minister has been accused by the International Criminal Court of ``the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts;'' to a military that has killed more than 70,000 thousand Palestinian men, women, and especially children in Gaza. If my request to detach funding our military from funding Israel's military in legislation is not granted, I will oppose the legislation. While I believe Israel should have a military, I will not vote to support funding Israel's military. I make this request on behalf of myself and no one else. On some issues it is better to stand alone than not stand at all.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise to announce that last night I called for the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, for threatening judges and for calling for the execution of Members of Congress. If ever there was a person who ought to be impeached, it is Donald John Trump. Now, there are many people who don't want to see this happen. They don't want to vote for impeachment. Well, there were people who didn't want to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but they marched on. I shall march on. I have been told that this vote will take place sometime after 1:30 today. I assure you that I will be here for that vote. I will also speak on Friday for about 1 hour after about 11 o'clock. I will explain more about it at that time. This President is a reckless, ruthless, lawless person who doesn't deserve the title of President of the United States of America.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. 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: H. Res. 939. Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an abuser of presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence, engender invidious hate, undermine our democracy, and dissolve our Republic, that he is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. ARTICLE I. Abuse of Presidential Power by Calling for the Execution of Members of Congress. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has unfaithfully, dangerously, and unconstitutionally abused his official position by threatening Democratic lawmakers in Congress with execution. President Trump called for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom are currently serving in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives and who previously served in the U.S. Military or in U.S. Intelligence communities, in response to a short video that they posted on November 18, 2025. In their video, the Democratic lawmakers appropriately urged current members of the military and intelligence communities to adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our country. They specifically said: ``Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.'' On November 20, 2025, in response, President Trump called for their execution. In one social media post, he wrote: ``It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand--We won't have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT.'' In another, he wrote of the lawmakers: ``SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!'' Dangerously and unconstitutionally, he reposted a third party's post: ``HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!!'' President Trump's call for the execution of lawmakers is a reckless and flagrant abuse of presidential power that promotes extra-judicial punishment and the assassination of Members of Congress, and warrants impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and trial by the Senate. ARTICLE II. Abuse of Presidential Power to Intimidate Federal Judges in Violation of the Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has unfaithfully, dangerously, and unconstitutionally abused his official position by threatening federal judges. President Trump has fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault; and in this climate has made threats and vituperative comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being, and undermining the independence of our judiciary. Case in point, in response to a federal district court ruling with which President Trump disagreed, he posted: ``This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President. . . This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!'' Another U.S. District Chief Judge has reported receiving increased numbers of violent threats, particularly after he began hearing arguments in a lawsuit against the Trump administration. In 2025, roughly a third the federal judiciary has been flooded with threats, with data showing that these threats spike each time Trump uses abusive rhetoric against judges. On May 2, 2025, Reuters reported that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed President Donald Trump's attacks on the judiciary. The relevant part of the article stated as follows: 1) ``U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said on Thursday attacks by Republican President Donald Trump and his allies on judges were `not random' and seemed `designed to intimidate the judiciary.' '' 2) Specifically, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Jackson remarked that, ``The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.'' 3) Justice Jackson added, ``The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.'' The judiciary is afforded power over ``all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made'' and ``to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.'' U.S. Const. art. III, sec. 2. Intimidating judges, and recklessly calling for the impeachment and removal of judges who disagree with him demonstrate a willingness by Trump to usurp authority afforded by our Constitution to the judiciary and demonstrate a disregard for the Constitution and the careful balance of powers that protects our country from abuses by any single branch. President Trump's threats place the lives of federal judges, court officials, and innocent bystanders at risk, promote the incitement of violence, and undermine our democracy, which cannot survive where President Trump's incendiary comments engender invidious hate and where dissent is punishable by death. In all of this, Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise to note that tonight I have called for the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America. He is an abuser of Presidential power. He has called for the execution of Members of the House of Representatives, of this very House. He has demeaned Members of the judiciary. He has conducted himself in office such that persons are now threatening Members of the judiciary, threatening Members of the House of Representatives, and threatening Members of the Senate. Donald John Trump, by his conduct, merits impeachment, trial, and conviction in the Senate of the United States of America and should never hold any office of public trust ever again.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.