Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for more than 25 years, the House has failed to formally codify the vital disaster recovery program called the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, CDBG-DR, program. Today, we in this body have it within our power, through this important vote, to at least resolve many of the problems, delays, and inefficiencies for disaster victims. H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, is a solidly bipartisan solution to the persistent long- term disaster recovery crisis that directly impacts all of our districts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my cosponsor, Mrs. Wagner, for her steadfast commitment to making meaningful reforms to the delivery of Federal disaster recovery resources to those who need it the most. Mr. Speaker, I also thank Chairwoman Waters for her tireless leadership of the Financial Services Committee. It is due to her visionary leadership that our committee has moved so much legislation on a bipartisan basis, including this piece of legislation. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McHenry--the bill came out of the Financial Services Committee unanimously--Leader Hoyer, Leader McCarthy, and Democratic and Republican staff. I would like to thank the Office of the Inspector General of Housing and Urban Development; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson; Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves; Appropriations Chair Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger; and, of course, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who has been a steadfast supporter; Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo; Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis; and Harris County Commissioner Adrian Garcia. H.R. 3702 codifies, for the first time, the requirements and policy objectives of the CDBG-DR program. In the wake of increasing threats from severe weather events, this is a critical long-term reform for Federal public policy on disaster recovery. As but one example, Houston had three record-breaking floods in a 3- year period, the last one being Hurricane Harvey. A major component of the Federal response to each of these floods is CDBG-DR, a program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the past 26 years. According to findings by HUD's inspector general, this important lifeline to recovery for so many stricken communities needs to be amended, not ended. This bears repeating. HUD believes that this legislation is going to help mend some of the problems, and HUD does not desire to see us end the CDBG-DR program. The HUD OIG recommended codification of the CDBG-DR program requirements to achieve four essential objectives. The first, the creation of a permanent framework for future disasters; this bill does that. Reduction of the existing volume of Federal Register notices; this bill does that. Standardization of the rules for all grantees; this bill does that. Timely disbursement and closing of grants; this bill does that as well. The bill incorporates 21st century mitigation resiliency standards championed by Majority Leader Hoyer, whom I thank, Mr. Speaker, for his thoughtful contributions to the legislation and for his commitment to bringing this important measure to the floor today. Finally, the bill reflects many hours of constructive input from the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 13, 2019. Hon. Maxine Waters, Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Waters: I write concerning H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019. There are certain provisions in this legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (``Committee''). Since a committee report was not filed on this bill this Congress, our sequential referral request will not be adjudicated. However, H.R. 3702 closely resembles H.R. 4557, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2017, introduced in the 115th Congress and for which the Committee did receive a sequential referral. According to House Rule X(l)(r), the Committee's jurisdiction includes emergency management, specifically ``Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters.'' As part of this jurisdiction, the Committee has authority over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), and activities relating to the full cycle of emergency management--preparing for, protecting against, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating against all hazards--whether natural or man-made. Also falling under the jurisdiction of the Committee are: ``Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors''; ``Construction or maintenance of roads and post roads''; ``Public works for the benefit of navigation, including bridges and dams''; ``Roads and the safety thereof''; ``Transportation, including . . . transportation infrastructure''; and Economic development programs. H.R. 3702 authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant- Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program, which was first funded in 1993. The authority for the CDBG-DR program has historically been a construct of appropriations bills. This legislation would formally authorize in statute for the first time a disaster program in HUD to provide assistance for ``disaster relief, resiliency, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, mitigation, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas (as such term shall be defined by the Secretary by regulation) resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.'' In the past, the CDBG-DR program has only been available for some declared disasters and activated via appropriations bills when disasters have been of such a magnitude that Congress has determined such additional funding may be needed. The current Federal authorities for preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters were established in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) and subsequently updated by the Stafford Act. Prior to the establishment of FEMA in 1979, such programs and activities were scattered throughout the Federal government. When FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, the authorities and activities of FEMA were dispersed throughout the Department. During these reorganizations, the Committee's jurisdiction flowed with the subject matter of emergency management regardless of where and how such authorities were dispersed. Then, Congress enacted the Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (P.L. 109-295) in 2006, restoring FEMA and establishing it as the Federal agency with the primary mission ``to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation'' (6 U.S.C. 313). Given that the CDBG-DR program could directly impact FEMA's mission and programs, and potentially conflict with FEMA's delivery of disaster assistance and administration of recovery programs, codifying this major disaster assistance program, regardless of what department or agency it is under, should fall within the Committee's jurisdiction over the ``Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters.'' There are even more potential conflicts impacting the Committee's jurisdiction given the breadth of the projects and activities CDBG-DR can fund. In addition to CDBG-DR funds being used for disaster relief and long-term recovery, they can also be used for the restoration of infrastructure, housing, and economic revitalization. These activities include rebuilding homes, repairing roads and bridges, rebuilding or replacing water and wastewater facilities, repairing public buildings, and economic development. HUD could potentially establish requirements for these activities funded through CDBG-DR that conflict with the requirements and policies the Committee establishes through our water resources and surface transportation bills. It is critical to ensure that our Federal emergency management programs are coordinated, accountable, and effective, and that oversight of these programs is clear. Without the lead Committee on Federal emergency management-- the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure-- effectively able to carry out oversight of a disaster program, the potential result is conflicting requirements and guidance issued under different disaster programs with little obligation to coordinate with each other. The result could be new hurdles to recipients of Federal assistance and aid at a time when we've seen a significant increase in disasters impacting so many communities across our Nation. Because of this, I also ask your cooperation in working to ensure that future bills related to CDBG-DR are also referred to the Committee. At this time however, in order to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 3702, the Committee agrees to forgo action on the bill. This is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill would not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I also request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this Committee to any conference committee named to consider such provisions. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest on H.R. 3702 into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. I look forward to working with the Committee on Financial Services as the bill moves through the legislative process. Sincerely, Peter A. DeFazio, Chair.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chair of the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

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

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5084, the Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity Act of 2019. I thank the chair of our Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, the Honorable Gregory Meeks, and the chair of the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, the Honorable Carolyn Maloney, for this incredibly important piece of legislation. According to Deloitte's 2017 board diversity survey, 90 percent of companies surveyed agreed that increased board diversity will improve their company's ability to innovate as well as their overall business performance. Given the impact on performance, investors have an interest in the extent to which companies include diverse perspectives and people in their boardrooms and senior executive ranks. Despite the acknowledgment by companies that the highest levels of their organizations should reflect the diversity of their shareholders, consumers, and America at large, the Alliance for Board Diversity reported that, among Fortune 500 companies, 80.7 percent of new board directors in 2017 were White men. To address the lack of transparency and to shine a light on the lack of representation of women and minorities in corporate boardrooms and in the C-suite, H.R. 5084 would require public companies to annually disclose the voluntarily self-identified gender, race, ethnicity, and veteran status of their board of directors and nominees and senior executive officers. This bill would also establish a diversity advisory group at the Securities and Exchange Commission and require the agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to publish best practices for compliance with diversity reporting requirements. We must ensure that the leadership of corporate America reflects the growing diversity of our Nation. Transparency and disclosure are two actions that allow progress toward racial and gender parity at the highest levels of corporations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5084, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who happens to be the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter on this legislation from the Chair of the SEC, Mr. Clayton. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, November 17, 2019. Re H.R. 4344, the Investor Protection and Capital Markets Fairness Act. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy, I write concerning the importance to our investors and our markets of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC or Commission) authority to seek disgorgement of unjust enrichment from those who have violated the federal securities laws. This authority is particularly important in circumstances where retail investors have been the victims of long-running, well- concealed frauds, including Ponzi schemes. For these victims, an action by the SEC seeking disgorgement may be the only practical means of recourse. The recent Supreme Court decision in Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017), significantly limited the SEC's authority to seek disgorgement. In Kokesh, the Supreme Court found our use of the disgorgement remedy operated as a penalty, which subjected that remedy to a five-year statute of limitations from the date of the misconduct. As a result, our ability to address well-concealed frauds has been significantly restricted, including in situations where our Main Street investors need us most. More recently, the SEC's ability to seek disgorgement in any district court action has been questioned. With deference to your judgment regarding the appropriate length for the statute of limitations and other terms, I respectively request that you act to ensure that we are able to seek disgorgement to the extent appropriate to protect our investors and our markets. Prompt congressional action also would remove the uncertainty regarding our general authority to seek disgorgement in district court. Fortunately, the U.S. House of Representative is considering H.R. 4344, the Investor Protection and Capital Markets Fairness Act, which would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to explicitly provide the Commission with authority to seek disgorgement of unjust enrichment in district courts. I greatly appreciate this bipartisan, bicameral work underway to address this important issue and welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Congress to ensure defrauded retail investors can get their investment dollars back while being true to the principles embedded in statutes of limitations. Importance of Disgorgement as a Remedy The SEC's longstanding ability to obtain disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in federal district court is an important tool for our enforcement program and has allowed the agency to return billions of dollars to innocent investors victimized by perpetrators of fraud. For many--if not most-- of these victims, disgorgement awards in SEC cases are the only practical way to recoup what was stolen from them. The Commission is committed to returning money to harmed investors promptly and has worked hard to improve the effectiveness of our distribution program over recent years. Since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2017, the hard work of the women and men of the SEC has led to the return of over $3 billion to harmed investors. Impact of Kokesh on Main Street Investors Notwithstanding these successes, the Supreme Court's decision in Kokesh has impacted the SEC's ability to return funds fraudulently taken from Main Street investors. In Kokesh, the Supreme Court found our use of the disgorgement remedy operated as a penalty, which subjected the Commission's ability to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains to a five-year statute of limitations. The Kokesh case itself highlights this problem in stark terms. Of the $34.9 million that Charles Kokesh misappropriated, $29.9 million fell outside of the 5-year statute of limitations. The SEC was unable to collect that $29.9 million from him for distribution to his victims, who largely consisted of small-dollar Main Street investors. Overall, since Kokesh was decided, at least $1.1 billion in ill-gotten gains has been unavailable for possible distribution to harmed investors. Much of this is tied to losses by investors. Importance of Statutes of Limitations The SEC's authority to seek disgorgement should not be unbounded. I agree that statutes of limitations serve important functions in our legal system, and as a general matter, our remedial authority should be subject to reasonable limitations periods. However, as I look across the scope of misconduct we encounter, including most notably Ponzi schemes and affinity frauds, I believe a period longer than five years from the date of the misconduct is appropriate in various circumstances. This is especially the case in our private, retail markets where there are fewer causes of action and safeguards available compared to the public capital markets. Further, we often see fraudsters target certain categories of investors. These investors-- notably teachers, military service personnel, the elderly, and religious-affiliated groups--need and deserve legal protection and the SEC's attention, particularly in the case of private, targeted frauds. H.R. 4344, the Investor Protection and Capital Markets Fairness Act H.R. 4344 would address two important issues. First, the bill addresses the result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Kokesh that SEC disgorgement claims are subject to a five- year statute of limitations. The Court's holding has had the anomalous effect of allowing the most ``successful'' perpetrators of fraud--those who prevent the discovery of their schemes for longer than the limitations period--to keep their ill-gotten gains. H.R. 4344 will ensure that sophisticated fraudsters who carry out some of the most harmful frauds, including Ponzi schemes that can defraud investors for long periods of time before being uncovered, cannot keep their victims' money. Second, some perpetrators of fraud have tried to keep their ill-gotten gains arguing that district courts lack the power to order disgorgement in any Commission action. The primary objective of disgorgement is to return circumstances to the pre-fraud status quo. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to address this question in Liu v. SEC, No. 18- 1501. H.R. 4344 would confirm and ratify district courts' authority to do what they have been doing for decades--order violators to surrender the money they obtained by breaking the securities laws so that victims have a chance to be compensated. H.R. 4344 is an important response to real harms suffered by innocent victims of the worst types of securities frauds. These are frauds that undermine the public confidence in our markets that the 4,400 women and men of the SEC strive to preserve every day. Thank you for your continuing commitment to America's investors and our markets. Very truly yours, Jay Clayton, Chairman.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass bill (H.R. 4300) to provide Federal housing assistance on behalf of youths who are aging out of foster care, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for yielding. Indeed, I am a strong supporter of the Bank and I am also a strong supporter of the chairwoman. I support this legislation because the Export Bank is not a traditional bank. Traditional banks take deposits. The Ex-Im Bank makes deposits. Over the last 10 years, it has deposited 1.5 million jobs, American jobs; over the last 10 years, $3.4 billion in the U.S. Treasury; over the last 10 years, $255 billion to those who are exporting by way of financing these exports. In the way of jobs, if we look at the State of Texas, we can see that from 2014 to 2019, it has assisted 91 minority-owned businesses, 14 percent of which are in my district; 467 small business exporters; 55 women-owned exporters. A total of 810 businesses have benefited from the Ex-Im Bank. If you like diversity, you will love the Ex-Im Bank. It has within it an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. It will have an Office of Territorial Exporting to help Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. I support the Ex-Im Bank because it not only makes good sense, it makes good dollars and cents. This is a bill that we should support. If we didn't have the Ex-Im Bank, we would invent it. Why reinvent the wheel when we have something that can roll out right now? Mr. Chair, I support this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And still I rise because I love my country. And today I rise to defend those who are recipients of the DACA program. I rise to defend these young people because, unfortunately, bigotry is being weaponized against them. I rise because the Chief Executive Officer has indicated that there are hardened criminals among them, but he does it in such a way as to demean and defame all of them. He does it on the day that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is considering a case with reference to DACA recipients. I rise to defend them. These are young people who came to this country at a very early age. They did not come of their own volition. These are young people who have been screened and vetted. These are young people who have gone on to get good educations. These are young people who are contributing to our society. So I rise to defend the DACA recipients. I rise because I understand what is going on. This Chief Executive Officer is not going to stop. This is just another phase of his attempts to weaponize bigotry, hatred, racism. He did it with the Muslim ban, weaponizing religion. He did it with the s-hole countries, weaponizing race. He did it with some ``fine people'' among those in Charlottesville where a woman lost her life, weaponizing anti-Semitism. And he has done it repeatedly and will not stop. He went on to do it with the ban on transgender persons in the military, weaponizing homophobia. This is not going to stop. We must move to impeach this President. I am proud to say that history, now, is going to record that, on this day, witnesses appeared to give testimony with reference to why the President should be impeached. That is how the testimony is going to be presented. I am not proud that this is happening. I love my country. I don't want this to happen in my country. I didn't come to Congress to be a part of an impeachment effort against the President, but when a President attempts to weaponize race, bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, that President ought to be impeached--and he will be.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise tonight with love of country and heart inspired by ``Harriet.'' ``Harriet,'' the movie. I saw the movie, ``Harriet,'' and I was inspired to speak tonight because of some of the horrors associated with the movie. There were some high points in the movie, but the movie is about a person born into slavery, a person who had been given the promise of freedom, freedom that was denied. Inspired by this movie, I rise. I also would rise because I am inspired by the poem Maya Angelou left us, the poem that allows us to express some of the reasons why I am here in this Congress, if you will. In this poem in the last stanza, she leaves us these words: Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of the slave. The dreams and hopes of the Harriets, the dreams and hopes of those who were able to survive the journey across the ocean; those who were able to survive and not be lynched; those who were able to survive Jim Crow laws, and Bull Connor's dogs. I am the dream and the hope of the slave. I rise. I rise. I rise. I am proud that Maya Angelou gave us this poem, because it gives us something to believe in. We are the hope of the slave. There are many of us. I am not the only one, but I rise tonight. I rise because I am the beneficiary of people who lived and died so that I might have this moment. I am not supposed to be in Congress. People lived and died, people who survived German Shepherds, and high-pressure water hoses. I am the beneficiary of people who fought in a war, a war for freedom. And in that war for freedom, some 600,000 Americans lost their lives. Most people believe that World War II claimed the most American lives--not so. Nor did World War I, nor the Vietnam war--not so. It was the Civil War that claimed the most lives of Americans, a war fought so that I might have the privilege of standing here today. I don't say to you that that is what was in the minds of the people, but the liberation of a people has metamorphosed into this opportunity. So I rise understanding that, in that war, there were some African Americans. Then, they were known as colored troops. Some 30,000 colored troops died, and still I rise knowing that others made a sacrifice. And I am here tonight to talk about the bigotry that still exists in this country. Bigotry is on the rise in this country, and we, the Members of this House, have acknowledged it, and we are responding to it. We have responded to it with hearings: Tuesday, April 9, 2019, hearing styled, ``Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism''; Wednesday, May 8, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting the Rise of Domestic Terrorism in the Homeland''; Wednesday, May 15, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting White Supremacy (Part I): The Consequences of Inaction''; Tuesday, June 4, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting White Supremacy (Part II): Adequacy of the Federal Response''; Wednesday, September 18, 2019, hearing styled, ``Meeting the Challenge of White Nationalist Terrorism at Home and Abroad''; September 20, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting Violent White Supremacy (Part III): Addressing the Transnational Terrorist Threat.'' These are some of the hearings that we have had in our response to the rise of bigotry, to the rise of hate, white supremacy, anti- Semitism, all of the various invidious discrimination that we find ourselves having to deal with--Islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, all of the invidious phobias that we have to contend with. We are responding, and we are responding because this hate has to be dealt with. Those who ignore invidious discrimination, those who ignore hate, those who ignore racism--all of the various phobias that I have called to your attention--perpetuate these various forms of invidious discrimination. We perpetuate when we ignore. When we tolerate, we ignore. I rise tonight because we cannot ignore the hate. We have to stare it down. We have to take it on. I must do so because I am the hope of the slave, the many who suffered. I have been given this opportunity, and it would be a waste, a wasted opportunity, if I but only came to this Congress and took on the issues of our day, the issues du jour, and ignore this issue. Other issues are important. I don't put them aside. But this issue cannot be ignored. To ignore it would be a betrayal of those who suffered so that I might be here. It would be a slap in the face to those who died so that I might have this opportunity. So I take advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded me, not necessarily because I want to, but because I have to. I don't have a choice. And as long as I am in this Congress, I am going to be the reminder. I am going to be the conscience for those who have suffered. I will not back down. And tonight, I want to ask the question: Why do more than 51 percent of American voters think that the President is a racist? This is printed. This is information available. Yes, in this country, the greatest country in the world--the country that stands for liberty and justice for all; the country with government of the people, by the people, for the people; the country wherein no one is above the law--in this country, 51 percent of American voters believe that the President is a racist. Why would 51 percent believe that the President is a racist? This makes people uncomfortable to hear me stand in the well of the House of Representatives and talk about the racism emanating from the Presidency. It makes people uncomfortable. People want to get back to bigotry as usual, when bigotry is something that we confront on an as-needed basis, but not anything that we seek to end, bigotry being something that we read about, that we hear about, but we don't have to do anything about. No, we have to do something about it. So the question: Why would 51 percent--more than 50 percent--of the American voters believe that the President is a racist? Could it be because at the time he was promoting an immigration policy he called countries in Africa, countries where people of color are predominant, could it be because he called them s-hole countries? I don't use scatology. I never use profanity--I should correct myself. I never speak profanity. There are times when I do think it. And I am told that, as a person thinks, so is the person, but I never say it. I respect those around me to the extent that I don't use scatology. But the question is: Why do people think that the President is a racist? One answer is: Could it be because he has infused bigotry into policy? When he was negotiating this policy, immigration policy, he made this comment and thereafter promulgated a policy--or attempted to--that would limit persons coming from countries of color, would limit them access, and open access to persons coming from countries predominated by Anglos. Could it be because he launched a travel ban against Muslims? Is this why more than 50 percent of the American public believe that the President is a racist, a travel ban based upon religion? In this country, we appreciate and celebrate freedom of religion. If you can ban one, where is the line? Where must you stop? The ban was initially shot down. After some tweaking, this policy was implemented. This President is thought by more than 50 percent of the American public--that is my refrain--to be a racist. Could it be because he attacked a Muslim Gold Star family, the parents of a Muslim who served in our military, who gave his life for our country? Could it be because he would attack this family, a Muslim family? Could it be because he claimed that a judge was biased against him and said that he is a Mexican? Could it be because he believes that he cannot get justice from a person of color? More than 50 percent of the American voters believe that the President is a racist. And if I said ``people'' before, I correct the Record here and now. It is voters. Could it be because the Justice Department sued his company twice for not renting to Black people? The President of the United States, having been sued for not renting to people of color, maybe this is a reason that more than 50 percent of the American public believe that the President of the United States of America is a racist. Uncomfortable to hear, not pleasant, but it is the truth. And it is written that, if you know the truth, the truth will set you free. I hope to free some souls tonight. Could it be because he refused to condemn the white supremacist who advocated for him? He didn't say: ``White supremacist, I don't want your support,'' didn't condemn white supremacy and white supremacists. Could it be because he questioned whether the only African American to become President of the United States was born in the United States? Could it be because he carried that message near and far? He was almost proud to take on the challenge of questioning the nationality of the Black President of the United States. And since he has become President, it seems that he has tried to undo the legacy of the African American President. Could it be because he took out a full-page ad advocating the death penalty for those who were charged in what is known as the Central Park Five, a horrible case? Someone did ungodly things to a young woman in Central Park. Five persons of color were taken into custody. He took out a full-page ad and was an advocate for the death penalty. Could it have been done because of principle? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment. But later on, it was proven that the five did not commit the crime--not based on a technicality; based upon DNA evidence. The President never apologized--stood his ground. As a matter of fact, he hasn't apologized for any of the things that I have called to our attention tonight. He does not apologize. He does not repent. He does not say ``I am wrong; I made a mistake''--something that I do more often than I would like to, but I make mistakes. He doesn't apologize. Five people incarcerated, but five people liberated based upon evidence--no apology, no retraction from the President. Could it be because he has condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester? Could it be because he has stereotyped Jews and shared an anti- Semitic image created by white supremacists? Could it be because he has been sanctioned by the U.S. House of Representatives for his racist comments directed at Members of Congress? There are many reasons to be discussed, but we have to acknowledge that, with all of this evidence and with our moving forward on impeachment, with all of this evidence, should we not consider the impeachment of this President as the Radical Republicans--as they were called, but they were Republicans--did in 1868 with Andrew Johnson? Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson in article X--for those who care to read the articles, article X of the XI Articles of Impeachment against him. Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson for reasons rooted in his bigotry. He was the President Trump of his time. Andrew Johnson did not want the freedmen and -women to have the same rights and privileges as other Americans. He fought against this. He fought the Freedmen's Bureau. He did not want them to be accorded freedom--the Harriet Tubmans of the world to have their freedom. Andrew Johnson was the bigot of his time, but the Republicans took a stand. The Republicans took the moral high ground. When you are standing on the moral high ground, you have a moral imperative to go forward. And they did. And the Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson. I admire the Republicans of 1868. I believe that what they did was right. And, more importantly, it was the righteous thing to do. I am a person who stands with what they did. There are those who would say, ``Well, that was 1868.'' Well, the Constitution hasn't changed. It was based upon the same Constitution that we read, the same Article II, Section 4 that we have used for our impeachment going forward currently--same articles. Nothing has changed. You can't conclude that what they did in 1868, when they were closer to those who framed the Constitution than we are today, had a greater sense, perhaps, of what--if you measure your sense of what was available by your nexus to those who made it available--they were following the Constitution. We should follow the Constitution. We have a duty and a responsibility to the Harriets of the world to not allow this level of bigotry to continue to emanate from the Presidency. Impeachment is moving forward. I had said months ago that the President would be impeached. I repeat only what I have said then when I close with: He will be impeached. The hands of history will record that President Donald John Trump was impeached by this House of Representatives. And for those who say that I have already made up my mind, you are correct. I have, because the evidence is apparent, and there is no requirement that I must wait until we have had subsequent hearings. He will be impeached. And I believe that we ought to add articles that include his invidious discrimination harmful to this society. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for more than her kind words. I thank her for her many years of service here in the House of Representatives. She has acquitted herself as a Congressperson par excellence: Yale, M.A.; Yale, L.L.B.; in Congress for, lo, these many years, yet not able to vote as other Congresspeople do. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the gentlewoman and I will see the day that she will cast that first vote. I thank her for all of her endeavors. I especially thank her for what she is doing for Austin Tice. The Tice family, Marc and Debra, are the equivalent of family with me. I have known them for many years now. I know how sincere they are with the efforts to bring their son home. I know of their trips to Lebanon. I know that they have corresponded with people that some of us might not find suitable for such correspondence. But because they want their son, they are willing to talk to anyone who has intelligence that might lead to his return. I know that they have made a difference in the lives of others who have friends, relatives, children, if you will, captured because they have worked with the State Department to help fashion protocols. They have worked with two Presidents. They want their son home, but they also want to see justice for all persons who are being held captive. Their son, Austin, is an all-American lad, at 38 years of age now. I am 71. Anybody under 71 is young to me. He is an all-American person, if you will. Yes, he has served his country in the military. Yes, he was an Eagle Scout. Yes, he did attend Georgetown, Georgetown Law, as a matter of fact. Yes, he was a freelance journalist. He was one of those persons who would dare to go to distant places, dare to risk life and limb so that we might know the truth about circumstances in places where the eyes of cameras do not pierce. Yes, he was a person who had the courage, intestinal fortitude, to go into Syria without the consent of the government. I wish he hadn't done it, but I understand why he did it. I understand that he wanted to let people know about the conditions. I am not sure that he went with preconceived notions, but I am sure of this: that he would tell the truth, that he would present the truth, that we would know the truth, whatever that truth might be. I regret that he has been held captive now for some 7 years. He truly is a great American. But more than this, for me, he represents the son I never had. I have no children. But if I had a son, I would want him to be like Austin Tice. I would want my son to have the courage to not measure his life by days and years, not measure his life by heartthrobs, passions, and tears. I would want my son to use the truest measure under God's Sun, and that is, what for others in your lifetime have you done? Austin Tice was trying to help somebody. He wasn't there to help himself. He wanted to help others. That is the kind of son I would like to have, a courageous person who would dare to go where others dare not, a person who understood the risk but also understood the need. Sometimes people like this have to stand alone, but they know that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. He is a hero. I miss him. His parents miss him. This country misses him. I would ask that those who can reach the proper authorities in Syria--perhaps it is the President. Perhaps there are people who can get to the President. But I would ask that you would send this message: As a gesture of goodwill, let Austin Tice come home. As a gesture of an attempt to span some chasms that have been created, let us bring Austin Tice back. This could be the genesis of something bigger than we know, giving Austin Tice his freedom. I can tell you this: There are some Members of Congress who will be appreciative. There are American people who won't forget it. And there is an opportunity available to mend some fences. I pray that this word will get to the appropriate authorities. Mr. President, if this word gets to you, I would have you know that I am the kind of Congressperson who is willing to come to Syria. I am willing to come and be there to thank you and to welcome Austin Tice back into the hands of an agent of the United States Government. This is a great opportunity. I beg that we take advantage of it. Mr. and Mrs. Tice, I want you to know that we have not given up. We will not give in. We want Austin returned, and we will do everything, and we will leave no stone unturned, until this takes place. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. And I rise tonight also because we had a hearing today in the Committee on Financial Services. We had the hearing today because of words that Dr. King called to our attention. He reminded us that, in a real sense, all of life is related. He said that life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny. What impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. He went on to say that I can never be all that I ought to be until you are all that you ought to be, and you can never be all that you ought to be until I am all that I ought to be. This hearing was held because we wanted to highlight and recognize the fact that invidious discrimination exists for persons who are members of the LGBTQ community. Tonight, I want to talk about this invidious discrimination not only as it relates to the LGBTQ community, but also as it relates to other communities within our country. In fact, all of these communities are a part of humanity. With reference to the LGBTQ community, we had empirical evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that members of this community are being discriminated against when they apply for loans. They are being charged higher interest rates and a greater percentage than persons who are not members of the LGBTQ-plus community. They are being discriminated against on their jobs. They are being discriminated against when they apply for jobs if it is known or suspected that they are members of the LGBTQ-plus community, discriminated against in being promoted, in pay raises. The LGBTQ-plus community is being discriminated against, and it does not make good sense to do this. It is irrational. But it also does not make good dollars and cents to do this because we are talking about millions of people. The estimates are as high as 16 million. Some say more, some say less. We are talking about a $1 trillion economy within the community. It just makes good sense for us not to discriminate against people who want to put their money into the economy, who want to put their work product into the economy, who want to help America succeed. It does not make good sense for this level of discrimination to exist, but it does. One of the salient messages that we wanted to impart at this hearing today was the message that you are not alone. There are persons who are allies of the LGBTQ community who are going to stand with you, who are going to stand for you, and who are going to stand against the invidious discrimination being perpetrated upon you. Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny. The Muslim community is being, has been, and most likely will continue to be discriminated against until there is some change in this country. We have had from the highest office in the land an indication that Muslims should be banned from the country. An attempt was made to perfect such a ban of Muslim persons from the country. Life is an inescapable network of mutuality. If you can ban one religion, you can ban another. Muslims today--only fate knows which it will be tomorrow. We must protect every religion if we want our religion to be protected. This is the way life works, the mutuality. What impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. People of color are being discriminated against in an invidious way. In the Latinx community, the family separation that took place at the border was unconscionable. It is hard to believe that this country that holds out the welcome torch, the Statue of Liberty, this country that has brought in immigrants from across the globe would turn away children who are fleeing harm's way in the way that we did it; this country that has a history rooted in immigration would do such a thing, babies crying for their mothers as they are being torn out of their arms. It is a sad thing when you contemplate it. It is a very sad thing when you see it perfected. We cannot allow this to happen to children who are coming here trying to flee harm's way, because the truth be known, but for the grace of God, there go I and possibly you. We all can have dates with destiny that we cannot contemplate in the present. So we ought to protect the rights of people who are fleeing harm's way, who are only asking for what the law provides in this country. And the law in this country does provide for people who are fleeing harm's way to come and say, ``I am here. I am here because I need help. Will you help me? Will you give me the opportunity to demonstrate that I qualify for the opportunity to become a part of this country?'' rather than summarily turn people away or send out a clarion message, ``We have no more room. Don't come. Go back.'' This is not the country that does this. To borrow a phrase from a great and noble American who has made his transition, the Honorable Elijah Cummings: We are better than this. This country understands that we must continue to be the light for the world when it comes to righteousness. When it comes to African Americans, we have a history, a long history of invidious discrimination, a very long history. A Civil War was fought because of the invidious discrimination being perpetrated, the hate, if you will, that was being perpetrated upon African Americans. And today, within the last several months, perhaps a year or so, we have had the Chief Executive Officer proclaim that we have some s-hole countries, countries that are predominated by persons from Africa, where Africans are the indigenous population. But persons in this country, persons of color, of African ancestry, are being discriminated against as I speak, as is the case with the others that I have mentioned earlier, I might add, also being discriminated against. And there are people who say, when we talk to people about the issues that are of concern to them, we ought to talk about kitchen table issues. Well, I can tell you without question, reservation, hesitation, or equivocation, when African Americans talk about kitchen table issues, they talk about invidious discrimination. They may not use this terminology, but the import of what they say is the same. They say: I am being discriminated against on the job. They say: I have suffered discrimination when I have tried to apply for a loan. They say: I have suffered discrimination when I have sought to get a promotion. They talk about discrimination. It is a kitchen table issue. But there are those who don't see it as such, or if they do, they don't talk about it as such. It is a kitchen table issue: invidious discrimination in the African American community. There is invidious discrimination in the Asian community. We have been working to try as best as we can to deal with the question of linguistics. We have seen this happen in the Latinx community, the Latino community, as well. People will advertise in one language, and when you come into the place of business, they will conduct business in another language. So you are induced to come in and transact business, let's just use this as an example, in Spanish, induced to come in and transact business in Spanish, but once you arrive, the contract is in English. There are many who would say, well, what is wrong with that? Well, here is what is wrong with that. If you know that you are going to communicate in English when you bind the person with the contract, why would you entice the person to come in in Spanish? If you know that you have no intentions of conducting your business in Spanish, why would you entice the person to come in with Spanish? This is a form of perfidy. It is ill will. It is not the way people of good will treat other members of society. We respect people to the extent that we want them to understand what they are doing. In the area of housing, we have tried, on a contract, to have language that simply says: What language would you prefer to do business in? We indicate that you do not have to complete this portion of this document if you choose not to--this is a person who is applying--and we also indicate that this is not going to be binding upon the person who has presented the contract. We are trying to get some sense of the linguistic needs that are prevalent in our society, just trying to get some sense. However, that language that we had worked and toiled to put in place has been rejected. It has been rejected, and we are trying to protect it. I have traveled to many places in my lifetime. I have had the good fortune to travel to many other continents and many countries, and in so doing, I have always appreciated the fact that people would try to communicate with me in English. In each and every country, there were people who would assist me in English. There may have been some exceptions, but generally speaking, English. People moving through airports in distant places can have the announcements made in English. I have gone to hotels where the persons who were working in the hotels in foreign countries could speak multiple languages. One of them would be English. People have catered to us across the globe. We have had the welcome mat extended to us because we are Americans and we speak English and they want to do business with us. They want to roll out the welcome mat. Unfortunately, we have not shown a similar characteristic. It is my belief that we ought to show a level of respect to other people who come to this country. Many of them are here to do business. Many of them are here as immigrants. Many of them are here for lawful purposes, yet we do not concern ourselves with the linguistics. We have had difficulty putting up street signs in communities that are in multiple languages. There are many people who oppose this. When I have traveled through airports and through other countries, I have seen the signs in multiple languages, including English. Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny; what impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. This discrimination must end because it not only impacts the persons who are being discriminated against--the LGBTQ, the Muslims, the people of color, the African Americans, the Latinx, the Asians--it not only impacts these people directly, it impacts all of us indirectly, because Dr. King was right then and his words of profundity still ring with truth today: I can never be all that I ought to be until you are all that you ought to be, and you can never be all that you ought to be until I am all that I ought to be. All of this has been called to the attention of Members of this House because I believe that there is still work to do with reference to the question of impeachment. I have said on this floor before when I spoke here last, and I say again, we cannot allow invidious discrimination to be weaponized so that people suffer to the extent that the weaponization is creating the suffering. And it starts at the top. And because it starts at the top, this House has a duty to start at the top. And if we do our duty and start at the top, we will understand that just as we can impeach a President for issues related to national security, we can impeach a President for issues related to invidious discrimination. The Republicans did it in 1868--Republicans. Some things bear repeating: Republicans impeached a President in 1868 based upon issues rooted in invidious discrimination. We had just fought a Civil War, and those who were called freedmen-- freed persons, if you will--were working with a Freedmen's Bureau to try to acquire the same rights as others. But there was a President, Andrew Johnson, who was of the opinion that they did not merit the same rights, and he fought against the Freedmen's Bureau. He fought to maintain white supremacy. But radical Republicans, radical Republicans, radical Republicans, radical Republicans stood up to him. They impeached him, and President Johnson changed his tune, to borrow a phrase. Oh, he was still the bigoted racist of his time, but he did tone down. And he did not get reelected, by the way. He was a successor to Abraham Lincoln, but he did not get elected--I should not say, ``reelected.'' He was Vice President, and he did not get elected President. The point is this: Radical Republicans cared enough for newly freed people--radical Republicans. They cared about invidious discrimination. We had just fought a war. They stood up. By the way, I have an opinion that I will share with you. I believe that the Republicans in this House right now would do a similar thing if a Democrat happened to occupy the White House and behaved the way the current occupant behaves. I believe that Republicans of this time would respond the same way the Republicans of that time, in 1868, responded. I believe that if any person in the White House who was there with the title of Democrat behaved the way the current occupant behaves, that person would be impeached, and Republicans would lead the charge. Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny; what impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. The inaction that we take today will produce an action in our future. Our failure to act today is going to say to the next occupant: You cannot conclude that this is the last person who will disregard all the protocols and rules. You cannot assume this. You can only assume that we have this one, and you can hope that there will not be another, but there can be. If we show that there are no guardrails, if we demonstrate that we don't have the courage to do what Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution mandates, in my opinion, our inaction today will result in future actions that would be harmful to this Nation. This is our calling. Only we can bring justice to all of these that I have called to your attention tonight who are being discriminated against. We can't bring the kind of justice that is needed by ignoring the harmful discrimination that is taking place. More than 50 percent of Americans, according to a Quinnipiac poll of just a couple of months ago, I believe, maybe 3 or 4, indicated that more than 50 percent of the people in this country believe that the President is a racist. We ignore it because it is uncomfortable. It is easier for us to take on the challenge of national security. Well, invidious discrimination that causes white supremacists to march up and down the street screaming ``blood and soil,'' invidious discrimination that allows persons to traverse the country so that they can murder people of a certain hue from a certain place, that is harmful to this country. This level of invidious discrimination should not be tolerated by this Nation. We have a responsibility to stand up for those who are not in this Chamber to stand up for themselves. This is our calling. I am here tonight on behalf of all of these who I have called to your attention. I stand for them. I may stand alone, but it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I stand for them because I know the harm that they can and have suffered. And I believe that we ought to have at least one Article of Impeachment that deals with invidious discrimination. I believe it; I encourage it; and I support it. I understand that we want to get back to bigotry as usual. I understand that, to a limited extent, I stand in the way of getting back to bigotry as usual, back to bigotry as usual when it is a talking point, not an action item, when you don't have to vote on Articles of Impeachment that deal with bigotry. That is too hard. I understand that we want to get back to bigotry as usual, when we can say that we are for principles above politics, when we can proclaim that we do not put party above country. I understand. I want to get back to bigotry as usual. I am sorry that I am one of the impediments. But I assure you, my dear friends, I can't let it go. I can't. I know what the suffering is like. I suppose it is my destiny to be here to call these things to our attention. We can ignore them. We can tolerate this bigotry. But remember this: Those who tolerate bigotry perpetuate it. There are people and organizations that have built their reputations fighting bigotry. Yet, when there was an opportunity to vote to deal with bigotry at the highest office in the land, well, the argument was the Senate won't convict so why would we do it. Well, it is the same argument for discrimination as it relates to national security, as it relates to abuse of power. The same argument, but we now put principle above politics--the same argument. There are those who said that: Well, you know what will happen if you remove the current occupant. Well, the same argument could be made now. But it is because we have a different issue, it is not invidious discrimination. We now can put principle above politics. We now are not concerned with who the next occupant might be. We now say that the Senate has to just do its job and that we are going to do our job. Things have changed, and thank God they have. I am appreciative that they have changed. I really am. This is why I am calling to our attention the necessity to have an Article of Impeachment related to invidious discrimination. There are those who believe that, in this country, invidious discrimination has become a tool, a tool to be used by political parties, a tool to be used to rally the vote, to get out the vote, to create a constituency to vote, just a tool to be used. And that tool is being managed so that the political parties can continue to play their games--a tool. I don't want to manage; I want to end. I do not want to see us manage invidious discrimination. I want to see us end it. That is why I stand here tonight. Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny. What impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. Dr. King's probably most famous words were: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Injustice in any community in this country is a threat to justice in every community in this country. I love my country; I didn't come to Congress to make this speech. I love my country; I didn't come to Congress to impeach a President. But because I love my country, I am making this speech. And because I love my country, I have brought Articles of Impeachment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And since my name has been called several times, I rise to respond. I rise to explain why the impeachment inquiry should be expanded. Some things bear repeating: I rise to explain why the impeachment inquiry should be enlarged, to include the President's weaponization of hate. I know what weaponized hate is like. I am a son of the segregated South, Madam Speaker. My rights that were accorded me and recognized under the Constitution of the United States of America were denied me by my neighbors. I am a son of the segregated South. I know what weaponized hate is like. I was forced to not only live with, but to also honor weaponized hate. Madam Speaker, I know what it was like to have to stand in the colored line. And while standing in the colored line, others could always come who were of a different hue and stand in front of me. And it could happen until every person of a different hue had been served. I know what weaponized hate is like. And I recall once--actually, on more than one occasion, but this one stands out in my mind--when the young man who was bagging the purchased items, he took my purchased items and he put them in the bag--he was of a different hue--and he crushed the bag. And he stared me down as he crushed the goods that I had purchased. I know what weaponized hate is like. I saw the anger not only in his face, but I could see it exude from his body. He was probably a little bit older than I was. He didn't know me, but he had the hate that had been weaponized, and it was within him. I can remember having to go to the back door. I had to go to the back door to receive goods that I paid for, paid taxes on, the same as others did. But I couldn't go to the front and receive my goods, only the back door was available to me. And then when I would go to the back door, people would still say ugly things to me, notwithstanding the fact that I was a paying customer. Weaponized hate causes people to behave this way, to stand against their own interest. I was a customer, a paying customer, but weaponized hate would cause them to stand against their own interest. It was in their interest to have me come back, but they knew that I had no place else to go for the most part, so they could be ugly to me and treat me any way that they chose. I know what weaponized hate is like. I can remember being required to sit only in the balcony of the movie. When we came in, we had to make a turn and go up to the balcony. This is what weaponized hate is like. It segregates people. It didn't allow me to enjoy the movie in the presence of persons of a different hue who might be seated next to me. This is what the neighbors that I had denied me under the Constitution. It was accorded me, but they forced me to go into a segregated area. And, of course, I remember the colored water fountains. And the incident that really stands out in my mind the most was when my mother saw me drinking out of a White water fountain--that is what it was called. And when she saw me drinking out of the White water fountain, my mother pulled me away quickly. She pulled me away because she knew that her young son was at risk of being harmed because he was drinking from a White water fountain. And I remembered what the colored water fountain was like. The colored water fountain was filthy. You could see the crud, but it was all that was available to me. I know what hate is like when it is weaponized, how it can hurt. I remember traveling across country with my father and my mother, and we stopped at a service station. We purchased gasoline, and we wanted water. And the person who was there representing the management of that station said that we could have water, but we would have to drink it out of an oil can. I know what it is like. I know what it is like to live under hate and to have to honor hate. I remember my mother speaking to me in rather stern terms about how I was to behave around White women. How I had to always make sure that I never said anything that a White woman might conclude was offensive, because White women had a license to accuse. And once you were accused, only God knows what would happen to you. We know what happened to Emmett Till. Weaponized hate killed Emmett Till. I know what it is like. I am a son of the segregated South. I know how persons of a different hue had but only to accuse you, and for all practical purposes, you were guilty. You had to prove that you were innocent. I mention these things because the President of the United States of America, who has been referenced by my colleagues tonight, same one, the same President, compared impeachment to lynching. He compared impeachment to mob violence, because that is what lynchings were all about. Mob violence, no due process, no trial. If it was said that you had spoken in an unkind way to a White woman, you could be collected, taken off somewhere in the back woods, castrated, lynched, beaten, brutalized. Mob violence, unlawful hate to terrorize and intimidate. I know what it is like. I lived in the segregated South. I am a son of the segregated South. And for the President to compare this level of violence and hate to Article II Section 4 of the Constitution, which deals with impeachment, is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This is nothing more than a continuation of his weaponizing of hate. I am a son of the segregated South. I know what hate looks like. I know what it smells like. I know what it sounds like, and I know what it feels like. I have experienced all of the above. So when the President did this, when he said it, it sparked this flame in me to come and stand here in the well of the House, alone, to explain why the impeachment inquiry should be expanded to include the weaponization of hate by this President. Yes, I stand alone, but I believe in my heart that it is better for me to stand alone than not stand at all, because I see what's happening to my country, and I love my country. This is not a game for me. This will follow me the rest of my life. I didn't come to Congress to impeach a President. It is not something that was on my agenda, I had not a scintilla of a notion. I do it because I love my country. I do it because I know what weaponized hate is like. Yes, I called for the impeachment of the President some 2 years ago for his obstruction, but I also have called for his impeachment for his infusion of hate into policy. Earlier this evening, someone mentioned Federalist No. 65. I have read it many times. Yes, the words of Hamilton. The words of Hamilton addressed what it is like to impeach a President. The Framers of the Constitution knew that it would not be pleasant. It is not easy, but it is something you do when you want to preserve democracy and protect the Republic. They understood, and they gave us Federalist No. 65 to remind us how prophetic they were, that there would be a time such as this and a President such as Trump. How prophetic they were. If you read Federalist No. 65, you will find that the Framers of the Constitution defined impeachment as the acts of public men, that would be people who hold public trust, and they went on to explain that it was about the harm that they would cause society. They didn't use terms like ``abuse of power'' in the sense that there had to be a statutory crime committed. When they mentioned high crimes and misdemeanors at that time in Article II Section 4 of the Constitution, crime also meant a wrong that was being perpetrated, a great wrong. You don't have to have a statutory offense committed, something that is defined with a penalty associated with it. And when they mention misdemeanors--then and to this day--a misdemeanor is a misdeed, as well as a minor offense. Don't be misled. Don't be deceived by those who would have you believe that the President has to commit a statutory offense, something that is defined and codified with a penalty associated with it, before a President can be impeached. If this were true, Andrew Johnson would not have been impeached in 1868 for his comments that were rooted in bigotry and hate. He weaponized hate. Because he weaponized hate, because he didn't want the freed persons to have the same rights that other persons had, because he didn't want the Freedmen's Bureau to function as it should have, he weaponized hate. In Article X, he was impeached for the high misdemeanor of saying ugly things about the Congress as he was weaponizing his hate. It was a high misdemeanor, and that law has not changed. This notion of some modern law, modern constitutional requirement, those persons who were closer to the Framers of the Constitution probably knew better what the Framers intended than we do today. They impeached Andrew Johnson for a high misdemeanor. I beg that people would at least read Article X. By the way, since we started this engagement to explain to the public, a good many people have had to walk back their comments. A good many people who wanted to know, ``What crime did he commit? What rule did he break?'' a good many people have had to walk back those comments because they are now of the belief that impeachment should prevail. A lot of comments have been walked back. By the way, I welcome the walk-back. I want people to do the right thing, as it were, so walking back does not offend me. Comments that were made about me don't offend me. Many of my colleagues have made comments about me, but they don't offend me. I welcome them coming on board now. This is not about me. It has never been about me. It has been about my country. It has been about democracy, not about Democrats. It has always been about the Republic, not about Republicans. Say what you may, I do what I must. And I must explain why we should expand the impeachment inquiry so as to cause it to include the President's weaponization of bigotry. The President needs to be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor that he has perpetrated, and I will paraphrase Peter Irons, a historian who deals with the Supreme Court. Paraphrasing, he reminds us that the President--he didn't say ``weaponization''; these are my words. The President's weaponization of hate presents a clear and present danger--these are his words--to the constitutional equal protection of the laws guaranteed to all of us. My dear friends, he is eminently correct, and I have paraphrased because I changed the language slightly. So, Mr. Irons, if I have in any way abused what you have said--I read your comments posted on NBC.com, I believe it was--I was moved by what you said. Yes, the President should be impeached for his weaponizing hate. Yes, it does present a clear and present danger to equal protection under the laws for all of us because, when the President does this, there are people who will hear what he has said, and they don't always respond in a positive way. I will never forget that a man in Texas drove hundreds of miles so that he could get to a place where he could murder, assassinate, people of color who happened to be of Mexican ancestry. He went out of his way to do this and said that they were invaders, the kind of comment that we heard from the President as he weaponized hate. I won't forget that the President decided he would ban a certain religion, did it in a tweet, went on to develop a policy pursuant to the tweet, infused the bigotry into policy, weaponized it. If you are not Muslim and you are not around Muslims, you probably don't know the level of consternation that has been created within them, the level of concern that they have for their families, the level of concern that they have when they go to their prayer hours. I am around people who happen to be Muslim. I know how they are concerned for their families. Then the President went on to talk about the s-hole countries. Note that the s-hole countries were countries where there were people of color. He didn't say it about a European country. He didn't say it about countries where people of a hue different from me happen to predominate. He didn't say it because he knows that he has to be careful, that it is all right in some quarters to say it about people who look like me. But you have to be careful, Mr. President. Don't say it about some European country. Don't say it about some of these other countries in what we call the Middle East. You will have more trouble on your hands than you can contend with and likely would be impeached already. There seems to be a willingness to tolerate the bigotry and hate when it is directed toward people of African ancestry, when it is directed toward people who happen to be Muslims, when it is directed toward people who happen to be of the LGBTQ-plus community. I will say this. I have plenty of friends who are of European ancestry, who are Catholics and Christians and Jews, who are absolutely opposed to what you have said about people of different hues who happen to be of religions different from those that I have mentioned, who happen to be of the LGBTQ-plus community. Yes, there are people across this country who don't believe that this President should remain in office. As a matter of fact, there is a poll out now that says that about 50 percent of the people in this country--I think 50 percent is the number that is used--are saying that the President ought to be impeached and removed from office. A Quinnipiac poll back in July of this year indicated that more than 50 percent of the American people believe that the President is a racist. Yes, he must be held accountable. Yes, no one is above the law. What is the law? The law is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. What does it say? It says that the President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it does not say that a misdemeanor or a high crime has to be a statutory offense. I would also add this. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution was drafted with the notion in mind that not only should a President not be above the law, that which is codified, but also with judicious and prudent thoughts of the President not being beyond justice. The Framers of the Constitution talked about how the President should not be beyond justice. Above the law is here; beyond justice is far above this level of above the law. Beyond justice means that the President should not be able to destroy a country, destroy the norms, and not be removed from office. We have a general who has said that the President is harming the country, that this person who represents the majesty of the United States of America--he didn't use that term, but the person who holds the highest office, the Chief Executive of the country, the chief magistrate of the country, is harming the country. Constitutional scholars are saying it. Over a thousand lawyers have said that, pursuant to the Mueller report, the President should be impeached. Anyone else would be locked up, would be charged. They said he would be charged if he were anyone else. That is what they said. I want you to know that, wherever I go, I encounter people who are saying: Please, don't give up. Please, don't stop. Please, do something about what is happening to our country. I get expressions of gratitude from people across the length and breadth of the country. And I don't do it to get expressions of gratitude. I do it because I love my country. The weaponization of hate ought to be a part of this impeachment inquiry. I have already prognosticated that the President will be impeached. And when the President is impeached, I hope that we will have expanded the articles such that the weaponization of hate will be included. If Andrew Johnson could be impeached for his bigoted and hateful commentary, surely, we can do this again. Those were radical Republicans, by the way, who impeached Andrew Johnson--radical Republicans. If radical Republicans could impeach him on evidence rooted in his bigotry and hate, we can impeach this President for similar reasons. I do believe that, if you read the Articles of Impeachment with reference to Andrew Johnson, you will gain a greater appreciation for what I say. There have been only two Presidents impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Clinton in 1998. Only two. Nixon was not impeached. We need not try to debate this issue of whether the President has to commit a statutory offense. Constitutional scholars know better. Unfortunately, you have had to cope with a person who is not said to be a constitutional scholar, didn't finish number one in his class, didn't finish from an Ivy League school. But he did bring you truth, and that truth is being recognized. I stand here in the well of the House of Representatives tonight. I believe that comments comparable to what the President has said with reference to lynching, comparing lynching to impeachment, is but a continuation of his weaponization of hate, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, all the invidious phobias. That is all it is. It will not cease. He is only going to continue. If the House of Representatives does not impeach, we will have a President who will have no guardrails because we are the bar of justice. We are where it is initiated, right here. It is not initiated anyplace else. The Justice Department is not going to do it. There is no place else. This is where it is initiated, right here, the House of Representatives. If we do not impeach, no guardrails. If we do not impeach, we will have a de facto monarch, a person who does pretty much what he chooses, who believes that he is beyond the reach of any person or persons on this planet. If we do impeach and the Senate does not convict, that will send another message. The President will perceive himself to be a de facto monarch. We will have a de facto monarchy. We have a duty to do this. Our country--our country--is what this is all about. The Constitution is the last word. We are the first line of defense against a reckless, ruthless President who would weaponize hate. We are the first line of defense, the Members of this august body. We have a duty to take up the cause of justice for the country that we love. I respect anyone who differs with me. Do what you may. But I do believe that, in time, I will be vindicated. I believe that, in time, the 58 who voted initially to impeach will be, again, vindicated. We have already been vindicated to a certain extent, but they will be further vindicated. The 66 who voted the second time, they are going to be vindicated, too. The 95 who voted the third time, they will get additional vindication. They are already vindicated because we are moving toward impeachment. They were just a part of the avant-garde, already vindicated. And the question remains, where do we go from here? Do we limit the impeachment to Ukraine and issues related to Ukraine only? It is my opinion that we should expand it, and I have explained why-- because of hatred and bigotry. Finally, this: We are talking about the original sin of this country; and there are those who would make the argument that, well, the Ukraine circumstance deals with national security; it is a threat to national security. Well, it is a threat to national security when you have white nationalists who are murdering people in the streets of this country, in the schools, to a certain extent, in various places where you would assume that you are safe. That is a threat to national security as well. It is time for us to deal with the original sin. We have the opportunity. It is impeachable. I don't want him impeached because of some election. I want him impeached because he has committed impeachable offenses. I want him impeached because we need to deal with our original sin. I believe that those who look through the vista of time upon this time are going to realize how right we were, those of us who have moved to impeach for the bigotry, the racism, all of the invidious phobias that we have had to endure from our President. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak. I love this facility. I love my country. This country means something to me. I stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I salute the flag. But I also respect those who choose not to and will respect their rights and defend their right if they choose not to. But I do. This is my country. I love it. I love it. I stand alone, but it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, Mr. Speaker. I rise today with a heavy heart and tears welling in my eyes. I rise because how dare the President compare lynching to impeachment? How dare he do this? Does he not know the history of lynching in this country? Does he not know that thousands of African Americans were lynched-- mob violence? Does he not know that this is the equivalent of murder? How dare the President compare Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, a lawful constitutional process, to mob violence and lynching? Mr. President, do you not understand the history that you are encroaching upon? If you continue to weaponize racism and bigotry, this makes you no better than those who were screaming ``blood and soil'' and ``Jews will not replace us.'' It makes you no better than them. It makes you no better than those who burned crosses. It makes you no better than those who wear hoods and white robes. Do you not understand what you are doing to this country? More importantly, do we, the Members of this Congress, not understand how he is denigrating and berating decency in this country? At some point, we must say that enough is enough. At some point, we must move on to impeach. Mr. President, I beg that you would reconsider your thoughts; but for fear that you may not, I will say more of this tonight, because I have been promised 30 minutes, and I will use these 30 minutes to talk about what you have done and to also talk about what I may do to continue this impeachment movement. You are unfit to hold this office.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise, yes, to mourn his death, but I also rise to celebrate his life, because it was a life worthy of great celebration. I rise understanding that, yes, he was brilliant. He was a Phi Beta Kappa with some 13 doctoral degrees, but he did not allow his brilliance to outshine his goodness. His goodness was such that he was one who cared for the least, the last, and the lost. He was there for those whom we consider the least among us, those who were not born into plenty but, rather, into poverty. He was there for those who were the last, the last hired and the first fired. He fought for jobs for them. He was there for those who are lost, lost in poverty in the richest country in the world, and he fought to elevate their lives; those lost in chemical abuse, he was there to help them acquire healthcare. He was truly a person who made a difference in the lives of people whom he never had the opportunity to meet and greet. So I mourn his passing, but I celebrate his living. And while I am sure there are many who will say that he left too soon, I can only say this: We had him for 68 years, and I am grateful for that 68 years. God bless you, dear brother. You were a wise warrior and a seeker of peace. And while you may not be with us physically, your spirit will endure forever.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, because I love my country. I rise today, Madam Speaker, to thank the Speaker of the House for standing up for this country, advancing the cause of justice, and taking on the challenge to protect our Nation, when it is obvious that national security is of great concern. I rise because there were persons who made yesterday possible. There are some who say that yesterday was a tipping point, others say that things happened that were the equivalent of a straw that broke the camel's back as it relates to impeachment, but I say that yesterday was a seminal moment in time that has the potential to impact the rest of our time. I say that yesterday was a moment of truth, and I say that there were people who made yesterday possible. I would like to read a statement into the Record that will address many of the people, not all, but many of the people who made yesterday possible. My statement reads: ``On behalf of people of goodwill, I thank the first 58 who voted to move Articles of Impeachment on November 6, 2017, the historic 66 who voted to move Articles of Impeachment on January 19, 2018, and the noble 95 who voted to move Articles of Impeachment on July 17, 2019. For their tireless and progressive efforts, I would also like to thank By the People; Center for Popular Democracy; Citizens Impeachment Coalition; Common Cause; Courage Campaign; CREDO; CREW; D.C. Action Lab; Democracy for America; Free Speech for People; Indivisible; Lawyers for Good Government; Mainers For Accountable Leadership; March for Truth; March for Truth--Boston; MoveOn; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP; Need to Impeach; NextGen America; Our Revolution; Popular Democracy; Progressive Democrats of America; Revolving Door Project; Social Security Works; Stand Up America; and Women's March. With nearly 200 Members of the House of Representatives favoring impeachment inquiry, we have been vindicated. However, our approach is not one that has ended as of yesterday. We need 218 to vote for impeachment. There is more to be done.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today with a belief that the Honorable John Lewis was eminently correct with his statement. He does not need my commentary; hence, I will not give commentary. I just want the Record to reflect that on September 24, shortly after the noon hour, I had the preeminent privilege of being here in this very room to hear the Honorable John Lewis. While I won't comment on his commentary, I will just comment on something that was on my heart as it relates to people who approach and ask questions about the state of affairs, the status of our country. On yesterday, a young man, 9 years of age, his name is Alec. Alec is a variation of Alexander. Alexander means helper of humankind. This 9-year-old young man expressed his concerns about our country--9 years of age. The proof of what I say can be validated because he was at the rally that was held right out front of the Rayburn House Office Building--9 years of age. People of all ages who have been chronicling these events are asking questions. There are many answers to be given, but I think the Honorable John Lewis has given us the best. I am honored that I was here when he gave us pearls of wisdom to facilitate our going forward.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman, and I thank the ranking member as well. Madam Speaker, we are truly the land of the free because we are the home of the brave. Unfortunately, not all of the brave have been treated the same when they have returned home from war. Such is the case with the Merchant Marines. These merchant mariners came home, but they didn't come home to the parades that others came home to. Many of them didn't return the same way they left, and many didn't return at all. I stand here today because I am so proud of the work that these Members of Congress have done to celebrate and appreciate the lives of the merchant mariners. Yes, it is true that they did not become actual veterans until 1988. Yes, it is true that they didn't receive all of the GI Bill benefits that some others received. But it is also true that, though it may be late, they will be properly recognized. I am so honored to announce that Congressman Garamendi, Congresswoman Brooks, and Congressman Young have done a good thing, a just thing, and a righteous thing. I would add one additional thing. There is a bill that is currently pending, H.R. 154. This bill would accord $25,000 to each of these mariners who are alive. It is the right thing and the just thing, and we ought to do it as well. But today, let's celebrate what has been accomplished. Let's have this Congressional Gold Medal presented, and let's make sure that if we see a merchant mariner, we give them the love that they richly deserve as well. They are truly persons who have made us the land of the free because they are members of the home of the brave.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. And I rise today because we are witnessing clear and convincing evidence of a Presidential coverup. We are witnessing this evidence live and in living color on national TV. Just yesterday, before the Judiciary Committee, two witnesses did not appear pursuant to the coverup, and the one who did appear brought with him the clear and convincing evidence. He brought with him a letter from the President of the United States, by and through his agents, that indicates that he should not give certain testimony--clear and convincing evidence of a coverup. The President of the United States is engaged in a continuation of obstruction that is creating the coverup. He obstructed. This is why we are having the Judiciary Committee hearings, in part. He continues his obstruction, which means he is covering up. We cannot allow this to continue. The President is making a bet. The President's bet is this: The President is betting that we will put politics above principle, that we will not use Article II, section 4 of the Constitution as the radical Republicans did in 1868 to impeach President Johnson for merely speaking ill of Congress. He is betting we won't use that. He is betting we won't put the principle above the politics. He believes that we will put winning the next election above the Constitution of the United States of America. He believes that we are going to put the politics above the moral imperative to do that which we know should be done when a President has committed impeachable acts. I believe that we will not be driven by the polls. We will not. Those who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge weren't driven by the polls. They were driven by a moral authority that they had to do that which was right, and we must do the right thing, too. We cannot be driven by polls. We must drive the polls. We must stand on principle. We will not allow the next election to determine what we will do now. Mr. Speaker, it is a risky thing to make this kind of decision. You don't know what the next election will bring. You have to use this power that the voters have given us, the constituents have given us, the people of this country have given us to do that which is right. We must impeach this President. If we don't impeac him, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution will become meaningless. There will be no guardrails. There are none now, as he sees it, because he has made a bet. Well, I am betting that this Congress will do the right thing. I am betting that we are going to put principle above politics and the people of this country above our political parties. I am betting we are not going to try to save a few people at an election at the expense of all the people who are suffering because of the coverup and because of the insidious discrimination this President is perpetrating upon this country and his policies. I am betting on the American people. I am betting that the American people will stand with us. I am also betting that principle above all is what we must stand with.