Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud American, and I rise because I love my country. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today, I would call to the attention of those who are within the view of what we are doing the fact that we are now some 35 days since the Mueller report has been made public. It was released before that, but it has been made public some 35 days. This means that, for 35 days now, this administration has been above the law if we allow the genesis of the start to be the date that the report was issued to the public, made public. The Mueller report is clear: The President was not exonerated when it comes to obstruction of justice. The Mueller report, in essence, has given this Congress the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional responsibility. That responsibility is to take up the cause of justice. The Framers of the Constitution intended for the Congress of the United States of America to be the place where the balance of power is maintained. We are the check on the President, such that we can maintain the balance of power. It was never intended that there be a concentration of power within the executive branch to the extent that it is being concentrated by virtue of the actions of this President. Allow me to explain. This President has refused to honor subpoenas. He has encouraged witnesses not to appear. He has encouraged persons to avoid the responsibility that they have as holders of public trust, the Secretary of the Treasury to produce documents. He is engaging and is encouraging others to engage in a coverup. This is a coverup. We, the Members of this august body, have a duty and a responsibility not to allow this coverup to continue. When we took our oath of office, we said, by and through that oath, that we would defend this Constitution. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution accords us the power to check the President so as to maintain the balance of power. When we refuse to do so or if we decline to do so or if we just don't, for whatever reasons, do so, we are not living up to our responsibilities. Article II, Section 4 deals with impeachment. It is time for this Congress to start the impeachment process. I have been very adamant about this. I stand where I have stood now for more than 2 years. I have been said to be the voice of impeachment in the Congress. I am not the voice. The Members of this body will be the voice of impeachment when and if we take it up, and I assure you we will. If nobody else does, I will. But the point is, this is our moment. This is what we have been mandated to do, to bring impeachment before the House of Representatives, especially given that we said we would wait until the Mueller report was finished, and then we would act. Well, time has lapsed, and this is the time for us to act. We are the Members who can make the difference. This is the Congress of the United States of America. Let me add this. I know these are difficult times for a good many persons and there are those who question whether we should do this given what the Senate may do. Well, we do a lot of things knowing that the Senate will not act as we would have them act. We send bills to the Senate quite routinely knowing that the Senate will reject these bills. But it is our responsibility to act, and we then allow the Senate to do its job. If the Senate chooses not to, that is on the Senate. The House will have performed its responsibility. So let us not be guided by political expediency, the question of whether the Senate is going to act. Let us stand on the moral imperative that we have to act. Some have said that the soul of the country is at risk. Well, the truth is this, before the soul of the country is lost, the soul of the House of Representatives will be lost if we do not act on this moral imperative. This is what we must do to maintain the House of Representatives' integrity and its prowess as a coequal branch of the government, which some say has a little bit more authority than the executive by virtue of its having a check on the executive. Mr. Speaker, each day that I come, I will show the amount of time that has lapsed during which this administration is engaged in a coverup and is above the law.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the chair of the full committee. I am honored to have this opportunity to speak in support of this bill. This bill addresses a concern that many of us on the Financial Services Committee have had to deal with for some time now, and it is the question of whether the committee is going to allow the CFPB to protect consumers from unscrupulous behavior or to protect Big Business. I am a person who believes that we should protect the consumer. This legislation will allow the persons who receive student loans to avoid being placed into costly repayment plans that will cause them to pay more money and possibly default. It will cause consumers looking to open a new checking account to have the opportunity to do so with a bank that has the least amount of overdraft fees. It will allow persons who are seeking credit cards to have the right to seek relief through the courts, not through some boilerplate language that they might find in a contract that will not benefit them. This is the opportunity that we must take advantage of to protect consumers. It is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not the financial institutions protection bureau. So with this said, I wholeheartedly endorse what the chairperson has brought to the attention of this Congress. These are remedies that are absolutely necessary, and I plan to vote and encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

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

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

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

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, and I do so with the love of my country within my heart, and I do so this evening because I believe that no one is above the law. No one. We find this to be the case in our great country: If you are a person who exceeds the speed limit, you are breaking the law. If you are caught exceeding the speed limit, there is a price to pay. No one is above the law. If you are a person who happens to, in the State of Texas, decide that you are going to go through the supermarket and pick and choose certain things that you would like to sample, at some point, if you partake of more than is reasonable, you will be charged with grazing. It is a crime in the State of Texas to graze, to take more than what is reasonable in having a sample of a grape. No one is above the law. People are prosecuted in the State of Texas for grazing. In the State of Texas, a good many persons have been prosecuted for not causing their children to go to school. Thwarting public attendance in school was a law in the State of Texas. People paid fines for not having their children in school. The list of laws is too long to ever mention in a statement such as this, but the point is, no one is above the law. There are laws that deal with persons who commit felonies and persons who commit misdemeanors. When you break these laws, you are prosecuted. You are not allowed to break the law with impunity, and you are not allowed to do it with immunity. No one is above the law. I believe that this is a part of the very hallmark of our criminal justice system in this great country. We believe that no one is above the law and that no one is beneath the law, meaning that the law should apply equally to all. Every person ought to be treated the same when it comes to the very bedrock principle of whether or not someone is above the law. No one is in this country. However, we find ourselves with a unique circumstance now. We have the highest office holder in the executive branch, the chief executive officer, if you will, who has refused to cooperate with lawful investigations of the Congress. He refused to cooperate in this sense. He has said to witnesses they should not appear and give testimony in a lawful investigation. He indicated that subpoenas will not be answered. They were issued pursuant to lawful investigations. No one is above the law. If you are not above the law, then if you are called upon to testify, you must testify. If you have some document within your possession and there has been a request for it by way of a subpoena, then you have to produce it. No one is above the law. Well, we currently have a circumstance where the chief executive officer is at odds with the legislative branch. This places the legislative and the executive at odds with each other. They are in a stalemate, if you will. When this occurs, you have one branch of government refusing to cooperate with lawful requests of another branch, the executive refusing the request of the legislative, then you have a standoff, as I indicated. No one is above the law. This, in my opinion, creates a constitutional crisis. Now, there are people who would differ with me. But remember this: What they are expressing is what I am expressing, an opinion. This is my opinion. They have their opinion. There is no hard and fast definition for a constitutional crisis. There are some who would contend that to have a constitutional crisis in this area, the subpoenas that have been issued would have to go to court. They would have to be litigated. At some point, a court might say to the executive branch of the government that it must obey the subpoena issued by Congress, the lawful subpoena. If the executive officer declines to obey the subpoena, it would be concluded that you have a constitutional crisis because the chief executive officer is not only disobeying Congress, he is disobeying a third branch of the government, the judicial branch, the judiciary. So you would then have a constitutional crisis. I differ. It is my opinion that you have a constitutional crisis when the chief executive officer declines and refuses to obey a lawful request from the legislative branch. I think that when you get to the point that the President of the United States, or the chief executive officer, refuses an order from the court, you have a constitutional crisis, but you also have a collapse. That is when you have gone beyond a constitutional crisis. It is a collapse. The crisis leads up to that point. Once this happens and the President refuses to obey the judiciary as well as the legislative, you have a collapse. Right now, we are in a constitutional crisis. In this constitutional crisis, we have a circumstance that has developed that we cannot tolerate. You see, it is the legislative branch that has the duty to provide the check on the executive branch such that we maintain the balance of power. When the legislative branch seeks to check the executive branch and it absolutely refuses to cooperate, when this occurs, the system of checks and balances is being ignored. The system of checks and balances was put in place by the Framers of the Constitution to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch of government. To prevent the executive branch from having a concentration of power, the legislative branch was given this ability to check it. When the legislative branch cannot get cooperation, the ultimate check that it has is impeachment. The legislative branch prevents the concentration of power by saying to the chief executive officer: Mr. Chief Executive Officer, you are out of balance. You are assuming more authority than the Constitution accords you. Because you cannot do this, we, the Members of the legislative branch, can bring you before the bar of justice. We can call on you to answer for your failure to honor lawful investigative requests of the legislative branch. So we bring you before the bar of justice, and that is called impeachment. But it is important to remember that the Framers of the Constitution put the system of checks and balances in place to prevent a concentration of power. Why would we want to prevent a concentration of power? Because if the chief executive officer, the President, is allowed to have power concentrated beyond what the Constitution accords, meaning there are no guardrails, the President can do whatever he chooses. The President then becomes an officer who is and can be above the law. He is above the law in this country. No person is above the law. The checks and balances are in place to prevent the President from being above the law. If we don't enforce this system of checks and balances, we then allow the concentration of power, and we no longer have the form of government that the Framers intended and that we have enjoyed for these many years. We would have a monarchy. We would have a monarch. A monarch has the power to do whatever he chooses. The monarch is the law. We never intended in this country for the chief executive officer, the President, to be the law. We intended for the President to enforce the law by and through the various agencies that are under his domain, if you will, but not to be the law itself, not to decide what the law is on any given day, not to decide that he will obey the law when he chooses. No one is above the law. The Mueller report is a good indication of how the law is viewed. The Mueller report indicates that there are many instances where, but for a rule that the Justice Department adheres to, the President would be indicted--but for this rule. You won't find the words stated exactly as I have stated them, but that is the essence of what is stated in the Mueller report as it relates to obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller was assigned the responsibility of looking into certain aspects of the campaign that the President participated in before being elected and to ascertain whether or not there was some collusion, obstruction of justice, if you will. The Mueller conclusion is that the President is not exonerated when it comes to obstruction of justice and that the President but for these rules that they have, this rule that says you don't indict a sitting President, the President would likely be indicted. I say, likely be, because Mr. Mueller didn't say he would be, but he did say that the President wasn't exonerated when it comes to obstruction of justice. So the President is not above the law, and if the Justice Department is not going to prosecute, then where is the bar of justice? It is here. It is right here in this room; this very august body that we call the Congress of the United States of America. We then have the responsibility. If the Justice Department is not going to pursue the President, then it is left to the Congress. This is the last alternative for ensuring that the checks and balances are maintained and that the President is not above the law. Who agrees with the Mueller Report as I have expressed it? Some 800 former prosecutors have indicated that if this were any other person who violated the law as they see it in the Mueller Report, that this person would be prosecuted. They go on to say that it is critical that obstruction of justice be prosecuted because if you do not, then what you are sending is a message to people that they can interfere with lawful investigations. They don't say it in those exact words, but that is the import of the message that they do share with us, some 800 prosecutors, Federal prosecutors, persons who understand this law. Many of them have said that there is more than enough evidence here to prosecute anyone other than the President. But they have been respectful, and they understand that there is a rule in the Justice Department--the Office of Legal Counsel has promulgated it--that indicates that a sitting President won't be prosecuted. If the sitting President is not going to be prosecuted, then these 800 lawyers are saying to us that the bar of justice has to be the place where the President will be brought, and that bar of justice is here in the House of Representatives. No one is above the law. We now recognize that we are some 34 days since the Mueller Report was made public. This is the number of days that the Trump administration has been above the law, some 34 days. Why? Because we have one official in the administration who has refused to honor a lawful request by the Ways and Means Committee to produce certain records, certain records belonging to the President, tax records--refused to produce those records in contravention of the law. Another official, the person who heads the Justice Department, is declining to respond to requests of the Judiciary Committee. No one is above the law. So we now have not only the President refusing, but the persons who are part of the administration are refusing. Some 34 days now I would say the administration itself has been above the law. These are the days since the Mueller Report has been released to the public, the number of days the Trump administration has been above the law. I love my country. I never came to Congress to give the speech I am giving tonight. I didn't come to Congress to take on the most powerful person on the planet Earth. I find myself standing here because I believe that you cannot see that this moral imperative exists to make sure that the law is followed and treated the same as it relates to all people and then ignore it. I just don't see how you can do it. I cannot. I refuse to ignore the fact that the President has obstructed justice. The President is not above the law. No one is. I will not allow political expediency, this notion that rather than deal with this now, let's just wait and let the next election determine the fate of a person who has breached the law in the highest office of the land, I might add. I refuse to accept it. I just cannot. The President is not above the law. I didn't come to the Congress to say this, but I love my country, and I see what this is doing to the country, when we have the chief executive officer saying to law enforcement officers--and he did say what I am about to tell you--that you don't have to be nice when you arrest people. What message are you sending to them in terms of what their behavior should be when they take people into their care, custody, and control? You are saying to them you can break the law. What kind of message do you send when you are at a campaign rally and you say to people: Don't worry about how you treat them; if they arrest you, I will take care of it? That wasn't the exact language, but that was the message. This is the chief executive officer. This is the person who is the standard-bearer for the United States of America--the standard-bearer, the person who carries the torch of freedom for the United States of America. What are you saying when you say that you are a person who would support the breaking of the law and then you would support defending the person who breaks the law? You are saying you are above the law and you believe it, and you are saying you are willing to take care of those who would break the law as well. We have seen circumstances in this country that I never thought we would see: a President sending messages and signals indicating that if you side with me, I have the magic wand. If you side with me, I have the power to erase your offenses, your crimes. It is not really erasing, but I am communicating that it is a pardon. The President has this power, and he sends signals: break the law, but worry not, I have your back. Is this what we expect from the highest office in the land in the greatest country in the world? Are we going to allow ourselves to be brought into this complicity that we see so many people succumbing to? I don't think so. I will not. We cannot allow ourselves to become complicit. We cannot allow ourselves to become a party to what is going on here. The mere fact that we stand silent on it, as Dr. King put it: at some point, silence in and of itself becomes betrayal. The silence is betraying our country, it is betraying the Constitution, and it is betraying the Republic. The silence--no one is above the law. When will we cease to be silent on the greatest issue confronting us at this time? The Republic is at stake. It is not about Republicans, it is about the Republic and whether we will maintain it. It is not about Democrats, it is about our democracy. This is bigger than all of us. It is bigger. It is bigger than the President. It is about the country we love and whether we are going to allow one person to destroy the concept of no one being above the law. It is bigger than we are, and the truth is it has now become an issue that is about Congress. This issue is now about Congress. It is about whether the Congress of the United States of America is going to fulfill its responsibility. It is about whether the Congress of the United States of America will see and say--see that the President is obstructing and say that the President is obstructing. I marvel at the number of Members of Congress who have said that the President is obstructing justice, who have said that the President has committed impeachable offenses, impeachable acts, but notwithstanding having said it will not say that the President ought to be impeached. There are some who say that he should be impeached as a matter of fact and still won't move to impeach him. The President is not above the law. We are the law, the Members of Congress, 435 of us. We have been given an awesome responsibility. It is awesome. I don't take it lightly. It is not something that I think everybody should have the responsibility accorded to them because there are a good many people who don't believe that you should prosecute a President. They think that if the President commits a crime, well, that is the President. I am not one of them. They think that you have to commit a crime, by the way, before you can be impeached, a good many people. I am not one of them. The President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. It is the harm that he causes society that the Framers of the Constitution addressed in Federalist 65, the words of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton. The President is not above the law. We in this body are now the issue. The issue is: Will Congress do what the Constitution has given us as the means by which we can deal with a chief executive officer who is breaking the law, who sees himself, apparently by virtue of his behavior, as being above the law? This is what Congress has to look into. This is what Congress has to bring before the bar of justice, this whole notion that the President is not above the law. So let's just take a moment now and talk about the process of impeachment because a good many people don't understand. Impeachment does not mean that a President is removed from office. Impeachment is sort of like an indictment. It is not the same but very much similar to an indictment. The Members of the House of Representatives serve as a body very similar to a grand jury. It is not the same, but it is similar to a grand jury. The Members of the House of Representatives determine whether or not a President should be impeached. They do so with a vote, a majority of the House voting to impeach, and the President is impeached. The President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868. Article 10 of the articles of impeachment against him for a high misdemeanor that was not a crime--a misdemeanor is a misdeed, aside from being a minor criminal offense it is also a misdeed. He was impeached for this misdeed, and we here in this body can impeach any President for misdeeds. So if the body impeaches, it doesn't mean that the President is removed from office. It simply means that the President must now go to trial in the Senate. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the House to have to investigate the Mueller Report. The Mueller Report has been shared with us. There is enough evidence in that report to impeach the President. The Mueller Report has evidence shared by virtue of talking to witnesses who gave their testimony under the penalty of perjury. We can use that as the reason--that report--to send this to the Senate where a trial will take place. Remember, impeachment is sort of like an indictment--not the same but similar. It goes to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over that trial--the Chief Justice. In so doing, the House will have persons called managers. These managers would act as prosecutors. They would bring evidence before the Senate for the Senate to act upon. The Senate acts upon the evidence. The Chief Justice is there to make sure certain rules are followed. For example, if the House prosecutors, the managers, if they would like to call a witness, the Chief Justice will then be there to assist the process to get that witness before the Senate. There is a trial. Witnesses are called. Subpoenas can be issued, and you don't have to meander through some lower courts, inferior courts, because all courts, when it comes to the impeachment of the President, are inferior to the Senate when it sits in trial of the President. They are all inferior, all of the courts. So you have the Chief Justice there to make his ruling. All of this is done before the public. There will be a trial. All of these subpoenas that are not being honored, all of the witnesses that are refusing to testify, take them before the Senate. Call them; have them sworn; have them give their testimony; and let the world hear and see. There is a desire to have a trial before the trial in the House, to have a trial in the sense that witnesses come and appear and are a part of an investigation. That is not, in fact, the kind of trial that you think of when you think of the word ``trial,'' but in a sense, we are having the witnesses come in and give their testimony. There is a desire to do this. To be very honest with you, I am not antithetical to the idea, but I do understand that, if the witnesses are not coming, if the subpoenas are not being honored, then the option left to us is to impeach and have that trial in the Senate, where they will have to come. Subpoenas will have to be honored. That is the means by which we maintain the system of checks and balances when the President refuses to perform as expected under the Constitution--as a matter of fact, as required under the Constitution. So, given that the President is not following the norms and not following the law and eventually we could take this through the inferior courts--they are inferior to the Senate when it sits in trial of the President, because that is the ultimate court related to issues related to the President. These things can meander through the inferior courts. They are not inferior in the sense that they are less than efficient and effective at what they do; they are just inferior to this impeachment trial when the President has been impeached, the trial to determine whether or not he should be removed from office. Impeachment doesn't remove the President from office. But these subpoenas and all of these issues can go through these courts. No one knows how long it will take, but everybody prognosticates, people who know and who are supposed to know, that it can take months. It can take months, which means that we will, at some point, engage in paralysis analysis. Dr. King called it the paralysis of analysis, but analysis paralysis, meaning this: We will have done all that we can in these courts to try to bring the President to justice, get the witnesses necessary to bring the President to justice because he has committed these impeachable acts, and at some point, you will get so close to an election that someone will say: Well, let's not do this. Let's just wait until the next election. We will have been paralyzed going through the courts such that we won't get to the issues in time, and, as a matter of fact, it could be after the next election before some of the courts will rule. We just don't know. But those who prognosticate say that it will be months. One would think that maybe there can be an expedited process, but the courts will determine whether this will be the case. So, when you have all of this and you are confronting all of these things, you have to ask yourself: Will the House of Representatives do its job? And for those who are saying, well, you have to have bipartisan support, I would love to see bipartisan support, but there is no requirement for it in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, Jay, Hamilton, Madison, they prognosticated that you would not have unanimity. You won't have the bipartisanship that you are looking for. They said it would be a time of strife. They indicated that people would separate along party lines. Read Federalist 65, not a long read. Read it. You will see. They prognosticated that there would be divisions. So to say you have got to have the Republican Party on board before the Democratic Party can do its job is incorrect--not required. And, by the way, history is not going to be kind. It is not going to be kind. History is not going to be kind to us. History is going to cause a lot of reputations to be soiled. Those who look through the vista of time are not going to side with us the way we have friendships and relationships siding with us now. History is not going to be kind to Democrats or Republicans. History is going to present us as people who saw an injustice in the highest office of the land and refused to do our jobs. It won't be kind to us. Reputations are going to be tarnished. People who will be saluted and proclaimed heroes today who were just waiting to do the right thing at the right time, history is not going to be kind to them. There are too many things on record that they have already said. And there are too many people who will go back through these records, videos of what they have said. They can walk it back now, and they can have friendships now that will be of assistance to them, but history is not going to be kind to them. But there is a means by which we can bring ourselves back in proper alignment with the Constitution. It is called impeachment. This is what we can do, and it is never too late to get on the right side of history. There are many people in this House who are on the wrong side of history, wrong side of history. The right side of politics, as they see it. I would rather be on the right side of history and the wrong side of politics. So these persons who are now on the wrong side of history, my hope is that they will do as I see many of my colleagues doing now, and they are coming forward and they are acknowledging that enough is enough. Impeachment is a solution that has to be pursued. The question no longer is who is going to be the first to engage in this notion that we have to bring the President before the bar of justice in the House of Representatives. This is not the question. The question now is who will be the last person to say we must do it, because there seems to be a momentum building. There seems to be a momentum building that is going to cause some people who would have made history to be made by history. History can make people, and people can make history. There are some people who are going to be proclaimed by our contemporaries now as having made history, but the truth is that history will make them. History will make them do what they should do and should have done. They are going to have to face history. Maybe not right away, but, I assure you, time always tells. The truth is known, and history always judges. We are going to be judged, my friends. We all are. We are going to be judged. So why don't we just get on the right side of history now and salvage some of the reputation that we have? They don't have to lose their entire reputation. They don't have to become adamant about this. They have made their point. Let it go. Get on the right side of history. We know where this is going. It is just a matter of time. There will be additional votes on impeachment right here on this floor of the House of Representatives. Be on the right side of history for our children, for our grandchildren, for our great-grandchildren, for unborn generations. Get on the right side of history. Yes, history will have made them, but they will have made the right decision. History makes people; people make history. Either way, be on the right side of history. Don't find yourself on the wrong side of history when you hold yourself out to be a person who adheres to moral authority, the moral imperative to do the right thing. Be on the right side of history. I have heard people say that the soul of the country is at risk. I concur. But I also say this: Before the soul of the country goes, the soul of the House of Representatives will have gone, the soul of the House of Representatives, the very soul that we have in our hands, that has the moral authority, the moral imperative, to go forward and not allow political expediency to jeopardize our duty to do that which the Constitution affords us the opportunity to do if we have but only the will to do it. This House is now on trial. The House of Representatives is on trial in the court of public opinion. Some would say: Well, the court is not unanimously opposed. Some 40-plus percent of persons say that impeachment is appropriate. The public is here today and there tomorrow. The public has no duty to stay in one place all the time. We are looking at a snapshot in time, and the public opinion will change. It does. When Nixon was first brought before the attention of the Senate, as they were investigating, public opinion was not such that it would call for his impeachment then. Public opinion changes. I have a great example--unrelated to impeachment, but a great example. I remember when we had to vote on what has been called the ``bailout.'' I remember the calls to my office. People knew that we were about to, as they saw it, bail out the banks, and the calls were very strong. People called in in large numbers, saying: Don't you vote to bail out those banks. Don't you do it. If you do it--there was at least one caller, probably more, who said--we will run you out of town. Well, I remember standing in the back of the Chamber, and as I stood there, after having cast my vote against the bailout, I saw the votes go up and the stock market go down. And having done what I thought was the appropriate thing pursuant to the requests of my constituents, I could not wait to hear what the response would be the next day. The response the next day was: What is wrong with you? Don't you see what you have done to my 401(k)? What is wrong with you? We are going to run you out of town. I learned a lesson about public opinion. Public opinion can be in one place today and in an entirely different place tomorrow. We should do what we believe is the right thing based upon what our conscience dictates. That is what I do. I assure you, this is a question of conscience for me, and I am going to follow my conscience, and I will have done the right thing. Dr. King said there are times when you have to do that which is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. You do it because it is right. I am going to do the right thing because conscience dictates that this is the right thing to do. Madam Speaker, 34 days the President, the administration, is above the law--34 days. But there is one other thing. There are some things that are indelible, some things that you can't get out of your mind, some things that you just can't reconcile within yourself. This baby--and we have all seen this picture, or a good many of us have--crying, being separated from a parent--babies--at the border. I don't know the people. I know that they are part of the same race that I am a part of, the human race. I know that I have a kinship and a relationship with them. For our executive office to promulgate a policy, produce a policy that separates babies from their parents and not have a means by which they can be reunited is sinful. Babies separated from their parents and no means of reuniting them in place at the time you make this separation? This is indelible in my mind. There are many other things to think about, but this I think about a lot, how we have treated people who are coming to this country who mean us no harm but who are trying to escape harm's way. I cannot divorce myself from it. I don't know them. I just know that they are human beings. I know that there is a crisis at the border. I think we have to deal with it. I want to deal with the border crisis. But I don't think separating children from their parents, as we have done it, is a part of the solution. I think that persons who would do this are victims. Those Border Patrol officers are victims themselves for what they have to do. Many of them, they don't want to do some of the things that they are being forced to do. They, too, are victims. But it started at the top. It started at the top with a belief that somehow this would deter people from coming, people who are fleeing harm's way. I only say to people as it relates to me. I say to myself, but for the grace of God, I could be one of these people. I was just fortunate enough to be born in this country, in a country where there are great opportunities. But for the grace of God, it could be me. Why would I treat someone with this level of indignity? But for the grace of God, it could be me. I refuse to let this go. I believe that this, too, is a part of the overall rationale for impeachment. Madam Speaker, this is our watch. This is the watch that has been afforded us. To every woman and man, a watch is given, and this is our watch. We can do as best we can to reconcile in our minds that this is okay, that it is all right. But in our hearts, we can't reconcile it. The mind can reconcile it, but the heart cannot. My heart won't let this be reconciled. In my mind, it is indelible. I say that, on my watch, I want the Record to show that I took a stand. Even when I had to stand alone, I took a stand. It is better to stand alone than not stand at all. But there are others who are standing, and I believe there will be many more, one of whom happens to be on the opposite side of the aisle. I thank him for having courage. I know what is going to happen. He is going to be ridiculed, but don't let that become the final word. When the pages of history are properly written, he will be vindicated. He will be vindicated. I assure him, my dear brother, he will be vindicated. I don't know him. I have never encouraged him to do anything. Nobody can say that he and I have any kind of friendship, really, other than I believe that all of us have collegiality and that we ought to be friendly with each other. But he is going to be vindicated. Stay strong. People are going to say ugly things. He may even get threats. But stay strong, because he is on the right side of history. More importantly, he is on the right side of righteousness. The right side of righteousness, what a great place to be. Don't let the head convince you that the heart is wrong. The heart speaks to the soul, to your very being. The head speaks to those who would listen to you. Let your heart speak to you. Madam Speaker, I pray that we, in this House, will do that which the Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution have given us the opportunity to do in a time such as this with a President such as Trump. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, with love of country in my heart and a belief that the Constitution ought to be honored. Today I rise, some 34 days since the Mueller report has been made public, 34 days since we have concluded that impeachable offenses have been committed--34 days, and yet the President still commits actions that are deemed obstructive; 34 days, which means that, for 34 days now, the President is clearly above the law as it relates to the Mueller report--longer than that, but as it relates to the Mueller report and its being released, 34 days. But there is good news. A good many Members are now considering joining the impeachment effort, and I salute them. I am more than honored to say that you can never be too late when it comes to being on the right side of history and the right side of justice. So I salute them, and I believe that others will come on board as well. I believe they are doing this because they believe that no one is above the law. I think they are doing this because they believe that you have to put principle above politics. They are doing this because I think they love their country, and they refuse to allow this condition to continue without the constitutional remedy of impeachment being given its proper place in history as it relates to this President. And as they do this, I just want to remind us that there is something that is indelible in my mind. I will never forget this image: a baby. This is a baby crying. I won't forget this image. For this alone, we should consider impeachment. Separating babies from their parents without a means of reuniting them, for this alone, we should consider impeachment. But there is much more to add: the whole notion that there are s-hole countries in Africa; that there are very fine people among those who were in Charlottesville where a person lost her life; the whole notion that the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America, the President, will stand before law enforcement personnel and say: You don't have to be nice when you are bringing people into your care, custody, and control. And last night, to go to a rally--this is the President of the United States at a rally with people behind him saying, ``lock her up,'' or some equivalent. This is not some outlaw, renegade country. This is the United States of America. Do we want the President of this country to go before the public and have throngs of people shouting, ``Lock her up?'' This is a great country. I love my country, and, for this reason, I want to assure my friends that I am going to thank all who are coming on board. And the question is not, now: Who is going to be the first to come on board? The question really is this: Who will be the last to come on board? Who will be the last person to say: ``I believe that no person is above the law''? Who will be the last to say: ``I am going to do what I believe the Constitution requires when we have a person who has demonstrated that he is a lawless, ruthless, reckless person who happens to have control of the executive branch of government''? It is my belief that sometimes you stand alone and it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. But I also understand that sometimes, when you stand alone, it is just a matter of time before others will stand with you. I compliment all who are standing with us today, who have been here from the genesis of this. Madam Speaker, I want to say one final thing. This is not about whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. I compliment the Republican who had the courage to step forward, the courage, the intestinal fortitude to take the stand for righteousness: Believe me, he won't be the last. There will be others. It is just a matter of time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to be recognized by you for this 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise, and still I rise, because I love my country and because I believe that no one is above the law. We say that quite religiously here in this institution: No one is above the law. I have in my hand the ``Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.'' This document, known as the Mueller report, has been released to the public for some 29 days now. Since its release, we have had many persons, many of whom are Members of this august body, say that they have concluded that the President has committed impeachable acts. Some have gone so far as to say that he should be impeached. I am one of them. We have also had hundreds of lawyers, many of whom are prosecutors and former prosecutors, say that if anyone else committed the offenses outlined in this document, the Mueller report, that person would be arrested and prosecuted. That person would be prosecuted. That person would not be above the law. Hence, since this document addresses acts by the President, since the President is not being prosecuted, and since the House of Representatives has not moved to impeach the President, one can conclude that the President is indeed now, for some 29 days, above the law. No one is above the law, unless you are the President. No one is above the law. The House of Representatives has a duty to enforce the law. The President of the United States of America, it has been said by constitutional scholars, by Members of this august body, and by lawyers--hundreds--that he is subject to the law and that he should be properly prosecuted. It is not happening. The prosecution of the President in the House of Representatives will take place once impeachment is initiated. Until impeachment is initiated, this President is above the law. He continues to obstruct. He is above the law. I am using this refrain because it is important for the American public, the people who understand that no one is above the law, to at least see that we have a problem. We have a President who, by most standards, has committed impeachable acts, yet we have not started the impeachment process. If the President is not impeached, one of two things will happen: one, he won't be impeached; or, two, the Congress of the United States of America would become a toothless paper tiger, not only as it relates to this President, but also as this relates to future Presidents. We cannot allow the perception of the Congress to be toothless when it comes to our constitutional responsibilities. We have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to bring the President to justice. The bar of justice for this President and any other President is this House of Representatives, and each Member of this House has the responsibility to make sure that justice is served. I will now start a process that will commence on the second anniversary of my initial call for the impeachment of this President, which will be tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the second anniversary, and I will start a process tomorrow of bringing to this floor a display. We will display the number of days since the Mueller report was produced and the number of days that this President has gone above the law because until the President is impeached, those who say that he should be impeached, those who say there is evidence enough to impeach, until this President is impeached, we who say this must conclude that he is above the law. I love my country. I stand on the law. I believe in the Constitution. As such, I believe that this House has a duty and a responsibility to take up impeachment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Before getting into my message, I would like to acknowledge that I am an ally of the LGBTQ community. I do this and announce my support for H.R. 5 because of a debt I owe. I haven't always had the privileges that I enjoy now. Someone stood and suffered so that I could come in the front door of, probably, this very facility. Someone suffered so that I would have the opportunity to go to some of the schools that I attended. I believe that there is reciprocity in life and that you don't get where you are and fail to appreciate those who have suffered so that you could have the opportunities that you enjoy. I support H.R. 5 for a multiplicity of reasons, the least of which is not the fact that I am repaying a debt. I am going to help make sure that others don't endure the pain and suffering that I endured and that my predecessors endured. No one should be punished or treated with disrespect because of how you look or who you are. Every person's dignity is given to them from a higher authority, and we all should respect the dignity and humanity of every individual. So I support H.R. 5, and I do so proudly because of a debt I owe. I thank my friends for bringing this to my attention. It was not to be a part of my message this evening, but it is a part of my life, to make sure others are treated properly. Madam Speaker, and still I rise tonight to address a crisis that our country finds itself engulfed in, a crisis that, if we are not very careful, will cause the Congress of the United States to be seen as a ``less than'' when it comes to the coequals that it is supposed to be on the same plane with. This crisis is a constitutional crisis. And while there are some who would differ with me and say that this is not a constitutional crisis, remember this: There is no hard and fast definition of what a constitutional crisis is, so whenever I give my thoughts or someone else gives their thoughts, we are giving opinions. Tonight, I would like to share my opinion about this constitutional crisis. Remember, all of these thoughts are opinions; just as the thoughts of persons who hold themselves out to be constitutional scholars, they are opinions. There are some who say that you don't have a constitutional crisis in the circumstance that we are dealing with with the President, who has refused to honor subpoenas by and through his various administrators. There are some who say that this will not be a constitutional crisis until the case gets to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has to rule on whether or not the subpoena must be honored. And if the Supreme Court rules that the subpoena must be honored, and then the members of the administration refuse to obey the Supreme Court, there are persons who conclude that this, now, is a constitutional crisis. I would conclude that if the President of the United States fails to honor a subpoena, after having been so ordered by the Judiciary, that this is more than a constitutional crisis; you now have a constitutional collapse. The crisis occurs when the President is at odds, meaning the executive branch, with the legislative branch; and currently, the legislative branch and the executive branch are at a stalemate. The executive branch is declining to cooperate, declining to allow the legislative branch to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities associated with oversight and investigation. And, as such, there is a crisis, and that crisis, clearly, is rooted in the Constitution, because the legislative branch has this responsibility pursuant to the Constitution. So this is a constitutional crisis, and we have a duty to address it, and we must do so, or we will have failed on our watch to take up our responsibilities as Members of Congress. This is our watch, and we have a responsibility to make sure that this House takes its proper place in the annals of history, with reference to the question of impeachment. Impeachment is something that we should not take lightly; but it is also something that we have to take seriously, and we have to take it seriously because, if we fail to do so, we will have allowed this august body to become minimized. You see, there are checks and balances in the system. The check on the executive branch is impeachment. That is the check. That is the sword of Damocles that hangs above the head of the executive. And if we fail to exercise this duty when it properly should be, we, then, do not provide the checks to make sure the balance of power remains as it should be. I fear for what is happening to this Congress. I am gravely concerned because I don't see us aggressively pursuing the checks so as to make sure the balance of power remains in place. Checks and balances are in place to make sure that there is no concentration of power in any branch of government. If we don't become the last line of defense with reference to the President, if we fail to do so, we then say that there are no guardrails; that there are no rules that the President has to obey. He doesn't become just another president. He metamorphoses into a monarch. The Framers never intended for us to have a monarchy. The Framers intended for the President to be checked by the Congress. My hope is that we, in this Congress, will take up our responsibilities, and we will provide the checks necessary to make sure that this President, and no other President, is above the law. I hear many Members of Congress say that the President is not above the law. No one is above the law. And they go on to say, however, this President, notwithstanding his actions, we should not impeach. How can we say that he has committed impeachable acts, and then conclude that he should not be impeached? We, literally, are saying he is above the law when we say that he has committed impeachable acts, but then decline to impeach. Anyone else breaking the law will have to answer to the bar of justice, except the President. We know that he has done it. The Mueller report is replete with examples, yet we have not exercised our constitutional responsibilities and, as a result, we, the Congress of the United States of America, are allowing the President to be above the law. This is unacceptable. I refuse to allow this to continue. And I say, as I have said, that the President will have to come before the bar of justice, which is the House of Representatives. If we fail to do so, we will have literally allowed him to be above the law. Not in this country, and not on my watch. I take my oath seriously, and I assure you that this will not be the final word; that the President is not impeachable, because he is, and we will have to have a vote on it. Tomorrow will be the second anniversary of the date that we initially called for the President's impeachment. I believe that we cannot have another anniversary without another vote. There will be one. My hope is that it will come through the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives. But, if not, it will come. And I don't know that there will be others who will vote to impeach him, but I do know that I will. And there are times when you may have to stand alone; but I know that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the time that I have had. I thank you all for allowing it to take place, and I assure you, I love my country, and I only speak these words because I see a country in peril because of a reckless, ruthless, lawless President that we are allowing to be above the law.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. And still I rise because there is a crisis that has to be addressed. Madam Speaker, the system of checks and balances that we have instilled within our government, a system that the Framers of the Constitution devised such that there would not be a concentration of power in the hands of the chief executive officer of the government, in fact, is to prevent a concentration of power in any aspect. There is power that is spread across the government. There are three branches of the government. I want to focus this morning, if I may, on two--the executive and the legislative--because, Madam Speaker, this morning, as I stand before you, a proud American, I must inform all that the system of checks and balances is at risk. It is at risk because we now have a President who does not believe that he can or will be impeached. We have a President who refuses to allow Congress to perform its constitutionally accorded oversight responsibilities. When you have a President who does this, Madam Speaker, you lose the power of Congress. It becomes concentrated in the President. The Presidency becomes a place where power is concentrated because the President has no fear: He doesn't believe that there are consequences for his going beyond what the Constitution allows; He will engage in conduct that Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution would prohibit; and He will engage in impeachable offenses because he knows that the Congress will not impeach him. It is impeachment that is the ultimate guard against a reckless, ruthless, lawless President; and if we do not exert our authority, this President, knowing that we won't, is capable of doing things that we cannot imagine. Madam Speaker, it is up to us, the Members of this Congress, to assure that this government continues to have the checks and balances that the Framers of the Constitution intended. If we do not, if Congress does not fulfill its responsibility, we won't have a Presidency. The power will be so concentrated that we will have a monarchy. The Framers of the Constitution never intended for a President to just totally disregard the Congress. And notwithstanding all that might happen in the courts, notwithstanding all of the subpoenas that may be taken to court and have them litigated properly, the ultimate check on a President is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, and that is impeachment when he commits impeachable acts. We have the Mueller report. It speaks for itself. And there are many constitutional scholars who have said there has been an obstruction to take place. There are many lawyers who have worked in the Justice Department. They number hundreds now, the lawyers who have signed on, indicating that the President should be beneath the law just as everyone else is, or the law should apply to him. He shouldn't be above the law. They are indicating that, if we don't act, we are showing the President that he is above the law. He then becomes a monarch, and we then become a weaker form of government. So I call upon this Congress: Let us do what is expected of us. The Framers of the Constitution gave us the way. They have shown the way. We but only have to have the will, and it is worth it for us to do this because the country is at stake in the sense that the government is at risk. Madam Speaker, I love my country.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last night at a rally in Florida, the President referred to me as ``that man.'' Mr. Speaker, I love my country, and still I rise. And I rise today to address the comment that the President made in referring to me as ``that man.'' Mr. Speaker, the video of what I said speaks for itself. The President indicates that I said the only way to get him out of office is to impeach him, but the video speaks for itself. But I do want to share with the President that he is right; I am ``that man.'' I am ``that man,'' a liberated Democrat, a liberated Democrat in the spirit of Shirley Chisholm. I am unbought and unbossed. Mr. President, you finally encountered at least one person that your money can't buy and your power doesn't scare. You have a date with destiny, Mr. President. Your fate is in the hands of 435 Members of Congress. You are not above the law. No one is. Impeachment is in the hands of this Congress. ``That man,'' Mr. President, is a Member of this Congress. Mr. President, I assure you that the long arm of the law is reaching out for you. In this country, we will not allow you or any other person to hold yourself out as being above the law. You have an appointment with history in this House of Representatives. If no one else will bring you to justice, I will, Mr. President. Lawsuits and delay tactics will not deter me. You will not engage in the paralysis of analysis, as Dr. King put it. You won't engage in this paralysis of analysis such that we will put this off until the next election. Mr. President, your case will be brought before this House. It is just a matter of time, Mr. President; it is just a matter of time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because there are some things that I must call to the attention of the Congress. Some news sources have indicated that somebody has said that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis. Mr. Speaker, I am that somebody. We are in a constitutional crisis. Mr. Speaker, we currently have the executive branch and the legislative branch in a standoff, a standoff because the President of the United States of America has refused to cooperate and has encouraged others to do so, refusing to allow subpoenas to be properly honored--subpoenas properly issued, I might add. He has indicated that he, as President, will continue to do so in his words and his deeds. So, Mr. Speaker, I still rise, and I do so because there is a crisis. But I also do so because this obstruction by the President continues to this day. As I speak currently, the President is engaged in obstruction. This policy that he is implementing of not allowing persons to testify if he can prevent them from doing so, thwarting the investigation that is taking place--lawful investigations, I might add--is a form of obstruction in and of itself. He continues to obstruct. Mr. Speaker, I rise, also, because many have said that the soul of the country is at stake. Mr. Speaker, I would amend this. I would agree that the soul of the country is at risk, but I would also say that the soul of the Congress is at risk. The Congress of the United States of America must do its job, Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States of America, many of whom, as Members, have indicated that the President has committed impeachable acts but then go on to say that we should not impeach him. Mr. Speaker, we cannot say that a President has committed impeachable offenses and then not impeach. To do so would legitimize the President's actions. This Congress cannot allow this President to continue to do what he is doing, say that he ought to be impeached, and then step back from impeachment. That would say to the President that he can go out now and claim legitimacy. He can say that, if I were a person guilty of impeachable offenses, the Congress would have impeached me. He will say that one party had enough votes to do it without the assistance of the other party. He will say to the country, ``I have done nothing wrong,'' and that would be wrong, in toto, for him to say such a thing because he has done many things that are wrong. We as a Congress have a duty to bring before the body the President of the United States for impeachment purposes. This is the only place where such an action can take place, and the longer we delay, the greater the opportunity for the President to obfuscate, to confuse the country, to give people the impression that it is just a witch hunt. It is not a witch hunt. It is the proper thing that we should do, pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America; and our failure to do so will only allow us to give the President reason to go forward and say that he has been vindicated when the truth is he has committed impeachable acts, starting with the firing of Mr. Comey and continuing through his efforts to deny the House of Representatives, by and through its lawful investigative authorities, to look into and bring witnesses before investigative bodies. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the history of our country. It is a red letter day, but there is hope, and I assure you that this President will not--will not--go unchecked. There will be Articles of Impeachment brought before this body. I assure you there will be Articles of Impeachment. I pray that we can get this done through the proper committees, but if nobody else does it, each Member of Congress is accorded the authority to come to the floor, the ability, and to bring Articles of Impeachment. I don't want to do it. This is not something that I came to Congress to do. But I love my country, and I will not watch and allow such a thing to happen before this country without my taking appropriate action. I will bring Articles of Impeachment if nobody else does. And finally, I will say more about this this evening. I should have 30 minutes of time. I will speak to a greater extent on the issue that I have called to Members' attention now.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise, Mr. Speaker, because I love my country. I love what it stands for. Mr. Speaker, I am a person who sings the national anthem. I salute the flag. But I also respect those who, as a matter of principle, choose not to do as I. I love my country. I believe that one of the hallmarks of our justice system is the concept that no person is above the law--no person. It doesn't matter where you were born; it doesn't matter where you happen to be in life; it doesn't matter what office you happen to hold. No person is above the law. This is something that people revere us for the world over, the belief that in this country you will not be above the law. But they also understand that, in doing this, no person will be beneath the law. The law applies equally to all in the United States of America. I believe in this concept to the extent that I will stand alone and say that the President of the United States is not to be above the law. And I will stand alone because, on some things, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. So I will stand alone and say to the world that, in this country, wherein we indicate in the Pledge of Allegiance liberty and justice for all, in this country, wherein we recognize that all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, in this country, no person is above the law. When it comes to the law as it relates to the President of the United States of America, the place where the President is brought before the bar of justice is this House of Representatives. This is the place where the law and the President will come together. And in this place, because of the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 4, if a President commits impeachable acts, the President is brought before this bar of justice--not brought here in person, but those acts are called to the attention of the House of Representatives. Each Member of the House can do so, and in so doing, each Member can have what is called a privileged resolution presented. When this resolution is presented, a President who is believed to have committed an impeachable act can be brought before this House, this bar of justice. Those acts can be voted upon. This is the only place on the planet Earth where a President of the United States can be brought to justice while in office, in this House of Representatives. This is why I have stood my ground. I have said that this President, who has committed impeachable acts, must be brought before the House of Representatives for his impeachable acts, his impeachable behavior. I marvel at those who would say that the President has done things that merit his impeachment but would then go on to say, ``But I don't think we should impeach him.'' They will say they don't think so because if we do so, the President won't be convicted in the Senate. The Constitution of the United States of America does not require a conviction in the Senate before there is impeachment in the House. The House acts first, and then the Senate is given the opportunity to give its response. In this House of Representatives, it is imperative that we let the world know because the world is watching. The world is watching the United States of America, which means it is really watching this House of Representatives. They want to see if we are going to allow a President who has committed impeachable acts--they want to see if we are going to allow him to escape the long arm of the law. They want to see whether or not we truly believe that no one is above the law, and that includes the President of the United States of America. We must act. Mr. Mueller has taken up the cause. We outsourced the investigation to the executive branch of the government, which was not the appropriate thing to do. The Framers of the Constitution never intended that the agents of the executive branch investigate the chief executive officer, which would be the President, for impeachment purposes. That was never contemplated. They gave us Article II, Section 4, so that we, the Members of this august body, would take up our duty, our responsibility, and our obligation. They gave us the way. The question is, do we have the will? Mr. Mueller has done his job. He has submitted to us his report. That report alone is enough for us to bring Articles of Impeachment. That report is based upon persons giving statements that were subject to the penalty of perjury if they should give untruthful statements. It is clearly a roadmap to impeachment. Mr. Mueller has so much as said--not in these exacts words, but when you understand the import of his language, he has so much as said that if he could bring the President to justice, he would. But they have a rule. They have a mandate in the Justice Department that they will not indict a sitting President. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the rule that Mr. Mueller believes in, and they followed it. He went on to say that he is not exonerating the President by not bringing the President before the bar of justice. He is simply saying to us: I have done what I am allowed to do. Now, Congress, it is up to you. I have given you what I believe is the evidence. You take this evidence and do with it what you believe to be appropriate. If Congress takes this evidence and simply sits on it, if we engage in the paralysis of analysis--a phrase that I borrow from Dr. Martin Luther King--if we investigate until someone will eventually say, ``Well, it is too late to go on with impeachment. It is too late now. It will look political. Let's just wait until the next election,'' that is not what the Framers of the Constitution intended. They intended for us to have the will to follow the way that they accorded us in the Constitution. We made it clear that we wanted to wait on the Mueller report. Well, we waited. Now there are persons who are saying let's wait until the next election. I refuse to wait until the next election. I refuse to send the world a message that, as a Member of this body, I allowed the President to go unchecked, that I did not bring Articles of Impeachment. Mr. President, I want you to know that the hand of justice awaits you. I want you to know that this body is going to take up impeachment. And here is why: If we fail to do so, we will allow the President, who has committed impeachable acts, to go out and market himself as a person who has been vindicated by our inaction. He will say to the world: If I committed an impeachable act, they surely would have brought impeachment before the House of Representatives. After all, one party has more than enough Members to bring impeachment before the House without the help of another party. He will tell the world that there was no collusion, and he did nothing that would merit impeachment. This is what he would say. He would have that liberty. Even if he doesn't say it, he would have the liberty. My guess is that he would. That is what I believe. We must bring impeachment before this body so as not to allow a President who has done things worthy of impeachment to go out and contend that he is not subject to impeachment and that he should be considered a person who has been vindicated by our inaction. What are some of the things that the President has done that would merit his impeachment? Let's just start with Mr. Mueller's report. I won't go through everything in its entirety. He lists some 10 possibilities. I am just going to mention trying as best as he could to get people to have the investigation terminated by having the person who is performing the investigation fired, having that person resign, having that person cease and desist. The President started this with Mr. Comey when Mr. Comey was investigating the President's association, by and through his campaign, with Russia, interference in our elections. This kind of thing is something that we would want to have investigated. That was the genesis of it. Then we can move forward to the latest rendition that Mr. Mueller has given us as it relates to the counsel to the President and his desire to have the counsel have word given to certain parties that the President desires--probably not say that, but that was his desire--to have the lawyer who was investigating, Mr. Mueller, removed. This is not acceptable. This is obstruction. Obstruction takes place when you attempt to do such a thing. There are other things in between. As important as these are, I believe separating babies from their mothers as a policy is impeachable when you add it to the many other things that he has done with reference to people of color. To say that the countries in Africa are s-hole countries and then develop policies, immigration policies, if you will, that address immigration from these countries, you are putting your bigotry into policy. To say that there were some nice people among the racists, the bigots, the xenophobes, the Islamophobes, the homophobes, the Klansmen, the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville where a person lost her life, where others were injured, to say that there were some very fine people among them, very, very nice people, if you will, among them, if I said that, I assure you there would be a penalty for my doing so. If any Member of Congress said such a thing, there would be a penalty for doing so. I am not above the law. Members of Congress are not above the law. And the President cannot be above the law. To say this gives these persons who were screaming ``blood and soil,'' and, ``Jews will not replace us,'' to say that we will not take up this cause in this House is to say that the President is above the law when we know if one of our Members did it, we would take up this cause in the House of Representatives. The President cannot be above the law. No Member of this House can be above the law. No judge can be above the law. No police officer can be above the law. The law applies equally to all. The President has engaged in these invidious acts, harmful acts, harmful to society, telling members of the constabulary, the police, that when you have persons in your custody, you don't have to be nice to them. We know about how many persons have been mishandled in the hands of the police. Not all police do this, but some have. In fact, many have gone to jail. That doesn't mean all law enforcement officers are bad. It just means that those who did it are, and we don't want to encourage others to do such a thing. The President has committed impeachable acts. These impeachable acts can be brought to this House, and they must be brought before the House of Representatives. Right now, the President is committing obstruction by causing persons who should appear before Congress' various committees--by doing all that he can to cause them not to appear. He is continuing to obstruct. He does not want congressional committees to perform their lawful duties, the duties that have been accorded them. He is standing in the way, thwarting as much as he can. He wants to thwart subpoenas. He wants to make impotent the subpoena power of the Congress of the United States of America. This is a continuation of his obstruction. His obstruction has to be checked. This is where it is checked. There is currently, as I stand and speak to you, a constitutional crisis taking place. There is a standoff between the executive branch, wherein the President is at the helm, and the House of Representatives. A standoff exists, as I speak to you. This is a constitutional crisis. The President is creating this constitutional crisis. The President ought to be brought before the bar of justice for obstructing, for what he is doing right now to create this constitutional crisis. Don't let anybody kid you. I have heard persons on these news programs say that somebody has said that there is a constitutional crisis. Well, I am that somebody. I have said it. Then they go on to say something that would minimize the fact that there is a crisis. They will be saying that there is a crisis soon. The very persons who are saying now, ``Well, don't worry about that,'' they will be saying it soon because the crisis is only going to intensify under this President. They will be saying there is a constitutional crisis. It is just a matter of time. When they say it, somehow, it is going to have greater legitimacy than it does now when I am saying it. I believe that we must speak truth to power. I didn't come to Congress to do this. It is not my desire to be the canary in the coal mine. It is not my desire to take on the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. I do it because I love my country. I do it because we cannot allow a reckless, ruthless, lawless President to remain in office. He has to be impeached. I do it because I believe that we cannot allow political expediency to trump the moral imperative to do that which is right. I do it because we have to make these talking points that we have an action item. That action item is to bring the President before the bar of justice. Mr. Speaker, I love my country. I promise those who believe as I do that you will see the President have his day in court right here in the Congress of the United States of America, where the Framers of the Constitution intended that we hear the calls and take a vote. We will all have to vote. I don't lobby people. I simply say, ``Vote your conscience.'' But I do know this: I believe that history is not going to be kind to us if we take no action. We must act. I will act. I love my country. For this reason, I would do so. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand here in the House of Representatives, to have the opportunity to address colleagues, friends, and the Nation. I especially thank the leadership for allowing these privileges. I am grateful to the many people who are still here as we continue with our statements on the floor of the House. You work tirelessly, and it seems that you work endlessly, Mr. Speaker. I think it appropriate that we thank you for being here with us into the late hours as we present our floor messaging. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here tonight to announce that my dear friend and colleague, Representative Emanuel Cleaver, has joined me in reintroducing a resolution in recognition of Fair Housing Month. Housing, Mr. Speaker, is a basic human right, but access is too often limited based upon race, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation. This resolution marks the 51st anniversary of the congressional passage of the Fair Housing Act, properly styled title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based upon race, national origin, religion, sex, or familial status. This year, Mr. Speaker, also marks the 31st anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. More than 50 years ago on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech. It was considered, and it is still considered, one of the greatest speeches in American history. In his speech, Dr. King called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. Passionately, he argued that all men are created equal and should be treated equally. Although that was not the case in America at that time, he believed it must be the case for America's future. I must tell you, we have come a long way, Mr. Speaker, but we still have a great distance to go to realize the dream of Dr. King, a world where persons are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Dr. King was a very strong supporter of fair housing, and he envisioned a society free of discrimination. I would like to speak just a moment about access to affordable housing. Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development releases the ``Annual Homelessness Assessment Report.'' This is released to Congress. It provides the best available estimates of homelessness and how it is impacting the United States. According to the 2018 report, there were 552,830 persons experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in 2018. The report also provides details on the demographics of the people experiencing homelessness. For example, for women and children in 2018, nearly 160,000 children and youth experienced homelessness, representing nearly 30 percent of the total persons who are in a state of homelessness. Over 216,000 women and girls experienced homelessness, or 40 percent of the total persons who experienced homelessness. Racial minorities were disproportionately represented among people experiencing homelessness in 2018. African Americans comprised 40 percent of all people experiencing homelessness, despite making up only 13 percent of the Nation's general population. Hispanic or Latino persons comprised 25 percent of the total, despite making up but 18 percent of the Nation's general population. Nearly 38,000 veterans experienced homelessness in 2018, or 9 percent of the total. Furthermore, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the U.S. has a shortage of more than 7.2 million rental homes that are affordable and available to the lowest income renters in our country. After the 2008 financial crisis, it became clear that we need to address the epidemic of discrimination in lending where communities of color are disproportionately targeted. I can recall, having been on the Financial Services Committee, how we received testimony from persons who indicated to us that as a result of this downturn in 2008, the community of color, the African American community in particular, lost a generation of wealth. This is something that we are still trying to recover from. This is why we need the Fair Lending for All Act. The Fair Lending for All Act would create such a fair lending testing program that would penalize individuals who discriminate. When they do so, and they discriminate invidiously and cause harm to persons, when they hold predatory loans and they make these loans, they will be held accountable because we must ensure we are not only understanding the patterns of housing discrimination more thoroughly but also understand that we are providing clear oversight and guidelines to combat housing discrimination. In 1968, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, commonly known and well-known as the Kerner Commission, concluded in a groundbreaking report that White racism led to pervasive discrimination in employment, education, and housing. In 2015, the Black homeownership rate was just over 40 percent, virtually unchanged since 1968. Over that same period, White ownership increased 5.2 percentage points to 71.1 percent, 30 percentage points higher than the Black homeownership rate. As a result, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968, 1 week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. In fact, there are many people who contend that before the demise of Dr. King, the Fair Housing Act would not have been signed as quickly as it was. Dr. King, as you know, was assassinated. For many of us, it was a sad and dark day in the history of our country. We were saddened by what happened to Dr. King, notwithstanding the fact that the Fair Housing Act became law as a result of his untimely demise. The Fair Housing Act was conceived to battle discrimination in housing related to these housing transactions that are supposed to allow everyone to access housing but don't always accomplish those goals. More than 4 million Fair Housing Act violations occur each year against people of all protected classes, including based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Less than 1 percent of the violations of Fair Housing Act laws are reported each year. In 2017, approximately 28,843 housing discrimination complaints were filed. Of these, 20,595 complaints, or approximately 70 percent, were filed with local private, nonprofit, fair housing centers. Housing bills in the 116th Congress include H.R. 123, the FHA Additional Credit Pilot Program Reauthorization Act. We introduced this on January 3, 2019. This would extend section 258 of the National Housing Act, which established an automated process for providing alternative credit rating information for mortgagors and prospective mortgagors. I would add that, simply put, this would give persons who pay their light bills, their gas bills, their water bills, all of their utility bills timely but they don't have thick credit files--in fact, they have thin credit files, and some of them have no credit at all, in addition to these bills that they pay on a monthly basis--an opportunity to have these payments scored so that they, too, might have the opportunity to own a home. Representative Vicente Gonzalez is one of the cosponsors of this legislation. H.R. 166, the Fair Lending for All Act, was introduced on January 3 of 2019, and this would establish an Office of Fair Lending Testing to test for compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, ECOA, and to create criminal penalties for invidious discrimination in lending. H.R. 149, the Housing Fairness Act, was introduced on January 3, 2019, and it would instruct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a nationwide testing program. This nationwide testing program would be utilized to detect and document differences in the treatment of persons seeking to rent or purchase housing or obtain a refinance of a home mortgage loan. It would measure patterns of adverse treatment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability status, or national origin of renters, home buyers, or borrowers. And it would measure the prevalence of such discriminatory practices across the housing and mortgage lending market. H.R. 165, Improving Access to Homes for Heroes Act. This was introduced January 3, 2019. It would provide Congress with the information it needs, as we work toward ending homelessness among our veterans, by requiring HUD to provide Congress with an annual report that gives a comprehensive assessment of the efforts being made to provide housing assistance to our veterans, and it would also require public housing agencies to include veterans in their public housing planning. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be associated with all of the bills. We are honored to act as original sponsors of all of these pieces of legislation, but I am much more proud of the fact that, in this country, we are still making progress, but we really have come a long way. I can remember a time when the public housing in this country was segregated, literally--tax dollars providing housing that was segregated. I am proud to say that we have come a long way and integrated the public housing, housing paid for with American tax dollars. I can remember a time in this country when there were neighborhoods that persons of African ancestry were restricted from living in. Restrictive covenants were prevalent. And there are still some neighborhoods that there is a degree of difficulty acquiring access to; but, generally speaking, restrictive covenants are no longer in existence to the extent that they are commonly used to exclude persons of color, and other persons as well, based on religious preferences, from the neighborhoods. This is a country that still has a long way to go, but this is a country that has made some great strides. Notwithstanding the strides, however, we must continue to do our very best to make sure every person who wants housing and can afford it can get housing, which means that we have to have affordable housing. I was very proud this week that just passed, in Houston, Texas, to visit an area in my district, the Ninth Congressional District of Texas, where a project had been razed, as in eviscerated, and there was a raising, if you will, of another project. This project cost approximately $30-plus million, and it was subsidized in part from CDBG dollars from this Congress to the tune of about $3 million. It was a wonderful thing to see this new growth, if you will, this new housing development in this community. It is a wonderful project that has amenities that you might expect to find in an upscale neighborhood. Within the center for persons to use, the common area, there is a business center right within that complex. There is also a facility for meetings. There was an exercise room. And their plan is to have a swimming pool. Yes, people who need affordable housing do swim. They enjoy exercising, and they want to have the opportunity to go online and conduct business just as other people do. So it was a wonderful thing to see this project have all of these various amenities that you might find in an upscale neighborhood. I was there with a good many people who were just proud to be a part of the community and to see this development take place within their neighborhood. As you know, we dwell in our houses, but we live in our neighborhoods. And in living in a neighborhood, you want to make sure that you have got quality housing. You want parks. You want schools. You want the opportunity to have your food source immediately available to you, readily available. This is all a part of what is being developed as a result, in part, of these new housing projects coming online. So it is important for us to continue to use community development dollars in a very positive way, so that we can continue to develop, not just homes for people, but neighborhoods for people to live in as well as homes for them to dwell in. Houston, Texas, I am proud to say, has a mayor who has made it his mission to be a good partner in the wise and judicious use of these community development dollars. That is but one project that I can call to your attention. I have attended the ribbon cutting of many other projects that are similarly situated. I would add, as I come to a close, that the housing crisis that we are experiencing now is one that is quite visible. In my lifetime, I don't think I have seen this number of people dwelling on the bridges, dwelling along the side of freeways, dwelling under trees. We say that home is where the heart is. If this is true, we have to query: Where is the heart of the homeless? Where is the heart of the homeless? Is it on a bridge or under a bridge or near a park bench at night? Is it someplace where those of us who lead lives adorned with luxury don't have them in sight? Where are the homeless? Where is the heart? But the question really isn't, where is the heart of the homeless person. The question is: Where is our heart? Where is the heart of a nation that is the richest in the world that can tolerate this level of homelessness that is in plain sight? You don't have to look very far to see it. Many of us take the freeways and we avoid it, but it is right there for all to see. Where is our heart? Where is the heart of the country that can put people on the moon, the country that can house people in space stations; where is the heart of the country that can do all of these magnificent things, yet have persons who are sleeping under bridges? I am proud that the Honorable Maxine Waters, the chairperson of the Financial Services Committee, has a bill that we are taking up, a bill that would accord some many billions of dollars for the homelessness part of it, some $5-plus billion, and it would attempt to tackle this problem of homelessness in a very positive way. It is not just another Lilliputian effort. This is a noble effort to do what we can to provide homes for people who are living on the streets of life in the richest country in the world. So, this month I am proud to bring this resolution to the floor, and I am proud to tell you that we are going to tackle these problems. We may not solve them immediately, but we have the will to solve them eventually. This is our challenge. This is our quest. And this is what we must do in the richest country in the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a document styled ``Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,'' Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. Mr. Speaker, I rise because this Congress has a date with destiny. Mr. Speaker, the tintinnabulation of history are sounding. The bells of history are reminding us that we have a responsibility to our country that we must take up. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to announce that I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States of America for obstructing a lawful investigation. I do so, Mr. Speaker, because I will not put party above people; I will not put politics above principle; and I will not put this President above the law. Mr. Speaker, I don't do this because I want to. I do so because I have to. We cannot allow the paralysis of analysis to thwart the obstruction of justice cause that must be brought before the Congress. This is a day that we all must start now to decide what our votes will be because history demands that we all take a stand. I have not lobbied one person and will not do so. I say to people: Vote your conscience. But if you have read this document, there are a good many people who will conclude that the President has obstructed a lawful investigation. Mr. Speaker, there are people who cannot say that I was right when I said some 600-plus days ago that the President was engaging in obstruction, and they will not say that I was wrong. But to those people who can't say that I am wrong and will not say that I am right, you know that I kept my word every step of the way, and I am going to keep my word today. If this House does not bring these Articles of Impeachment before this august body, each Member has the authority and the opportunity to do so. I will not allow history to show that this Congress did not take a vote on the impeachment of a reckless, ruthless, lawless President. I absolutely believe that we must honor our date with history.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise because I love my country. I rise today on a mission of mercy. I am on a mission of mercy for people that I will likely never meet and greet. Perhaps by some fortuitous circumstance, I may encounter some of them, but I know not who they are currently in the sense that I know them personally. I rise on behalf of the many people who are seeking asylum, and I do so, Mr. Speaker, because it has been reported on many news stations-- outlets, if you will--that our President intends to reinstate the family separation policy. I rise on a mission of mercy, and I make an appeal to the most powerful man on the planet Earth. My appeal is that you would not--N-O- T--you would not reinstate this policy. I beseech you to please, Mr. President, treat these people the way you would want to be treated if you found yourself in similar circumstances. I beg that you would understand that separating babies from mothers is unacceptable by any standard that we know of. No one supports the notion of taking babies from their mothers, children from their parents. So I am begging and pleading with the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man on Earth: Please, Mr. President, do not reinstate this policy. I also appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the President to do the right thing, the just thing. If we are not pleased with the laws in this country, we have a means by which we can address the law. If we believe that something is unacceptable, there is a way for us to address it. The way to address this problem is with immigration reform. I beg the President and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please, let's try to resolve this with legislation. Let's not do what we have done and, quite frankly, have not atoned for. Some of the children are still not back with their parents who were separated previously. This is the United States of America. This is not what we do. We don't take children from their parents and then place them in places where we cannot find them such that we can reunite them. This is my appeal, Mr. President. I make the appeal because, as a Member of Congress, I believe that at some point we are going to have to account for the actions that we engage in while we are here. I don't want it on my record that while I was in the Congress of the United States of America and I had the opportunity to at least speak to power, to speak truth to power, and make an appeal on behalf of those who are among the least, the last, and the lost--I am making my appeal. I am doing what I can to help those who are fleeing harm's way. Mr. President, you don't have to do this, and I beg that Members of both parties would please encourage him not to do so. This is a moment for us to reflect and a moment for us to demonstrate to the world that what we preach, we will practice. We have, for years, encouraged other countries to take in refugees. We have gone so far as to pay countries to take in refugees. We have funded countries to take in refugees. We ought to practice what we preach. Those who are not qualified should not come, should not be brought into our country. But I would also say this, that we should not say to the world: Go back, refugees, asylum seekers. You are not welcome in the United States of America. This is not the country that would proclaim such a thing. Our laws we stand on, and I stand on those laws.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the life of a great and noble American, Ms. Bessie Swindle, who will be laid to rest. Madam Speaker, Ms. Swindle was born in 1939 at a time when she could buy a hat but she couldn't try it on. She was relegated to the balcony of the movie and the back of the bus. Yet, notwithstanding all of the obstacles that life afforded her, she was a servant to multiple elected officials: two constables and two mayors. She has been given a day in her honor by Mayor Bill White in 2007. She was, literally, a commissioner without a commission. She was a council person without a council. She was a lawyer without a license. She was the person who gave hope to the hopeless and help to the helpless. She lived up to the words of Ruth Smeltzer: Some measure their lives by days and years, Others by heartthrobs, passions, and tears. But the surest measure under God's sun, Is what for others in your lifetime have you done. God bless you, dear Bessie. We love you. Your spirit will live forever, and your legacy will continue to change the lives of others. You made headway when others were making headlines. We love you.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to honor the life and legacy of a distinguished member of my Houston staff, a constituent, and more importantly a dear friend who passed away on Thursday, March 28, 2019 in Houston, Texas. Ms. Bessie Swindle was born June 5, 1939 in Loreauville, Louisiana, relocating to Houston, Texas as a young adult where she went on to become a pillar of the Sunnyside community. Over the course of more than fifty years, she used her skills as a community organizer to make a difference in Houston. Prior to serving as an outreach coordinator in my Houston office, she founded and served as president of the Cloverland Civic Club, representing 400 homeowners in the neighborhood, sponsoring fundraisers, aiding needy families, and raising money for scholarships. She was involved with several organizations and used her voice to represent Sunnyside residents as a Parent/Teacher Association member, Troop Leader for Girl Scouts of America San Jacinto Council, President of the St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church ``55 Plus'' Club, Community Liaison for former Harris County Precinct 7 Constable Michael Butler and Constable Perry Wooten, member of Mayor Bill White's Phone Tower Commission, and member of the City of Houston Police Officers Civil Service Commission. She also served as president of Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs and Precinct Judge for Harris County Voting Precinct 271. During her distinguished lifetime of service, she was the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including Parent of the Year from James H. Law Elementary in 1975, the Mayor's Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service in 1996, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus Award in 1999, the Sir Knight Dennis Armelin Humanitarian Award in 2004, Mayor Bill White's proclamation of Bessie M. Swindle Day in 2007, the naming of the Bessie Swindle Community Center in Sunnyside, Houston, Texas in 2009, as well as the street naming of Bessie Swindle Way in 2010. It is eminently clear that Ms. Bessie M. Swindle was no ordinary community servant. She used her influence to constantly stand up for those who needed her assistance--and she made a difference. Ms. Bessie Swindle will be greatly missed for her wit, wisdom, and willingness to work hard. Her contribution will never be forgotten. I would like to send my condolences to Ms. Swindle's family, friends, and all those who will miss her dearly. I hope that, even in this sad time, Ms. Swindle's record of unselfish dedication to her city and community will serve as a bright light for those who dare to follow in her footsteps. Ms. Bessie M. Swindle is survived by one daughter: Jackie Swindle. She is also survived by four brothers, one sister, and many beloved nieces and nephews.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise with love of country in mind and liberty and justice for all in heart. I rise to remind us of the words of the great French intellectual, Voltaire, who reminded us that those who can make us believe absurdities can cause us to commit atrocities. Mr. Speaker, I have been to the border. I have seen the security people who are there, the Border Patrol officers. They are victims, Mr. Speaker, victims of policies that, unfortunately, do not respect the humanity of many people. I have seen the children stacked in cages. I have seen the parents grieving. Mr. Speaker, I know why people are fleeing the countries south of the border. They are doing so because they are, literally, many of them, running for their lives. They are seeking safe harbor in the United States of America because we have extended an informal invitation by and through our Statue of Liberty. We have, with our words and our deeds, said to the world that we are people who you can trust and who you can depend on. Mr. Speaker, I rise with liberty and justice for all in mind because those who would want us to believe that babies who are coming here are an invading army, if you will, they are wrong. Those babies are coming because their mothers believe that they can find safety in our country. Mr. Speaker, would anybody deny that a mother who would send her child to this country or some distant place, possibly understanding that the child could be harmed along the way, can anybody deny that this is being done because that mother has such great love for that child that she wants her child to have the opportunity to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Can anybody deny that these parents who come, traversing harm's way, are doing so because they are trying to leave a circumstance that has greater harm? Mr. Speaker, I rise with the understanding that Voltaire was right. It is an absurdity to believe that women and children and people who are fleeing harm's way are invaders. I also would remind us of other words of Voltaire. He also reminded us that, ``It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.'' I would not utilize the word ``fools,'' but I will say that it is difficult to free people from chains that they revere. Those who want to separate us from the rest of the world, especially the world of color, they revere these chains that bind and bond them to this notion. I think it is going to be difficult to separate them, but not impossible. I believe that people of goodwill can always win and that we of goodwill must continue to preach the message and gospel of liberty and justice for all. I believe that we can make a difference in the lives of people who we will never meet and greet. Those persons who are trying to get here will probably never vote for me. There is no reason for me to do this other than I believe in my heart that an injustice is being perpetrated at the border. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that this problem at the border requires greater scrutiny and greater attention from the American people and from those of us who represent them. It is my belief that if we want to do something about this problem, we have to acknowledge that it is a humanitarian crisis that we are dealing with and that the humanitarian crisis cannot be solved with a wall alone. We cannot conclude that, if we leave the world alone, it will leave us alone. We are a part of this great world of humanity. There is but one race and that is the human race. We must do our part to protect all within the human race, especially our neighbors to the south.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House of Representatives. Each time I am afforded this opportunity, I have tried to savor the moment knowing that it is not eternal and knowing that, at some point, we will no longer have this preeminent privilege. But I do appreciate having the opportunity to serve the people of the Ninth Congressional District and to serve my country. I love my country. I thank the gentlewoman for what she has done with H. Res. 257. I support this resolution, and I would like to compliment the lady for what she has done since she has arrived in Congress. She has truly hit the ground running. She came from the State house. She is a lawyer. She has been an advocate, and she understands the issues associated with criminal justice. So I thank her for what she has done and what she is doing with this resolution. Madam Speaker, it was never intended for the executive branch of the government to investigate itself. The Framers of the Constitution, in Federalist 65, addressed this. Federalist 65, the Federalist Papers. I invite people to please read the Federalist Papers. If you can't read them all, just read Federalist 65 and 69. Some things are made perspicuously clear. One of the things made clear is that impeachment is solely within the province of the House of Representatives. Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America; Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America--these are the authors of the Federalist Papers, and they were prophetic with some of their writings. While I would not agree with all that they did in their lifetimes, I will tell you that what they have done with reference to impeachment is prophetic, because they understood that at some point you could have a President who was unfit to hold office, but who had not committed a crime but should be removed from office before the next election because of the harm the President is imposing upon society. Understanding this, they were in support of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which deals with treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as the means by which a President can be removed from office after having been elected. They understood that there might be a time such as this and a President such as Trump. They understood that we, the Members of this august body, should be empowered such that we could take up the cause of the American people. Not because we are Democrats, because it is not about Democrats; it is about democracy. Not because we are Republicans, because it is not about Republicans; it is about the Republic and what Franklin said when he called to our attention: You have a Republic if you can keep it. It is about maintaining this Republic. They were prophetic. They understood that you cannot allow the executive branch to investigate itself, because if you allow such to happen, you find yourself with what has happened with Mr. Mueller. He has investigated, but he cannot hand it over to us because he is an agent of the executive branch of government. And, as an agent of the executive branch of government, he is required to submit his report to the executive branch, a report that is all about the head of the executive branch of the government. This is why the Framers understood that it was necessary to empower another branch of government to do this. How prophetic and how wise they were to do so. It was not intended that we would outsource this investigation to the executive branch, which is, in essence, what has occurred. We have allowed the executive branch to assume what is truly the responsibility and the duty and the obligation of the House of Representatives. This is ours. This is what we must do. When there was a Republican administration in this House, I indicated that I wouldn't get in the way of that investigation, but I also indicated that the House should do its job. And if the House is to do its job, it is contemplated that the Judiciary Committee would do exactly what the Representative from the 13th Congressional District in Michigan is doing now and, that is, take up the question of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee by way of a resolution such as what she has called to the attention of this Congress. I salute her for doing so because this is what was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution. This is what Madison contemplated, Jay contemplated, and Hamilton contemplated. And, to give further evidence of what they contemplated, we but only have to review the impeachment in 1868 of Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson was impeached in Article X of the Articles of Impeachment against him for speaking ill of Congress. There is no requirement that the President commit a crime, that the President commit an offense for which he must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a President can be impeached. Congress determines what the standard is for impeachment. Unfortunately, we have allowed what happens on the judicial side of the law to be conflated with what happens on the political side of the law. The judiciary, or the judicial side, would have a crime. This is what Mr. Mueller was investigating, to see if a crime had been committed--a crime. And, if a crime is committed, of course the President can be impeached for committing a crime. But the President can also be impeached if he has not committed a crime, but he is doing harm to society. This is the law. When we say no person is above the law, we are talking about not only the law as it is codified with reference to criminality, but also the law as it has been codified such that impeachment can be the punishment in the sense that the President would be indicted. It is not the same as an indictment, but it is quite similar, and the President would then have to face trial in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. There is no punishment, per se, with this entire process. It is just a means by which a President is removed from office. And, if he has committed a crime, he can, of course, still be prosecuted for the criminal activity. So, tonight, we are here to thank the Member for what she has done in filing this resolution, H. Res. 257. We are here tonight to acknowledge that the Framers of the Constitution contemplated what she has done. She is in order. We are here tonight to acknowledge that it is now within the hands of the Judiciary Committee, this resolution, and it is my prayer that the Judiciary Committee would take this resolution and bring it to a vote. I believe that it is time for us to do what the Constitution contemplates by way of the words of the Framers and by way of what Federalist 65 has called to our attention. However, I still stand tonight where I stood when I initially took to the floor of the House of Representatives and indicated that this President should be impeached. I stand where I stood then, and I also stand on the premise that, if the Judiciary Committee does not act, any Member of this august body can bring impeachment to a vote. I stand on this. This is what the rules allow. And as a Member of Congress, I have given an assurance that there will be another vote on impeachment in the House of Representatives. I will do it. I don't like using personal pronouns because my mother always said: ``Alexander, whatever you will do, you will do with others.'' But, because of the way the process is codified, I will do it because I love my country. I will do it because I understand that we have a person who is unfit to be President holding this office. I will do it because I want to protect the democracy. I will do it because I believe in the Republic. I will do it because I salute the flag and I believe in liberty and justice for all. I will do it because I believe that Lincoln was right when he spoke of government of the people, by the people, for the people being forever a part of our country, our land. I will do it because it is the appropriate thing to do at a time such as this, with a President such as Trump. And finally this, Madam Speaker, I have not suggested that I have whipped or would whip, meaning encourage others to vote a certain way. I have consistently said you should vote your conscience. I still stand by it. Vote your conscience. Vote your conscience, knowing that, at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time--at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time, there will be people who will review our actions through the vista of time. And, when they review our actions, the query will be: What did they do when they had an opportunity to take up the cause of justice? They will want to know what did we do. And the only way they can know what we did is for there to be a vote. At some point, we have to move beyond talking points to action items. The only way to make this an action item is for there to be a vote. And those who look through the vista of time, perhaps generations unborn, when they look through the vista of time, they will want to see the record. And the record will show where we stood when we had the opportunity to remove an unfit person from office, an unfit President. The record will show where we stood, but, more importantly, it will give them some clues as to what was happening in this House at the time. It will give them some evidence of where we were. And I assure you, Madam Speaker, at some point on this infinite continuum, people are going to ask the question: What was wrong with them? What was wrong with them? They had a President who was separating babies from their mothers at the border, with no means of reuniting them. Babies are still separated from their parents. They will want to know: What was wrong with them? They allowed this? They will want to know: How could you decide that you are going to take up the cause against persons who make commentary in the House, but you won't take up the cause against a President who went so far as to say there were some fine people among the bigots, the racists, the xenophobes, the homophobes, the Islamophobes, the nativists; among those persons who marched and proclaimed ``Jews will not replace us,'' persons who said, ``blood and soil.'' How could you allow this to go unchallenged? They will want to know: What was wrong with them? Why would they allow such a person to continue in office, a person who demeans the country when he demeans its heroes, a person who demeans persons by simply deciding that name-calling is more appropriate than debating issues. And, by the way, calling a person who is a bigot a bigot is not name- calling. That is properly labeling the actions of a person, the behavior of a person. And, by the way, for those who may not have paid attention, if you have been following these various TV programs, news programs, information sources, host after host, persons who are being interviewed, have said that the President is a racist. They have said that the President is a bigot. I understand that it is difficult for some to say. Not for me. Not for me. I know what bigotry looks like. I know what racism smells like. I know what it sounds like. I know what it tastes like. I suffered through it. I would not want to see what I had to endure become a part of the fiber and fabric of this country ever again. Whenever we see evidence of this ugliness rearing its head, we should do what we can to stare it down and stop it. I stand here tonight believing that we have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to allow what this Congresswoman has called to our attention to move forward. I stand on the Constitution in saying this, and I will stand with her. I am proud to be associated with her and what she is doing. When we do bring this to a vote, my hope is that every Member will vote his or her conscience. That is all that I ask, just vote your conscience, and let the record reflect where we stood. As Dr. King put it, the truest measure of a person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience. The truest measure of a person is where you stand in times of challenge and controversy. These are times of challenge and controversy. The question is, where do we stand? The record will show where we stand. There are some who will say that this is going to be a hard vote. I have a sense of what hard votes are like. I have had to take some hard votes since I have been in Congress. I have had to take some hard votes and never had a person say thank you for taking that hard vote. I have taken my share of hard votes. I have some members of the clergy that still have not found favor with some of the votes that I have taken, but I took them because it was the principled thing to do, because it was the constitutional thing to do, because it was not only the right thing to do, but the righteous thing to do. So I know what hard votes are like. People expect me to take hard votes, and they expect me, after I take my hard votes, to go back and convince my constituents that I did the right thing. Nobody seeks to protect me from hard votes. I know what hard votes are like. I understand when people say this would be a hard vote. I understand it. But that is why we came. We were elected to take hard votes. If it were easy, then we wouldn't be here. Other folk would do the easy things. People who get elected to Congress are expected to take hard votes, to do that which is difficult. Let us understand that the record will reflect the vote. It will give people who look through the vista of time some indication as to why we are doing what we are doing and have not done what we should have done. Madam Speaker, again, I am proud to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I never take for granted this preeminent privilege. I will always be grateful to the Speaker of the House and all the various officers of this House for permitting the time. I am grateful, and I thank them for being as magnanimous, if you will, as they are, but also for following the rules and allowing me to speak. This is a great opportunity. I pray that we who hold public trust will honor the Constitution of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. And I rise tonight on the Republican side of what we call the aisle. I do so, Madam Speaker, because the issue that I will call to the attention of this august body is not an issue that I consider a Republican issue. I don't consider it a Democratic issue. I consider this an issue for the American people, past, present, and the future. This is an issue that has plagued our country almost since its inception. It is an issue that we have avoided with intentionality, avoided because of discomfort, avoided through the years. But it is an issue that we have to address. So I rise tonight, Madam Speaker, with love of country at heart on the Republican side of the aisle. And I rise to announce, as I have before, that we have to take up the question of impeachment. I rise, Madam Speaker, to say this and to give some explanations. There are many things that are being misunderstood. I trust that I can bring some degree of clarity to the issues that are misunderstood. And I know, Madam Speaker, as I rise, and understand that this will come to a vote in this House; I know that it will be a tough vote for many people. I understand. It will be a tough vote for a multiplicity of reasons. It will be a tough vote. I know what tough votes are like, so I understand. I have people in my community, one example, members of the clergy that I have had to explain some very tough votes to. I have some that have, to this day, not agreed with the tough votes that I have had to take. Tough votes. I came here to take tough votes. I came here to deal with tough issues, the difficult. I came to do what I believe should have been done long before now; but the opportunity to do it has presented itself since I arrived in Congress, so I take on this challenge. And I understand that this will be a tough vote. Before I get to some of the nuances of the explanation that I would like to give, let me just tell you who I will be voting for when I take this tough vote. I will be voting for the slave mother who had a baby ripped out of her arms, taken to the auction block. This is why I can relate to those mothers on the border who had their babies ripped out of their arms; and still, many have not been returned to their mothers, their fathers. I can relate because I understand the historical context. I will be voting for them. Tough vote, but I will be voting for the slave father who never got to see his child because the mother and the child were taken away, auctioned off, sent to some distant plantation; never allowed the opportunity to enjoy the love that a father ought to with a child. That is the historical context of why I will be voting and what I will be voting for. I will also be voting for the elderly mother who was of African ancestry, who had to say ``yes, ma'am'' and ``yes, sir'' to the 3-year- old children of the master. At that time it would have been called the boss, but it was the master; had to say ``yes, ma'am'' and ``yes, sir'' to the children. To the father, I will vote for the father who was called ``boy,'' demeaned in the presence of his son. I know. I saw that happen to my father. I know about that elderly mother. I saw it happen to her, the elderly black mother. I will be voting for them. They have come through the years to get me here. I won't forget them. I will be voting for the LGBTQ person who was fired for showing up at work and saying I married the love of my life, who happens to be the same sex as that person was. I am an ally of the LGBTQ community. I am going to vote for those persons who have been discriminated against. I will be voting for those who lost their lives in the Tree of Life synagogue, lost their lives to bigotry, hate. I will be voting for those who lost their lives at the church in Charlotte. I will be voting for the woman, who was a peaceful protestor, who lost her life in Charlottesville among the bigots, the KKK, the neo- Nazis, the xenophobes, the homophobes. I will be voting for her. And here is why I will be voting for all of them: because these Articles of Impeachment will be about bigotry emanating from the Presidency--in policy, I might add, bigotry in policy. There is clear and convincing evidence that we have bigotry in policy. I will be voting for the people who are the victims. To those who would tell me this is not something that the Congress ought to entertain, here is what I would say. I would say, if the Congress of the United States of America could, in 1868, impeach President Andrew Johnson for speaking ill of Congress, this Congress can impeach for bigotry in policy. It is just a question of whether 218 people, assuming all are present, will vote for it. That is what it is. It is just a question of whether we have the will to do it. The way is before us. Article II, Section 4, all of the noted constitutional scholars-- maybe there is some exception; there probably is one someplace--have concluded that Article II, Section 4 not only allows a President to be impeached for criminality, a President can also be impeached for misdeeds. As a matter of fact, those who desire to edify themselves can read Federalist 65, read the words of Hamilton and Madison and Jay. Read their words. Let them communicate with you through the vista of time. You will find, when you read their writings, that they were prophetic in their thoughts, that they understood that there would be a time such as this, and they have given us the recipe for this time and the means by which we can take corrective action. When you read, you will find that, without question, they indicate that impeachment is not something that will be done without some degree of turmoil, that impeachment will be something that will sometimes be along party lines. Party lines occur when impeachment is brought before this august body. By the way, I brought impeachment twice before, so I am talking about something that has occurred and something that will occur again. So impeachment is something that was anticipated. It is something that is a remedy that is constitutional, and I plan to bring that remedy before this body so that we may take a stand. Dr. King was a great man and somebody I admire, and I talk about him quite regularly. Dr. King reminded us that the truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy. When you have hard votes to take, where do you stand? I don't believe bigotry should be a talking point, something that we use to get the base out at election time. We go out and we talk about, oh, how bad certain people are and we announce that they are racist, that they are bigots. I don't think it ought to be a talking point. I think it should be an action item. I am bringing the vote because it is going to be an action item for Congress at last. Again, it will be an action item, not just a talking point. I am going to put the moral imperative to vote for all of these people that I called to your attention and countless others above political expediency. Political expediency allows us to push this issue to the next generation. Political expediency has allowed us to reach this point in our history where bigotry is rearing its ugly head. It is no longer covert, but it is now overt. We have reached this point in our history. So I refuse to except political expediency as a remedy. Why not wait? Let's defeat at the polls as opposed to impeach here in the House. I don't buy into that. Now, there are many who would say let's wait on the Mueller report. The Mueller report has nothing to do with bigotry. It most likely has to do with criminality associated with obstruction of justice, probably has something to do with emoluments, could have something to do with collusion, which is a layperson's way of saying conspiracy. It could have something to do with all of these. But I assure each and every person who is within the sound of my voice by whatever means, it will have nothing to do with bigotry. So there is no need to wait for the Mueller report because the Mueller report won't address bigotry. Those who would rather impeach for some other thing, then wait for the Mueller report. By the way, I don't plan to get in the way of the Mueller report, but I will say this: The Framers of the Constitution never intended for the executive branch to investigate itself, and that is what is going on. The Framers of the Constitution understood the implications of having the executive branch investigate itself. One such implication that we see now is that the Mueller report may not be presented to Congress. It is going to the President before it gets to Congress. The Framers never intended for the executive to investigate itself. That is the responsibility of Congress. That is why I brought Articles of Impeachment. Pardon me for using a personal pronoun. My mother taught me better. That is why I brought Articles of Impeachment in a previous Congress when we had Republicans in charge. I am not going to be hypocritical and conclude now that Democrats are in charge, we don't have the same duty, responsibility, and obligation. I am not that kind of guy. We are going to go on record. It will be a hard vote, but we are going to go on record. Some would say: Well, how do you get the proof of the bigotry? Easy answer--it appears to be a tough question. Easy answer: the same way we got the proof that we brought to the floor of the House for colleagues who had resolutions that were to condemn for bigoted statements. Same way, we get them from news sources. We have plenty of empirical evidence to show us by clear and convincing evidence as a standard, or whatever standard the House uses, because there is no standard codified in the law for the House. But by whatever standard the House should use, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support bigotry in policy emanating from the Presidency, plenty of them: S- - - -hole countries; and then you go out, by the way, where people of color happen to reside, I might add, and you go out and develop an immigration policy that adversely impacts those people of color, changing the law to adversely impact them. Bigotry in policy? Ha. I talked about the babies at the border-- people of color, I might add--separating them. We didn't do that at Ellis Island. We didn't do that when 12 million people came from Europe, Scandinavia. We didn't do that. We didn't separate them from their children. We didn't have a flotilla out there to stop them. We didn't try to build walls to keep them out. They came. The people who are at the border, by the way, are exercising their rights under the law that we promulgated, that we, the United States of America, put in place that says that they can come up and ask for asylum. By the way, I do not contend that all who seek asylum should be granted asylum. I do think that the process, the law that we put in place, ought to be honored. And if we don't like the law, then we should change the law. There is plenty of opportunity to do so. There has been plenty of opportunity to do so. Change the law if you don't like the way we have decided to deal with these issues. There is plenty of evidence that in the past we have accommodated persons who were trying to flee harm's way, bringing their children with them. When those persons were fleeing Castro's Cuba and traversed the shark-infested waters of the Gulf of Mexico--I say ``shark- invested'' because there are so many people who are saying: Well, we don't want them to do this because they can be harmed along the way. We didn't say that about the people who were traversing the shark- infested waters of the Gulf of Mexico. We created a policy called wet foot, dry foot. One foot on dry land, and you had a pathway to citizenship. That was the policy of the United States of America, to accommodate. I am not saying bring the world in. I am saying follow the law. It seems to me that is what we are all about. I believe in the law of the land that I live in and that I love. And I love my country. So I want to assure persons that we will use the same standard of proof that we have been using on previous occasions. Now, the next question: Impeachment is like voting to go to war. Casting a vote to impeach is comparable to casting a vote to go to war. I visit the VA hospital annually, Madam Speaker, and I take flags to every veteran in that hospital. This year, we took 600 flags, and we needed more. I would ask persons who believe that this is comparable to casting a vote to go to war, go to the place where you can see the price of freedom. Go to the place where you can see what the cost is, where you will see that it is not in silver and gold. Go to a VA hospital, a VA hospital where you will see persons who have lost an arm, lost a leg, no longer have vision. Many of them leave and don't return the way they left. Just go and see what the price of freedom is like. They fight for our freedom. They are willing to give their lives for our freedom. That is what a vote for war is all about. Many don't ever return. They are the liberators. They accord us our freedom by putting their lives on the line, and it is that freedom that we have that allows us to vote to impeach. Voting for impeachment is not a vote to go to war. You ask somebody who has lost a leg in those hospitals, talk to them. Oh, you may find one person whom you can use and try to equate that to the rest of the world, but I assure you, those veterans don't consider impeachment comparable to voting to go to war. I would also add this: There are those who believe that bigotry is something that the Senate won't take up. If we use that line of logic, I shouldn't have gone to law school for fear of failure. If we use that line of logic, we shouldn't have sent H.R. 1 over to the Senate, because it has been prognosticated that the Senate won't take it up in any meaningful way. If we use that line of logic, there are bills that we send to the Senate quite regularly that we would not send because of a belief that the Senate won't take up these bills. So I don't buy into that logic. But I do believe that we should give the Senate an opportunity to do its job. It ought to have that opportunity. Remember now, this is not about Mueller, this is about bigotry emanating from the Presidency. This is about having the country, by and through its representatives, go on record in terms of where we stand in this time of challenge and controversy as it relates to bigotry emanating from the Presidency. Impeachment is something that we all should respect because it is constitutional. It is what the Constitution permits. It is also what I believe I have a duty to bring before the Congress. I will do so. I don't guarantee more than one vote, and that is my vote. There are people who seem to think that if they can convince me, that the people who voted for it previously won't be voting for it this time. That the people who voted for it previously, they have changed their minds, they are going to be against you. They are not against me. I am not against them. I say to them, vote your conscience. Stand where your convictions are now. But there are people who seem to think that by convincing me that I will be alone, that somehow this will cause me not to act. My dear brothers and sisters, how you have underestimated me. My dear brothers and sisters, I didn't come here to go along so that I could get along and move along. My dear brothers and sisters, you have grossly underestimated me. If I stand alone and there is but one vote cast, I assure you that one vote will be cast and I will stand alone. I understand that in the eons to come, people will look back on this time and they will query what was wrong with them. What was wrong with them? How could they tolerate an unfit person holding the highest office in the land? How could they tolerate it? They will want to know what was wrong with them. But I also know this. They will see that there was at least one person who stood on the ground of righteousness, who put the moral imperative above political expediency. And I will know also that the world will know where this country stands on the issue of bigotry. I didn't come here to manage bigotry. That is what we do. We always want to get back to bigotry as usual after it rears its ugly head. Let's put that head down and get back to bigotry as usual. Let it be covert, but not overt. My guess is some people have said to the President: Mr. President, you can do all of these things without displaying your bigotry. They didn't say it that way, but they probably tried to convince him. You don't have to be raw. Do it the way others have done it and you will be appreciated. I don't want to get back to bigotry as usual. I think we send a message to the world when we impeach a President for bigotry and policy, and that is what I am talking about: bigotry and policy. Not just his words--I don't think that we ought to have a bigot in office, but not just his words--but for what his words have been transformed into, what they have metamorphosed into: bigotry and policy. I think that we would send a positive message to the world in terms of where we stand, and we would also send a message to many of the people in this country as to how much we care about them, those who suffer from bigotry on a daily basis. If you take out the head bigot, you will send a message to the bigots along the way at the lower end of the ladder. Now, about the people who are suffering; they have elected us time and time again, many of them, on the belief that this time they are going to take up racism. This time they are going to take up homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and nativism. This time they are going to take up the issues that impact my life on a daily basis. Yes, it is still here. The glass ceiling exists because of bigotry. There is a glass ceiling. Yes, it is still here. There are people who have jobs of color and they have to train persons of a different hue to take the job that they have and become their supervisor. It still happens. It is still occurring in the United States of America. The country I love, by the way. You can love your country and want to see it improve. That is what all of these bills are about here. Everybody that is filing a bill wants to improve the country. That is all I want to do, too. The unfortunate circumstance for a good many people is I want to deal with an issue that we have, for too long, placed on the back burner of our contemporary agenda. I am going to place it on the front burner. There will be a vote. How do you know there will be a vote? Well, the rules allow it. The rules allow any Member of this august body to come forward with a privileged resolution. Now, if you want to change the rules, you can do so. Republicans didn't do it when they were in control of the House. But you can do it. Let's let history show that because one Democrat wanted to bring articles of impeachment, that a Democratic Party did what a Republican Party did not do. Let history reflect that. Change the rules. You have to live with the history. I don't. I am going to be on the right side of the history. Now, someone would say: But, Al, you will be on the wrong side of politics. Do you know what? The people that I know suffered, the people who lived and died so that I could have this opportunity, the people who found out what a billy club hits like, found out what a 90-pound German Shepherd bites like, found out what a high pressure water hose stings like, the people who lost loved ones to a cause so that I could have this opportunity, I don't know that they want me to be on the right side of politics. I think they want me to be on the right side of history. But I also believe that they want me to be on the right side of this moral issue of our time, and that is whether we will tolerate bigotry emanating from the Presidency. So to everyone, understand this is not going to be about obstruction of justice. I came to the floor and called that to the attention of the country. There is evidence to move forward on obstruction of justice, but I choose not to do so. It is not going to be about conspiracy. There is evidence, but I choose not to do so. This is going to be about bigotry, and it is going to be about where do you stand? The truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy? Where do you stand when bigotry is the issue that you have to vote on? And to all of my colleagues, I want you to know I love you. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on. I respect you. And I only say to you, vote your conscience. Decide what side of bigotry, what side of history, what side of righteousness you are going to be on. I know where I will stand. I will hold my head up high, notwithstanding all of the slings and arrows that are going to come against me. They are coming. They are going to demean me in every way. My mother probably wouldn't know who I am when they are done with me. I understand it. Gandhi gave us the formula. First they ignore you. These are the words of Gandhi. Then they laugh at you. Then after they have ignored you and they have had a moment of laughter and they see that you are not going away, then they fight you. Then they demean you. I understand. So do what you may. Say what you may. But I know, within me, that I am doing the right thing. I know that Gandhi is right. He said that after they have ignored you, after they have laughed and had their moment of pleasure about it, then they fight you, but then, Gandhi reminded us, then you win. I am prepared to suffer through until victory. I won't give out. To quote my good friend, Mr. Lewis, who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, ``I won't give up. I won't give in.'' I will do that which my ancestors call upon me to do. I pray to God that this House will vote its conscience. Vote your convictions. 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.