Al Green

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this type of language has been accepted on the floor of this House. People address language to the Presidency----

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Presidency is about the people. It is about the people's House. And the people have a right to address this invidious discrimination emanating from the Presidency. I am not going to stand for it. Others may stand for it. You know that there is bigotry emanating from the Presidency, yet you would not want me to stand here and address it. I will address it. This President has exhibited a kind of bigotry that this country ought not tolerate. When he said that there were some s---hole countries as he was addressing his immigration policy, he was putting his bigotry into policy. And that is something we all should concern ourselves with, the fact that the President's policies are based upon his bigotry. Impeachment is the remedy.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House. I consider this an extraordinary privilege. Mr. Speaker, there are seminal moments in time, moments in time that can impact the rest of time; seminal moments, sometimes where wrong is placed on the throne, where might is used to justify wrong; seminal moments in time, but, Mr. Speaker, might cannot make wrong right. Might cannot make wrong right; it can only prolong wrong. Seminal moments in time, where might is used to justify wrong. Might did not make slavery right. There were those who used false religiosity to try to justify slavery. They had the might, they had the power, they could impose their will, but might will not make wrong right. Might did not make segregation right, to force people to go to separate areas, to use a level of power to impose an indecency upon a people. Might can never make wrong right. Mr. Speaker, might has not made invidious discrimination right. It still exists today. No matter how much power we have, we will not make it right simply because we have the power to try to justify it with the might that we have. Finally, Mr. Speaker, might will not make bigotry emanating from the Presidency right. It will not. There are many who want to just let it go, let it go, the bigotry, put it behind us. Bigotry emanating from the Presidency impacts this country. It gives this country a stained image in the world. The President represents this country. He represents every one of us. We may differ with him, but he is the standard-bearer. The bigotry that emanates from the Presidency is something that we all have to concern ourselves with. We can't just say it is all over with, let's let that go. Yes, it has happened and it continues to happen, and might will not make it right. He has power, but his power is not going to cause his invidious and harmful commentaries to become right. I am here today to simply say this, Mr. Speaker, that while the President has the power, impeachment is the remedy. A President who has said that there were some good people among those in Charlottesville; a President who would ban Muslims from the country; a President who has said LGBTQ persons shouldn't be in the military; a President who has called the sons of some professional athletes--called their mother's dogs, SOBs; a President who has said that in----

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise because I love my country. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I want to thank the President and compliment the President. I thank the President for indicating this morning that he will not--N-O-T--will not interfere with the Mueller investigation. He said as much on national TV. I compliment him for saying this, Mr. Speaker, because if he does so in contravention of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution, it would be tantamount to impeachment. So, I compliment you, Mr. President, for being forthright, and I assume you meant what you said. However, you went on to say: ``I may change my mind.'' Mr. Speaker, I trust that the President meant what he said initially, and that he will not change his mind. Because, again, to do so in contravention of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution will be tantamount to impeachment. The only body in this country that can litigate impeachment is the Congress of the United States of America. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all--especially the President--if you do this, Mr. President, I assure you there will be articles of Impeachment brought before the Congress of the United States of America. Now, Mr. President, I am in no rush to do this. As a matter of fact, I don't enjoy using the personal pronoun when it comes to this kind of dialogue--monologue, in this case, as I am talking directly to you. But, Mr. President, if no one else does, I will. I will not allow the Constitution to be ignored and, to a certain extent, trampled upon. I will bring the Articles of Impeachment. As a matter of fact, I have instructed my staff to draft them. They will be ready to go. I also have instructed my staff to tweet this message that if you do so, Mr. President, if you interfere in contravention of Article II, section 4, I will bring the Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 817.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to speak from the well of the House of Representatives. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would call to our attention the fact that there is a time when we should put all politics aside. This is such an occasion, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to extend my condolences and sympathies to the Bush family. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because I want the world to know that I have great respect for the family. Politics aside, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Barbara Bush, the First Lady--not currently, but in my world, once a First Lady, always a First Lady. I rise because this First Lady demonstrated something that this country can be proud of. She was a person who has left a legacy of respectability as it relates to being a First Lady of the United States of America. She respected herself. She had standards. She had principles. She had boundaries. There were certain things that she wouldn't do and would not allow to be done while she was in the White House. Respectability: she respected others which engendered respect for her. I rise because she will be missed. I rise because she has left this legacy of respectability. I also rise because, as a neophyte newly elected to Congress, I received an indication that her husband wanted to speak to me. I went over to speak to him. I had no idea as to why he would ask for an opportunity to visit with me, but I did visit with him. I thought it would be a 5-minute meeting. It went much longer than 5 minutes. He obviously was in one party and I in another. We did not know each other, but we spoke at length. The thing that I remember as we were bringing our meeting to closure, I remember his calling to my attention that one of my greatest challenges in Congress would be to develop an agenda for myself. There are many people who will have agendas for you. The great challenge in Congress is to develop your own agenda. So on my agenda, I want my record to show that I stood in the well of the Congress of the United States of America to thank the First Lady, Ms. Barbara Bush, for her service to her family, to her country, and indeed to the world.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to have this great privilege of speaking in the House of Representatives. We have a total of 441 Members of the House, including those delegates, those who cannot vote, 435 who can, and it is an honor to be one of the 441. I never want to take for granted this privilege that has been accorded me by the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas, so I thank them for allowing me to serve, and I am grateful to the leadership in the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight, I rise, if you will, because I would like to reference H. Res. 817. This was introduced on April 11, 2018. This resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 contained the Fair Housing Act, and it is the Fair Housing Act that this resolution actually addresses. I am proud to say that the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver is the person that worked with me. In fact, we worked with each other to produce this resolution. I am proud also to say that this resolution has a total of 54 cosponsors that are officially acknowledged, and then we have two additional cosponsors that have not been officially placed on the Record, but they are still cosponsors of this resolution. This resolution does something that is important. It celebrates and commemorates, if you will, the passing of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination. It prohibits it based upon race, color, national origin, sex, familial status, disability, religion, and should have other categories added. It should have sexual orientation. It should have gender identity. So there is still work to do. And for those who may not believe that persons are discriminated based upon gender identity and sexual orientation, those persons who are fired from their jobs because of their gender identity, fired from their jobs because of sexual orientation, they have stories to tell, because they not only know that it happens, they have experienced it. They have had a firsthand encounter with this type of discrimination. It also exists in housing. People are discriminated against because of who they are, because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and for the other reasons that we have already codified into law. So it is my hope that one day I will stand here with a resolution that will celebrate not only what the law is currently, but also what the law will be at that time, and, hopefully, it will include other classes of individuals. I am also proud to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution is one that is subject to have additional cosponsors. I have talked about original cosponsors, but there are others who will become cosponsors. The Congressional Black Caucus has a good many members who are cosponsors of this resolution. I am proud to tell you that we plan to continue to acquire cosponsors such that, by the end of this month, we will have many additional cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, housing is important, because where you live can impact your health. If you live near landfills and rock crushing companies, that can have an impact on your health. This is why a good many people find themselves combating, fighting, in a very political way, the placement of these types of facilities in their neighborhoods. There is empirical evidence to show that where you live can impact your health, where you live can impact your education. If you live in an area with poor schools, it is likely that you will have a poor education. There are exceptions, but exceptions don't make the rule. Exceptions prove the rule. Where you live can impact your employment. If you live in an area with high unemployment, you are likely not to have a job. If unemployment is exceedingly high, as is the case in some places around the world and in this country too, there are persons who are not likely to have jobs. If you live in an area where you are likely to be in poverty, you are likely not to become wealthy. Your wealth can be related to the area that you are born in, where you live. There are exceptions, but there are also persons who don't acquire the opportunity to become an exception. Your life expectancy can be impacted by where you live. If you live in a war zone, your life expectancy will be impacted and your personality can be impacted. If you live in a hostile environment, hostility all around you, it is likely to impact your personality. So where you live is important, which is why invidious discrimination in housing is something that should not be tolerated, and I am proud to say that there was a struggle that was overcome so that we could have this Fair Housing Act. I would like to do this now. I would like to give a bit of history of the Fair Housing Act that was signed into law in 1968, April 11, 1968. A little bit of history is important. If you understand the history, you can understand why I make the comment that the law, itself, was written in ink, but it was signed, in a sense, with the blood of the many who died and made sacrifices so that the bill could become the law. I believe that the history of the times is important. It was signed April 11, 1968, as I have indicated, during the sixties. The sixties were not the best of times for this country. In the 1960s, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy proposed a Civil Rights Act. However, he was not to see it become the law because on, November 22, 1963, he was assassinated. Upon being assassinated, President Johnson was sworn in as President on Air Force One that very same day, November 22, 1963. Then, in July, July 2, 1964, after the death of President Kennedy, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race. Now, it is important to note that President Kennedy, who was a great President, highly respected and admired, proposed the Civil Rights Act, or a civil rights act. He lost his life before he had the opportunity to see it come to fruition. But it is also important to note that President Johnson worked tirelessly to make real the noble American ideal that was called to the attention of our Nation by President John F. Kennedy. President Johnson was, if you will, the person in the Senate who knew how to speak Southern. He knew how to communicate well with the Southern Senators and the Members of the House. He knew the rules of the Senate. He knew how persons had voted in the Senate, and he knew how to leverage the votes and the rules to get Senators to do things that they might not ordinarily do. So when you couple his knowledge of the Senate with the fact that we had lost a great President, and this great President had proposed this Civil Rights Act, you can understand how President Johnson, a great President, was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed that outlawed discrimination based upon race. In 1967, we had what was called the long, hot summer. There were what were called riots. I prefer another term. I see what happened as rebellions. There were people who were suffering. I don't justify what happened, but I can explain that there were people who were rebelling. Now, whether you agree with the rebellions or not, they took place. That was what precipitated what was called the long, hot summer. In fact, it was such a rebellious time that, on July 28, 1967, the Kerner Commission was appointed to investigate the causes of these rebellions. President Johnson appointed this Commission. He wanted to get to the bottom of what was going on in this country. And on February 29, 1968, the Commission released its report, which said, in essence, that the rebellions--they didn't use the term ``rebellions,'' that is my term-- the rebellions were caused by discrimination, that this Nation was becoming two separate people, if you will, people who were segregated from each other. This is in a very general sense. That we were becoming two nations, in a sense, separate and unequal. This was something that I think President Johnson was impacted by. But there were many others who were impacted by this. Dr. Martin Luther King, he was trying to bring this country together. He was an integrationist. And in trying to bring this country together, Dr. Martin Luther King went to Memphis. He was trying as best as he could to achieve some degree of fairness for those who were working as sanitation workers. President Johnson announced, on March 31, 1968, that he would not seek reelection; and then some days later, on April 4, Dr. King, while in Memphis, was assassinated. So now we had the death of a great President; we have the death, now, of the great human rights, civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, taking place; and then President Johnson, the same President Johnson who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the same President Johnson sought to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which contained the Fair Housing Act. It was within about 1 week of the demise, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King that he was able to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The important aspect of this history is this: that these acts, though written in blood and signed in ink, were able to be signed because of the death of great persons, and also many persons who were not so great. They weren't great in the eyes of history because they were not documented as having done the things that President Johnson or President Kennedy or Dr. King accomplished. But there were other great people, as well, who shed blood and gave their lives. There were people who were found to have marched, and some of them were protesting and lost their lives. There were people who suffered the indignation and humiliation associated with segregation and the fact that there were those who wanted to maintain the institution to the extent that Medgar Evers lost his life. They wanted to maintain the institution to the extent that Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney lost their lives. They wanted to maintain segregation. They wanted the South. They wanted the country to remain two separate nations, if you will, within this Nation: one, unfortunately, discriminated against, and another having all the benefits that this great Nation could offer. The loss of lives allowed us to achieve an integrated housing system within this country. The integrated system was just not enough, and still is not enough, because housing discrimination exists to this very day. The empirical evidence is there. The truth of the matter is that we can do more to eliminate the discrimination. One of the best tools to eliminate discrimination in housing is testing, where you send out persons of different races, different ethnicities, and you ask them to acquire housing at a certain location. Those who are of one race may find that housing is available to them, but those of another race may find that it is not--at the very same location, on the very same day. We have found that testing is one of the best tools to eliminate discrimination, especially in housing. But I want to announce today that testing is also a great tool to eliminate discrimination in lending. This Civil Rights Act, this Housing Fairness Act, and all of the tools that we have used to achieve the degree of integration in housing and fairness in housing that we have achieved, this has been done, in great part, because of testing. That same tool of testing that helped us to integrate housing in this country is a tool that we can use to allow persons to receive fair treatment in lending, fair access to capital. The truth is that access to capital in this country makes all the difference in your life. If you can go into a bank and you are qualified and you can get a loan to buy a home, that home that you will buy will impact your life in ways that I have talked about, impact your life expectancy, impact your education. It can have a positive impact on your life. It can be the means by which you will move from one status in life to another. Just living in that neighborhood and buying that home can be meaningful to you. We believe that that loan should not be denied a person because of that person's race, color, creed, national origin, sexual identity, sexual orientation, familial status, religious status. That person's loan should not be denied. It should be granted because of your qualifications. This is why I am a proponent of testing. This is why I want to see more testing in banking. This is why I believe that we need additional laws to protect those who apply for loans, because access to capital makes a difference in your life. This is why I will be introducing, in this Congress, legislation to make it a crime to discriminate in lending. People who deny people access to capital are committing an offense. People who deny people access to capital are impacting their lives. I want to make sure that people who do this are properly punished for what they do. If we can pass such a law, I believe it will deter those who would discriminate against persons because of who they are, and it would cause them to better understand that every person who is qualified for a loan ought to acquire that loan. So I am leaving you with the notion that we are building on what happened with the Civil Rights Act. We are building on the sacrifices that have been made by persons such as Dr. Martin Luther King and a good many others. We are going to build on it. We are going to introduce legislation that can help all persons receive not only the house that they merit by virtue of having the money, but also acquire the capital in lending such that they can afford the house that they qualify for by way of the loan they will receive. I am honored to thank you for the time that I have been accorded, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful that I have the opportunity to stand here in the House and make this presentation, and I am grateful to this country for allowing a person who, at birth, would never have been thought to stand in this position in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise because I love my country. I love what it stands for. I love the concept of government of the people, by the people, for the people. And, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in this and because I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, I rise to announce that I do not approve of nor do I support of the notion that we should have war by Twitter, that we should announce that we are going to war with a tweet. I disapprove. I do not support it. Questions of war should be brought before the Congress of the United States of America for our input, our debate, and our vote. It is easy to say what you would do when you don't have to vote to do it. I believe Congress has a responsibility, a duty, and an obligation to stand up in times like these and make our positions known on questions of war and peace. This is the Congress of the United States of America. This is our responsibility, and, Mr. Speaker, I am having my staff, as I speak now, tweet out my opposition to that tweet. I want to make sure the people that read Twitter are aware of my position. I don't know what others will do, but I know this: I am making my demand that Congress have this opportunity to have input. And, Mr. Speaker, because I love my country, because I love the Constitution, I believe that, if this President should fire Mr. Mueller, Mr. Speaker, he should be impeached. Whether he will be or not is a question to be decided in the House of Representatives, but I can guarantee you this: there will be articles of impeachment if he fires Mr. Mueller. Whether someone else will bring them or not, I do not know. But if no one else does, there will be articles of impeachment because I will bring them. I love my country. I am not going to watch this President decimate the Constitution. I love my country. We didn't act when he fired Comey. We should act if he fires Mueller, and I plan to take that action. I say this in closing: We have seen, under this President, a deterioration of respect for the rule of law. This country is great because no one is above the law. Are we now going to allow the President to be beyond justice? This is a moment in time, a crucial, critical moment in time for every person to determine whether they are going to be the true patriots that we claim to be. This is our moment. Let us stand up for the Constitution and the American people.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor the memory of a devout public community leader, Council Member Larry Vincent Green. Council Member Larry Green was born on May 16, 1965 in Houston, Texas. He was raised in the Hiram Clarke community along with his older brother, David Alan Green and his younger sister, Melanie Gail Green. Council Member Larry Green earned his Bachelor's in Political Science from the University of Houston and a Doctorate in Jurisprudence from Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University. Council Member Larry Green was a tenacious and successful trial lawyer for over 25 years. He was an advocate for those who had been discriminated against and successfully won several high profile cases on behalf of his clients. Council Member Larry Green was devoted to education. He left Houston in 2007, and joined the Thurgood Marshall College Fund in Washington, D.C. Working alongside the CEO, he raised unprecedented federal and philanthropic support for the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and its member institutions. Council Member Larry Green was a longtime community advocate as well as former CEO of Houston Works USA, the leading provider of services focusing on job placement, continuing education, and vocational training to more than 1 million individuals annually. Council Member Larry Green was sworn into office as the first Council Member of the newly formed District K, spanning from the edge of the Texas Medical Center to Fort Bend County in January 2012. Council Member Larry Green worked tirelessly during his first term to bring over $20 million worth of economic development projects to District K including a police station, neighborhood reconstruction, a senior citizen center, and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone in two of the district's neighborhoods. Council Member Larry Green continued to spearhead and support several efforts such as insuring the inclusion of women-owned businesses' in Houston's affirmative action contracting program, as well as the countless projects of Rebuild Houston overseen by the Transportation, Technology, and Infrastructure Council Committee, of which Council Member Green was Chair. Council Member Larry Green devoted his life to improving the community through his efforts as a Member of the Houston City Council, member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and several other well-known national and local organizations. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Council Member Larry Green will be missed dearly by his brother, David Alan Green and his sister, Melanie Gail Green; as well as the constituents of District K and his other family members and friends. May he rest in the peace he has earned through his devotion to the community.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor the memory of an exemplary man, Mr. Marchris Glen Robinson. Mr. Robinson was born on December 13, 1964 in Kingston, Jamaica. He grew up in Patterson, NJ, where he attended Madison Avenue Baptist Church and graduated from John F. Kennedy High School. Later, he moved to Houston and became a member of Brookhollow, the Church Without Walls. Mr. Robinson was united in holy matrimony to Ms. Ingrid Williams Robinson on February 18, 1995 and they were blessed with three children, Marchris Glen Robinson II, John-Anthony Glen Robinson and Sydni Marie Robinson. Mr. Robinson earned his Bachelor's in Criminal Justice from Stockton University, a Doctorate in Jurisprudence from Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, and a Certified Master of Business Administration Degree from McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. Mr. Robinson pursued several professional paths, including managing Government and Regulatory Affairs, General Counsel for two Texas State Senators, and practicing commercial litigation for two law firms, prior to becoming the First African American Briefing Attorney of the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas, under Chief Justice Alice Oliver- Parrot. Mr. Robinson was a dedicated legal expert with the Court of Appeals until he made the decision to become an entrepreneur and form the Robinson Law Group. Mr. Robinson faithfully served the community in several capacities, as Chairman of the Stadium Park Management District and an active member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Leadership Group for 2017 Plan Downtown Committee, John Ben Sheppard Public Leadership Foundation, United Way Project Blueprint Leadership Class XI, and Greater Houston Partnership. Mr. Robinson held accomplishments and accolades from his community involvement and legal career, being recognized as the recipient of the Pennzoil/Quaker State Business Scholarship, Meadows Foundation Scholarship, Henry T. Courtney Scholarship Award, Young Black Achiever of Houston Award, as well as Texas Young Lawyers Association Minority Involvement Scholarship. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marchris Glen Robinson will be missed dearly by his wife and surviving children; as well as his other family members and friends. May he rest in the peace he has earned through his dedication to the community and the legal industry.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise today in defense of Dreamers and those who brought them here. I rise in defense of them, Mr. Speaker, because, quite frankly, there was a desire for persons to come here. There was a desire for them to come and to work, and to work at wages that some considered subpar, a desire for them to work under conditions that were not the best. There was a desire for them to come, and they came. I rise in defense of them because, Mr. Speaker, we are complicit in this behavior. We were complicit because we knew they were coming, and we wanted them to come. I rise in defense of them because I don't believe that a country as great as the United States of America can ask young people to accept a pathway to citizenship but not give it to the people who brought them here: their parents, in most cases, but, in a good many cases, other persons who cared for them. To ask these young people to sell out their parents, to borrow a term that we use, is more than a great nation should ask of young people; to say to them, ``You can stay, but your parents may have to go,'' what kind of country are we if we demand this of young people who came with people whom we wanted to come, who have done us no harm, who have worked hard in our kitchens, who have worked hard cleaning our homes, who have worked hard tending our fields, who worked hard bringing in the fruits of the labor that they brought to this country? What kind of country says, ``You are going to go back,'' after many years of being here, and send the young people back to places of which they know very little? Mr. Jose Escobar is a case in point. He was sent back to San Salvador. He hadn't been there in many, many years. He came here around 15 years of age. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for this country to take the affirmative action to correct what will be an injustice if we pursue the path that the President would have us pursue. Now is the time for us to make sure that every person is receiving the kind of liberty and justice for all that we extol in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now is the time for us to make sure that all of these young people are given the opportunity to succeed on their merits or fail on their demerits in the country that they know as home. Mr. Speaker, we are a great country. A great country does not do what the President is proposing, and I will not stand with the President on this. I stand and defend the Dreamers and the people who brought them here: in most cases, their parents. This is what a great nation ought to do. I know that there may be people who differ, but when you are standing on right, you don't worry about those who differ. This is the right thing for the United States of America to do.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a liberated Democrat with one request: I ask that the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States of America, keep his word. Keep your word, Mr. President. You have indicated that no one under the age of 21 should be able to buy an assault-type weapon. Keep your word, Mr. President. Don't allow the NRA to veto your word. You are the most powerful man in the world. Keep your word, Mr. President. Stay with those young people who have issued a clarion call to this country to do something about the killing that is taking place on our school campuses. These are children who are dying. Keep your word, Mr. President.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored tonight to present a resolution on behalf of the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a great organization founded in this country on February 12, 1909. It just happens to have been the centennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. I am honored to be a proud member of the NAACP. I hold a life membership, and I look forward to acquiring an even higher membership in the NAACP. I am honored to say that this resolution has the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, and it is a bipartisan resolution as well. Also, I am honored to say, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution is one that I hope will shed some additional light on the NAACP, its purpose, and some of its accomplishments. The NAACP is the Nation's oldest civil rights organization. It is an organization that was founded in a time when African Americans were being lynched, a time when it was not commonplace and not every place, but it did take place with a great degree of regularity in this country, such that African Americans were being lynched with impunity, I might add. It is an organization that has always been integrated. It was integrated from its genesis and continues to this day to be an integrated organization. Some of the notable founders of the NAACP were Mary White Ovington, a white female; Ida Wells-Barnett; and also, I would add, Oswald Garrison Villard; William English Walling. Many of these persons were persons of goodwill who simply concluded that there had to be something done about the conditions impacting African Americans. And so they decided to move forward, and they formed, at that time, the organization known as the National Negro Committee, which has, of course, evolved into the NAACP that we know today. Let me pause for a moment with the history and remind people that in Houston, Texas, we are very fortunate. The Houston branch of the NAACP has a president who is a former dean of the law school, Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, Texas, former president of Texas Southern University, James Douglas--very fortunate to have a lawyer of his standing as the president of the NAACP. Currently, at the law school, there is a person who is working who happens to be the State president of the NAACP. We have a national board member in Houston, Texas. Gary Bledsoe, State president, is working at the law school as the interim dean. The national board member, Howard Jefferson, is in Houston, Texas. Houston's NAACP has its own facility, one of the few around the country to hold its own facility, but I am proud to say that that is something that we worked hard to acquire. The Houston NAACP is one of the outstanding branches of the NAACP in this country. The NAACP has branches in all 50 States. Continuing, the NAACP's national headquarters, located in Baltimore, Maryland, the NAACP was founded to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. I am proud to say that the NAACP has always used the tactics of nonviolence in its movement forward, in its effort to help all persons benefit in this country because, quite frankly, everyone has benefited from the NAACP and its movement in this country. It has used negotiation, litigation, and protestation as its tactics. The NAACP was there to win lawsuits before the Supreme Court, was there to protest so that persons might acquire not only the right to vote, but also the opportunity to elect people of their choice. The NAACP has been there with the great litigator, Thurgood Marshall, who was the first African-American Justice on the Supreme Court, was the chief litigator for the NAACP for many years. He won 29 of 32 cases before the Supreme Court. He was there to fight on behalf of the NAACP. The NAACP is the organization that won Barrows v. Jackson, Shelley v. Kraemer, Brown v. Board of Education. These are lawsuits that allow us to live in the neighborhoods that we live in, to go to the schools that we attend. The truth be told, we eat where we eat and sleep where we sleep because of the NAACP. It is an organization that has brought not only desegregation to American life, but also integration to American life. Many of our institutions were desegregated. That meant that a lot of institutions were lost in the process when we desegregated. But we also have integrated, and we have brought together persons in new institutions. The NAACP can claim a good deal of responsibility for the integration that we see in the House of Representatives and in the Congress of the United States of America. I can say to you, truthfully, that I believe I am standing here tonight because of the good works of the NAACP, and a good many other persons are here because of the good works of the NAACP as well. I am also proud to tell you tonight that the NAACP has fought for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The NAACP has fought for human rights as well as civil rights. The NAACP, in 2005, went beyond human rights and civil rights, in a sense, when it developed a disaster relief fund to help hurricane survivors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama. So the NAACP has metamorphosed into an organization that not only deals with the rights of people in the sense of their needs when they are voting and when they are being brought before the justice system, but it has also now metamorphosed into an organization that helps in times of need in general. If there is a storm, you can depend upon the NAACP to be there to be of some help. If persons are suffering as a result of some sort of disaster related to fires, the NAACP is likely to be there to help. The NAACP is also helping abroad. It has been there to help persons in Haiti after the disaster that took place. The NAACP, in 2008, supported the passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007. It was an act that allowed us to have the resources to solve some of the heinous crimes that occurred in the early days of the civil rights struggle here in the United States of America. The NAACP celebrated its centennial anniversary in New York City on July 16 of 2009. The NAACP continues to, in 2010, advocate for sentencing reform, something that is still needed to this day and is still being worked on. In 2011, the NAACP led the charge to defend the constitutional right to vote. The NAACP has fought voter suppression laws across the length and breadth of the country. The NAACP elected its new president, unanimously, Derrick Johnson, in 2017. This organization has been on the front line for justice for all in the United States of America. And I would dare say that, if we did not have the NAACP, we would create it because we need an organization that is willing to step forward and take on the needs of people who, but for the NAACP, wouldn't have a voice. It is a bold organization. It does not fear the powers that be. It does not, in any way, concern itself with the consequences of challenging the establishment. It is an organization that has sought to change the status quo. It is an organization that moves people from poverty, in many cases, into an opportunity to move forward into the middle class. So it is an organization that truly benefits all. I am proud to be a member of this august organization. I will mention a few more things about the organization, and then bring this to closure. But I do want people to know especially that the NAACP does not and has not ever segregated itself from any part of society. It has always sought to bring society together. It has always sought to find some sort of common ground for people to stand on so that we might all move forward together. It has always been an organization that not only wanted to integrate schools, integrate various parts of our social order, but also wanted to bring a sense of brotherhood to our country. Dr. King indicated that we must transform neighborhoods into brotherhoods. This has also been the work of the NAACP. Rosa Parks, the great NAACP member who took that seat on the bus and, in so doing, challenged the segregation in the South, the NAACP was there to do these things to bring people together and to help us understand each other. I do believe that America is a much better place because the NAACP has made it such. And if not but for the NAACP, I do believe that the Congress of the United States of America would not be the integrated institution that it is. I think there is still much work to be done, but I am proud that the NAACP has done the work that it has because, in so doing, it has made opportunities available for a good many people who would not have them. So, tonight, I wanted to have it resolved that the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America recognizes the 109th anniversary of the historic founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is February 14, Valentine's Day, and this is but one day, of course, in the month of February, which is Black History Month. I am honored to stand here tonight to present a resolution that will be filed, a Black History resolution. But I am also honored to say that a good many of my colleagues are in support of Black History Month, and they deserve to have their words, their expressions made known, which is why I have asked for this unanimous consent. My belief is that we will have many, many persons who are not here tonight, for legitimate reasons, who will want to make sure that they are made a part of the Record by and through their comments that they will submit in written word. Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about Black History because for many years, too many years, to be quite honest, the history of Africans in the Americas, the history of Black people in America, the history of African Americans, at one time known as Negroes, this history was deleted from the history books. It was said in one book that, because little contributions were made to world history, there would be little mention of Africans in history. But, Mr. Speaker, we know now that this is not true, and because we know that it is not true, we seek to at least give some indication in the Record that African Americans have made a significant contribution in America. But also, the truth is that Africans have made a contribution to world history. However, tonight, this resolution will focus on and it will recognize and celebrate Black History Month; and, in so doing, we would like to present the resolution that will be filed at a later time. Mr. Speaker, ``Whereas the theme for Black History Month 2018 is `African Americans in Times of War' ''--something that we have not focused on to the extent that we should have, because African Americans have made significant contributions to our country during times of war--this theme ``which commemorates the centennial of the end of the First World War in 1918, and explores the complex meanings and implications of this international struggle and its aftermath; ``Whereas this resolution will focus primarily on African Americans in the military, which is but one historically important aspect of this far-reaching exploration of African-American history; ``Whereas African Americans have fought for the United States throughout its history; ``Whereas despite racial segregation and discrimination, African Americans have played a significant role during times of war from the colonial period forward''--Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, as an aside now, that it was not until 1948, by Presidential executive order, that President Truman desegregated the military. Continuing: ``Whereas Crispus Attucks was a fugitive slave working outside of Boston, Massachusetts, as a sailor, and during his time off, he worked as a rope maker near the wharf; ``Whereas in early 1770, competition for work and wages became stiff as British soldiers were contending for the same unskilled positions as the locals''--that would be Crispus Attucks and other locals; ``Whereas this situation created tension which slowly escalated to violent confrontations; ``Whereas on March 5, 1770, Attucks led a group of rope makers and sailors into a confrontation with a group of British soldiers and subsequently was shot and killed; ``Whereas Crispus Attucks, a Black man, is generally considered to be the first casualty of the Revolutionary War and is remembered as the first of many notable African-American heroes; ``Whereas Araminta Ross was born into slavery in Maryland and escaped to freedom in the North in 1849 to become the most famous conductor on the Underground Railroad; ``Whereas Araminta Ross was a leading abolitionist before the American Civil War and also helped the Union Army during war, working as a spy, among other roles; ``Whereas Araminta Ross, a Black woman, guided the Combahee River Raid, which liberated more than 700 slaves in South Carolina; ``Whereas Araminta Ross, better known as Harriet Tubman, was the first woman to lead an armed expedition during the Civil War; ``Whereas Powhatan Beaty was born a slave in Richmond, Virginia, in 1837; ``Whereas when the Civil War broke out, Beaty enlisted in the Union Army; ``Whereas Powhatan Beaty, a Black man, was quickly promoted to sergeant and oversaw 47 other Black recruits in noncombat jobs; ``Whereas in September of 1864, Beaty's division attacked the enemy at Chaffin's farm, near Richmond, Virginia; ``Whereas with all of the other unit's officers and most of its enlisted men dead or wounded, Beaty took over and led a second charge, driving the enemy back; ``Whereas for his heroism, Powhatan Beaty, a Black man, was awarded the Medal of Honor . . . ;'' ``Whereas Benjamin Oliver Davis, Sr., entered the military service on July 13, 1898, during the Spanish-American War and, as a temporary first lieutenant of the 8th United States Volunteer Infantry; ``Whereas on June 18, 1899, he enlisted as a private in the 9th Cavalry of the Regular Army; ``Whereas Davis eventually came under the command of Charles Young, whom, at the time, was the only African-American officer serving in the U.S. military; ``Whereas Young took Davis under his tutelage and helped him to prepare to take his officer candidate test; ``Whereas in only 2 years, he rose to sergeant major and earned a commission as a second lieutenant in 1901; ``Whereas Benjamin Oliver Davis, a Black man, rose through the ranks and became the first African American to achieve the rank of brigadier general in the U.S. military; ``Whereas, during World War I, approximately 800``--no one is sure of the number--``approximately 800 African Americans were killed in action; ``Whereas Doris Miller enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a mess attendant''--meaning he was a person who served those others with food and took care of the cleaning of facilities--``where he served on the USS West Virginia when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; ``Whereas Miller was assigned to carry the wounded sailors to safer quarters; ``Whereas he returned to the deck and picked up a 50-caliber Browning antiaircraft machine gun that he had never been trained to shoot and managed to shoot down enemy aircraft; ``Whereas, Doris Miller, a Black man, was commended by the Secretary of the Navy and became the first African American to be presented the Navy Cross; ``Whereas before 1940, African Americans were barred from flying for the U.S. military; ``Whereas civil rights organizations and Black press exerted pressure on President Roosevelt, which resulted in the formation of the Tuskegee Airmen based in Tuskegee, Alabama, in 1941; ``Whereas the Tuskegee Airmen included pilots, navigators, bombardiers, maintenance and support staff, instructors, as well as the personnel who kept the planes and pilots in the air; ``Whereas the Black Tuskegee Airmen overcame segregation and prejudice to become one of the most highly respected groups of World War II; ``Whereas the Tuskegee Airmen's achievements helped pave the way for full integration of U.S. military; ``Whereas during World War II, approximately 700 African Americans were killed in action; ``Whereas Cornelius Charlton, a career military man, served in the Army during the Korean war; ``Whereas on June 2, 1951, his platoon encountered heavy resistance while attempting to take Hill 543 and the leader of his platoon was wounded; ``Whereas Charlton took command and regrouped his men and led an assault on the hill; ``Whereas he singlehandedly attacked and disabled the last remaining enemy gun encampments; ``Whereas he subsequently died from his wounds inflicted by a grenade, but he is credited with saving much of his platoon; ``Whereas Cornelius Charlton, a Black man, posthumously received the Medal of Honor for his actions near Chipo-ri, South Korea; ``Whereas African Americans literally fought for the right to die in defense of their country; ``Whereas in the face of injustices, many African Americans distinguished themselves with their commitment to the noble ideals upon which the United States was founded and courageously fought for the rights and the freedom of all Americans; ``Whereas the preservation and teaching of Black history are nationally recognized due to the efforts of Dr. Carter G. Woodson and his establishment of Negro History Week, the precursor to Black History Month; ``Whereas Black History Month, which represents Dr. Carter G. Woodson's efforts to enhance knowledge of Black history, started through the Journal of Negro History, published by Woodson's Association for the Study of African American Life and History; and ``Whereas the month of February is officially celebrated as Black History Month, which dates back to 1926, when Dr. Carter G. Woodson set aside a special period of time in February to recognize the heritage and achievements of Black Americans. ``Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives-- ``Recognizes the significance of Black History Month as an important time to acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of African Americans in the Nation's history, and encourages the continued celebration of this month to provide an opportunity for all peoples of the United States''--regardless of where they are from--``to learn more about the past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped the Nation; ``Recognizes that ethnic and racial diversity of the United States enriches and strengthens the Nation; and ``Encourages all States to include in their year-round educational curriculum the history and contributions of African Americans in the United States and around the world.'' Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say to this audience that this Congress has been very responsive to the notion of celebrating African-American history. My hope is that, once we are back in the business of approving resolutions of this type, this resolution will be taken up by the Congress of the United States of America, that it will be voted on, and that it will be passed. My hope is that this will be an indication to our country that our Congress does truly appreciate what the African Americans have done to make America the beautiful a more beautiful America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to stand in the well of the House. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a liberated Democrat, a liberated Democrat who will not only speak truth to power but who will also speak truth about power. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend freedom of speech. I rise to defend the freedom of speech of The Hill newspaper. I defend the freedom of speech of The Hill newspaper when it printed these words: `` `Morning Joe' host''--I won't mention his name--``said on Sunday that the Democratic Party should take away funding from Democratic candidates who talk about impeaching President Trump on the campaign trail.'' I am such a candidate. I have talked about impeaching the President, and I will continue to talk about impeaching the President. I am defending The Hill for printing this, by the way. The Hill goes on to say: ``Any Democrat mentioning the word `impeachment' on the campaign trail should have their campaign funds pulled by the Democratic Party.'' This is what was tweeted by the host of ``Morning Joe'': ``I defend The Hill's right to print it, and I defend the right of `Morning Joe' host to say what he said, and I hope people will defend and respect my right to say what I'm about to say. ``I will not be intimidated. I want the host to know that, if those who have threatened my life couldn't intimidate me, he will not. I want the host to know that I spoke about impeachment just this weekend that passed.'' And I am looking to future engagements to speak about impeachment. And I will bring Articles of Impeachment to the floor of the House of Representatives again if conditions require it. I am not afraid. I have no fear of these people who would have me abrogate my constitutional rights. I will stand and defend them, and I will exercise my rights. The truth is this: We all have a duty to speak up and speak out and stand up. That is what I will do. God bless you. Happy Valentine's Day.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I am a proponent of impeachment. I have not only as much as said so but brought Articles of Impeachment before the House of Representatives. There are a good many people who are antithetical to my position, Mr. Speaker. As a Member of the House, I would challenge any Member who desires to debate this issue on the floor of the House. I would also challenge any member of a morning program, ``Morning Joe,'' who believes that he should back up his words, to talk to me on his program. Never talked to me. Never said a word. Would you invite me on your program and show the courage to speak of these issues with me there so that I may defend and you may attack?

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. The point is that I am a proponent of having small banks. I call small banks community banks. I am a proponent of this. If I am a proponent of it, then I support the notion that we cannot allow them to be consolidated such that we will have fewer of them. I think this legislation is a little bit misguided in that it contradicts the very premise upon which it rests.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to have this opportunity. I thank the chairman as well, and I want to thank the ranking member for all of the work that she has done in this area. She has been a part of the avant-garde to protect and maintain community banks. One of the great difficulties that we have had with our committee is defining what a community bank is. We have had testimony to indicate that a community bank can be $50 billion or more. We want to make sure that the small institutions that the chairperson is talking about continue to exist. It is unfortunate, but if we pass this legislation, there is a good likelihood that the level of consolidation that will take place will be antithetical to the very commentary that we are hearing with reference to the need for community banks, small banks to make sure small businesses will receive loans. There is a contradiction contained within the very effort that is being made. I am honored to have with me a statement from over 200 civil rights community organizations, labor unions, businesses, investors, faith- based businesses, community and civic groups; and this statement reads--this is from them, but I concur with it: ``Raising the limit to $3 billion is a policy well calculated to significantly reduce the number of community banks in the U.S. First, raising the limit will allow medium-sized community banks of $2 to $3 billion in size to more easily acquire smaller community banks. . . .'' That is a significant comment because the acquisition of smaller banks is going to cause us to have fewer smaller banks, and the argument that is being made is that the smaller banks are the ones that are servicing small businesses. It goes on to read: ``. . . reducing the number of independent community banks. Second, allowing holding companies to borrow excessively will raise the risk of bank failure the next time the financial system is under stress. ``A $3 billion limit is unjustified, as there is no evidence that community banks over $1 billion in size are currently too small to survive. According to a recent FDIC report, `While economies of scale are important for community banks, historical trends in the size distribution of community banks that have survived over the last quarter century do not suggest that economies of scale require a community bank to grow or merge to asset sizes larger than $1 billion.'' My point is that I am a proponent of community banks.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again I am honored to stand in the well of the House of Representatives. I have been blessed and fortunate enough to stand here and to have the opportunity to vote on some of the great issues of our time. I am proud to say that I was here to vote on the Affordable Care Act, and I am proud to say that I still stand behind the Affordable Care Act. I was here to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay legislation. I still stand behind what we did on that great occasion. I was here to vote on a good many pieces of legislation, but I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have been here today to see the Honorable Nancy Pelosi as she took a stand for those who cannot be here to stand for themselves. She took a stand for the DREAMers, and not only did she speak for them and stand up for them, she also literally took a stand on her feet for more than 8 hours in heels. Mr. Speaker, that is a part of history that I will forever remember, and I am proud to have been here, not in the room for the entirety of the time, I must tell you. A good many of us were afforded the opportunity to go in and out, but she stood there for the entirety of the 8 hours and spoke eloquently about the needs of the DREAMers, spoke eloquently about the things that they have done to make our country a better place, spoke eloquently about how America the Beautiful is a more beautiful America because they are here. I would like to associate myself with her comments. I believe that she is a part of that avant garde that will ultimately bring justice to those young people who came here, not of their own volition, but who came here with someone, some parent, some significant other, some person who had care, custody, and control, and who have done all of the right things, save having been born here, and deserve an opportunity to remain in this country. So, Ms. Pelosi, wherever you are, I want you to know that I have great admiration for you and I adore you for what you have done tonight. Mr. Speaker, I am here to also speak on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Jose Escobar. Mr. Speaker, he is my constituent. He lived in my congressional district. I do regret that he has been deported to El Salvador, but notwithstanding the distance between us, he is still my constituent, just as I had a constituent who was detained in China. Notwithstanding the distance, this was still my constituent, and we fought with her husband and her friends and other Members of Congress to get her back to the United States of America, and she has been returned. The entirety of that time while she was away, she still remained my constituent, just as I have a constituent who is currently in Syria being detained. We are going to fight to bring that constituent back. That constituent will be my constituent as long as I am in the Congress of the United States of America and that constituent is detained in Syria. My hope is that we will get our constituent back sooner rather than later, but it doesn't matter about the time. What matters is that I am committed to stay with that constituent and make sure that his mother and father believe that we are working with them to bring him home. So it is, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Escobar. He is my constituent. He has been deported to San Salvador in El Salvador. Notwithstanding the fact that he has been deported, he is still someone that I am going to work to bring back to this country. Mr. Escobar came to this country at the age of 15. He was brought here. He came here right around the time the earthquakes took place in January of 2001. While he was here, there was another earthquake that took place on February 13, 2001. These earthquakes devastated El Salvador. There were people who died. Hundreds of people died. As we do in this country, we offered TPS, temporary protected status, to those persons who came here from El Salvador who were here in this country. We didn't want to send them back to devastation. We didn't want to put them in harm's way. We are a caring Nation. We showed how much we care by giving them the opportunity to have temporary protected status. His mother sought temporary protected status for herself and her son. His mother believed that she and her son had temporary protected status. However, Mr. Speaker, later on when Mr. Escobar sought to get his renewal of the temporary protected status, he discovered that a mistake had been made. It is difficult to know what happened, but it wasn't done with any kind of malice aforethought. There was a mistake that was made that could have been corrected, I believe, but it wasn't. Mr. Escobar did not run and hide. He presented himself. Mr. Escobar went to the authorities. He tried his best to correct this mistake, and in the process of doing this, he maintained a life, and in maintaining his life, he did what ordinary people do, what people do who are young: he married. He married Rose Escobar. While they were married, they had two beautiful children. He now has a daughter who is 4 years of age. He has a son who is 8 years of age. His son and his daughter are here in the United States of America, but I regret to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Escobar is no longer in the United States of America because on March 7, 2006, he was married, but on March 7, 2006, he was removed from this country. And it was done in such a way as to create great sorrow, great pain, within his family. At the time of his removal, he was working. At the time of his removal, he was doing all of the things that we expect a man with a family to do. He was taking care of his children. He was a father to his children. He was taking care of his wife, and she was taking care of him. He was a good husband to his wife. He was, by all counts, by all standards, by any acid test, a good American, saving the fact that he was not born in the United States. But he went in for what he thought would be another visit because he had a work permit, and when he went in to visit the government by and through his agents and immigration, these authorities decided and did what I believe they were ordered to do. I hold no grudge against them. I think they were doing what was required of them. They were doing what they perceived to be their jobs. And in so doing, they detained him. And in detaining him, his wife left with their baby in her arms. She came believing they would all return home together, but she was separated from her husband, children separated from their father, and she went home and she cried. But she is strong. She did more than simply cry. She decided that she was going to fight and she was going to get her husband returned home lawfully. It was a sad day, however, in her life to know that her children would not see their father for some time and did not have the opportunity to say good-bye. Her son wanted to know: Where is my father? And she had to give an explanation to her son, an explanation that did not meet with the circumstance, but he was young and she did not choose to tell him that agents of the government had taken their father away from them, the son and the daughter. So she told him that he was away. She allowed him to have the hope that he would return. She was hurt. He was sad. The father was taken away with $20 in his pocket and the clothes on his back, taken to a country that he had not been in for some 16 years. He had lived longer in this country than he lived in El Salvador. Dropped off at the airport in El Salvador with $20 in his pocket and the clothes on his back in a country where the gangs are, by definition, terrorists. Legal definition, they are classified as terrorists, where they extort, where they do harm, such harm and such extortion that many people leave the country to save their children and prevent them from becoming a part of the terrorist gangs that roam the streets. He knew that he had to leave that airport before it was dark; hence, he decided to collaborate with others who were similarly situated. They put their money together and they acquired the services of a taxi to get them out of the heart of the city, to get them out into an area where they thought that they might have some degree of security. It cost him the entire $20, but there was someone that he was able to call who met him and took him to a place of safety. Even to this day he does not traverse certain areas. To this day, he does not have the sense of security that you and I have, Mr. Speaker. So he is still my constituent. He went to El Salvador, not by choice, dropped off at an airport, $20 in his pocket and the clothes on his back. His wife came to our office and has asked for our help, and we are going to help, and we are helping. Just this last weekend, I went to El Salvador to see my constituent. I was there to assure him that we are still with him, that we are still working to bring him back to this country lawfully. He was married, had children. His wife is an American citizen. His children are American citizens. He came here, thought he had TPS-- temporary protected status--did not, but did not run, did not hide. He thought that the President was sincere when he said he was going to go after the bad guys; he was going to go after the criminals. He did not believe that when the President said ``criminals,'' it meant Jose Escobar who only had a speeding ticket. He didn't think that that would apply to him, the notion that the President would go after criminals, those who had committed serious offenses, a traffic offense never thought to be the kind of offense that would get him deported, extradited, evicted from this country after having been here longer than he had lived in El Salvador. Yes, he came without inspection is the proper terminology, as I understand it. But he came without proper documents, he did. While here, he behaved, complied, thought that he was going to go in for an indication that he was still going to have his job and stay with his family. This is what he thought. So I went to see him, and his wife was with me. We met with him for approximately 3 hours. We found out that he is still living in a state of insecurity. We found out that he is not able to have the kind of employment that he needs so that he can send money back to take care of his family. We found out that he still has hope, that he still has dreams, that he still believes that he should be united with his family. He believes that this country will still live up to the ideals that we have expressed and extolled. He still believes that those who say that they believe in family values will value the family that he has and will want to see him reunited with his family. The law says it can be done. We are going to pursue it. We are going to file legislation to ask that my colleagues here in Congress join us in not only helping this Escobar, but all of the Jose Escobars who are similarly situated, torn apart from their families. We are a country of family values. We have at least one party, and I believe both, but one party that prides itself on family values. How can we allow this kind of atrocity to continue and persist if we are the party that believes in family values? We must do what we can to make it clear to those who don't understand that we will change this circumstance. There are some who will say that you can't get this kind of thing done. I differ. But let's assume for a moment that it can't be. I don't believe this. I believe that we can get Mr. Escobar reunited with his family, but let's assume for a moment that we can't. Then when you can't, and you know it is a righteous cause, you have got a duty to do all that you can. We must do all that we can to prevent families from being torn apart. This is why I went to El Salvador, to assure Mr. Escobar. This is why I am on the floor of the House tonight, because I want my colleagues to know that we will file legislation to aid, assist, and protect the Escobars of the world. We are living in some very difficult times. We are living in times now such that people will negotiate with the lives of people, negotiate with the lives of the Jose Escobars. You give me a wall, and I will give you freedom for Mr. Escobar or the Escobars of the world, the DREAMers of the world. Let's negotiate. Let's put their freedom, their liberty, their sense of dignity on the line. You want their dignity? You want them to have a sense of security? Give me a wall. I will trade you a wall for their security and their dignity. These are difficult times. Voltaire, the great French philosopher, has an adage that reminds us that those who can make you believe absurdities can cause you to commit atrocities. It is absurd to conclude that we are doing a righteous thing when we separate a father from his wife and children under the circumstances that Mr. Escobar suffers under, circumstances that he, quite frankly, didn't create himself. He came here as a child--circumstances that we ought to acknowledge and we ought to want to do something about, circumstances that ought to say to us we ought not negotiate with the lives of human beings. This is a difficult time for our country. This is an absurdity. And remember, people who can convince you that an absurdity is the right thing can convince you to do things that are going to be harmful to good, decent people, harmful to the Jose Escobars of the world. So I am here tonight on behalf of Mr. Escobar and the many Escobars of the world because I don't want an absurdity to become an atrocity, a greater atrocity than it is. And I would hope that my colleagues would reconsider this notion of negotiating with the lives of people. When history looks back upon this, when those who look back upon us through the vista of time, through the window of the years, they are going to see that at this time, in 2018, there were people negotiating with the lives of people and they thought that it was a legitimate thing to do. I am not going to fight about a wall that really is a false fence of security. I am not going to fight you about that. I am going to believe that when there were other people who were suffering and needed help, there were people who were willing to come forward and make sacrifices for them. So, with that thought in mind, I want you to know, I may have to make concessions for the lives of people, but I don't want to negotiate. If there is something that I will vote on, then I will vote, but I don't want to negotiate when it comes to the lives of people. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great moment for us, a great moment for us to do something that is more than right, a great moment to do something that is righteous, a great moment for us to demonstrate that we will stand for something so as to cause the world to know that we won't fall for anything. We are not going to fall for the notion that you can just play with the lives of people. We are not going to fall for the notion that lives are going to be measured in walls. Lives are going to be measured in how we will impact family reunification. Lives are going to be measured in how we are going to deal with diversity in the visa program. We are not going to measure lives that way. I don't think it is a good deal. I think it is a terrible deal. I think it is an atrocity when you offer me the lives of people, but in exchange, I have got to give you $25 billion, and I have got to change family reunification such that it is not as we know it today, and I have got to guarantee you that you are not going to have to worry about diversity as it relates to persons coming into the country. I don't think it is a good deal. Someone today said that the President offered a good deal and we ought to accept it. It is not a good deal for me, not a good deal for the people that I represent. I don't like it. I wouldn't negotiate it. The fact of the matter is, it is not a negotiation. They are asking for a capitulation: either take it or leave it. That is not negotiation. But I still say that we ought not negotiate with the lives of people. Mr. Speaker, I close with this. We, who have been charged with the awesome responsibility of representing the many in our society, have got to remember that the greatness of our country is not going to be measured by how we treat those who live in the suites of life, how we treat those who have millions, how we treat those who can buy their way into the country, how we treat those who have done well. It is not going to be measured by how we treat the well-off, the well-heeled, and the well-to-do. The greatness of our votes and what we do will be measured by how we treat those that Speaker Pelosi--currently minority leader, Speaker Pelosi--spoke of in the Book of Matthew, how we treat the least among us--the least, the last, and the lost. That is really how the greatness of a country is going to be measured. The greatness of America will be measured this way. And we can play all the games that we want, but in the final analysis, when we have to give that final judgment and receive that judgment, it won't be about how well we treated millionaires and how many tax breaks we gave them. It is going to be: What did you do for those who are not in a position to do for themselves? Mr. Speaker, I pray that we will live up to the expectations that we pledge allegiance to in the flag: liberty and justice for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise and stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America to address the question of the State of the Union. What is the State of the Union? Mr. Speaker, the State of the Union is one of devolution. We are devolving into the normalization of inequality; inequality in a way that allows us to pass a $1.5 trillion giveaway that will reward the rich for being rich and punish the poor for being poor. We are devolving into hyperpartisan political events by the hijacking of a Supreme Court Justice when Justice Gorsuch was appointed to the Supreme Court. We are evolving and devolving into the hijacking of justice itself because we now find that there are those who believe that there is a deep-state conspiracy within the Justice Department; that somehow there is this belief that the Justice Department should be assaulted and attacked; that it should be demeaned; that it should be discredited. We are devolving into, Mr. Speaker, the normalization of disqualifying bigotry, as evidenced by some of the statements that have come from the Presidency; statements that would normalize language such as: there are some ``fine people'' among those who are bigots, racists, and persons perpetrating hate in Charlottesville, as evidenced by the notion that we can allow people to say ugly things about other countries and, in a sense, develop a race-based immigration policy. Mr. Speaker, we are devolving into a society that recognizes a rising stock market as the acid test for everything when, in fact, it is only proof that some people are doing better while many others are not. There is a devolution taking place, and I, Mr. Speaker, contend that there is a solution to this devolution. The solution is the impeachment of an unfit President.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why there is a government shutdown. There is a government shutdown because the self-proclaimed great dealmaker breaks more deals than he makes. Just ask the Americans who are going to pay for the wall he said Mexico would pay for. Just ask the Senators who took him the deal that he asked for. Mr. Speaker, when you break more deals than you make, you are not a great dealmaker; you are a great deal breaker. We have a great deal breaker in the White House. That is why we have a shutdown.