Al Green

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I always acknowledge the preeminent privilege to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. It is a unique opportunity accorded few in a country of millions. So I am honored to stand here, Mr. Speaker. I love my country, but I must say, Mr. Speaker, I stand here with profound disbelief--profound disbelief--because I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate of the United States of America is considering removing 13 million people from insurance in a tax bill. The Senate is proposing in a tax bill--that can't solve all of our problems, by the way--that 13 million people lose healthcare--13 million people without a primary care physician. Perhaps not all, but it is fair to assume that millions will not have a primary care physician. Millions will no longer get the preventive care that can save dollars as well as lives. Millions will find themselves in emergency rooms receiving primary care. I cannot believe that the Senate of the United States of America, in a tax bill, would remove 13 million people from the insurance rolls and, in so doing, acquire $338 billion. The $338 billion is not going to deficit reduction. The $338 billion will go to line the pockets of people who can afford the best healthcare that the world can provide. It is hard to believe that, in the richest country in the world, Mr. Speaker, we are about to move from healthcare to sickness care. Healthcare provides preventive care. Sickness care, Mr. Speaker, means that you show up at an emergency room. By the way, that $338 billion that is claimed as a savings--we will spend more than that on emergency room services for the 13 million--or the millions, whatever that number may happen to be--who are going to emergency rooms. We will spend it. People are going to get care. They won't get the best care. We have, in the richest country in the world, concluded that we can take healthcare from those who dearly need it and provide wealthcare for those who already have it. Why would we put wealthcare above healthcare in the richest country in the world? I cannot believe that this is happening in the United States of America. By the way, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that if the Senate can do this, then the House will follow suit. The House will pick up that language, some variation of it, if not the exact language. We will find that, in the House, we will be voting to eliminate insurance for 13 million people. Mr. Speaker, our country is better than this. Our country is a country that cares for every person where, yes, we will care for the well-off, the well-heeled, and the well-to-do. Yes. But we also care for the least, the last, and the lost. In this country, we care about people, and we want every person to have the best healthcare. So I suffer from disbelief. I am thunderstruck. I cannot imagine the Senate removing 13 million people from healthcare to provide wealthcare for a few.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chair of the committee as well. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the legislation. I am opposed to it because it does not give hardworking Americans the same consideration that we will accord persons who are making billions and we will accord corporations. Corporations are going to get great tax cuts, billionaires are going to get tax cuts. We will eliminate the estate tax, we will eliminate the AMT for billionaires, but we are not going to give hardworking Americans the opportunity to get the relief that they need with reference to the $20 billion worth of debt that the NFIP currently has. If we don't eliminate that debt now, premiums will go up on hardworking Americans. Hardworking Americans won't be able to afford premiums, and many of them won't be able to afford homes. This is not the way to treat people who work hard and pay their taxes. If we can give tax breaks to corporations and billionaires, we can afford to reduce this debt on the NFIP so that hardworking Americans can afford homes. It really is that simple. Five years without another bill: this is our last chance. We can't pass this chance up so that we can take care of billionaires and corporations at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to speak here in the well of the House of the Congress of the United States of America. I do want to compliment you, Madam Speaker. I heard your statements earlier, and I would like to associate myself with the portion of your statement that dealt with transgender persons. Madam Speaker, I stand before the world today with an impeachment update. I have previously indicated that there will be a vote on an impeachment resolution before Christmas. I stand by this. To this end, I will be meeting with appropriate members of House leadership this week to discuss the notification process. I want people to understand how this process works. I will have the opportunity to read the Articles of Impeachment from the well of the House. After this is done, there will be a time set for me to present them again before the House. It must be done twice. When that time is set, I will have to be notified of the time. I don't set the time. I have to respond at the appropriate time. For me to respond at the appropriate time, appropriate notice has to be given to me. This is why I will be meeting with House leadership so that we can discuss the means by which appropriate notice will be given to me. We want to make sure there is no confusion about this process and no confusion as to how the notice is to be accorded to me. I will meet with leadership to ascertain how the appropriate notice will be accorded to me so that I may present the Articles of Impeachment a second time so that, thereafter, there will be a vote on these Articles of Impeachment. Because the system is such that it can be difficult to understand how people have actually voted, I want you to know that those who vote with me and those who are supportive of advancing the cause of impeachment, I will be proud to announce who they are, and I will give Members further updates as to how this will take place. But I want to assure every American that this vote on Articles of Impeachment will take place before Christmas, and that this vote will be about the incitement of hate, about how the country is being pushed back, and how America is better than the direction that someone seeks to push us forward into. This is a great country, and we cannot tolerate hate. This may be one of the few times in the history of the country that persons will be given the opportunity to take a stand against hate by casting the appropriate vote in the Congress of the United States of America. I will give future updates on impeachment from this podium. I am always honored to stand in the well of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country. Mr. Speaker, because I love my country, I rise to thank those who voted to reject bigotry, racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, sexism, and hatred in all of its forms, Mr. Speaker. I rise to thank them for what they did when they voted to reject these things. Mr. Speaker, because I love my country and because I cannot accept these things, I refuse to accept hatred. I refuse to acquiesce to any forms of bigotry. Mr. Speaker, because I rise to reject these things, I now announce that before Christmas there will be a vote on the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism; there will be a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, on the impeachment of the President. Mr. Speaker, this vote will take place before Christmas because there still is a need for the public to weigh in. I announced earlier this year, I called for the impeachment of the President right here on the floor of the House. Since that time, I have read Articles of Impeachment. These Articles of Impeachment have been circulated, and we are giving people an opportunity to respond. Momentum is building, Mr. Speaker. The momentum is building. More people favor impeachment than not. Momentum is building. People should weigh in. They should let others know how they feel about impeachment. They should let others know how they feel about the chief inciter of all of these ugly actions by way of persons responding to the chief inciter. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to say this vote will take place, but I am also proud to say something else. I am proud to say that I am an American, and while I have been told that there are political consequences for what I will do, I accept the consequences. I accept the consequences because I was not born in Congress. I wasn't born to be a Congressman. I am a child of God. Mr. Speaker, I refuse to come to Congress and acquiesce to bigotry and hatred. I am proud to announce that this vote will take place and people will be able to vote to table the Articles of Impeachment. They will be able to vote to reject them, or support them, or they will be able to vote to send them to a committee. Whatever others will do is their choice. My conscience dictates that I will vote to impeach. Let others do what they may. History will judge us all. I pray, Mr. Speaker, that this country will continue to reject what the inciter in chief, Donald J. Trump, has been causing this country to have to endure.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House and have the opportunity to speak to not only the Members of Congress, but to the American people. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise because I am in opposition to a tax plan that has been said to eliminate loopholes, but has not done so. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. I will address but one loophole. I will address the loophole that allowed a person who made $3 billion one year--by the way, I don't begrudge him for making $3 billion. I like to see people make as much as they can make in this country, but I also think that every person ought to pay for his or her fair taxes on whatever they earn. This person made $3 billion. How much is $3 billion? Well, let me explain. Mr. Speaker, $3 billion, it would take a minimum-wage worker working full time, Mr. Speaker, 198,000 years to make $3 billion; 198,000 years. I don't begrudge a person for making it, but here is the point: if you make it, you ought to pay your fair share of taxes on it. This country makes it possible for us to do great things. This country makes it possible for us to succeed. So if you have succeeded in this country, you ought to contribute to the country itself. He made $3 billion and paid taxes that were called carried interest. He did not pay ordinary income taxes. In fact, he paid less than half of what a person making much less--persons who may have worked for him, maybe a secretary, maybe somebody who was making money at a much lower level in that company--paid less than half in taxes in terms of the amount to be paid, the percentage of the earnings; less than half of the ordinary income tax. It is called carried interest. Well, the commitment was that you were going to close loopholes. You haven't closed that loophole. You haven't eliminated that loophole. I know that there is talk about reducing the size of a big loophole and making it a little less big, but that is not what you promised. You said you were going to eliminate the loopholes. This loophole sends a signal to ordinary Americans who are working hard every day. It says to them that you are willing to allow the rich to have more to do more, but you believe that those who work hard every day can do more with less. Mr. Speaker, I refuse that philosophy. I reject it. I believe that if you are working hard every day, if you are earning middle class wages, you ought to be able to get the tax break promised. I don't think that the tax break should go to the person who can make $3 billion and pay less than half of ordinary income tax on it. Carried interest was a commitment that was made. The elimination of carried interest has not taken place. You have not kept your word. There are many other aspects of it. You can't talk about all of them in one message. But you can do this: you can make it clear to working class people, to middle-income people, that this tax plan is for those who are going to make the carried interest kind of money, the $3 billion, the money that will allow them to go on and do great things, but won't cause them to have to pay their fair share of taxes. Mr. Speaker, I believe in fairness for all, and that includes the very, very rich.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again, I am honored to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America, although I am sad to bring the news that I shall share with you. I am saddened by something that has happened in this Congress. The big banks are making big bucks. They are doing very well, and they just received a big bonus from Congress. The big bonus is this: if you do business with them, you will have to participate in arbitration, and you won't be allowed to sue them to resolve your dispute by way of litigation. Congress has decided that the big banks making the big bucks can force you to go to arbitration, and you will have to pay a fee to negotiate your way through the arbitration process. I think that there is something wrong with this picture. There is something wrong with this picture when we realize that one bank--and I will just single one out, I won't go through all of the entirety of the industry, but one bank, Wells Fargo, one bank, opened 3.5 million accounts in the names of persons without their consent. In the names of customers, 3.5 million accounts without the consent of customers. This one bank, Wells Fargo, paid $185 million as a part of the resolution. This one bank, Wells Fargo, paid $80 million for enrolling customers into auto insurance that they didn't need. One bank, Wells Fargo, paid $2.8 million in refunds to customers. One bank, Wells Fargo, in 2012, illegally foreclosed on servicemembers' homes and autos--one bank, Wells Fargo--and for this, they paid $311 million. This was about $125,000 per servicemember. So we find ourselves in a circumstance where banks that do these ugly things to customers won't have to go to court. They won't have to face a jury. They will simply require the customer to negotiate with them. I find this quite shocking, to be quite frank with you, and I am very saddened by it, because I know that, if you take from the bank, you will go to court. But, apparently, Congress has concluded that, if the bank takes from you, you go to the bank and negotiate. It is a sad state of affairs.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House, and I am honored to do so today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the Honorable Frederica Wilson. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend her not because of her color. She is a person of African ancestry, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't rise to defend her color. I believe that it is not the color of skin but rather the character within that determines the worth of men and women, so I rise to defend her worth. I rise to defend who she is. I rise to defend her integrity, her honor, and her dignity. I rise to defend an honorable woman. Mr. Speaker, I do so because, in this country, we have allowed public discourse to be degraded to the extent that the President of the United States of America would call a Member of Congress, an honorable woman, wacky. Mr. Speaker, this is not a wacky person. This is a person of honor and integrity and of intellect. Mr. Speaker, she is a former principal. She didn't just show up in the Congress one day. She was a State representative and a State senator before coming to Congress. I rise to defend her. I rise to defend her because, Mr. Speaker, it has been said that she is an empty barrel. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that one who has served the country as well and as capable and as able that the maker of that statement would do so. But it says something about the influence that this President is having on people of honor and integrity. It says something about the influence that he is having on society. This is not an empty barrel. She is a person of intellect. It has been said that she is all hat and no cattle. That is an insult. That is an insult because somehow someone is trying to send a signal that others will receive as a person who is an airhead. She is not an airhead. She is not a person who is all hat and no cattle. She has sponsored meaningful legislation. She has been in a fight to free many young women who have been taken captive. She is tenacious. She doesn't give out, she doesn't give up, she doesn't give in. She is a fighter, and I stand and I rise to defend her. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that Carlyle is right: ``No lie can live forever.'' She has been lied on, Mr. Speaker. I do so because I believe that William Cullen Bryant is right: ``Truth, crushed to Earth, shall rise again.'' There are people who have tried to bury the truth about this good woman in an earthly grave of lies. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend her because I believe that if we allow one person to go undefended in a circumstance like this, every person is at risk of being treated in a similar fashion. We are in some very difficult times, and many of us don't realize it. We have a person who is at the top who is setting a tone and tenor for the country who is demeaning the dignity and respect that his office commands. Mr. Speaker, this has to stop. There are those who say wait until the next election. I am not one of them. I believe that the remedy for this kind of behavior and the impact that it is having on society is impeachment.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud Member of this House. I am always so honored to know that I have the preeminent privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. There are only 435 people who are elected as Members from the various States who have voting rights in Congress on legislation, who have this privilege, so it is an honor for me to do it. I want people to know that when I stand here, my words are sincere and my efforts are those that I believe can make a difference in the lives of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I called to the attention of the House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment, and I called these Articles of Impeachment to the attention of the House because it is a part of a process. It can be a three-step process, which has been used on multiple occasions in the past, a three-step process that allows the Member to give notice. After the Member gives notice, the Member does not have to allow a vote to take place immediately. The Member can decide that, rather than have the vote take place within 2 days, the Member can give notice a second time and then allow that process to move forward, and the Speaker can then set a time for the Member to give a final notice, or present the actual Articles of Impeachment. I have chosen to use the three-step process: initial notice; thereafter to come back before this House, which every Member has the privilege of doing and which has been done before, and again notice the House; and, thereafter, have the articles considered with a final reading. Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is any secret that I have indicated that the President should be impeached. It is no secret. I don't think it is any secret that I have indicated that there will be a vote in Congress on Articles of Impeachment. If perchance I have been misunderstood, allow me to make it perspicuously clear today: there will be a vote. There is a three-step process that we are pursuing. That process will continue when we return. And when we return, I assure everyone there will be a vote. There has been some confusion. My suspicion is because where there are few facts, there is much speculation, so there has been some confusion about why we didn't go forward yesterday. So now allow me to make it abundantly clear: no person, no living, breathing child of God influenced my decision to move forward as I have. Others can give their opinions. No one did. I did not receive an opinion indicating that I should not go forward as I did. I have made my decision. This is where I stand. If I stand alone, Mr. Speaker, I have no fear of standing alone. If Rosa Parks could sit alone in a racist Southern town to deal with injustice and bring about some form of justice, surely I can stand alone in the well of the Congress and stand alone on where I stand with impeachment. If Dr. King could go to jail and write one of the greatest essays on human rights I have ever read, surely I can stand in the well of the Congress--if he could go to jail--and I can extoll and expand upon why I believe we have to move forward with impeachment. Finally, this: those of you who bothered to read the Articles of Impeachment, and I beg that you would, because that is why this time is being made available, so that everyone can read it and understand why we are going forward, and those of who you will read them will find that I don't approve of anyone calling mothers dogs. I don't approve of it. I don't approve of it. I don't care who you are. When you say ``SOB,'' you are saying that somebody's mother is a dog. I don't approve of that. By the way, that is not widely published that that is in the Articles of Impeachment, but it is there. It is there for all to see. So for those who believe that motherhood is sacred, for those who believe that a President of the United States ought not say ``SOB,'' and you know what it means--I never use the B word. I never use profanity. But I want you to know this: I am going to move forward with those Articles of Impeachment, and motherhood is sacred.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise and stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I am always honored that I have this opportunity, and I see it as a preeminent privilege to be able to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I love my country. I have said it many times right here at this podium. I salute the flag, Mr. Speaker. I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I sing the national anthem. I love my country. And because I love my country, I can stand here in the well of the House of the United States of America and announce that I support the NFL men, who are professional football players. I can say I support them because I believe in what the flag stands for: liberty and justice for all. I believe in this. And if there is to be liberty and justice for all, the cause that they are part of has to be called to the attention of the American public. I support the NFL players, Mr. Speaker. To those who say that ``they are so lucky, they are making millions, why don't they just play football, they ought to be happy,'' first, let me comment in this way: They are earning millions. Their bodies are being torn apart, in many cases. They are earning millions. They get concussions. They are earning millions. They suffer after they leave football. They are earning millions. And they are also earning pain as they play a game that amuses many. So those who say they are making plenty of money and they ought to just go away, I contend that they are not doing it for the money. They are doing it because they understand injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere, as Dr. King put it. They want to eliminate the injustice that they see, and, in so doing, they have decided to take a knee. I salute the flag. I support my country. I love my country. And I respect what they are doing in the form of peaceful protest to bring about change that ought to have been brought about decades or centuries ago; should have been, but has not been. Yes, we have come a long way, but we sure have a long way to go. Now, to those who say ``they have earned millions, why aren't they happy,'' well, it is not hush money. Is that what you are saying, that when they get paid, that is hush money that says that they don't have freedom of speech? Does that check negate their freedom of speech? I think not. Freedom of speech is something that you cherish, whether you live in a mansion or you live under a bridge. Freedom of speech belongs to you. It doesn't matter your station in life. It doesn't matter your ethnicity. It doesn't matter your religiosity. Freedom of speech belongs to you because you are a child of God and you live in the greatest country in the world. So I stand in support of the NFL players. I want them to continue. I want them to stand their ground. I want this movement to continue. And I want those who were thwarted to know that you are trying to thwart injustice. When you try to change the subject and make it about something that it is not, you are trying to thwart injustice. Even if you don't do it with intentionality, that is the reality. We cannot allow injustice to continue. And I thank God that there are those who are making millions, those who are having their bodies abused, who are willing to take a stand by taking a knee against injustice, and they still respect this country and its flag and this anthem. If there is one among them who has other thoughts, then I don't support that. I support those who have a righteous cause and who are respectful of the country, who can love the flag and still protest. I support that. I am an American. I was born in the United States of America. I am a patriotic American. I believe in this country. And if you believe in it, you ought to allow peaceful protest to continue, because John F. Kennedy was right when he was paraphrased by Dr. King: Those who make peaceful protest impossible will make other forms of protest inevitable.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the many who have concluded that enough is enough. I rise today to speak on behalf of the many persons who believe that Article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America has meaning and that it is something that is appropriate for a time such as this, appropriate for a time when there is one among us who seems to incite hatred, bigotry, and invidious discrimination. I rise to speak on their behalf today, Mr. Speaker, and I do so understanding that I am not doing it on behalf of Republicans, generally speaking, or Democrats, generally speaking. The people whom I reference are Americans, generally speaking. So I rise to speak on their behalf.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Articles of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in the Congress of the United States of America. Resolution. Resolved, that Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, has undermined the integrity of his office with impunity and has brought disrepute on the Presidency with immunity, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the American people and is unfit to be President, and is impeached pursuant to Article II, section IV of the Constitution of the United States of America, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated as political, not requiring the commission of a crime, and exclusively the jurisdiction of the United States House of Representatives for impeachment purposes. Article I: That Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of his high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and the harmony, respect, and courtesies, which ought to exhibit and be maintained in American society, has under the inane pretext of dispensing with political correctness, produced a demonstrable record of inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting, and disparaging women and certain minorities. In so doing, Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, has fueled and is fueling an alt-right hate machine and its worldwide covert sympathizers engendering racial antipathy, LGBTQ enmity, religious anxiety, stealthy sexism, and dreadful xenophobia, perfidiously causing immediate injury t American society, to wit: On September 23, 2017, Donald John Trump incited race-baiting and racism, engendering stealthy sexism and racial antipathy, when he disrespected, disparaged, and demeaned mothers of professional football players by calling them dogs as he made the widely published statement: Won't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, say, Get that son-of-a-B-I-T- C-H off the field right now, out. He's fired. He's fired. On September 23, 2017, Donald John Trump incited race-baiting and racism, engendering racial antipathy, when he disrespected and disparaged professional football players, approximately 70 percent of whom are reportedly African American, by calling them sons of dogs as he made the widely published statement: Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, say, Get that son-of-a-B-I-T- C-H off the field right now, out. He's fired. He's fired. On September 30, 2017, Donald John Trump incited bigotry and race- baiting, engendering racial antipathy, when he disrespected, disparaged, and demeaned Puerto Ricans, who are Americans, by implying Puerto Ricans want others to do for them what they won't do for themselves, as he made the widely published claim: They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. Further, on October 3, 2017, while in Puerto Rico, as was widely shown on American television, Donald John Trump incited bigotry, engendering racial antipathy, when he disparaged Puerto Ricans by stating: I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you've thrown our budget a little out of whack because we spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico, and that's fine. But we've saved a lot of lives. The President did not make similar widely published statements about Texas or Florida. On January 27, 2017, Donald John Trump incited xenophobia and hate against Muslims in the United States of America, engendering religious anxiety, when he disrespected Islam by issuing Executive Order 13769, fulfilling a campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States of America. This widely published campaign promise is dated December 7, 2015, and reads as follows: Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, New York, New York, December 7, 2015. Donald J. Trump is calling for the total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. On March 4, 2017, Donald John Trump incited race-baiting and racism, engendering racial antipathy, when he defamed, disrespected, and disparaged President Barack Obama by making the widely published statement, which has since been disclaimed: Terrible. Just found out that Obama had my ``wires tapped'' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism. On July 26, 2017, Donald John Trump incited bigotry, engendering LGBTQ enmity, when he disparaged and disrespected transgender Americans by indicating that the costs of their medical care outweighs the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country as he made the widely published statement: After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony, respect, and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained within American society, has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and, as a result is unfit to be President. Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America. Article II: That Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained within American society, did betray his trust as President and bring shame and dishonor to the office of the Presidency by associating the majesty and dignity of the Presidency with causes rooted in White supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, White nationalism, and neo-Nazism when he, to wit: On August 15, 2017, Donald John Trump made a widely published statement characterizing a group of anti-Semites, bigots, racists, White nationalists, and Klu Klux Klansmen who rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, as ``very fine people.'' Thereafter, on August 23, 2017, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released a 2-page decision in which it was stated that they were ``disturbed by the failure at the highest political level of the United States of America to unequivocally reject and condemn the racist violent events and demonstrations led by the aforementioned groups, thereby potentially fueling the proliferation of racist discourse and incidents throughout the State party, and deeply concerned by the example this failure could set for the rest of the world.'' On October 7, 2017, hate groups were again back in Charlottesville, Virginia, at the statue of Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general, chanting, ``You will not replace us.'' Since this event on October 7, the President has made many widely published statements about many things including, but not limited to, the National Football League, but has not made one widely published statement condemning the hate groups for returning to the place where an innocent person lost her life at the hands of hate. In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the integrity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony, respect, and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained within American society, has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, and has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and is unfit to be President. Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and the disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America. Article III: Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of his high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained in American society, did engage in perfidy by making the widely reported claim that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential election and, further, expending tax dollars to establish a commission to investigate his claim, to wit: On November 27, 2016, Donald John Trump made the widely reported claim that: In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally . . . in Virginia, New Hampshire, and California. So why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias. Big problem. On January 25, 2017, Donald John Trump made the widely reported claim that: I will be asking for a major investigation into voter fraud, including those registered to vote in two States, and who are illegal and. . . . On July 1, 2017, Donald John Trump made the widely reported claim that: Numerous States were refusing to give information to the very distinguished voter fraud panel. What are they trying to hide? On June 28, 2017, according to highly reported news stories, the commission previously referenced by Donald John Trump requested detailed voter registration data from all 50 States, including names, addresses, and other sensitive data from every voter in the country. Several States refused to send the information, and some States have been prevented by courts from turning over the information. In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, has undermined the integrity of his office and has brought disrepute on the Presidency and has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and is unfit to be President. Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America. Article IV: Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained in American society, while aware of the widely reported history of unlawful abuses and brutality perpetrated by many, not all, police officers against innocent persons in the United States of America, did betray his trust as President, bringing shame and dishonor to the office of the Presidency by encouraging law enforcement officials to violate the constitutional rights of suspects in their custody and control, to wit: On July 28, 2017, Donald John Trump, in a speech in front of the Suffolk County Police Department in Long Island, New York, stated that: And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in--rough. I said, ``Please don't be too nice.'' Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don't hit their head, and they've just killed somebody--don't hit their head. I said, ``You can take the hand away, okay?'' This statement is injurious not only to the rule of law, which presumes innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law, but also to the administration of justice, which requires that care is given to persons held in the custody of law enforcement. Our Nation is founded upon a social contract where the constitutional rights of the individual are not surrendered because he or she is accused of a crime. To speak to the contrary is a violation of the Presidential oath of office to which Donald John Trump is bound. In so doing, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and the proprieties thereof, and of his oath of office, to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of America, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America, and is unfit to be President. Therefore, Donald John Trump, by betraying his trust as President, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of high honor, trust, or profit under the United States of America.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in mourning. Many hearts are bleeding. Mr. Speaker, there is much suffering. Lives have been lost in a senseless and needless manner in Las Vegas. Mr. Speaker, there is a right time for all things. This is a time for our Nation to mourn and for hearts to heal. Mr. Speaker, I announce that impeachment is postponed. Let us mourn, and let us heal.

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 rise tonight to make one point. That one point is that a President need not be convicted of a criminal offense to be impeached; in fact, need not be charged with a criminal offense; need not be charged with a statutory offense; need not be charged with a codified offense to be impeached. But before I make this point, Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that I am always in awe of this well, and I don't take for granted this great opportunity that has been accorded me to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I believe that those of us who have been so blessed should acknowledge our blessings. This is a blessing. Mr. Speaker, there are many people who don't have this opportunity, so I am going to take one liberty before going into my message. I just want people to know what I see as I stand here in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. As I look forward, Mr. Speaker, I would have those who have not had the opportunity to stand here to know that there is above the doors at the second level a depiction of Moses the Lawgiver. I would have people know, Mr. Speaker, that behind me, of course, is the flag of the United States of America. And I would have persons know, Mr. Speaker, that we have these two podiums, and that, typically, Democrats will occupy this side and Republicans the other. We can go to either side. There is no requirement that I stand where I am standing. I can stand at many other places in this room. But, Mr. Speaker, I want people to know that this is a special place, and I am honored to have the opportunity to stand here tonight and to speak to the issue of a President not having the necessity of committing a crime to be impeached. There is no requirement that a crime be committed. There is no requirement that a statutory offense be violated. Let's take, for a moment, a look through the vista of time. Let us go back to the Constitutional Convention, and let us hear now the words of George Mason. George Mason reminded his colleagues that no one should be above justice. His words were: ``Shall any man be above justice?'' These words were put before his colleagues because, at the time, they were considering what they could do to deal with the possibility of a runaway Presidency. What could they do? How could they stop it? What would be the methodology by which a President could be extricated from his position? And they had good reason to give consideration to this, Mr. Speaker. They had good reason because the President was probably the most powerful person in the country. The President would be the most powerful person in the country. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. The President has the awesome power to pardon anyone, saving himself. So the question becomes: How do you remove a President from office? This is what they had to grapple with. And, of course, they considered a judicial process. They considered persons who might be a part of a jury. They considered these things. The Federalist Papers, if you would care to read, will give you a rendition of what their thoughts were. Start with Federalist Paper No. 65. But they considered these things, and they concluded that the process should not be judicial. They concluded that if a President is to be removed from office, it should be by persons who are in the political arena. They concluded that this should be something that would be, in fact, political, not judicial. They concluded that a President need not commit a crime to be removed from office. I am emphasizing this, my dear friends, because there is a lot of confusion about this question. And if you would care to read something that could summarize what I am saying, you might look at an article that was written by a person with the Cato Institute, Gene Healy, August 7, 2017, styled ``The Overcriminalization of Impeachment.'' I would commend it to you. Please read it if you want to read a good summary of what impeachment is all about. So they had to grapple with this question, and they concluded that it would be a political one, not a judicial question. And in so doing, in concluding that it would be a political one, they incorporated into the Constitution Article II, section 4--Article II, section 4 of the Constitution--that addresses the question of impeachment. And in so doing, at some point after the codification and ratification of the Constitution, there was a person to be impeached. The first person was a Federal judge, Judge John Pickering. Judge Pickering was not accused of committing a crime. There was not an allegation that he committed a crime. If you read the Articles of Impeachment, you will find that Judge Pickering, once he was convicted, was convicted, generally speaking, for having loose morals and intemperate habits, not a crime. But the questions did deal with morality. Shall any man be above justice? Not above the law. The law codified. Justice carries with it a certain amount of morality. Shall any man--and today I would say ``any person''--be above justice? Shall any person be above justice? The Framers of the Constitution concluded that Article II, section 4 would address it, and they, themselves--a good many of them--were there when the first person was impeached in 1804, Judge John Pickering. So for those of you who are believers in the original intent, the best way to ascertain the original intent of the Framers would be to look at what the Framers did when they had the opportunity. What did Madison do? Madison, the father of the Constitution, it is said, and other Framers who were actually there when Article II, section 4 was put in place, found that Judge Pickering, who committed no crime or no allegation of a crime being committed, with reference to his impeachment, should be impeached because of moral reasons and an intemperate habit or habits. Mr. Speaker, I mention these things because it is important for us to understand that we have made a mistake. We have made a mistake in that we have outsourced--this is from Gene Healy, by the way--the responsibility of investigating the acts of a President to the executive branch itself. Think for just a moment, dear friends. The Justice Department is an arm of the executive branch. We in Congress have outsourced the investigation to the executive branch by and through the Justice Department. Mr. Speaker, that can give the appearance of impropriety. We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right; they must also look right. It could look to some like that outsourcing has created a circumstance by which the chief executive, the President, could influence the Attorney General. That is the way it could look. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the intent is that we have in the Constitution, Article II, section 4. That is not the intent. The intent was for the Judiciary Committee in the Congress of the United States of America to investigate. That is where the power to investigate lies, because it is for impeachment. By outsourcing it to the executive branch, such that the Justice Department might perform dysfunction, we give the appearance that impeachment requires the commission of a crime, because that is what the Justice Department is looking for, criminality, not morality. The Justice Department wants to know what crime was committed, under what circumstances. And too many people believe that if the Justice Department does not find that a crime was committed, then there is no impeachable offense. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Regardless as to what a Justice Department concludes, regardless as to whether a good lawyer would bring charges by way of something from what the Justice Department concludes, the Congress of the United States of America still has the power, the prowess, the potency, if you will, to impeach, notwithstanding any finding of a Justice Department, notwithstanding any conclusions of the Justice Department, because it is not the responsibility of the Justice Department to investigate and then pass it on to the Congress with some recommendation. That is not their responsibility. That is the Judiciary Committee and the Congress of the United States of America. So, Mr. Speaker, we have given this false impression that somehow there must be an offense committed. But, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that it is not the case, and the evidence is there for those who care to read the article that I have called to your attention. It is a short read. Or if you care to read the Federalist Papers, Federalist Paper No. 65, you can read some of the conclusions that Madison and others have presented. This is something that is important to this country. So I am standing here in the well of the House tonight to make one point, a place that I am in great awe of, a place that I consider sacred. I am standing here in the well of the House tonight to make the point that a President need not commit a crime, a statutory offense, to be impeached. Impeachment belongs in one place, and one place only, and that is right here where I stand now, in the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives, upon receiving articles of impeachment, should vote to impeach, that means that a President would be indicted. It does not mean that the President--the 218 votes, assuming all persons in the House are present. It doesn't mean that the President is going to be removed from office. Impeachment does not mean removal from office. Impeachment means that the President must now face a trial in the Senate, to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That is what impeachment does. It moves it along. And, by the way, there is no requirement that you assure anyone that you can get the votes necessary to impeach to bring an impeachment before the House. A privileged resolution to impeach does not necessitate your being able to prove before you present it that you are going to prevail with it. That is not the case. If you can think of it in terms of the real world, while this is real--we say that term loosely, I assure you. If you think in terms of the world beyond these walls where a person might be indicted, in this country, every day, people are indicted who are not convicted. So impeachment is not tantamount to conviction. Impeachment merely means that there is reason now for the Senate to take up this cause. The Senate, upon taking up the cause, can find the President not guilty or guilty. If the President is found guilty, the President is removed from office. There is no other punishment. The President is removed from office. After the President is removed from office, if the Justice Department or some other agency, some other arm of the government concludes that the President has committed a criminal offense, then a President would be prosecuted. Now, there is some debate amongst some constitutional scholars as to whether or not a President can be prosecuted while the President still holds office. I think most of them would agree that it would happen after the President leaves office, but that is a debate that I don't care to enter. My point is the President would be removed from office. Now, that is important to consider because removal from office is not punishment. Criminal acts have punishment upon conviction. The President is not punished. The President is removed from office. That is not considered punishment. The President does not face punishment upon being convicted of impeachment. The President is removed from office. Now, that, in and of itself, is not something that I believe we should take lightly. I think it is serious, but it is not tantamount to punishment. For those of you who may just be joining us for this statement that I am making tonight, I have taken this position tonight in the well of the Congress of the United States of America for one reason: to make the point that a President need not be charged with a criminal offense to face impeachment in the Congress of the United States of America. The Constitution doesn't require it. The Framers did not make that an issue when they impeached the first person, Judge Pickering, and it is not an issue to the extent that most of the people who have been impeached have not been charged with a criminal offense--not, N-O-T, charged with a criminal offense. I close with this. The Framers, very much concerned about a runaway President, runaway Presidency, very much concerned about the awesome amount of power that they were according one person: the power to be commander of all of the Armed Forces; the power to send persons into battle; the power to send people, literally, in harm's way such that many might not return; the power to impeach, nearly with impunity--not with absolute impunity, but nearly with impunity. There are some opportunities for the President to provide a person not with impeachment, but with exoneration for a crime, and that President could be impeached for the way that exoneration took place, depending on the relationship that the person had with the President. But the point is impeachment is there because it is an awesome power that we have given the President; and because we have given the President this awesome power, it is important that we have a check on the President that does not require the commission of a crime. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the generosity of this Special Order. I thank the leadership as much, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include the following CATO article for the Record: [From CATO.org, Aug. 7, 2017] (By Gene Healy) Trying to tamp down impeachment talk earlier this year, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) insisted that President Donald Trump's erratic behavior didn't justify that remedy: ``When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up.'' Normally, there isn't much that Pelosi and Tea Party populist Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) agree on, but they're on the same page here. In a recent appearance on Trump's favorite morning show, ``Fox & Friends,'' Brat hammered Democrats calling for the president's impeachment: ``there's no statute that's been violated,'' Brat kept insisting: They cannot name the statute!'' Actually, they did: it's ``Obstruction of Justice, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b)(3),'' according to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) who introduced an article of impeachment against Trump on July 12. Did Trump break that law when he fired FBI director James Comey over ``this Russia thing''? Maybe; maybe not. But even if ``no reasonable prosecutor'' would bring a charge of obstruction on the available evidence, that wouldn't mean impeachment is off-limits. Impeachable offenses aren't limited to crimes. That's a settled point among constitutional scholars: even those, like Cass Sunstein, who take a restrictive view of the scope of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' recognize that ``an impeachable offense, to qualify as such, need not be a crime.'' University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt sums up the academic consensus: ``The major disagreement is not over whether impeachable offenses should be strictly limited to indictable crimes, but rather over the range of nonindictable offenses on which an impeachment may be based.'' In some ways, popular confusion on this point is understandable. Impeachment's structure echoes criminal procedure: ``indictment'' in the House, trial in the Senate-- and the constitutional text, to modern ears, sounds something like ``grave felonies, and maybe lesser criminal offenses too.'' But ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' a term of art in British impeachment proceedings for four centuries before the Framers adopted it, was understood to reach a wide range of offenses that, whether or not criminal in nature, indicated behavior incompatible with the nature of the office. For James Madison, impeachment was the ``indispensable'' remedy for ``Incapacity, negligence, or perfidy'' on the part of the president--categories of conduct dangerous to the republic, only some of which will also constitute crimes. The criminal law is designed to punish and deter, but those goals are secondary to impeachment, which aims at removing federal officers unfit for continued service. And where the criminal law deprives the convicted party of liberty, the constitutional penalties for impeachable offenses ``shall not extend further than to removal from Office,'' and possible disqualification from future officeholding. As Justice Joseph Story explained, the remedy ``is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his property; but simply divests him of his political capacity.'' No doubt being ejected from a position of power on the grounds that you're no longer worthy of the public's trust can feel like a punishment. But the mere fact that removal is stigmatizing doesn't suggest that criminal law standards apply. Raoul Berger once illustrated that point with an analogy Donald Trump would probably find insulting: ``to the extent that impeachment retains a residual punitive aura, it may be compared to deportation, which is attended by very painful consequences, but which, the Supreme Court held, 'is not a punishment for a crime.'' Had the Framers restricted impeachment to statutory offenses, they'd have rendered the power a ``nullity'' from the start. In the early Republic, there were very few federal crimes and certainly not enough to cover the range of misdeeds that would rightly disqualify public officials from continued service. Criminality wasn't an issue in the first impeachment to result in the removal of a federal officer: the 1804 case of district court judge John Pickering. Pickering's offense was showing up to work drunk and ranting like a maniac in court. He'd committed no crime; instead, he'd revealed himself to be a man ``of loose morals and intemperate habits,'' guilty of ``high misdemeanors, disgraceful to his own character as a judge.'' As Justice Story noted in 1833, in the impeachment cases since ratification, ``no one of the charges has rested upon any statutable misdemeanours.'' In fact, over our entire constitutional history, fewer than a third of the impeachments approved by the House ``have specifically invoked a criminal statute.'' What's been far more common, according to a comprehensive report by the Nixon-era House Judiciary Committee, are ``allegations that the officer has violated his duties or his oath or seriously undermined public confidence in his ability to perform his official functions.'' The president's violation of a particular criminal statute can serve as evidence of unfitness, but not all such violations do. That's obvious when one considers the enormous growth of the federal criminal code in recent decades. Overcriminalization may have reached the point where Donald Trump, like everyone else, is potentially guilty of ``Three Felonies a Day,'' but even in Lawrence Tribe's wildest imaginings, that wouldn't translate to three impeachable offenses daily. If Trump were to import crocodile feet in opaque containers, fill an (expansively defined) wetland on one of his golf courses, or misappropriate the likeness of ``Smokey Bear `` he'd have broken the law, but would not have committed an impeachable offense. It's also easy enough to imagine a president behaving in a fashion that violates no law, but nonetheless justifies his removal. To borrow an example from the legal scholar Charles Black, if the president proposed to do his job remotely so he could ``move to Saudi Arabia [and] have four wives'' (as well as his very own glowing orb), he couldn't be prosecuted for it. Still, Black asks: ``is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for impeachment''? A more plausible impeachment scenario presented itself recently, with reports that President Trump had ``asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself'' in connection with the special counsel's Russia investigation. The president's power to self-pardon is an open question, but his power to pardon others has few limits. There's little doubt Trump could issue broad prospective pardons for Don Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, and anyone else who might end up in the Mueller's crosshairs--and it would be perfectly legal. It would also be impeachable, as James Madison suggested at the Virginia Ratifying Convention: ``if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; [and he can be removed] if found guilty.'' Some years ago, I put together a collection of essays on the expansion of the criminal sanction into areas of American life where it doesn't belong--published under the title, Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything. The idea that criminal law concepts had infected and weakened the constitutional remedy of impeachment wasn't quite what I had in mind with that subtitle, but it seems to fit. Congress has made the problem worse by outsourcing its investigative responsibilities to the executive branch. As Princeton's Keith Whittington observes in a recent essay for the Niskanen Center ``relying so heavily on prosecutors to develop the underlying charges supporting impeachment has come at a high cost . . . it has created the widespread impression that the impeachment power can only appropriately be used when criminal offenses have been proven.'' It's important to get this straight, because confusing impeachment with a criminal process can be harmful to our political health. It may lead us to stretch the criminal law to ``get'' the president or his associates, warping its future application to ordinary citizens. And it can leave the country saddled with a dangerously unfit president whose contempt for the rule of law is apparent, even if he hasn't yet committed a crime.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that there is much confusion about something that is near and dear to me. There is much confusion about impeachment, and so as to give some degree of clarity, I have, in this hand, an article that is styled, ``The Overcriminalization of Impeachment.'' It is dated August 7, 2017, by Gene Healy. He is with the Cato Institute. I commend it to all who have any interest in impeachment, because this will give you a summary that will spare you a lot of reading in the Federalist Papers, reading many other articles. I commend it to you, and I will say more about it at a later time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and stand at the podium designated for Republicans, but I rise not as a Democrat or a Republican. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, not as a Liberal or a Conservative. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud American: a person who believes in his country, who salutes the flag, says the Pledge of Allegiance, and sings the national anthem. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to make comments that I never thought I would have to make in the well of the House of Congress. I rise today to defend, denounce, and announce. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend any mother who has been called a dog because her son engaged in peaceful protest. I rise, Mr. Speaker. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to defend any son who is called the son of a dog because he engaged in peaceful protest. I rise, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to denounce these comments that have been made because they have brought discourse to a new low. Mr. Speaker, this is a level of indecency that is unbecoming of the Presidency. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say to the world that this is not what America is all about: calling people SOBs. We know what a ``B'' is. It is a dog. Mr. Speaker, I rise because my heart tells me that I must do something. Mr. Speaker, I denounce the comments that were made, and I rise to announce that next week I will bring a privileged resolution before the Congress of the United States of America. I will stand here in the well of the Congress, and I will call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I pose the question: Why do many people--too many--how many is too many? The number that can have an adverse impact. Why do too many people--not all--why do too many people deny the existence of circumstances that can have an invidious impact upon society? Why? Why would people deny that there is a link between smoking and cancer? Why would people deny that invidious discrimination existed when there were laws on the books that encouraged invidious discrimination? Why would people deny the existence of climate change with all of the empirical evidence available to us to peruse and scrutinize? Why? Why, Mr. Speaker? Because if you deny it, you don't have to do anything about it. If you deny the linkage between smoking and cancer, you don't have to do anything about it. If you deny the links between invidious discrimination and the impact on persons who are discriminated against, you don't have to do anything about it. If you deny that climate change exists, that there is something going on, then you don't have to do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding denials, we have to acknowledge that, as of late, in Houston, Texas, we have had three major events--three major hurricanes--to have to cope with. And these three major events, while there may be some debate about whether they are 100-year floods or 500- year floods, everybody agrees that they are billion-dollar floods, plus, I might add, because the empirical evidence is there to support it. With all of these hurricanes that are traversing the Atlantic Ocean and coming into landfall here in the United States, the frequency of them has to get our attention. So whether you think it is climate change or whether you think that these are acts of God--and the law recognizes such language--or whether you just can't explain it but you recognize that it is occurring, I think we have to do something about what is going on. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer assume that the old normal is going to apply to our circumstances. There is a new normal that we have to cope with, and this new normal has much to do with how we will provide for the welfare and safety of the people of the United States of America. How will we approach flood insurance? The National Flood Insurance Program is in debt that we acknowledge to the tune of $24.6 billion. That is what we acknowledge. But after Harvey and after what has happened recently in Florida and in the islands, Mr. Speaker, that number is going up exponentially. If we are of the opinion that there is no climate change, this is just sort of a freak of nature that is occurring right now and things will go back to the old normal and we just stay with that, then we won't take the necessary steps to provide flood insurance that is going to cover people so that they are not lost in a storm of red tape and bureaucracy. We have to change the dynamics that relate to flood insurance in this country. We have to find a way to allow that $24.6 billion that is going to go up exponentially to be properly resolved. It has to be eliminated. Here is why: If you pass that on to the policyholders, then many people will not be able to afford flood insurance. If people can't afford flood insurance, then they are not going to be able to buy homes. If they can't buy homes, then we are going to have an impact on the economy. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for us to do several things with flood insurance. One, resolve the issue of when versus flood as it relates to compensation for damages. Two, eliminate the debt. And, finally, I would say this: We have to, whether we like it or not, acknowledge that there is a new normal, especially after what has happened in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and the territories. I would also want to be specific about Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Our prayers and thoughts are with them just as they are with those persons in Florida who have been harmed and the many persons across Texas, Louisiana, and other States. This is our moment in time. This is our opportunity to make a difference. Let's acknowledge the change and make a change.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again, the gentleman and I have been able to compliment each other, as we properly should, as Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a grateful and prayerful heart. I am grateful to my colleagues, many of whom called to give their expressions of concern. Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful thing to have your colleagues call to let you know how much they care about what is happening in your congressional district. After all, we are Congresspersons of the United States of America, not just the congressional districts that we just happen to represent. So I am grateful to my many colleagues and leadership calling, all to give their expressions of concern not just for me, but for the people who we all represent as Congresspersons of the United States of America. I am also grateful for the many lives that were spared. Many lives were spared. I don't know why some people were able to survive in circumstances wherein they should not have, but I do know that I am grateful that they were spared. I am also very grateful for the many Good Samaritans who were there to extend the hand of friendship in a time of need, who went out of their way to be a neighbor to people they did not know. I am so grateful to those who came across county lines and State lines to do what only they could do, because many of them had talents and they had various instrumentalities that were of benefit to us in a time of need. So I am grateful to the Good Samaritans. I am also grateful that we were able to get the $15 billion that will be a good faith downpayment to those who are still suffering in Houston, Texas, and in other places that this monster visited. I am very grateful that I was in the Speaker's Office and was there to see the actual signing take place. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to be present. I am prayerful. I am prayerful for those who are still suffering. In my congressional district, there are people who are still in homes that are mold-infested. They need help. I want them to know that there is some help on the way. Obviously, we will have to do more, but I am prayerful that they will have their homes restored. I am prayerful that they will have their lives return to normalcy. I am prayerful that their children will have the opportunity to get into school as quickly as possible. I am prayerful that they who are suffering will have the hands of our government there to comfort them. I am prayerful that they will understand that, while others are going to do what they can, only the government of the United States of America can do the heavy lifting necessary. A lot of largesse has come in. A lot of lagniappe is available. But only the government can do this heavy lifting. I am prayerful that they will understand that we are going to do what we can to make sure that they get the help that they need. I am prayerful for the families that have lost lives. One such family lost a first responder, a Houston police officer. He lost his life on his way to save lives, to help lives, to help people who were in harm's way. It really gives a true definition of what ``in the line of duty'' means. In the line of duty, he was taken away from us. So I am prayerful that his family, as well as all of the other families that have lost lives, will be able to understand that when words cannot satisfy the concerns that you have, when nothing anyone says can make the difference that needs to be made, I am prayerful that they will understand that they can lean on their faith and that faith can see them through that which they can go through no other way. I am prayerful for them. I am prayerful for my friends in the State of Florida, where I was reared. I was born in Louisiana, reared in Florida. I attended college in Florida. I went to high school in Florida. Florida is my home, for all practical purposes, except for Texas, where I call home. I am a transplant, obviously, but Texas is home. I am prayerful for my friends in Florida. I have relatives there. They have a monster headed their way--a monster that is going to, unfortunately, create harm and cause damages. Now, my hope is that it will skirt Florida and that it will go another way. I believe in miracles, and I am asking for a miracle. But I am prayerful for my friends, for fear that this monster will visit Florida. My prayer is that I will be able to call every one of my colleagues in Florida and let them know that I care about them and their constituents. As I have said, we are all Congresspersons of the United States of America. I am prayerful for my friends, prayerful for my family, all of whom are in Florida--not the entirety of my family, not the entirety of my friends, but those who are in Florida. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members of this House, I am grateful to every Member who took the vote to help us in a time of need. I have been here long enough to have the good sense to know that for some it was a hard vote, and I am grateful that you took that hard vote, because I understand that people have principles, they have circumstances that are important to them, and that legislation doesn't always come to everyone the way we would have it come. I am just grateful for those who took that hard vote because they had rationales and reasons that they could show that, if they were to be consistent, perhaps they would have voted another way. But they took the hard vote, and I am grateful to them. I am grateful that they did so, and I am prayerful that we will all be able to take the hard votes necessary to accord the people who have been harmed by what happened in Texas and across the Gulf Coast and what is about to happen to those who are in Florida and other places, I am prayerful that we will have the courage to take these hard votes so that we can make sure that this government does what it is supposed to do, and that is protect its people, provide for their security, and provide for their welfare in times of need. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful and I am prayerful.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share this thought with the gentleman because he touched upon a salient point, and that is the notion that we can have unity without uniformity. We can maintain our principles, but we can always find higher ground to stand on. The principles that we have, we don't have to relinquish so that we can do things together. I am honored that the gentleman and I have been able to do a good many things together. As the gentleman knows, annually he and I work together on the abuse of persons in domestic relations. We have decided that that is something that we don't want to tolerate and that we will stand together against it. I just want to thank the gentleman again for his many years of service and the service especially in that time of crisis. I greatly appreciate the gentleman.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding for just a moment. I would welcome the opportunity to use the time that the gentleman yields, but I do want to compliment the gentleman for what he has done at this most difficult time and greatly appreciate what he is saying about those who were there to be a help to those in time of need.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the ranking member for her kind words. I would like to thank the chairperson for bringing this to the floor, both of them. Mr. Speaker, this is a seminal moment in time, a moment in time that can shape the rest of our time. This is an opportunity for those of us who contend that we are our brother's keeper to, in fact, become our brother's keeper. You see, you can't be your brother's keeper without keeping your brother. This is a chance to be your brother's keeper. This is a chance for the unity that we express when we are before the cameras to manifest itself in the votes that we cast here in Congress. This is a seminal moment in time. This is a moment in time for us to care not only about those who live in the suites of life, but also those who dwell in the streets of life, those who live on benches, those who sleep under bridges. It is an opportunity for us to cast a vote that will send aid, send assistance to those in Houston, Texas, and all across the area that has been devastated by this monster. It is a chance for us to help them. But this is only a downpayment, only a downpayment. There must be much more. We need help in Houston posthaste, as is the case with other places around the country that have been devastated. We need help for housing, not only for those who had homes before the monster hit, but also for those who didn't have homes who need to transition to a place that they can call home. If home is where the heart is, where is the heart of the homeless, people who sleep under bridges? Where is the heart of the homeless? They have to be given a place that they can call home as well, which means, at some point, we have got to have dollars appropriated for the organizations that help those who live in the streets of life: the homeless. We have got to help them, too. If we can help those in the suites, we can help those in the streets. I would also say to my colleagues: Please understand, people who are here and undocumented have needs, too. They live in places that are horrible. I have been in their homes. I have smelled the mold. I know what it is like to see the conditions that they dwell in. It is time for us to put aside the politics that divide us from people who need help and help those people, too. Let's send some more money to the organizations that help them. This is a moment in time. This is a seminal moment in time. It is time for us to step up and help everyone that is harmed, not be selective. If you are in this country and you are hurting, we ought to help you. God bless you. I thank you, Madam Leader on my side, the ranking member. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I beg that we do what we can to make sure every person in this country receives the help he or she deserves. City of Houston, Houston, TX, September 1, 2017. Mr. Brock Long, FEMA Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Dear Administrator Long: The City of Houston has experienced a catastrophic event, Hurricane Harvey, and the assistance of FEMA is critical to the recovery of our families and community. We are requesting your expeditious action on the following: 100% federal reimbursement for Categories A (debris removal) & B (emergency protective measures) as was approved for Katrina, Rita and Ike. Advance funding for the Public Assistance program (all categories of work) We are seeking the initial advance funding of $300 million of which $100 million will be used for immediate debris removal. As we get more accurate damage assessment estimates, our goal is to secure total advance funding. At least 15-20 Disaster Recovery Centers to be adequately staffed throughout the City of Houston to expedite assistance to individuals Deploy 4-5 centers for each quadrant of the City Provide adequate staffing to ensure that disaster survivors are promptly assisted Funding of up to $1.75 billion for a FEMA Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power (STEP) or Rapid Repair program to expedite the return of families to their homes and contribute to a whole community recovery for approximately 50k homes. We are seeking to increase the cap of this funding to up to $35,000/home 100% advance funding and expedited processing for First Responders who lost property in the line of duty. The City of Houston wishes to serve as a pilot program for the 100 Houston Fire Department and 200 Houston Police Department personnel who had significant damage to their homes and losses due to Hurricane Harvey. Many of these First Responders are not insured. The City of Houston will also be asking HUD for an immediate release for CDBG-DR funds and seek FEMA support in this request to compliment the recovery efforts. The coordinated and timely release of funds will enable the City of Houston to become more resilient and recover faster. Thank you for your consideration of my requests. Sincerely, Mayor Sylvester Turner.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Daniel, who arrived at the age of 2 and graduated from the University of North Texas.