[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 167 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8382-H8384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              STILL I RISE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Haaland). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And since my 
name has been called several times, I rise to respond. I rise to 
explain why the impeachment inquiry should be expanded.
  Some things bear repeating: I rise to explain why the impeachment 
inquiry should be enlarged, to include the President's weaponization of 
hate.
  I know what weaponized hate is like. I am a son of the segregated 
South, Madam Speaker. My rights that were accorded me and recognized 
under the Constitution of the United States of America were denied me 
by my neighbors.
  I am a son of the segregated South. I know what weaponized hate is 
like. I was forced to not only live with, but to also honor weaponized 
hate.
  Madam Speaker, I know what it was like to have to stand in the 
colored line. And while standing in the colored line, others could 
always come who were of a different hue and stand in front of me. And 
it could happen until every person of a different hue had been served. 
I know what weaponized hate is like.
  And I recall once--actually, on more than one occasion, but this one 
stands out in my mind--when the young man who was bagging the purchased 
items, he took my purchased items and he put them in the bag--he was of 
a different hue--and he crushed the bag. And he stared me down as he 
crushed the goods that I had purchased.
  I know what weaponized hate is like. I saw the anger not only in his 
face, but I could see it exude from his body. He was probably a little 
bit older than I was. He didn't know me, but he had the hate that had 
been weaponized, and it was within him.
  I can remember having to go to the back door. I had to go to the back 
door to receive goods that I paid for, paid taxes on, the same as 
others did. But I couldn't go to the front and receive my goods, only 
the back door was available to me. And then when I would go to the back 
door, people would still say ugly things to me, notwithstanding the 
fact that I was a paying customer.
  Weaponized hate causes people to behave this way, to stand against 
their own interest. I was a customer, a paying customer, but weaponized 
hate would cause them to stand against their own interest. It was in 
their interest to have me come back, but they knew that I had no place 
else to go for the most part, so they could be ugly to me and treat me 
any way that they chose.

  I know what weaponized hate is like. I can remember being required to 
sit only in the balcony of the movie. When we came in, we had to make a 
turn and go up to the balcony. This is what weaponized hate is like. It 
segregates people. It didn't allow me to enjoy the movie in the 
presence of persons of a different hue who might be seated next to me. 
This is what the neighbors that I had denied me under the Constitution. 
It was accorded me, but they forced me to go into a segregated area.
  And, of course, I remember the colored water fountains. And the 
incident that really stands out in my mind the most was when my mother 
saw me drinking out of a White water fountain--that is what it was 
called. And when she saw me drinking out of the White water fountain, 
my mother pulled me away quickly. She pulled me away because she knew 
that her young son was at risk of being harmed because he was drinking 
from a White water fountain. And I remembered what the colored water 
fountain was like. The colored water fountain was filthy. You could see 
the crud, but it was all that was available to me. I know what hate is 
like when it is weaponized, how it can hurt.
  I remember traveling across country with my father and my mother, and 
we stopped at a service station. We purchased gasoline, and we wanted 
water. And the person who was there representing the management of that 
station said that we could have water, but we would have to drink it 
out of an oil can.
  I know what it is like. I know what it is like to live under hate and 
to have to honor hate. I remember my mother speaking to me in rather 
stern terms about how I was to behave around White women. How I had to 
always make sure that I never said anything that a White woman might 
conclude was offensive, because White women had a license to accuse. 
And once you were accused, only God knows what would happen to you. We 
know what happened to Emmett Till. Weaponized hate killed Emmett Till.
  I know what it is like. I am a son of the segregated South. I know 
how persons of a different hue had but only to accuse you, and for all 
practical purposes, you were guilty. You had to prove that you were 
innocent.
  I mention these things because the President of the United States of 
America, who has been referenced by my colleagues tonight, same one, 
the same President, compared impeachment to lynching. He compared 
impeachment to mob violence, because that is what lynchings were all 
about. Mob violence, no due process, no trial.
  If it was said that you had spoken in an unkind way to a White woman, 
you could be collected, taken off somewhere in the back woods, 
castrated, lynched, beaten, brutalized. Mob violence, unlawful hate to 
terrorize and intimidate.
  I know what it is like. I lived in the segregated South. I am a son 
of the segregated South. And for the President to compare this level of 
violence and hate to Article II Section 4 of the Constitution, which 
deals with impeachment, is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This is 
nothing more than a continuation of his weaponizing of hate.
  I am a son of the segregated South. I know what hate looks like. I 
know what it smells like. I know what it sounds like, and I know what 
it feels like. I have experienced all of the above.
  So when the President did this, when he said it, it sparked this 
flame in me to come and stand here in the well of the House, alone, to 
explain why the impeachment inquiry should be expanded to include the 
weaponization of hate by this President.
  Yes, I stand alone, but I believe in my heart that it is better for 
me to stand alone than not stand at all, because I see what's happening 
to my country, and I love my country.
  This is not a game for me. This will follow me the rest of my life. I 
didn't come to Congress to impeach a President. It is not something 
that was on my agenda, I had not a scintilla of a notion. I do it 
because I love my country. I do it because I know what weaponized hate 
is like.
  Yes, I called for the impeachment of the President some 2 years ago 
for his obstruction, but I also have called for his impeachment for his 
infusion of hate into policy.
  Earlier this evening, someone mentioned Federalist No. 65. I have 
read it many times. Yes, the words of Hamilton. The words of Hamilton 
addressed

[[Page H8383]]

what it is like to impeach a President. The Framers of the Constitution 
knew that it would not be pleasant. It is not easy, but it is something 
you do when you want to preserve democracy and protect the Republic.
  They understood, and they gave us Federalist No. 65 to remind us how 
prophetic they were, that there would be a time such as this and a 
President such as Trump.
  How prophetic they were. If you read Federalist No. 65, you will find 
that the Framers of the Constitution defined impeachment as the acts of 
public men, that would be people who hold public trust, and they went 
on to explain that it was about the harm that they would cause society.
  They didn't use terms like ``abuse of power'' in the sense that there 
had to be a statutory crime committed. When they mentioned high crimes 
and misdemeanors at that time in Article II Section 4 of the 
Constitution, crime also meant a wrong that was being perpetrated, a 
great wrong. You don't have to have a statutory offense committed, 
something that is defined with a penalty associated with it.
  And when they mention misdemeanors--then and to this day--a 
misdemeanor is a misdeed, as well as a minor offense.

                              {time}  2045

  Don't be misled. Don't be deceived by those who would have you 
believe that the President has to commit a statutory offense, something 
that is defined and codified with a penalty associated with it, before 
a President can be impeached.
  If this were true, Andrew Johnson would not have been impeached in 
1868 for his comments that were rooted in bigotry and hate. He 
weaponized hate. Because he weaponized hate, because he didn't want the 
freed persons to have the same rights that other persons had, because 
he didn't want the Freedmen's Bureau to function as it should have, he 
weaponized hate.
  In Article X, he was impeached for the high misdemeanor of saying 
ugly things about the Congress as he was weaponizing his hate. It was a 
high misdemeanor, and that law has not changed.
  This notion of some modern law, modern constitutional requirement, 
those persons who were closer to the Framers of the Constitution 
probably knew better what the Framers intended than we do today. They 
impeached Andrew Johnson for a high misdemeanor.
  I beg that people would at least read Article X.
  By the way, since we started this engagement to explain to the 
public, a good many people have had to walk back their comments. A good 
many people who wanted to know, ``What crime did he commit? What rule 
did he break?'' a good many people have had to walk back those comments 
because they are now of the belief that impeachment should prevail. A 
lot of comments have been walked back.
  By the way, I welcome the walk-back. I want people to do the right 
thing, as it were, so walking back does not offend me.
  Comments that were made about me don't offend me. Many of my 
colleagues have made comments about me, but they don't offend me. I 
welcome them coming on board now.
  This is not about me. It has never been about me. It has been about 
my country. It has been about democracy, not about Democrats. It has 
always been about the Republic, not about Republicans.
  Say what you may, I do what I must. And I must explain why we should 
expand the impeachment inquiry so as to cause it to include the 
President's weaponization of bigotry.
  The President needs to be impeached for the high crime and 
misdemeanor that he has perpetrated, and I will paraphrase Peter Irons, 
a historian who deals with the Supreme Court. Paraphrasing, he reminds 
us that the President--he didn't say ``weaponization''; these are my 
words. The President's weaponization of hate presents a clear and 
present danger--these are his words--to the constitutional equal 
protection of the laws guaranteed to all of us.
  My dear friends, he is eminently correct, and I have paraphrased 
because I changed the language slightly.
  So, Mr. Irons, if I have in any way abused what you have said--I read 
your comments posted on NBC.com, I believe it was--I was moved by what 
you said.
  Yes, the President should be impeached for his weaponizing hate. Yes, 
it does present a clear and present danger to equal protection under 
the laws for all of us because, when the President does this, there are 
people who will hear what he has said, and they don't always respond in 
a positive way.
  I will never forget that a man in Texas drove hundreds of miles so 
that he could get to a place where he could murder, assassinate, people 
of color who happened to be of Mexican ancestry. He went out of his way 
to do this and said that they were invaders, the kind of comment that 
we heard from the President as he weaponized hate.
  I won't forget that the President decided he would ban a certain 
religion, did it in a tweet, went on to develop a policy pursuant to 
the tweet, infused the bigotry into policy, weaponized it.
  If you are not Muslim and you are not around Muslims, you probably 
don't know the level of consternation that has been created within 
them, the level of concern that they have for their families, the level 
of concern that they have when they go to their prayer hours. I am 
around people who happen to be Muslim. I know how they are concerned 
for their families.
  Then the President went on to talk about the s-hole countries. Note 
that the s-hole countries were countries where there were people of 
color. He didn't say it about a European country. He didn't say it 
about countries where people of a hue different from me happen to 
predominate. He didn't say it because he knows that he has to be 
careful, that it is all right in some quarters to say it about people 
who look like me.
  But you have to be careful, Mr. President. Don't say it about some 
European country. Don't say it about some of these other countries in 
what we call the Middle East. You will have more trouble on your hands 
than you can contend with and likely would be impeached already.
  There seems to be a willingness to tolerate the bigotry and hate when 
it is directed toward people of African ancestry, when it is directed 
toward people who happen to be Muslims, when it is directed toward 
people who happen to be of the LGBTQ-plus community.
  I will say this. I have plenty of friends who are of European 
ancestry, who are Catholics and Christians and Jews, who are absolutely 
opposed to what you have said about people of different hues who happen 
to be of religions different from those that I have mentioned, who 
happen to be of the LGBTQ-plus community. Yes, there are people across 
this country who don't believe that this President should remain in 
office.
  As a matter of fact, there is a poll out now that says that about 50 
percent of the people in this country--I think 50 percent is the number 
that is used--are saying that the President ought to be impeached and 
removed from office.
  A Quinnipiac poll back in July of this year indicated that more than 
50 percent of the American people believe that the President is a 
racist.
  Yes, he must be held accountable. Yes, no one is above the law.

  What is the law? The law is Article II, Section 4 of the 
Constitution. What does it say? It says that the President can be 
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it does not say that a 
misdemeanor or a high crime has to be a statutory offense.
  I would also add this. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution was 
drafted with the notion in mind that not only should a President not be 
above the law, that which is codified, but also with judicious and 
prudent thoughts of the President not being beyond justice.
  The Framers of the Constitution talked about how the President should 
not be beyond justice. Above the law is here; beyond justice is far 
above this level of above the law. Beyond justice means that the 
President should not be able to destroy a country, destroy the norms, 
and not be removed from office.
  We have a general who has said that the President is harming the 
country, that this person who represents the majesty of the United 
States of America--he didn't use that term, but the person who holds 
the highest office, the Chief Executive of the country, the

[[Page H8384]]

chief magistrate of the country, is harming the country.
  Constitutional scholars are saying it. Over a thousand lawyers have 
said that, pursuant to the Mueller report, the President should be 
impeached. Anyone else would be locked up, would be charged. They said 
he would be charged if he were anyone else. That is what they said.
  I want you to know that, wherever I go, I encounter people who are 
saying: Please, don't give up. Please, don't stop. Please, do something 
about what is happening to our country.
  I get expressions of gratitude from people across the length and 
breadth of the country. And I don't do it to get expressions of 
gratitude. I do it because I love my country.
  The weaponization of hate ought to be a part of this impeachment 
inquiry.
  I have already prognosticated that the President will be impeached. 
And when the President is impeached, I hope that we will have expanded 
the articles such that the weaponization of hate will be included.
  If Andrew Johnson could be impeached for his bigoted and hateful 
commentary, surely, we can do this again. Those were radical 
Republicans, by the way, who impeached Andrew Johnson--radical 
Republicans. If radical Republicans could impeach him on evidence 
rooted in his bigotry and hate, we can impeach this President for 
similar reasons.
  I do believe that, if you read the Articles of Impeachment with 
reference to Andrew Johnson, you will gain a greater appreciation for 
what I say.
  There have been only two Presidents impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868 
and William Clinton in 1998. Only two. Nixon was not impeached.
  We need not try to debate this issue of whether the President has to 
commit a statutory offense. Constitutional scholars know better.
  Unfortunately, you have had to cope with a person who is not said to 
be a constitutional scholar, didn't finish number one in his class, 
didn't finish from an Ivy League school. But he did bring you truth, 
and that truth is being recognized.
  I stand here in the well of the House of Representatives tonight. I 
believe that comments comparable to what the President has said with 
reference to lynching, comparing lynching to impeachment, is but a 
continuation of his weaponization of hate, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, 
homophobia, Islamophobia, all the invidious phobias. That is all it is.
  It will not cease. He is only going to continue.
  If the House of Representatives does not impeach, we will have a 
President who will have no guardrails because we are the bar of 
justice. We are where it is initiated, right here. It is not initiated 
anyplace else.
  The Justice Department is not going to do it. There is no place else. 
This is where it is initiated, right here, the House of 
Representatives.
  If we do not impeach, no guardrails. If we do not impeach, we will 
have a de facto monarch, a person who does pretty much what he chooses, 
who believes that he is beyond the reach of any person or persons on 
this planet.
  If we do impeach and the Senate does not convict, that will send 
another message. The President will perceive himself to be a de facto 
monarch. We will have a de facto monarchy.
  We have a duty to do this. Our country--our country--is what this is 
all about.

                              {time}  2100

  The Constitution is the last word. We are the first line of defense 
against a reckless, ruthless President who would weaponize hate. We are 
the first line of defense, the Members of this august body. We have a 
duty to take up the cause of justice for the country that we love.
  I respect anyone who differs with me. Do what you may. But I do 
believe that, in time, I will be vindicated. I believe that, in time, 
the 58 who voted initially to impeach will be, again, vindicated. We 
have already been vindicated to a certain extent, but they will be 
further vindicated.
  The 66 who voted the second time, they are going to be vindicated, 
too. The 95 who voted the third time, they will get additional 
vindication. They are already vindicated because we are moving toward 
impeachment. They were just a part of the avant-garde, already 
vindicated.
  And the question remains, where do we go from here? Do we limit the 
impeachment to Ukraine and issues related to Ukraine only?
  It is my opinion that we should expand it, and I have explained why--
because of hatred and bigotry.
  Finally, this: We are talking about the original sin of this country; 
and there are those who would make the argument that, well, the Ukraine 
circumstance deals with national security; it is a threat to national 
security.
  Well, it is a threat to national security when you have white 
nationalists who are murdering people in the streets of this country, 
in the schools, to a certain extent, in various places where you would 
assume that you are safe. That is a threat to national security as 
well.
  It is time for us to deal with the original sin. We have the 
opportunity. It is impeachable.
  I don't want him impeached because of some election. I want him 
impeached because he has committed impeachable offenses. I want him 
impeached because we need to deal with our original sin.
  I believe that those who look through the vista of time upon this 
time are going to realize how right we were, those of us who have moved 
to impeach for the bigotry, the racism, all of the invidious phobias 
that we have had to endure from our President.
  Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak. I 
love this facility. I love my country. This country means something to 
me. I stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I salute the flag.
  But I also respect those who choose not to and will respect their 
rights and defend their right if they choose not to.
  But I do. This is my country. I love it. I love it. I stand alone, 
but it is better to stand alone than not stand at all.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________