[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 73 (Thursday, May 1, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1790-H1795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1115
A MESSAGE TO THE CABINET
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Green
of Texas was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. Still I rise with
my cane in hand. So feared, this cane, by many of my colleagues across
the aisle. It is feared to the extent that they would conclude that it
might be more than a cane. Yet, that is simply what it is, Mr. Speaker.
I rise with my cane in hand because it is the staff and rod that
comforts me. I rise with my cane in hand because, quite frankly, I just
believe I have the right to have a cane.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on several different topics. As a
result, I will move from one podium to another to present these various
topics.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of fidelity to
sycophancy emanating from the Presidency--fidelity to sycophancy
emanating from the Presidency.
I just recently saw--and many of you saw it, as well--Members of the
Cabinet, persons meeting with the President in the Oval Office. I never
thought I would see persons holding such high and lofty positions
pledging fealty not to the Presidency as much as to sycophancy--fealty.
It was just unbelievable. The only time I saw anything similar to this
was when I was in Communist China and I was with a group of very young
children, babies who were maybe 5 or 6 years old at most, and they were
all seated in a line. They all behaved in a similar fashion when called
upon.
I saw persons with lofty positions, each of them there, I thought, to
give the President a report about conditions related to their various
areas of expertise and the departments that they are associated with.
That is what I thought.
Silly me. They were there to pledge their fealty on national TV to
the President of the United States of America. It was a sad sight to
see each person telling the President how great you are.
Dear brothers and sisters--and I say ``brothers and sisters'' because
I think we are all related, one race, the human race. Dear friends, Mr.
Secretary of State, Madam Attorney General, don't let him steal your
self-respect. Don't let him take your decency, as it relates to your
humanity, from you. You are allowing him to reduce you to a less-than.
I will speak for you. Mr. President, you are demeaning the humanity
of the people who are in service to this country. I will speak for them
and tell you that, if I were in that room, I would walk out. I would
not sit there and allow you to demean me in that fashion.
At some point, you have to grow the spine, those of you who were in
that room. Grow the spine. Grow the will, and grow the determination to
stand up. Be the person your family expects you to be. Be the person
the country wants you to be and needs you to be.
[[Page H1791]]
Don't become a rubber stamp for this President. He doesn't deserve that
level of loyalty.
Finally, on this topic, at some point, each of you in that room will
have to account for what you have done. I don't mean in a violent way.
I just mean that, at some point on the infinite continuum that we call
time, you are going to have to account for those times.
The question won't be: How loyal were you to the President? It will
be whether you stood on principle when you had an opportunity to deal
with the great issues of your time related to this country. There will
be a day of reckoning for you. It will not be in terms of harm to you
physically but in terms of your reputational risk being codified so
that those who look through the fists of time will see what you did and
did not do at this time.
Acknowledging a Bold Stand
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, proud to have this
opportunity to speak in this almost sacred place, proud to have the
opportunity to address a topic of paramount importance to the American
people, and proud to acknowledge a colleague who has taken a very bold
stand. This is a colleague who has engaged in a form of protestation
that will not always be received initially with the kind of respect
that it merits.
Yet, as I have said before, dear friends, when you engage in
protestation, when you protest and you ``get in the way,'' as the
Honorable John Lewis put it--when you protest and you get in the way,
there will be consequences. You must be prepared to suffer the
consequences when you get in the way, when you protest. You must. You
don't have to like the consequences, but you have to be prepared to
suffer the consequences when you get in the way.
Today, I will acknowledge my colleague, a Member of Congress, who
filed Articles of Impeachment. I am proud of him. I salute him. I
applaud him for what he has done. He too is laying the groundwork for
impeachment.
I said some time ago now that this President would be impeached
again. I said some time ago that I was going to bring Articles of
Impeachment, and I am proud to know that there are others who are now
joining in this effort to impeach this President. I am very proud of
what this Congressperson has done.
Representative Thanedar, your Articles of Impeachment, H. Res. 353,
are historic. I am going to mention them as such because do not expect
the networks--maybe there might be one or two that will say something
positive and bring you on, but don't expect it because they give you
all of the rationale for impeachment, but they don't want to see it
happen.
Unfortunately, there are people like you who have to put principle
above politics. I have your Articles of Impeachment in my hand,
principle above politics. Understand, my dear brother, that when you
put principle above politics, you are doing what the American people
want you to do because the American people, at this time when we are
confronting a crisis related to our democracy, the hue and cry is not
for you to always win.
For those who believe that you only fight when you win, you are not
going to win the hearts and minds of the American people. The American
people want to know if you will fight even though you may not win. Will
you fight? Will you fight and put everything on the line? That is what
the American people are interested in when we hold these positions of
public trust.
Don't despair when people say to you: This is not the time.
As Dr. King said: ``The time is always right to do what is right.''
``The time is always right to do what is right.'' You did the right
thing, and because I am confident and believe in what you have done, I
am signing on to your Articles of Impeachment. Add my name to your
Articles of Impeachment. I am proud of what you have done because you
have put principle above politics.
A Preview of Impeachment Process
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise at this
moment in time to preview my Articles of Impeachment. This is to
preview. This is not to present but to preview my Articles of
Impeachment. Before giving this preview, I will thank a couple of
people. There are many who I should thank, but there are a couple who I
will thank. I thank a couple of people for what they have done in
assisting me with these Articles of Impeachment.
My dear friend, John Bonifaz, who has been with me from the genesis
of this when we brought Articles of Impeachment against President Trump
previously, laid the foundation for it. When people said it can only be
done if certain things exist and then later on retracted all of that
when they were ready to move forward or had to move forward, to be
quite candid with you, because the momentum had shifted, and it built
up to the extent that you had notables like the Honorable John Lewis
supporting the Articles of Impeachment that I drafted and placed before
this House. Other Members who were holding positions of leadership in
the House of Representatives signed onto the Articles of Impeachment.
The tide had turned, and there was little choice but to go along with
what the people wanted--not what we were doing at the time but what the
people wanted and the people were demanding.
I am very proud to thank John for what he has done to assist, but
there is also another person who provided me with some very sage
advice, someone who I have great respect for and have admired over the
decades: Ralph Nader.
Many of you may not know the name, but Mr. Nader was a crusader for
justice of the highest magnitude. He took stands when others wouldn't
even speak the words that he stood on. I am proud to thank him for what
he has done to assist in helping me to draw conclusions about these
Articles of Impeachment.
Let's preview the impeachment process and the Articles of Impeachment
that I intend to introduce. I said I would, and I will.
First, let's start with: What is impeachment? I think that because
this is something that people hear about and a good many people will
conclude that Articles of Impeachment must contain something related to
a constitutional crisis, there is no necessity for a constitutional
crisis to impeach--none. You can, but most of the Articles of
Impeachment have not related to a constitutional crisis.
The first person to ever have been impeached was a judge, and it
wasn't because there was a constitutional crisis. It was because of his
behavior on the bench and because he was consuming alcohol at a time
when he should have been taking his lofty position and adjudicating
appropriately.
There was no constitutional crisis. Not only do you not need a
constitutional crisis, but you don't have to be convicted of a crime.
There doesn't have to be a codified criminal statute that has been
violated. None of that is necessary for impeachment. There is no need
to commit a crime.
The best example is my colleague who used to sit right over there on
this row at the end of this row. My colleague who sat there, who I was
here with for more than a decade, the Honorable Alcee Hastings. He was
a Federal judge. He was tried and found not guilty of alleged offenses.
After he was tried and found not guilty of alleged offenses, his
colleagues put together a committee, and they drew a different
conclusion about his behavior. They took their conclusion to the Senate
of the United States of America, to the House of Representatives, and
my dear friend and brother was impeached. He was impeached and removed
from office.
Yet, because I am a believer, I often say there is a God. He was
thereafter elected to the Congress of the United States of America.
The point is, however, notwithstanding him having been found not
guilty, the Senate found reason to impeach him.
He was impeached for something that he had been found not guilty of
by a jury of his peers. Pursuant to the Constitution of the United
States of America, you don't have to be found guilty of a crime to be
impeached.
{time} 1130
Now, along this very line, I would say this in terms of being found
guilty. That means that if you had been found guilty of crimes, you can
be brought before this body. If you fall within what the Constitution
allows for impeachment, you can be brought before this body by way of
impeachment.
[[Page H1792]]
You can be brought before the Congress if you have committed 34
felonies. If you have committed 34 felonies, you can be brought before
the Congress for impeachment if you happen to hold one of the offices
presented to us by way of the Constitution of the United States of
America such that you might be impeached.
Thirty-four felonies, you can be impeached for that, but I am not
going to talk about those felonies today.
I want you to understand something that Gerald Ford said about
impeachment, the former President of the United States of America,
because there are some people who have read the Federalist Papers. I
have read them. I have read the words of Hamilton, the words of Jay,
the words of Madison. I have read them.
They now have come to these lofty conclusions about what impeachment
is. I am going to tell you the truth of what it is, and I defy any one
of these constitutional scholars to contradict with evidence that
supports something antithetical to what I am saying.
Gerald Ford got it right, the President. He got it right. He said--
and I am paraphrasing; these are not his exact words--impeachment is
whatever a given Congress, whenever they vote--218, a majority vote of
a given Congress--whenever a given Congress will vote in the majority
for Articles of Impeachment on a given date, that will be an impeached
person because impeachment is whatever a majority of Congress says it
is on a given date.
Now, that was more close to what he said, whatever a given Congress
says it is on a given date, and a given Congress would mean the
majority of the people voting for impeachment.
There is no appeal. It is a political question by definition. As a
political question by definition, it doesn't go to another court if
someone differs or the Supreme Court. It goes to the Senate, and the
Senate has the trial.
This is why Andrew Johnson could be impeached in 1868, Article 10 of
the Articles of Impeachment against him, for speaking ill of Congress.
You can be impeached for saying bad things about Congress. Andrew
Johnson was.
Let's get one thing straight. All of you constitutional scholars who
want to convince people that there is some lofty definition that you
have studied for some number of years, and now you have come to
conclusions that most people can't understand, my dear brothers and
sisters, impeachment is whatever a majority of Congress says it is at a
given time, on a given date. That is impeachment.
If Congress chooses to impeach because of the tie that you are
wearing at a given time--I wear this tie; there are some people who
don't appreciate it as much as I do--you can be impeached. Now, Members
of Congress cannot be impeached. We are not included in the definition
of persons who may be impeached.
Now, let's talk about impeachment that I plan to file. These
impeachment articles have been drafted. I have gone over them. They
have been in my hands for now some time. The finished product was
actually in my hands for probably a week or so. I wanted to do some
additional things, so I checked, and I have changed and added a few
things, but I have had these impeachment articles.
There is a target-rich environment when dealing with this President
when it comes to impeachment. Knowing where to start is the issue, not
is there a place to start, but knowing where to start is the issue.
I will be introducing these Articles of Impeachment, and I am just
going to go straight to one of the articles or maybe the article. I
have options. I may delete some things when I introduce. I just want to
mention this option because it is the one that people talk about in
words other than what I will present.
They talk about this impeachment. They say that he is a threat to
democracy. They say that he disrespects the Constitution. They say
these things, but I am not sure that everybody who says these things is
truly interested in the consequences related to what the President
should suffer for doing these things.
I am not sure that they want to see the consequences. I think that
there are some people who literally just enjoy saying the President is
destroying democracy, the President does not honor the constitutional
provision related to respecting a person's right to a trial, a fair
trial, which brings along with it the whole notion that you just can't
pick a person up off the street, send them to a foreign country with an
indefinite sentence, just lock them up--pick them up off the street,
take them to a foreign country, lock them up, indefinite amount of
time.
There has to be some sense of reality associated with what we do, and
I want to talk about that sense of reality.
This President is defying court orders, including orders from the
Supreme Court of the United States of America. He is defiant. You heard
him say now in two venues--I am going to speak about them briefly in
just a moment. He said in two venues that he is not going to honor the
necessity for a person to have what we call due process. In two venues,
he said it.
Now, the President didn't come out and say, I am not going to honor
due process, no. He has said what a reasonable and prudent person can
conclude as his indication of not going to honor due process of the
law, which is something the Constitution requires if you are going to
take life, liberty, or property from a person. A person has to have due
process. If you are going to take a person and lock them up, they have
to be able to say, Hey, you have the wrong guy. They ought to be able
to say it to someone other than the arresting person. They ought to be
able to say it to someone who has authority over the arresting person.
They ought to be able to go to a disinterested third party--we call
that the judiciary of this country--some member of the judiciary or
some judge, go before a judge and say, Judge, you have the wrong
person.
You ought to be able to use the great writ of habeas corpus to get
yourself before a judge. You ought not be taken out of the country
before you have that opportunity. Then if you are out of the country,
the Supreme Court can tell you that you ought to facilitate the return
of that person.
That is what the Supreme Court has said, and that is what this
President is refusing to do, refusing to honor the Supreme Court's
order.
I call that, in Article 1 of my Articles of Impeachment, devolving
democracy within the United States into a dictatorship with himself as
a de facto dictator.
My friends, truth be told, we are now into a de facto dictatorship
with a de facto dictator, not a dictatorship that has been declared by
some official body.
When the President of the United States declines to honor orders of
the Supreme Court of the United States of America, he becomes the
person who decides not only that a person should be pursued under the
authority of the executive branch--he has now disregarded the
separation of powers. He has now encroached upon the supremacy of the
judiciary, a coequal branch of government. He dispenses with the
necessity for the judiciary to perform its functions. In so doing, he
has become a de facto dictator.
Now, this is not in my impeachment orders, but I have to bring this
up because of the impact that he is having. I will talk more about what
is in my articles in just a moment, but I want to mention this. It
could be in, but I want to mention this.
As a de facto dictator, the President is engaging in de facto ethnic
cleansing, the removal without due process. I know it is not the kind
of ethnic cleansing that most people are acclimated to. Yes, I
understand that this is a nouveau ethnic cleansing, nouveau de facto
ethnic cleansing, removing people without due process to another
country without the person being able to go before some disinterested
third party and saying, You have the wrong person. Making the
allegation that the person is a part of some gang of thugs, well, a
Federal judge addressed that. A Federal judge addressed that, and here
is what the Federal judge said. I have it right here. I have it here.
Here is what the Federal judge said: So what? So what? You are a member
of a gang so now you are not entitled to due process?
Due process is accorded you not because you are a person who is
living the high life, wining and dining with the billionaire class,
living in the suites of life, having your galas, engaging in the
various cocktail events, known to all the people as an honorable
person. Yes, that person deserves
[[Page H1793]]
due process, but also every person in this country deserves due process
if you are going to deprive them of life, liberty, or property. They
are required due process under the Constitution of the United States of
America.
Now, if you don't respect the Constitution, well, then, you can make
these decisions, which is what the President does. If you don't respect
the Constitution, you can decide that if you are a member of some gang,
I can deport you to some other country, let's just say El Salvador,
some other country. I can deport you to that country without due
process because you are a gang member. Well, it won't be long before
some person who is not a gang member gets deported.
This Federal judge got it right. In essence, he said, So what? If the
person is a gang member, they are still entitled to due process.
I almost admire, to some extent, the way this President can persuade
people to believe this level of inanity--this level of inanity, not
insanity, inanity--how he is able to do this because he is able to
convince people that it is more who you are as opposed to what you have
done that is more important.
If you are associated with a gang, then you have lost your
constitutional rights. That is what he is inculcating in our society.
He wants to make that normal. If you allow this to be normal, if we
allow this to be normal, if I allow this to be normal, we are
disserving the people, in my case, that I represent.
The Constitution doesn't allow this, but this President thinks he is
above the law, so he says.
{time} 1145
Member of a gang did some other dastardly deeds, as a result he makes
the case: This is what people elected me to do, violate the 13th
Amendment. Just get them out of the country.
My friends, if you have noticed, most of the people who are being
removed from the country, unfortunately, are Latinos. Now, I take a
stand for the Latino community because, Mr. President, you, sir, have
caused Latinos to become suspect.
I lived at a time when I was suspect in this country, when just being
Black in America made you a suspect. Now I talk to people who have no
reason to be in fear, but they are because they see what is happening
and they see who it is happening to with a great degree of regularity.
And because they see it, they are fearful of what can happen to them
and they are fearful that if they are not careful, they can be picked
up, taken away to another country without due process.
People are paying attention. If you can do this to one person, why
can't you do it to another? It looks like you are trying to get a
certain group of people out of the country.
If you need some evidence to support what I say, well, how about
this? The President wants to give people thousands of dollars to bring
new birth to America, new lives, to birth babies; thousands of dollars.
When you have people who are already here, people who are already
participating and paying into the tax system, and persons who are
abiding by the law. Now you have literally concluded that, even if they
will leave by way of some of the things that you are doing that are
antithetical to the Constitution, or you are going to force them to
self-deport.
Mr. Speaker, I have many people in my congressional district that are
Latinos and, yes, the President is trying his level best to get them to
self-deport. It is not just the people who have committed crimes that
he is after. You don't have to have studied his behavior very long to
see that it is people who are not of a certain ethnicity, not of a
certain race that he is concerned with.
If he were true to what he says, he wouldn't be saying: We have got
to have more babies and then wanting to put millions of people out of
this country who are law-abiding, many of them called Dreamers, who
came here not of their own volition, and made a life here. They didn't
decide to come, but they are here. They made a life.
I have had to go across the border to bring people back that were
deported improperly. These people are here in this country making
America a better country by their very presence in the country. Not
everybody is going to invent something to make America great. Work hard
and treat people right, you could be a good citizen and make America
great. You don't have to do the things that are going to be written
across the pages of time. You can do the simple things, and these
people are doing these things. They have made our lives better.
You want to kick them out by accusing some of them of crimes while
never convicting them, by sending a person never convicted to prison in
another country, but others by bullying them out. Using your bully
pulpit and your agents, all of whom now speak with such a degree of
disdain for people, it is just remarkable to hear the way they address
the issues.
You have developed cohorts who have all become little bullies. They
want to emulate you and your aggressive behavior in indicating what
they are going to do to people.
What you give you shall receive. It will come back to you.
The point is, you are removing people simply because of who they are
and you want to now increase the population by giving women money--
people, husband and wife, two people money. I suppose two. I don't
know. The way I have heard it, I think it just sounds like he is
expecting the one gender to carry this load, and it is a challenge if
you are doing it just to get money. I would hope that people wouldn't
say: Well, I am going to have a child because I can get $5,000.
Probably there are very few people who will, but you are changing the
dynamics or desire to when you already have people here.
I mention this because this is a form of nouveau de facto ethnic
cleansing that the President is engaging in.
Articles of Impeachment
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to the Articles of Impeachment,
these articles have two places, maybe three, wherein the President has
confessed.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 24 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one place where the President has
expressed concerns that ought to cause all Americans to want to see
some change, to see him have to be dealt with for what he said and what
he is doing.
I have in my hand a passage titled: ``President Trump meets with
President of El Salvador.''
There are three different things that I will call to your attention
related to impeachment. The first is this meeting in the Oval Office. I
am about to read to you something that was published by C-SPAN. If you
want the details, you can go to the actual event on C-SPAN and see what
I am telling you. This is no secret.
Some of the news media has picked up on it as of late and they are
talking about it.
Here is what it says, here is how it reads, here is what it states:
During an Oval Office meeting--I am going to paraphrase some of this--
with the President of El Salvador, President Donald Trump and members
of his administration argued that they were not required to return
deported Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Some things bear
repeating. I say this quite often. Seems like there is a lot that bears
repeating: not required to return this Salvadoran citizen to the United
States, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of facilitating
his return.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America, coequal branch of
the government, separation of powers, not required to return him, not
facilitating it. That is what the President thinks: not required to do
it, doesn't have to facilitate his return, and note that they said
facilitate. There is a judge that has explained it in great detail what
facilitate means. It is a beautifully written opinion.
It goes on to say that the President--and I am paraphrasing--of El
Salvador said he was not authorized to return Mr. Garcia.
Now, they are sitting in the same room, the President of El Salvador,
the United States President, seated next to each other, juxtapose right
there next to each other for all the world to see, on C-SPAN if you
want to see it, and so he says he is not authorized to return Mr.
Garcia, who was legally present in the U.S. before being deported in
March. That is what C-SPAN says: legally present in the U.S., legally
present, deported to El Salvador without due process.
[[Page H1794]]
C-SPAN doesn't have due process right here, but that is what
happened.
It goes on to say: The Trump administration alleged that he was a
member of the MS-13 gang.
Well, I already covered that. Allege all you want about his behavior.
It does not negate his right to due process under the law.
I only regret that you are not sitting and standing right there right
now, Mr. President, so that you can hear me say it to you to your face.
He is entitled to due process of the law. Look, if he is a member of
MS-13 and he has committed a crime, try him, convict him. Nobody wants
to defend members of MS-13, but being a member of a gang does not
deprive one of due process of the law.
It goes on to indicate here: ``But previously admitted that the
deportation was an administrative error.'' Talk about adding insult to
injury.
The administration says we deported this person--not to demean him--
Mr. Garcia, deported him by way of an administrative error. Made a
mistake. Deported him by mistake, administrative error, but still you
refuse to facilitate his return.
What is wrong with you? Have you no respect for the Constitution? You
don't have to respect Mr. Garcia, you don't have to respect me, but I
want you to respect my constitutional rights and I want you to respect
his constitutional rights because the minute I decide that it is okay
for you to disrespect his constitutional rights, I have decided it is
okay for you to disrespect my constitutional rights. Respect
constitutional rights. Mr. Garcia merits that level of respect.
I also indicate in the Articles of Impeachment that this President
demeans the judiciary. I think there is much evidence to support my
position, but what I would like to do is give you what I feel are some
of the--a piece of the best evidence.
I believe this to be the best evidence. This is on Truth Social. I am
told that Mr. Trump is either the owner or one of the owners of Truth
Social, and this is a tweet that bears the name Donald J. Trump. I
don't think he has ever denied making this tweet, and here is what it
says, in part. It says--and he is talking about a Federal judge now:
``This radical left lunatic of a judge''--he is notorious for calling
people lunatics.
I was at home looking at TV. I had been escorted out of the Chamber.
I was seated right over there, and when I made my comments about the
President not having a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social
Security, the Speaker did what was required of him. The officers did
what was required. I am not mad at any of them.
When you protest, be prepared to suffer the consequences. You don't
have to like them, and I don't, but I wasn't here, so I was at home.
He uses that word ``lunatic,'' and he used it against people sitting
right here on this side of the aisle. He called the Members of the
Democratic Party lunatics from that podium. Lunatics. He has never been
reprimanded. He has never been sanctioned.
This House could issue a resolution of reprimand if we had the guts,
if we had the intestinal fortitude.
To quote someone that I have learned to respect over the years,
Malcolm X, if you just had the chibblings, you could reprimand him for
it. Let him know that there are some lines that he can't cross. Let him
know that he can't come in our House and call Members of the Democratic
Party lunatics or call a Member of the Senate Pocahontas. Let him know
that there are boundaries. You can still get elected.
{time} 1200
He uses the word ``lunatic'' here, and I am going to read it again.
``This radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker, an agitator,
who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama was not elected
President.''
That is the preamble. Now let's go down to the heart of it.
He says: ``This judge, like many of the crooked judges . . .'' I have
to say it again; some things bear repeating. ``This judge, like many of
the crooked judges I am forced to appear before . . . '' 34 felony
convictions, 34. That is not here, so I will read it all again.
``This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear
before, should be impeached.''
The President of the United States calling for the impeachment of a
judge because he doesn't like the decision of the court. What about
respect for a coequal branch of government? What about separation of
powers? What about honoring the law that you have sworn to uphold?
``This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear
before, should be impeached. We don't want vicious, violent, demented
criminals, many of them deranged murderers in our country. Make America
Great Again.''
This is from the President of the United States of America. It would
be hard to convince a reasonable and prudent person who hasn't been
through all of this that the President would say such a thing.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court took issue with the President.
The Chief Justice took issue with him. He sent a message indicating
that we don't impeach judges because we differ with them; we appeal.
He is defying the orders of Federal courts and the Supreme Court of
the United States of America. That is what he is doing.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness.
He is defying the Federal courts. Once you do this, you become a de
facto dictator--you reduce the country to a de facto dictatorship--and
for this you must be impeached. The Articles will go into many other
aspects of this, but for these things you must be impeached
These Articles of Impeachment I shall bring, I have said that I would
and I will, but I want to give everybody notice right now--right now,
take note of this--they will not be the only Articles of Impeachment
because the President has done various things that merit impeachment,
and at least I am going to build a record so that posterity will know
how some of us stood during this time of crisis when the President was
violating the Constitution. I will be bringing at least one additional
occurrence where there will be Articles of Impeachment presented to
this House, maybe more than one more, but I am not going to allow this
Congress to escape having a record of what this President is doing.
Yes, I am going to bring my Articles of Impeachment.
I know that the President, once he hears the things that I have said,
he will try to find some way to weasel out. I call that pickpocket
politics, when you catch the pickpocket trying to lift something from
your person, and then you decide, oh, well, I really wasn't taking
that, I am sorry, just bumped into you.
Well, the President always tries to retract. What I am amazed at is
that the media will allow him to take the last thing he says as what he
really meant. You would never do that for Barack Obama. You would never
do that for, God bless him, the last President of the United States,
the Honorable Joe Biden. You would never do that.
However, you take the last thing this President says, regardless as
to what else he says about how he is going to enforce his tariffs and
what he is going to do with them. Once he sees that it is not working
and he starts to retreat, he starts to meander back, crawl back, and
then you take that as, oh, well, the President really meant this. What
he was saying before was to acquire a bargaining position. Well, Canada
didn't think so. Canada didn't think it was just a bargaining position
when he said he wanted to make Canada the 51st State. Greenland didn't
think so.
Why do we want to think that what this man says last is what he meant
at first when what he said at first totally contradicts what he said at
last? It makes no sense. Therefore, Mr. President, you shall have
Articles of Impeachment presented by Al Green, Member of Congress,
because I will be fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to do so.
Slavery Remembrance Day
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise; proud to be an American with great
respect for the country I love, and I ought to be proud of it, proud to
be associated with it. I am proud because my ancestors were sacrificed
for more than 240 years
[[Page H1795]]
to lay the foundation for the greatness of this country, the economic
foundation. They were sacrificed. They were enslaved. They have never
been given the honor and respect that they merit.
We have respected days in this country that I appreciate and respect.
We respect Pearl Harbor with a Pearl Harbor remembrance. We respect 9/
11 with a 9/11 remembrance. We respect the Holocaust; we have a
Holocaust remembrance. We need a Slavery Remembrance Day to give honor
and respect to people who were brought here in chains, kept in bondage
for more than two centuries to lay the economic foundation for this
country.
They had a hand in building this Capitol and a hand in building the
White House. They built roads and bridges, planted the seeds, and
harvested the crops. These are the people who laid the economic
foundation. They are the economic foundational mothers and fathers of
the United States of America. I am proud to be a descendant, a scion of
the economic foundational mothers and fathers.
I hold this because there are people who would silence me if they
could. ``Censured, but not silenced.'' My voice is going to be here as
long as there is a breath of life in me and I am a Member of this body.
I plan to make sure that history records the truth about what is
happening during these times, and there will be many who will want to
read what is now my manuscript but it will become my book of the times,
the challenging times we live in.
Censured, but not silenced. People assumed that I was going to walk
out in shame, but I know this: Dr. King went to jail for his
protestation. He didn't want to go to jail. He was censured,
incarcerated, but not silenced.
Rosa Parks took a seat in a racist Southern town, taken to jail for
simply sitting on a seat on the bus that was vacant. She was taken to
jail. She didn't want to go to jail. Rosa Parks, censured in a sense,
imprisoned, put in jail, but not silenced.
I don't claim to be a Rosa Parks, I don't claim to be a Dr. King, but
I do claim to be one of the many people who are willing to be censured,
who are willing to have to suffer, but I won't be silent. I will
continue this fight.
People expect us to fight even when we can't win. It is not a
question of whether you are going to win, it is will you take a
principled stand. That is what the times require, a principled stand.
Yes, there may be consequences. Don't hurt anyone. Don't destroy any
property. Get in the way, as the Honorable John Lewis put it, whom I
got to know well. Yes, get in the way. You may get in the way, and you
may have to suffer the consequences. You don't have to like them, but
there are times when we have to suffer the consequences for the good
that we would do. The Honorable John Lewis called it good trouble. I am
honored to engage and to have engaged in this good trouble.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President of the United States.
____________________