[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4617-H4620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              STILL I RISE

  (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, and today, in the 
name of we the people. I rise censored, Mr. Speaker, but not silenced. 
I rise as a unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat--some would also add 
unelected liberated Democrat. My friends over on the racist radio say 
that proudly, and they have a lot of alacrity when they say it. They 
seem to say it because they seem to think that somehow they played a 
role in it happening. Well, be that as it may, I still rise in the name 
of we the people.
  I rise in the name of we the people today, Mr. Speaker, because of 
concern that I have with the killing that took place in Houston, Texas. 
As a result of some other things that happened, there was a killing in 
Maine. I sent out a tweet, as it were. I am not sure that they are 
called tweets anymore, but a message by way of the electronic social 
media. I would like to read this message because it is the essence of 
my message today.
  It reads: @realDonaldTrump--I am told that by saying 
``@realDonaldTrump'' in this message, the President should have an 
opportunity to hear about it and possibly read it himself. 
``@realDonaldTrump, your ICE force has killed a person in Maine. After 
the killings of Good, Pretti, and Araujo, without accountability, we 
cannot trust your Homeland Security or Justice Department to 
investigate ICE. `We the people' demand accountability and 
congressional oversight.''
  I rise in the name of we the people to demand accountability and 
oversight. I do so because, quite frankly, I am concerned about the 
possibility of a cover-up, and I am also concerned about the 
possibility of a clean-up. Let's start with the clean-up, and then I 
will move into the cover-up.
  The clean-up. You might recall, friends, that there was an assault on 
the citadel of democracy, this Capitol. You might recall, also, that 
there were persons who engaged in this dastardly act of cowardice. They 
were here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power at the insistence 
of the President, it seems. He delivered incited commentary that caused 
much of what happened that day to take place.
  They were here and did some things that were unlawful. They were 
unlawful, and we know they were unlawful because they were prosecuted, 
many of them--not just 5 or 10, not just 20 or 30, not just 100 or 200. 
Hundreds of them

[[Page H4618]]

were prosecuted--after they were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.
  We also know that the President, upon being reelected--upon being 
reelected, one of his first acts as a new President for a new term of 
office--this was not his first term, his second term--his first act was 
to pardon the people who assaulted the citadel of democracy at a time 
when there was an attempt to engage in a peaceful transfer of power, 
something that our country is known for far and wide. We are known for 
the peaceful transfer of power.
  After he pardoned them, they were able to walk freely. They were 
pardoned.
  Now, let's bring that forward. Given what has happened to the persons 
who were here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, who were 
convicted and who were pardoned by the President. The people who are a 
part of the ICE force are very much aware of what happened, and they 
know that the President--who gave a pardon to those persons who 
assaulted the Citadel of Democracy--they know that this President can 
provide them a pardon if they are charged with a Federal offense.
  Because they know, it is my belief that this somehow has caused some 
of them to believe that they have a license to exceed what the law 
allows--some of them, not all. This is not a condemnation of everybody. 
This is about the people who have done things that are unlawful, in my 
opinion. They know this. As a result of knowing it, I think they take 
liberties that they should not because they know that the President--to 
borrow a term that we use in my hood--will have their backs. They know.
  Let's now examine a rationale for my being concerned about the 
possibility of a cover-up. That was the clean-up, by the way. The 
clean-up occurred when the President had those persons released--after 
he pardoned them, of course--who had been found guilty. They were 
released. They are walking freely.
  By the way, that was lawful. The President has every right to pardon 
people, and he doesn't really have to give a rationale for it. That was 
a clean-up of what he started when he engaged in this movement to 
prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
  Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for the country, it did not 
succeed. So now, back to where I was.

                              {time}  1150

  After the cleanup having occurred and these officers now 
understanding that the President has this authority, then we have to 
examine what happened next with Ms. Good.
  Let's talk about Ms. Good first.
  We, with our very own eyes, saw most of what happened with Ms. Good, 
and we can say, because of what we saw if we want to believe our eyes, 
that Ms. Good was not there to harm anyone. She was unarmed. She was an 
American citizen. She was engaging in a peaceful protest--unarmed 
American citizen, and engaging in peaceful protest--when confronted by 
officers who were making demands. If you saw what happened, you know 
that it ended with her losing her life.
  She said kind things, by the way, to the officers, kind things, but 
she lost her life. We saw this with our own eyes. We saw it.
  Let's move over to Mr. Pretti.
  We saw Mr. Pretti as he was prostate. He was sprawled on the ground 
and an officer removed a weapon that he had, but it was after the 
removal of the weapon that he was shot. He lost his life. He was an 
American citizen, not armed at the time his life was taken. He was an 
American citizen engaging in peaceful protests.
  These two cases are worthy of following because to this day, we don't 
have credible information about what has happened. We don't really know 
when or if there will be charges that will be brought before a court of 
law such that there would be a trial.
  These cases are evidence of the fact that at least these 
investigators are taking an unusual amount of time to bring these cases 
to the attention of the public in a fashion such that the public will 
understand that there will or will not be prosecution.
  I happen to think there should be prosecution, but if there is not 
going to be prosecution, if they found some evidence beyond what we 
have been able to see and hear, then I think they should bring this 
evidence forward and let us have an opportunity to review it so that we 
can, again, have the transparency necessary for the public to have the 
knowledge that it is entitled to when an American citizen has been 
killed at the hands of the constabulary.
  We should know. We should have the opportunity to be told by credible 
sources what the final decision is, whether we are moving forward with 
trials. With this happening the way it is happening and given that we 
were able to see in these two cases most of what happened--didn't see 
all of it, but most of what happened--in fact, I would say we saw the 
relevant portions, but there may be something else that is there that 
we need to see, but we saw relevant portions.
  Having to see that and not seeing any action taken after all of these 
months have passed that causes me the consternation and concern that I 
placed in my message to the masses today indicating that I am concerned 
about and would be addressing a possible cover-up.
  We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right, 
they must also look right. It doesn't look right for these two cases to 
be pending. We have two additional cases now, and we also have very 
little evidence of what actually occurred in one of these cases, and 
that would be the case with Mr. Araujo.
  We don't have all of the evidence of what occurred. We saw enough to 
get some sense of what is likely to have happened, but because we don't 
have enough evidence--we are told that there were no body cameras. 
There were no vehicle cameras. We don't have any evidence from the side 
that should produce evidence because they should have had their body 
cameras on. There was $20 million accorded to them for body cameras. 
They should have had vehicle cameras. There should have been cameras, 
but they don't have the cameras. They don't have the cameras.

  Now, why would I believe, as in the case with Mr. Araujo, why would I 
believe the story that the person who is deceased, Mr. Araujo, tried to 
assault officers with a vehicle? Why would I believe that given that we 
have seen stories manifest themselves about the cases that we actually 
saw wherein the original stories told were not in conformity with what 
our eyes allowed us to see.
  Immediately after the shooting of Pretti, immediately after the 
shooting of Good, there was a story put forth that was not in 
conformity with what we saw.
  If we know that you will send us a message, a false message, about 
things that we saw, you send a false message about things that we saw, 
a prevarication about things that we saw, why should I believe that you 
are going to do anything less in a case where we didn't see everything?
  I am concerned about a cover-up. I am concerned about a cover-up 
because, as I have explained, these officers are aware that there will 
be a cleanup. If the President is true to his words and he honors what 
he says he will do, he has given hints to officers in his prior 
administration about how they should conduct themselves when arresting 
people. He told their officers, you don't have to be nice, words from 
the President of the United States of America about making an arrest. 
You don't have to be nice, implying that he had their back.
  He was implying that we are not as much concerned about law and order 
as we are about order and law. Law and order means you are going to 
follow the law to bring about the order necessary. Order and law means 
you restore order and I will provide the law--this is the President, 
not Al Green--I will provide the law necessary to protect you.
  Why should I believe the stories that are being told when we don't 
see evidence of the cars having collided? Why should I believe when the 
officers who were engaged in this circumstance that cost the life of a 
human being in Houston, Texas--they have been secreted away, why should 
I believe when you have shut out the engagement of other members of the 
constabulary, of the Houston Police Department?
  You have said, apparently based upon what I have been told and heard, 
that the Houston Police Department should not attempt to engage because 
you are going to take care of this yourselves.

[[Page H4619]]

  The Houston Police Department investigates. It doesn't prosecute, but 
it has one of the finest homicide departments in the country. It 
investigates homicides. The Houston Police Department has investigated 
police shootings in the past.
  The Houston Police Department has investigated circumstances where 
officers who were not in the Houston Police Department, but officers of 
the law, have been investigated.
  The Houston Police Department is capable, competent, and qualified to 
have this investigation, but you are shutting out the Houston Police 
Department wherein we could get some scintilla of transparency by 
virtue of having another authority engaged in the process of 
investigation. You shut them out. You have gone so far as to shut out 
the district attorney in Harris County.
  They can't get the information that you have such that they can give 
an analysis. They haven't talked to the officers who were engaged in 
the shooting. They haven't been able to assess the value that you place 
on what you now are saying appears to be some sort of drugs that were 
in the vehicle, the vehicle that Mr. Araujo was driving.
  Yes, for those who do not know, the allegation is being made now that 
there may have been drugs in the vehicle. They saw this substance in 
there and they are contending that it might be some form of illegal 
drugs.

                              {time}  1200

  Why do we believe all of these things when we were told not to 
believe our eyes in the case of Pretti and Good? Why would we not have 
some degree of suspicion? Why would we not think that you are, Mr. 
President, in charge of this ICE force? You, Mr. President, after the 
person who is now heading Homeland Security, Mr. Mullin, why would you 
countermand what he has done?
  Mr. Mullin, as I understand it by way of news reports, was going to 
put a pause on stopping cars. Mr. Mullin was going to give a moment of 
opportunity to take a look at circumstances and see if there is a 
better way to do what you are doing, but you, Mr. President, yourself, 
countermanded what came from your Department of Homeland Security. You 
did it knowing that he had done this because of the way your language 
was couched as you presented your command that the officers go back to 
stopping cars. You made that very clear, that they should do that, that 
this was something that they should continue to do.
  You use the term ``weak,'' don't want them to look weak, Mr. 
President. We have to ask why would we the people believe that there 
will be justice served given that we know that you tend to want to 
decide without having the opportunity to see what actually occurred? 
You tend to want to decide before seeing and making your decisions 
about what the officers have done, and then moving from there, it 
seems, by and through your agents in the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of Justice, by and through what they say.
  They are at your command. We should make no mistake about it. You are 
in control. The Supreme Court has given you the green light. You have 
taken advantage of it. That is why you sent out your message by way of 
your Truth Social, indicating that you were countermanding the order 
from the person that you just installed as your person who is in charge 
of Homeland Security.
  Why would we believe? Why should we believe that you are going to do 
all that you can to ensure transparency?
  To the contrary, it would not be unreasonable for a person to believe 
that there may be a coverup, and if not a coverup, if there is a 
conviction, that there would be a cleanup.
  You will try first to do all that you can to exonerate the officers, 
make sure that the investigation centers around whether the person who 
is deceased, the victim, was trying to harm the officers. That is what 
has been said: make sure the investigation is on whether the victim was 
trying to harm the officers.
  I have not heard to date--and I know that initially it was not said--
that there would be an investigation as to whether the civil rights of 
the victim had been violated, no investigation about the civil rights 
of the victim being violated, but whether the victim was making an 
effort to assault the officers.
  The visceral reaction is let's protect the officers, not let's have a 
free, open, fair investigation. When I say ``free,'' free for other 
persons to see and to be a part of. Have a parallel investigation with 
the Houston Police Department. There was none of that, none of that, 
just immediately decide that you are going to investigate the person 
who has lost his life without some indication that there would be an 
investigation as to whether or not the person who lost his life had his 
civil rights violated, the right to life, whether that has been taken 
away from him unlawfully.
  So, here we are now. We have Mr. Araujo in Houston. We have two other 
persons in Minnesota. We have a person in Maine. We have a President 
who has taken control himself, has hands-on experience with what is 
happening in these Departments.
  Nobody can deny that he is without knowledge of what is going on. His 
latest messages are indicative of his level of engagement and of the 
knowledge that he has as it relates to these circumstances. He is in 
charge. This is his Department of Justice. It is his Office of Homeland 
Security, and these people do believe that they work for him.
  What makes you say this, that they believe they work for him? Well, 
just yesterday, Mr. Vought, who is with the CFPB, indicated at a 
hearing that he works for the President. Just as recently as yesterday 
or the day before--I believe it was yesterday--we had the person who is 
auditioning before the Senate for a position with the Department of 
Justice. This person made it very clear that he works for the 
President, or at least he did. He said he was the President's lawyer. 
Maybe it was a Freudian slip, but he said he was the President's 
lawyer.
  So you have people who tend to do whatever you say. When your Cabinet 
meets, there is an effort to see who can give you the most praise. You 
have them all under your thumb. They are all under your control. They 
all bend a knee to you. They all kiss the ring. They are your people 
who serve you, not the country.
  The country is not primary. It may be secondary. It may be tertiary. 
It could even be quaternary, but it is not primary. They believe in you 
and report to you.
  Given these circumstances, why should we believe that you are going 
to cause the right thing to be done?
  Mr. President, others have said, and I have said--and I say it now--
the blood of the people who I have called to your attention today, the 
blood of these persons is on your hands. It is. Other people are saying 
it. Other people are linking you directly to what has happened. I think 
they should, given that we know that you are in control, in command, in 
authority, and that you have knowledge.
  You are not like a typical President who leaves things to others to 
do and decisions to be made. When there is a crucial decision to make, 
you make it, as evidenced by what you have done with your Truth Social 
and the case of the gentleman who was killed in Maine. You made the 
crucial decision as to how the officers will behave when they encounter 
the opportunity to observe, make an arrest at a later time, as opposed 
to rush in with guns blazing. You have made the decision that they can 
continue to do what they have been doing, but you do try to cover 
yourself by using the term ``judiciously,'' that they should behave 
judiciously. That is only to cover. We understand what is going on, Mr. 
President.
  It seems to me that it would not be unreasonable for a reasonable and 
prudent person to conclude that there may be a coverup in this case, 
and if there is a conviction in the Federal court, there will be a 
cleanup--may be a coverup and will be a cleanup if you find--if the 
courts find, I should say--I shouldn't say ``you.'' You haven't taken 
complete control of the courts. You do have an outsized amount of 
influence, it seems.
  If the courts find that there is a Federal crime, I am saying here 
and now, without question, reservation, or hesitation, I believe that 
you, Mr. President, will pardon the persons who have taken these lives.
  I believe that you want to send a message to others, as you did on 
your

[[Page H4620]]

first day in office when you pardoned the persons for what happened 
here at the citadel of democracy when there was a peaceful transfer of 
power taking place. You want to send a message and let officers know 
that you have their backs.

                              {time}  1210

  You do this because you want to complete your mission of removing 
persons from this country, many of whom are not the worst of the worst. 
You want to send a message that you are going to remove and people 
should be intimidated, they should be terrorized, and they should leave 
the country of their own volition before you have the opportunity to 
send your agents out--your ICE agents--with masks, with no body 
cameras, and with, sometimes, malice aforethought, in my opinion. Not 
all the time, but sometimes.
  Mr. President, we, the people, are not going to allow you to continue 
with this kind of behavior. We, the people, are not going to allow you 
to continue to do this. While you are President of the United States 
and the Supreme Court has given you a certain amount of immunity, allow 
me to place another poster before you.
  Mr. President, this is real. This is real, Mr. President. There is a 
countdown to impeachment. I have been very patient in waiting. I 
thought others might want to do what has to be done, and I say it has 
to be done. People can differ with me. I say it has to be done. It is 
the only tool that we have to bring you under control, to let the world 
know that we are opposed to what you are doing, and we are willing to 
take action against you.
  This is it, this one word: Impeachment.
  Mr. President, I assure you that Articles of Impeachment are going to 
be filed, and they are going to be filed in the very near future 
because we cannot allow the world to believe that the Congress of the 
United States of America will do nothing when people are being killed 
in the streets under circumstances that are clearly questionable and 
clearly unlawful in the minds of many people. I am one of them. Under 
these circumstances, we have to take action, and the only action is 
impeachment.
  We in Congress can talk about a lot of things that we will do next 
year. By the way, I marvel at people who will run for office on what 
they are going to do, and then when they get here, they talk about what 
they will do next year. They give people the impression that they are 
going to come here and change things, that they know things that other 
people don't know about the process, that they have something called a 
strategic approach, and this strategic approach--they never say what it 
is going to be, but this strategic approach is supposed to make a 
difference, that people who have been here for years and years and 
studied these things can have it made. And then when you get here, you 
talk about next year, we are going to be really tough. We are going to 
be really tough when we take back the House next year.
  Some of us don't buy into waiting until next year. Some of us believe 
that the time is always right to do what is right, and it is right to 
bring impeachment against this President of the United States of 
America. We don't have to wait until next year.
  Do what you want next year when you have the power to investigate, 
when you have subpoena power, but most of the public wants to know what 
you are going to do right now.
  Here is what will happen right now, and it is going to happen very 
soon. How soon? Within weeks. Within weeks, it is going to happen. 
There will be Articles of Impeachment, and they will be brought to a 
vote, not just filed. We are going to vote.
  This is a question of conscience. I want to live with myself. I want 
to be able to say to myself, to me, that, on my watch, I did all that I 
could to stop a reckless, ruthless, lawless President from taking the 
lives of the American people.
  I am Al Green, a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, unafraid, 
and unelected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President and to direct their 
remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.

                          ____________________