Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the many people around the country who have supported the cause of impeachment.

I rise to thank the many Members of the House. Today, 66 voted to advance the cause of impeachment. Previously, 58 voted to advance the cause.

I rise to thank all who have been supportive and who are advancing the cause to protect democracy, to protect the Republic, and to make sure that what we have is never eliminated from the face of the Earth, and that is the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have the superlative pleasure of speaking from the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a liberated Democrat.

I rise today to speak truth to power.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to remind us that, although we are the leaders of the free world, we will not be received as the leaders of the free world if we are perceived as the leader of worldwide bigotry.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to remind us that we won't be received as the leaders of the free world if we are perceived as being anti- immigration when it comes to Muslims and, as a result, xenophobic.

We won't be received as leaders of the free world if we are perceived as homophobic because we are anti-transgender.

We won't be received as leaders of the free world if we are perceived as anti-Africa because it is a continent of s---hole countries. We will be perceived, quite frankly, and received as racist if we do so.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to maintain our preeminence in the world, we must not be perceived as the bigots of the world.

Mr. Speaker, the solution can be an election in 2020, or it can be impeachment tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I will bring impeachment before the Congress of the United States of America again tomorrow sometime after 9 a.m. and before we leave for our break.

Mr. Speaker, history is watching. We will be judged by our actions. Time will tell. I will be on the right side of history.

Mr. Speaker, I clearly, truly, and sincerely thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me. I would like to acknowledge that his message was most edifying. It was made perspicuously clear, and anyone having the opportunity to hear his message clearly understands that there is a pathway to success for the DREAMers. I am grateful that he has given his message, and I am honored that he has yielded to me.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. King--and I mention him tonight because we just celebrated his life and legacy, and I am still celebrating--but Dr. King reminded us that the time is always ripe--r-i-p-e--always ripe to do right. The time is always beneficial, the time is always right to do that which is right. There may appear to be circumstances before you that would cause you to conclude that there are great obstacles in your way, and because of these great obstacles, you probably should wait just a little bit longer. But there are some questions that cannot wait, and allowing time to pass will only allow greater harm to manifest itself. The time is always ripe, and the time is always right to do that which is right.

In the past, the not too distant past, I was accorded the preeminent privilege of bringing a privileged resolution before the Congress, and that resolution was one for impeachment. That resolution received 58 votes to further the opportunity for impeachment to be voted upon. There were a good many people who were of the opinion that this was 57 more votes than expected. I had no idea as to the number of votes that would be cast for moving the resolution forward such that there might be an up-or-down vote on impeachment. I had no idea. Fifty-eight votes was acceptable to me. But I also want the Record to show, Mr. Speaker, that if there had been but one vote, that would have been acceptable to me because the time is always ripe to do that which is right, and it was the right thing to do to bring the Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say that I believe the time is ripe for additional Articles of Impeachment, and, as a result thereof, tomorrow, additional Articles of Impeachment will be brought because the time is ripe and because allowing additional time to pass will only allow additional harm to manifest itself without a proper challenge having been made to things that are occurring from the Presidency that, Mr. Speaker, cannot be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say that I have no idea as to what the vote will be when we vote tomorrow or within the next 2 legislative days, as required by the rules. My suspicion is that the vote will take place tomorrow. I don't set the time for the vote. I determine when the resolution will be presented, and the Speaker of the House determines when the actual vote will take place. That is his to decide. I respect any decision that he makes.

But as to my colleagues, I am not lobbying anyone to vote for this resolution. Each person must address what his or her conscience dictates. I have no idea as t what the vote will be, and I say this candidly because there are a good many people who will continually query: How will people vote? What will the outcome be? I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.

But I say this: whatever the outcome, I will know that I have done the right thing. I will know that I will be on the right side of history, and I will know that there are unborn generations who will look back through the vista of time, and they will make decisions about the actions we take at this time. I will let them judge.

It is unfortunate, but the people of the time that we live in can sometimes not be in the best position to judge the things that we do and the actions that we take. So I will know, Mr. Speaker, that we have done the right thing, and I will know that the judges who look through the vista of time will set the record straight for those who may have some confusion about what is happening at this time.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the vote is, it will be a vote that will be recorded on our Record. It will be the second vote, and I want the Record to show that I repeatedly stood on the right side of history. I will repeatedly do this. For those who may be concerned, this may not be the last vote. So there may be more than two votes that we will take that will show where we stand on this great question of our time.

What is the great question of our time? The great question of our time, as it relates to those of us in this country and around the world, is this: Are we going to allow the United States of America, the country that I love--no one sings ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' louder than I do, maybe not in a perfect key. No one recites the pledge with greater enthusiasm than I do. No one believes in the words told in the Pledge of Allegiance, liberty and justice, more than I do. No one believes in the words in the Declaration of Independence, ``All persons being created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights''--no one believes these things more than I. I love my country.

So the question is, this country, the leader of the free world-- people around the world depend on us for leadership and guidance on the great issues impacting the world; whether they be political or moral, people in this world depend on the United States. People want to know: Where is the United States of America when it comes to a crisis? Regardless of the magnitude of the crisis, where are the Americans, the leaders of the free world?

So, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will we allow our preeminence in the world to be diminished by a perception that we condone and accept, in fact, will tolerate, bigotry? Will we tolerate bigotry? Will we allow the bigotry emanating in this country from the highest office to become the image of the United States of America? Will we allow people around the world to think that we condone this? I think not,

which is why I will bring the Articles of Impeachment tomorrow.

It is my opinion that I--personal pronoun--will not and should not tolerate bigotry. I lived too long, Mr. Speaker, and I fought too hard. I have suffered too many indignations associated with segregation. I had the Klan burn a cross in my yard. I know what bigotry looks like, I know what it smells like, I know what it sounds like, and I know what it feels like.

So I have been involved and engaged in this struggle too long to tolerate it. I refuse to tolerate bigotry. The truth is, that which you will tolerate, you are not likely to change. If you will tolerate it, you are not likely to change it.

So my vote tomorrow will be one indicative of a person who will not tolerate bigotry. My vote tomorrow will be one that I trust young children in years to come will be proud to say: One American stood against bigotry.

We in this House have had years, in fact, centuries, to eradicate and eliminate the hatred associated with bigotry and invidious discrimination. We went through slavery.

We fought back. We went through segregation. We changed the laws. But we cannot allow ourselves to be put in a position such that it will be perceived that we are amenable to allowing the clock, the hands of time, to be rolled back to a time that none of us would like to return to. Surely, I would not, given what I know about how bigotry impacts the lives and the psyches of human beings.

We are confronting the great question of: What will the United States look like to the rest of the world? How will we be perceived?

But more important than this, Mr. Speaker, the question is really: Will we stand by silently when we can plainly and clearly see that wrong is being perpetrated and that people are being harmed?

Bigotry may not impact me the same way it impacts people who are working every day and who don't have the benefit of Congress to come to and to work in the facilities that I work in.

There are people who are hardworking Americans who are impacted by bigotry in ways that are harmful and that I and many others will not experience. There are people of color who will go in to apply for a loan and have their loans denied because of how they look. We have empirical evidence to support it. It happens. It still happens to people of color.

There are people who will be impacted by bigotry simply because of who they happen to associate with in their intimate personal lives. There is still bigotry associated with the LGBTQ community. You can be fired because of who they happen to be, the person that God created. They can be fired for being that person.

There are people who suffer from bigotry because of their religious beliefs. If you are Jewish, you may find yourself at some point suffering from bigotry perpetrated because of your belief in your God.

If you are Muslim, you may find yourself suffering from the horrors associated with bigotry and being banned from a country because of your religious beliefs and because you are of the Islamic faith.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. These are everyday, hardworking people who suffer. Those of us who are here in Congress may not suffer all of these indignations, but there are times when some of us, too, will befall to the ugliness of bigotry.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will we allow people who we know we can help be assisted by virtue of the position that we take?

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, sometime after we start our legislative day, I will come to the well and I will present Articles of Impeachment that will differ from the prior Articles of Impeachment. These articles will associate commentary made in the highest office in the land with policies that are produced.

When you are in the White House and you say ugly comments about a continent, the countries within that continent, about other countries, and you are talking about immigration policy, surely it is reasonable to conclude that your commentary can be converted into your policy, that it can become part of your policy, and that if you conclude and if you, by your commentary, would have us know that you may have concluded that people from a predominantly White country are more welcome than people from countries of color, it is not unreasonable for one to conclude that your immigration policy may be one that is race-based masquerading as one that is merit-based. It is not unreasonable, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, I want to apologize to people who I may have offended with my message, because the intent is not to offend. The intent is to speak the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I take no great solace in having to bring this truth before the Congress of the United States of America. This is not something that I came to Congress to do. It is not something that I take great pleasure in doing. People say ugly things about me and to me. Just today, we had a call to our office, a threat that involved the taking of life.

So this is nothing that I do with any degree of pleasure. I do it because it is right. And to all of the people who I may have offended, to colleagues that may somehow think ill of what I do, you have my apologies. It is really not about you. It is about democracy. It is about government of the people, by the people, and whether we will maintain government of the people, by the people. It is about the Republic and whether we will do as Franklin indicated, keep the Republic that we have.

It really is not about any individual. It is not about any political party. It is about the greatest country in the world and whether we, who have the ability, the responsibility, if you will, to take on these challenges, will do so in such a way as to protect the institutions that we love.

I am giving you my position. I give no one else's position. I am a caucus of one. It is called the liberated democratic caucus. That is who I am, a liberated Democrat. That means that I cannot only speak truth to power, I can speak truth about power.

Tonight, the truth is that we have a country in crisis. The stock market is up, yes. Jobs, yes, people are employed. There is something to be said about the types of jobs at minimum wage, but for this soliloquy, let's just say people are employed.

But these things are not what make a country great. The greatness of a country is not measured by how we treat people who live in the sweets of life. The greatness of a country is measured by how you treat people who live in the streets of life. Those who live in the streets of life are the ones who have to cope with bigotry that many of us never see and many don't understand.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have had this moment to talk about the time that we will share tomorrow. It will take place. I do look forward to having the opportunity to stand in the well again of the Congress of America. It is a preeminent privilege, a superlative pleasure, and a splendiferous honor.

Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to stand here in the well of the House. Today is no exception. I love my country, but I am not proud of my President.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to say that the level of discourse in our country has been brought to an all-time low. There are people who were very much concerned when the President indicated that there would be a ban on persons from certain countries, a ban on Muslims, if you will.

There were people who were saddened when they learned that the President was of the opinion that members of the LGBTQ community could not serve in the military.

There were people who were saddened by the President's comments about SOBs playing football. Others were disheartened by the President's comment with reference to Charlottesville and some very fine people being among the racists, the bigots, the KKK.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the latest commentary has really caused an international uproar. People around the world cannot believe that the President has made his latest comments. Mr. Speaker, these comments are words that are hurtful and harmful, but this is just not another person making these comments. This is the President of the United States of America.

The President of the United States of America has the ability, the power, and the wherewithal to do more than simply speak these words. These words can be converted into policy, into policy of the United States of America.

The Muslim ban comments, there was an attempt that is still going on to ban Muslim persons from certain countries.

The comments about Charlottesville were encouraging persons who were there, many of whom were interacting with persons of color, minorities, and Jewish people on their jobs and in other places. It encouraged them to continue to do those dastardly things that they do and had in mind when they were saying: ``Jews will not replace us.''

The comments that were made about the s---hole, or s---house, the kind of profanity that ought not emanate from the Presidency, those comments were made as there was an effort afoot to deal with immigration, to draft an immigration policy.

The President can put his comments into policy. The President can drive policy with these ugly comments. The President's comments are not only hurtful when you hear them, but they are hurtful to people who have to suffer when they become policy.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to accept what the President is doing. I refuse to accept it because if you tolerate something, you will not change it. You will do little to change it. I am going to do everything that I can to change it, and it is within my power as a Member of the Congress of the United States of America to bring Articles of Impeachment against this President for what he has done. I have done it before, and I will do it again and again and again. I will not allow it to happen unchallenged.

I know that there are many who would say that this is not appropriate, but I can only say, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,'' since we are just now removed 1 or 2 days from Dr. King's celebration. We are still celebrating him in my neck of the woods. But injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

If we allow this injustice to persist, then what is happening and said in the White House is going to impact every house in this country. We must take a stand against this President and his bigoted comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the well of the Congress of the United States of America as a proud, liberated Democrat. A liberated Democrat, by my definition, is one who cannot only speak truth to power, but can also speak about power.

So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to honor and celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. And in so doing, I want to encourage persons to not only read the masterpiece that Dr. King wrote when he was in the Birmingham jail, but also read the letter that he was responding to.

This letter was written by eight persons, in my opinion, none of whom were bigots, none of whom taught or preached hate; eight persons who were of the religious community; eight persons who were beyond reproach, high moral standards, impeccable character.

You need to read the letter that Dr. King was responding to, the letter that was written by eight members of the clergy. And when you read this letter, as you go through it, you will get to the last paragraph.

I shall read the last paragraph and excerpt from it, if you will, not in its entirety, but I shall read an excerpt from the last paragraph, and then I want to contemporize the excerpt from the last paragraph.

Read it in its entirety. Read the letter from the Birmingham jail. But, my friends, please read the letter that he was responding to. If you do not read this letter, you cannot totally appreciate the message that Dr. King was conveying.

Here is what I shall read as an excerpt. It reads: ``When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets.''

I just want to contemporize that sentence.

In the courts, let somebody else take care of this problem. There are other people who are prepared for this. They know best how to handle this. Let someone else do what we could take upon ourselves the duty to do. Let someone else be responsible for liberty and justice for all. Let someone else be responsible for government of the people, by the people, for the people. Let someone else do it.

Contemporizing this language, let the special prosecutor do it. The special prosecutor will give us a decision that we can appreciate, that we can take forth, that we can then claim has given us the foundation to do something significant.

Mr. Speaker, these were persons of honorable standing, great stature.

They meant well, but they wanted to let someone else do what they themselves could have had a hand in doing.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. King was a man who believed that bigotry and hatred must be confronted, and he understood this one basic premise: those who will tolerate bigotry and hatred, they will do very little to change it. They will find reasons why they can't change bigotry and hatred when given the opportunity.

There is always an excuse. It won't be the Good Samaritan response: If I don't help people who are being discriminated against, who are being kicked off of jobs because they are LGBTQ, who can't get loans because of their ethnicity, because of religiosity--invidious religiosity, I might add. They are being barred, banned.

They won't look to see what is happening to them. What they will do is ask: What will happen to me if I step out there and try to help them?

I don't think they are persons of ill will. I think that they are persons who mean well. But I ask people to understand the context of this time by understanding and reviewing the context of the time that Dr. King lived in and review that letter from the Birmingham jail--the masterpiece--but also read the letter that he was responding to.

Those who will tolerate bigotry will do little to change it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay honor and pay tribute to the Honorable Dr. Martin Luther King, and, Mr. Speaker, I am so proud and honored to have the preeminent privilege of doing so here in the well of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. King was born at a time, to quote Dr. Benjamin Hooks, when he could buy a hat but he couldn't try it on.

He was born at a time when he could only sit in the balcony of a movie, and that was in some movies. There were others that he wasn't allowed in at all.

He was born at a time when he had to sit in the back of the bus or he might be barred from riding the bus totally.

He was born at a time when he would have to wait in line and others of a different hue could always stand in front of him.

He was born at a time when invidious discrimination and when segregation was apparent and lawful.

Dr. King was born at a time when there were few who were willing to challenge the hate and the bigotry that was emanating from this country in all of its arenas for the most part.

But Dr. King was a person who understood that that which you will tolerate you will not change. Dr. King refused to tolerate bigotry and hatred. He refused to tolerate it, and, in fact, that is what separated him from a good many other people, for the most part.

Dr. King, if I may recall, went to Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. He went there to do something about the conditions, about the discrimination, about the hate and the bigotry. When he went there to do something about it, there were people who were tolerating hatred and bigotry.

There were people there who were very prominent members of the clergy--eight of them--who decided that they would write Dr. King a letter and explain to him that what he was doing was unwise and untimely. They explained to him that law and order should prevail. They commended the constabulary for protecting the city.

These were persons who were considered honorable people, but they were people who were willing to tolerate hatred and bigotry. They, in fact, insisted that we should let the courts handle this: Let's work it through peaceful means by which we might sit and negotiate with those who would perpetrate hatred and bigotry.

Dr. King, on the other hand, sought to use nonviolent protest as a methodology by which change might take place. The things that he could not tolerate he was willing to protest to bring about change.

There were other great orators of the time. Dr. King was indeed a great orator, one of the greatest ever, but there were other great orators. There were other persons who were knowledgeable, had Ph.D.'s, and who were very well versed in what was happening with discrimination and could have spoken up on it. Many did speak up, but many of them were willing to tolerate it. Dr. King was not, and that separated him from a good many people who were orators, who were learned, and who understood invidious discrimination. In fact, they were opposed to it, but they tolerated it in quiet ways.

So when Dr. King went to Birmingham, these eight clergypersons having written him a letter, he found himself incarcerated in the Birmingham jail, and he decided to respond to them. The ``Letter from Birmingham Jail'' is a response to eight notable clergy members in Birmingham.

So he decided to respond to their letter. In responding to their letter, he gives us this masterpiece that really addresses what invidious discrimination is all about, why you can't consider yourself an outside agitator if you are an American, and why you have to do this not only for yourself, but for the generations to come.

But reading Dr. King's letter, as masterful as it is, is not enough. So today, in honor of his birthday, January 15, I am asking people to read the letter that Dr. King was responding to. If you read that letter, then you will understand why you cannot tolerate hate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that the ranking member, the Honorable Maxine Waters, is often the sentinel on watch. She is the person who is there to protect investors. She is there to protect persons who might, but for her absence, be taken advantage of. So I am honored to speak with her and to stand with her.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill today because this bill epitomizes what I believe is a business model that allows corporate America to take advantage of investors. This business model is one that has been perpetrated and perpetuated by my colleagues on the other side. This business model is one that surfaced in 2008, when the credit rating agencies became captives of the businesses that were providing the instruments that were to be rated. They were catering to the businesses to the detriment of the investors.

I believe this business model is one that allows the fiduciary rule to be compromised. The fiduciary rule simply said that, if you are working on behalf of an investor, you can't put your interest ahead of the investor's interest. That rule was compromised by my colleagues on the other side.

So today they again come with another business model that will allow investors to be taken advantage of. Caveat emptor is going to apply in a way that it has never been seen before as it will relate to these investors.

It is time for us to prevent the business model of allowing investors to be taken advantage of and to present a business model that allows the investor to have the benefit of advice from the proxy. That is what we have currently. Let's not change the business model. Let's make sure that the investor is properly protected.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 18, 2017 I missed the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO'' on Motion to Fix the Convening Times, and ``YES'' on H.R. 4375, STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do anticipate additional speakers, and I will be making comments myself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, because I believe in truth in labeling, truth in titling, truth in the style of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill should be appropriately styled the Big Bank Bonus Bill.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be styled the Big Bank Bonus Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry?

A UC request.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side have said much about Barney Frank.

Chairman Frank was a dear friend of mine. I knew him well. I still do know him well. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Frank has not endorsed this bill. The language that they have used would lead an unsuspecting person to conclude that Chairman Frank supports this piece of legislation. He does not.

I have in my hand a letter from Chairman Frank. I will read a portion of it. He indicates:

H.R. 3312 significantly increases the need for subjective

judgment by the regulators and very much weakens the ability

of financial institutions to rely on clear rules to guide

their decisionmaking.

Mr. Speaker, without question, Chairman Frank does not support this legislation.

My friends have made much to-do about the term ``arbitrary and capricious,'' a threshold that is arbitrary. What is more arbitrary than reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, which you just did? What is more arbitrary than reducing the individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, which you just did?

You are the masters of arbitrary and capricious numbers. That bill that you just passed is flush with arbitrary and capricious numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they examine their thoughts about arbitrary and capricious before we continue, because I have more to say about arbitrary and capricious numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to engage my friend from Minnesota, if I may, before he leaves. Would the gentleman please not leave?

Would Mr. Hensarling ask the gentleman not to leave? I want to engage him.

I would like to engage Mr. Emmer, if he will come back, please. I would like to engage with the gentleman for just a moment if I may.

The gentleman declines.

Is there anyone on the other side that I can talk to?

I ask Mr. Hensarling, is 39.6 arbitrary, reducing the taxes on individuals from 39.6 to 37? What is 37? Why is it not arbitrary?

Pardon?

I yield time. Yes, of course.

I yield.

I yield you such time as I may deem necessary, if you will take time.

Well, you may use your own time.

Mr. Speaker, the arbitrary numbers that they have they don't care to defend.

Let's talk about the one-size-fits-all accusation, if you will.

Mr. Speaker, I have a source, and it is the Department of the Treasury, which indicates that we have a tiered system, and we actually have five different tiers. These tiers will allow banks to be classified as small, midsize, regional, international active, and G- SIBs.

There is a tiering system, but within the tiering system, we have given the regulators the authority to tailor rules to fit banks within the system.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned institution failure. I was here. I know what happened in 2008. I understand why we have Dodd-Frank. We don't have Dodd-Frank because Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank woke up one morning and decided that they would like to regulate banks to the extent that they were regulated.

We have Dodd-Frank because we had a crisis. We had Dodd-Frank developed because of exotic products, the 327s and the 228s, which had teaser rates that would allow persons to get into loans that had fixed rates for 3 years or 2 years, and then they would have 27 years of variable rates or 28 years of variable rates.

This was the exotic product that a good many people had and could not get out of because, quite frankly, they also had a prepayment penalty that would coincide with these teaser rates.

It was a time of great crisis for banking.

We also had the so-called credit default swaps, which were just another way of laying off bets. Banks found clever ways to lay off their bets that they thought were risky.

We had no-doc loans, negative amortization. You could pay as much as you wanted and would add to the principal what you didn't pay, which means that you would end up paying a lot more for your loan than you initially started out owing.

We had interest-only loans: just pay the interest, let the loan continue to increase in value.

There was no firewall between commercial banking and investment banking. They finally got Glass-Steagall. Took them decades to do it, but they did.

Then we had the dastardly yield spread premium, which would allow the person who was servicing you, the loan originator, to qualify you for a loan at 5 percent, come out and shake your hand and say: Good news, you now have a loan for 10 percent.

That was all lawful, but Dodd-Frank ended all of this.

We have Dodd-Frank because we had a deregulation era, very much comparable to what we are about to go through now. Banks were regulated to the extent that they couldn't do all of these things, but we deregulated, just as we are about to do it now, and we will get back to the future, where banks will not have the liquidity necessary, where the credit risk that they take will be unreasonable.

This is a bill that belongs on the trash heap of history. I adamantly oppose the bill. I believe that it is time for us to take the stand that the American people want us to take, not the stand that the big banks would have us take.

This is a big bank bonus. The big banks love this bill. Thirty banks are going to be relieved of their obligation to let us know how to put them out of their misery in the event that they are about to bring the banking system down. Thirty banks. These are big banks, $500 billion max. Big banks.

These banks will continue to give us their stress test so that we can know what their liquidity is and understand their credit worthiness by virtue of the loans that they make.

This bill is what the big banks want, but not the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, what is the amount of time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not impact 99 percent, approximately, of the banks. Most banks in this country have assets--about 89 to 90 percent of them--of $1 billion or under.

This bill is for the big banks. The big banks are doing quite well. Last year, the banks made record profits of $171 billion. Community banks grew at 8.3 percent, and big banks grew at a 4.8 percent rate. They are lending to businesses at a record level.

So the contention cannot be that they are doing this because banks are losing money. It has very little to do with how much money they are losing. It has a lot to do with the fact that big banks would like to be deregulated so that they can get back to the business as usual that caused the crisis of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, there are 30 big banks this bill will impact worth more than $5 trillion in assets. This bill is not needed because, if this bill is implemented, it will cause the banks to no longer be placed under the $50 billion threshold, except by way of regulation from the prudential regulator, which won't happen easily.

MetLife is a pretty good example of what can happen. Currently, MetLife is in court. They are tied up in court, probably indefinitely, because the big banks have big bucks, and they are

going to fight being designated as SIFIs.

MetLife is fighting it. It is an insurance company, of course, but it is fighting it. If they are going to fight the designation, you have to have some way to put them under the stress test, under the living wills test. This has to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

If you don't have a trigger, it is not likely to be done, because the banks are going to fight you all the way through the courts and tie you up for years.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. Speaker, how much time does the other gentleman from Texas have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to reemphasize that Chairman Frank is not supporting this bill. I thought that the initial comment would be sufficient, but, again, I will read what Chairman Frank has delivered to us. He indicates that H.R. 3312 significantly increases the need for subjective judgments by the regulators and very much weakens the ability of financial institutions to rely on clear rules to guide their decisionmaking. Chairman Frank does not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not before the House because banks are losing money. Banks are making record profits: $171 billion last year. The big banks, a 4.8 percent growth rate; and community banks, an 8.3 percent growth rate.

This bill is before the House because the big banks want to again get back to business as usual, which will allow them to do many of the things that brought this economy to its knees.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, we have 30 banks with assets in excess of $5 trillion. These banks have been designated as SIFIs for a reason. They ought to have to let the regulators know how they can be wound down in the event there is a crisis in the economy. They ought to undergo stress tests.

If a consumer wants a loan, the consumer has to demonstrate creditworthiness. If banks of this size are going to remain in business, they ought to let us know what their liquidity is and be required to have a certain amount of liquidity that will cause them to stay in business, even when we are faced with a crisis. They ought to be tested for their creditworthiness. That is what we currently have.

If the $50 billion threshold is released, then they will be placed under the designation of SIFI only by regulators; and MetLife is proof positive that it is difficult, if not impossible, to do.

AIG went under simply because it was already known to be a systemically important institution.

Mr. Speaker, we must defeat this bill. I call on my colleagues to vote against it. It is a big-bank-bonus bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind my colleague that he will have another chance to vote on impeachment and to ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, again, I express my gratitude for the opportunity to speak from the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is some misinformation being accorded the American people. Misinformation because there seems to be a belief among those who are pushing a tax plan that will put us an additional $1.5 trillion, more or less, in debt. There seems to be the notion being pushed that somehow by giving major corporations major breaks, these major corporations will make a major concession and they will move major amounts of dollars down to those who work at the very lower levels of their businesses: those who clean the floors. Those who are there, they are called the night crew, and they make it possible for those who come in, in the daylight, to have a clean office and a better work environment.

There seems to be a notion that somehow there will be a trickle down to them. I don't see the empirical evidence to support this position. I encourage my friends who believe in trickle down to move to bubble up and allow the minimum wage to be raised. Raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage.

If you can get it to those at the top, why not assure those at the bottom some degree of benefit from the $1.5 trillion?

You but only have to decide that you will make a part of this tax bill a raise in the minimum wage. Make it so. You can do it. And if you should do it, you will find that there will be some people who will appreciate the fact that you didn't just look out for those at the top, that you also decided that you were going to take care of those at the bottom.

Finally this, Mr. Speaker, to those who believe that people will pull themselves up by bootstraps that they don't have, please know this:

Dear brothers and sisters: People who are poor cannot do more with less. There is a belief that if you are rich, you need more to do more. But if you are poor, you can do more with less. If poor people could do more with less, there would be no poor people.

Let's take care of those at the bottom. Let the system bubble up, as opposed to trickle down.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I enjoy the preeminent privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I do not take lightly the opportunity that the people of this country have afforded me.

Mr. Speaker, the topic that I will address today is not the one that I had in mind when contemplating this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I have been moved by the words of a father--a father who spoke this morning on national television; a father who talked about his daughter and how his daughter had been a victim of bigotry; a father who talked about how his daughter had been spoken of in terms that were untrue; and a father who had been led to believe, he himself, that his daughter could be changed.

He went to various professionals to try to seek help because his daughter was a lesbian, and they discovered that this was who she was, Mr. Speaker. This was not some charade, not some facade, not some disease, this was who she was. This is who God created, Mr. Speaker.

And the saddest part of this story, Mr. Speaker, is that it doesn't have a happy ending. Because of bigotry and the way people have been misled, this daughter took her life.

I literally had tears well up in my eyes as I heard the story. I am saddened by what happened, and I am saddened to know that a person associated with that bigotry may find his way to the Senate of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, people ask: What harm does it do to allow bigotry to emanate from the highest offices in this country?

There is some of your evidence, Mr. Bigotry, and those who perpetrate it. There is some of your evidence of how it can be harmful.

But there is more evidence.

When you speak ill of people who are exercising their constitutional right to protest, and you call their mothers dogs when you call them SOBs, you are creating harm to society, especially when it emanates from the highest office in the land.

What harm does it cause to society when you associate the majesty and the dignity of the Presidency with those who would go to Charlottesville screaming ``blood and soil,'' proclaiming, ``Jews will not replace us.'' When you associate the majesty and the dignity of the Presidency with these people, you are doing harm to society, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question that has been posed. It is a question that I think is a fair one and ought to be answered. Here is the answer. You will surmise what the question is by virtue of my giving the answer. The answer is: there will be another vote to impeach this President. There will be another vote because I will not stand by and watch this country, the country I love, be brought into shame and disrepute because of a person who is unfit to hold the office of President.

Mr. Speaker, history will judge us all. For those who find that this is unacceptable and unbearable, I am sorry, but the country is greater than we are. Government of the people, by the people, is greater than we are. Maintaining and saving the Republic is greater than we are, in one sense, but, in another sense, it really is who we are.

I have a tie on that says: We, the people. We, the people, we are the ones who can make a difference. There will be another vote.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I enjoy the preeminent privilege of speaking from the well of the House of Representatives. I am so honored to have this great opportunity.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge that, yesterday, a historic event took place right here in this House. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 58 persons voted to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, that is 57 more than a good many people anticipated.

Mr. Speaker, there are some who would have the event be nothing more than a footnote in history. Some would just have it be a nonevent. But, Mr. Speaker, it won't happen. It will not be just a footnote. It won't be a nonevent.

Mr. Speaker, this event will be looked upon by scholars as they look through time to understand what happened at this time. They will ponder it and find that those 58 persons were the first 58 to vote to impeach Donald John Trump--the first 58, not the last 58, Mr. Speaker. There will be another opportunity for us to remove Donald John Trump from the Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, when I took my vote yesterday, I voted for a lot of constituents. I just want to single out a few.

I voted for the man who stood on a corner under a bridge, cup in his hand, asking for help. When he saw me, he had a big smile on his face. I voted for him because his words to me, paraphrasing, were: I am so proud of what you are doing with that impeachment. This is a man standing in the streets of life, who sleeps in the streets of life.

I voted for the person who was on a serving line at a cafeteria--I eat in cafeterias quite regularly--who said: Right on; keep on.

I voted for the woman who saw me at church and said: Al Green, you are a troublemaker, but don't you stop until you impeach Trump.

Mr. Speaker, I voted for people who would never have this preeminent privilege that they have accorded me to stand here in the well of the Congress. I am not going to let them down, Mr. Speaker.

This was round one. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I don't give out, I don't give up, and I don't give in. I know that I am on the right side of righteousness, and I am going to stay there.

Here is where I stand. I will not be moved.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am honored to be accorded the privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the American poet, Robert Frost, penned a poem with the words: ``Two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the one less traveled. . . . ''

Mr. Speaker, in a metaphorical sense today, sometime after noon, shortly after 12 p.m., I will take the road less traveled.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that no one take this journey with me. I am absolutely convinced that this is a road worth traveling, but I have not asked that others travel this road and will not.

Mr. Speaker, after noon today, I will present Articles of Impeachment. There are many who want to know: What is next? What will happen after there is a vote?

Mr. Speaker, I will satiate those concerns after the vote. But I will take the road less traveled, and I believe that it will make all the difference.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am accorded the preeminent privilege of addressing the House. I consider this one of the great honors of my life to be able to address the House of Representatives.

Today, after this 1-minute speech, Mr. Speaker, I will present a privileged resolution.

I want to thank the many persons, especially my staff, who have assisted in the drafting and crafting of this resolution. I am grateful to the many persons who have supported me in many ways.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high misdemeanors.

Resolved, that Donald John Trump, President of the United States is unfit to be President and is impeached for high misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of itself and of the people of the United States, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high misdemeanors committed as President constituting harm to American society to the manifest injury of the people of the United States:

Article I.

In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in White supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, White nationalism, or neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions:

On August 15, 2017, Donald John Trump made a widely published statement characterizing a group of anti-Semites, bigots, racists, White nationalists, and Ku Klux Klansmen who rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, as ``very fine people.''

On August 7, 2017, hate groups returned to 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 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.

On November 29, 2017, Donald John Trump shared three videos posted by a leader of a British political party considered by many to be an extremist group. The videos purported to show various violent acts committed by Muslims and were entitled: ``Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!''; ``Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!''; and ``Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!''. The clearly inferable intent of the post was to demonstrate the alleged propensity of Muslim immigrants to engage in violent acts. Even if the videos showed what they purport to show, in sharing these videos with his 43,800,000 followers on Twitter, Donald John Trump's dissemination of such material evinces an invidious intent to create division within American society.

In all of this, the aforementioned Donald John Trump, by his statements, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignities and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony, respect, and courtesies necessary for stability within the society of the United States, has undermined the integrity of his office, has sown discord among the people of the United States, has brought disrepute, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace on the Presidency, has acted in a manner antithetical to the cause of a just society, has betrayed his trust as President to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and committed a high misdemeanor in office.

Therefore, Donald John Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Article II.

In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office, of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and respect necessary for stability within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than simply insult individuals and groups of Americans. He has harmed the American society by publicly casting contempt on individuals and groups, inciting hate and hostility, sowing discord among the people of the United States, on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender and sexual orientation, on one or more of the following occasions:

On January 27, 2017, Donald John Trump issued Executive Order 13769 providing for a partial shutdown of immigration from mainly Muslim