Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am always grateful to have this preeminent privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that three prominent Democrats have asked to meet with me to discuss impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I will meet with them in my office, and here is what I will say:

I will tell them that impeachment is not about Democrats. It is not about Republicans. I will tell them it is about democracy. It is about government of the people, by the people, for the people. I will tell them that it is about the Republic and that it is about what Franklin said: We have a Republic, if we can keep it.

I will tell them that I refuse to sit on the sidelines while the world is considering one of the greatest issues of our time. I will tell them that I will continue to be a part of this great debate.

I will tell them these words I have heard, but I do not know the origin of. I will tell them that if a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured, however far away.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell them that tomorrow we will bring Articles of Impeachment to the floor of the Congress of the United States of America for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for this opportunity. I greatly appreciate any opportunity to stand here in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because I do love my country. I rise because I want persons to know that there are certain things that are not being presented properly, and one of the things that is not being presented properly as it relates to impeachment is the notion that a President has to commit a crime to be impeached. I would like to talk about this for a moment and then address some of the issues associated with impeachment.

A President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America is where we find information, if you will, on impeachment. It is stated in Article II, section 4 that a President can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that a misdemeanor is defined as a misdeed. There is a definition associated with criminology, but when the Framers of the Constitution decided that impeachment would be a remedy for a President who might be styled a runaway President, they decided that ``misdemeanor'' would mean misdeed.

In fact, we have had a President impeached for a misdeed. Andrew Johnson, in 1868, President, was impeached for the high misdemeanor, misdeed, if you will, of saying things that were unkind about Congress.

He committed no crime. He breached no statute. He spoke ill will of Congress, and as such, he was impeached in article X of the Articles of Impeachment that were placed against him.

I would like to share some intelligence from some others who have spoken on this issue.

Gene Healy has spoken on the issue. He is with the Cato Institute, and his article is styled ``The Overcriminalization of Impeachment.'' In this article, he states explicitly, on the second page, for whose who might have a copy of it--I have filed this with the House previously--``Impeachable offenses aren't limited to crimes.'' He indicates that that is settled quite well among constitutional scholars.

He also goes on to say: ``Had the Framers restricted impeachment to statutory offenses, they'd have rendered the power a `nullity' from the start.''

In the early Republic, there were very few crimes, and certainly not enough to cover the range of misdeeds--important word, ``misdeeds''-- that would rightly disqualify public officials from continued service-- misdeeds, misdemeanors.

He goes on to say that it is important to get this straight because confusing impeachment with a criminal process can be harmful to our political health. It may lead us to stretch criminal law to get the President or his associates warping its future applications to ordinary citizens.

It is important that we get this straight because a crime, obviously, can be an impeachable offense, but it can also be something that a person is not impeached for, a President is not impeached for, depending upon the severity, I suppose. But a President can also be impeached for the misdeeds committed while in office.

One of the things that Mr. Healy addresses that I would like to point out that is important as it relates to why we have this belief that a President must be impeached for a crime is this: unfortunately, we have outsourced the investigative function associated with impeachment to some other body, to some independent agency, to the Justice Department, if you will. In so doing, we have given the impression that this is something that involves a crime.

But the Framers of the Constitution thought long and hard about this, and they saw that there could be the appearance of impropriety, if we allowed the executive branch to investigate itself in the sense that the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch.

So do you really want the executive branch investigating the President, who is the chief executive officer?

There are times, such as what we have now, when you have the executive outsourcing the actual investigation to a third party. And my suspicion is that this can work quite well, but we should not conclude that because it is working, that because there is some functionality that seems to be positive for some, negative for others, that because it appears to be working that this is the only way that it can be done.

We shouldn't conclude that at the end of an investigation, if there is no finding of criminality, that an impeachment cannot go forward. Because notwithstanding the findings of a special investigator, or a special body that is assigned the task of investigating, we should not conclude that if there is not a finding of criminality that we cannot go forward with an impeachment.

As a matter of fact, we can go forward with an impeachment while a body is performing this function, while a body is investigating. We can go forward before there is an investigation by a body. We can go forward after there is an investigation.

The House of Representatives is the place where impeachment takes place. Any Member of the House of Representatives can bring Articles of Impeachment, and these Articles of Impeachment will have to be brought before the entirety of the House of Representatives. Impeachment is not limited to crimes committed, and a Member can bring Articles of Impeachment based upon the harm that a President is imposing upon society by virtue of the President's acts, behavior, or misdeeds, if you will. The President can be impeached without committing a crime.

I had the good fortune of being on a program with Chris Hayes last night. He is the host. He mentioned an article that is written by Ezra Klein. It is styled, ``The case for normalizing impeachment. Impeaching an unfit President has consequences. But leaving one in office could be worse.''

In this article that he has written, on the very last page he indicates that--by the way, I would commend this to persons to read in its entirety, but I am, for need of time, going to limit myself to excerpts. He indicates that: ``Impeachment is not a power we should take lightly; nor is it one we should treat as too explosive. There will be Presidents who are neither criminals, nor mental incompetents but who are wrong for the role, who pose a danger to the country and the world.''

This is true. It can happen. I will say more about the possibilities in just a moment. Then there is the article from The Times, a U.K. newspaper, that I would commend to persons, and it indicates that ``MPs accuse Donald Trump of `spreading evil' over Britain First retweets.''

This is an article that I highly commend because it speaks of how things can extend beyond our borders that start within our borders. I will read some of the excerpts.

It reads: ``The Prime Minister said that Britain First, whose Twitter post the President retweeted, was a `hateful organization' that `seeks to spread division and mistrust among communities.'

``She said the group stood in opposition to Britain, British values of respect, tolerance, and decency, and stressed that British Muslims were `peaceful, law-abiding people who have themselves been victims of attack, of terror by the far right.' ''

She went on to indicate, serving notice to Mr. Trump, that she would not shy away from tackling him if she thought these actions--excuse me--if she thought his actions misguided. She said: ``The fact that we work together does not mean that we are afraid to say when we think the United States has got it wrong. And to be very clear with them, I am very clear that retweeting from Britain First was the wrong thing to do.''

We have been criticized greatly for the retweet that was inaccurate, a retweet that, quite frankly, could have been vetted. When you are the President of the United States of America, you have access to intelligence about things happening around the world. You can validate, you can verify, you can vet things that are presented to you. The President has access to the greatest intelligence operation in the world and could easily vet before tweeting.

The information that was retweeted was not entirely correct, and it was hateful. It was designed to incite hate and it should not be the kind of thing that a President should retweet.

I would like to also read the style of an article from Foreign Policy. This article is styled, ``This Is How Every Genocide Begins.'' This is by Daniel Altman. He indicates that Donald Trump's retweeting anti-Muslim propaganda videos in the most un-American--excuse me just a moment, please. I seem to be catching something. So please tolerate me if you would, Mr. Speaker. I thank the person who brought the elixir of life, water, over to me.

Again, Donald Trump's retweeting of anti-Muslim propaganda videos is the most un-American thing he has done as President. And he goes on to explain that we have to remove this President and his administration as soon as possible. We have to do it by legal means, upholding the foundations of our democracy.

We cannot expect help from the President's silent Cabinet, or his toadies in Congress who seem more interested in maintaining their own power than saying a word against him. We have to use the only branch of government left to us, the courts.

Now, he and I differ on this point. I do believe we can still bring Articles of Impeachment, but he concludes by saying this: The President is trying to generate panic against Muslims in America--and I am reparaphrasing--clearly putting them at risk of mob violence. He says he hopes that he will face the full force of the law before it is too late.

I might also go back a page or two and read this from this article. He indicates that the first thing that is done when we are going to move toward some sort of mob violence is to target a group by demonizing it by a campaign of hateful information.

He goes on to say: This is presented as legitimate information by people in positions of trust.

This article, I commend to persons as well.

Now, moving forward to our current situation. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a President who is unmindful of the high duties of his high office, a President who is unmindful of the dignities and proprieties thereof, a President who has brought shame and disrepute upon the Presidency, who has breached his trust as President to the manifest injury of American society, such that he creates hate and hostility, this President who sows these seeds of discord, this kind of President should be impeached.

It is my opinion that a President who demeans a Member of Congress, as one example; who indicates that a Member of Congress performing duties as a Member of Congress, duties that were associated with a constituent, that such a Member of Congress is wacky; a President saying that a Member of Congress is wacky creates circumstances for the Member of Congress that are, to be very kind, quite unpleasant.

A President doing this to a Member of Congress has caused a great deal of concern. The Member of Congress has had threats made. The Member of Congress has had to take on extra security with great care and protect the staff. This is the kind of thing that we don't expect a Member of Congress to have to endure as a result of something a President might say.

A President who indicates that there will be a ban on Muslims coming into our country, a President should not single out a religious group and indicate that they should be banned from a country. In doing this, the President singles out people such that those who are of ill will will look upon them as persons to be treated with some degree of disrespect and even horror.

A President who talks about persons who have signed up to serve in our military and who have not done anything dishonorable, but who says that, because they are transgender persons, they are persons who are not acceptable in the military, this sends a signal to people that incites people to believe that the President sees these persons as less than persons who should be in the military, persons who should be treated in some way other than respectful as members of the military.

A President who calls the mothers of persons who are professional athletes--SOBs is the term that was used; the ``B'' meaning that those persons were dogs, the mothers; calling them, the athletes themselves, sons of dogs--such a President is a person who is sowing seeds of discord. Such a President is a person who is inciting people to behave in a manner such that they would be antithetical to those persons who are the sons of persons that he had labeled as dogs. This is inappropriate behavior for a President.

A President who concludes that persons who are members of the KKK, persons who are neo-Nazis, call themselves supremacists. Such persons, when they are said to be very fine people, is a means of legitimizing people who are hateful, who are bigots, persons who have ill will for others in society simply because of who the others are. A President should not legitimize them by calling them very fine people.

This is a President who believes that the people of a given country who are subjects of the United States of America, but a President who indicates that these people want others to do things for them that they should be doing for themselves, or that they are a drain on the budget because they have been the victims of a force of nature.

A President who says these kinds of things sends a signal that indicates that these persons are not persons who are the best that we have in American society, because they are citizens. Puerto Ricans are citizens. A President who does this is a President who is sowing seeds of mistrust and sowing seeds of discord.

A President should not sow seeds of mistrust and discord. A President ought to be a unifying force within a country. A President ought to be the person whom we look to for some sense of stability. A President ought to be about the business of keeping a country together rather than creating chasms within various persons and groups within a society.

This is what young people expect of a President--young people who are witnessing a President do things that bring about distrust and sow the seeds of discord are seeing something that is unusual and something that is not normal. We don't want them to assume that what they are seeing is the norm. As a matter of fact, we need to let them know that this is not the norm.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that these kinds of activities that create hate and hostility and that sow seeds of discord are impeachable.

These are the kinds of things that the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

This is what Alexander Hamilton had in mind when he penned Federalist No. 65. Hamilton so much as indicated that impeachment would create a lot of discord within society. The act itself, he indicated, could be very partisan. He indicated that there would be rancor--probably not in that specific term--but he indicated that people would be discombobulated to a great extent.

In so doing, he also went on to let us know that it is something that is necessary. It is something that has to happen when you have a President who has committed misdeeds such that that President can be removed from office, and it does not have to be for a crime.

This is something that constitutional scholars recognize, but it is also something that some people, for whatever reasons, do not acknowledge. They don't acknowledge it for reasons that I will allow them to explain. But the constitutional scholars, who have delved into this to levels that most people don't have, acknowledged that Presidents don't have to be impeached for crimes only.

As a matter of fact, in 1804, John Pickering, a Federal judge, was subject to impeachment. He was impeached, and he committed no crime that was noted in the Articles of Impeachment. He was impeached for being intemperate. As I indicated earlier, and I think some things bear repeating, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868. In the 10th article of the Articles of Impeachment, it was alleged that he demeaned Congress. He said bad things about Congress, and, as a result, he was impeached.

Now, no President has been convicted. Impeachment is within the province of the House of Representatives. If a majority of the Members vote to impeach, a President is then impeached, and the action moves to the Senate where there is a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the President is found guilty, then the President is impeached and can be removed from office. The impeachment is validated, and the President can be removed from office.

But impeachment is something that occurs in the House of Representatives. It is something that each Member can bring before the House of Representatives. It is a responsibility that a Member of Congress can assume by virtue of being a Member of Congress in concluding that a President has committed impeachable offenses.

These impeachable offenses need not be crimes. I keep emphasizing this because really that is what this time is to be used efficaciously for. We want people to know, in no uncertain terms, that a President does not have to commit crimes to be impeached, that any of the 435 Members of the House of Representatives can bring Articles of Impeachment before the body, and that when these Articles of Impeachment are brought before the body, the House has to act.

How does the House have to act? The House of Representatives will allow the articles to be read once. Once they are read, there is a time set for them to be read a second time. I read Articles of Impeachment earlier, and I chose not to read them the second time. As a result, they were not read, and as a result of not being read, the articles were not acted upon by the body.

This is something every Member can do. By the way, when I did it, I did it as a result of my conscious decision to do so without any influence from any person on the planet Earth. It was a decision that was made before I came without any influence from any person. I am saying this with the emphasis that I place upon it, Mr. Speaker, because there is some misinformation. I am not offended by the misinformation, I just want to correct the record. These things get confused, and I understand it. Most people are not familiar with how this process works.

Moving along, once the time is set for the second reading, the articles are read the second time; and, thereafter, the articles may be voted up or down or there may be a request made that the articles be sent to a committee. If so, if a majority of the body concludes that they should go to committee, then they will, or there could be a motion or a request made to table the articles. If they are tabled, they will be tabled and likely not brought back before the body again. But if they are allowed to be voted up or down, if a majority of the Members conclude that impeachment is appropriate and say so by their vote, saying yes by their vote, then the President would be impeached, and it would go to the Senate. In the Senate, you would have to have a two- thirds vote to convict.

But if the request is to table the Articles of Impeachment, then those who do not favor impeachment can vote to table, because if you vote to table and that is successful, then you don't have to vote to impeach.

Those who do not favor impeachment can vote to have the articles sent to the Judiciary Committee. If they don't favor impeachment, then you can vote to send it to the Judiciary Committee, and there won't be a vote on impeachment.

There can be other reasons. I don't want to conclude that the only reason that a person would vote to table is because a person doesn't want to vote to impeach, but these are the reasons that are ostensibly viewed as reasons for not voting for these various motions that can be made.

If I bring Articles of Impeachment, my desire will be to have the articles voted up or down. If they are voted up or down, that would accord everyone an opportunity to show the world where they stand on the question before the House, which, of course, would be impeachment. If a motion is made to table or a request to table, then I would vote against that because I support impeachment. If a motion is made to send to committee, I will vote against this because I favor impeachment.

This is important not only to me, but to my country. This is not about Democrats. It really is not. It is about the democracy. It is about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is about the Republic. It is not about Republicans. It is about whether we will be able to retain the Republic that we have. Many will recall that Franklin called to our attention that we have a republic when he addressed a certain person and indicated that you have ``a republic, if you can keep it.''

This is about keeping the Republic, Mr. Speaker. It is not about Democrats, and it is not about Republicans. It is about them in the sense that they are part of the House and they all have an opportunity to cast votes, but it is really not about something as simple as politics as usual.

This is something to be taken seriously. I do take it seriously. It is something that the country is monitoring. The country, when polled, indicates its position on impeachment, and that position has been at 40 percent, some a little bit above and some below, depending on who is polling and how you poll, I suppose. But the country is aware of what is going on. People are paying attention, and we do have a duty to bring before this body what we, in good conscious, believe is appropriate. ``Good conscious'' is a good term. I believe in good conscious that there is a time to bring impeachment before this body.

I repeat, I believe in good conscious that there is a time to bring impeachment before this body. I have expressed my position, and it is no secret. People know where I stand. People know that, as a Member of the Congress of the United States of America, I have made the position quite public. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, people know what my position is. They know that I have been straightforward. I have not been nebulous. I have not been shy. I believe what I say, and I say what I believe.

I believe that this country should not allow discord to emanate from the highest office in the land. I believe that this country should not allow the chief executive officer to incite hate and should not allow the chief executive officer to incite hostility. I believe that the chief executive officer ought to be a unifying force in a great country. I believe that if America is going to continue its greatness and move forward without persons who are labeled as wacky or persons being seen as less than other Americans by virtue of their religious practices or because of their sexuality, I believe that we have a duty when we believe that there is an impeachable offense, then we should bring this before the Congress of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to serve the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas. The Ninth Congressional District of Texas is in Houston. I am honored to serve the people of Houston as well as Missouri City and Stafford. I am honored to serve, but I am a United States Congressman, and the Constitution of the United States of America addresses all of the people within the United States of America. So when I bring my views to the floor, when I stand in the well and make my comments, I am speaking for the people of the Ninth Congressional District. But I am also speaking for a good many people of the United States of America, and a good many people in the United States of America are of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that impeachment is not only appropriate but necessary.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that next week here in the Congress of the United States of America, I will bring Articles of Impeachment to present to this body such that Donald J. Trump will be impeached.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 17 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, December 4, 2017, at 6 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, because I refuse to stand idly by as a billionaire bigot does irreparable harm to my country--a billionaire bigot who tolerates the KKK but won't tolerate Islam; a billionaire bigot who tolerates anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and homophobia.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the consequences will be, but I do know this: the people who sent me here sent me to this Congress to fight hate, not to tolerate, not to mitigate, but to eliminate hate. The people I represent have an expectation of me.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the vote will be, but I do know this: Next week, there will be a vote to impeach. Next week, there will be a resolution brought before the Congress, and there will be a vote to either table it, send it to committee, or vote it up or down.

That is what the people I represent expect me to do, and I will do no less.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, to quote a great American poet and civil rights leader, a great writer, a noble American, ``And Still I Rise.''

And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. I rise to take a stand on behalf of the many people who suffer harm as a result of those who incite hate. Anyone who incites hate is a person that ought to be called upon to either stop it or be removed from a position such that they can harm society.

So I rise today to take a stand against those who would incite the bigot to practice bigotry, those who would incite the racist to practice racism, the sexist to practice sexism; the

homophobe to practice homophobia, the anti-Semite to practice anti- Semitism, the Islamophobe to practice Islamophobia.

There are those who think that hate can wait, Mr. Speaker. I am not one of them. When hate emanates from the highest office in the land, when hate emanates from a person who has more power than any other person in the world, when hate emanates from the Presidency, the solution is impeachment.

Impeachment will be voted on before Christmas. I rise to stand against hate.

Mr. Speaker, I always acknowledge the preeminent privilege to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. It is a unique opportunity accorded few in a country of millions. So I am honored to stand here, Mr. Speaker.

I love my country, but I must say, Mr. Speaker, I stand here with profound disbelief--profound disbelief--because I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate of the United States of America is considering removing 13 million people from insurance in a tax bill.

The Senate is proposing in a tax bill--that can't solve all of our problems, by the way--that 13 million people lose healthcare--13 million people without a primary care physician.

Perhaps not all, but it is fair to assume that millions will not have a primary care physician. Millions will no longer get the preventive care that can save dollars as well as lives. Millions will find themselves in emergency rooms receiving primary care.

I cannot believe that the Senate of the United States of America, in a tax bill, would remove 13 million people from the insurance rolls and, in so doing, acquire $338 billion. The $338 billion is not going to deficit reduction. The $338 billion will go to line the pockets of people who can afford the best healthcare that the world can provide.

It is hard to believe that, in the richest country in the world, Mr. Speaker, we are about to move from healthcare to sickness care. Healthcare provides preventive care. Sickness care, Mr. Speaker, means that you show up at an emergency room.

By the way, that $338 billion that is claimed as a savings--we will spend more than that on emergency room services for the 13 million--or the millions, whatever that number may happen to be--who are going to emergency rooms. We will spend it. People are going to get care. They won't get the best care.

We have, in the richest country in the world, concluded that we can take healthcare from those who dearly need it and provide wealthcare for those who already have it. Why would we put wealthcare above healthcare in the richest country in the world? I cannot believe that this is happening in the United States of America.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that if the Senate can do this, then the House will follow suit. The House will pick up that language, some variation of it, if not the exact language. We will find that, in the House, we will be voting to eliminate insurance for 13 million people.

Mr. Speaker, our country is better than this. Our country is a country that cares for every person where, yes, we will care for the well-off, the well-heeled, and the well-to-do. Yes. But we also care for the least, the last, and the lost. In this country, we care about people, and we want every person to have the best healthcare.

So I suffer from disbelief. I am thunderstruck. I cannot imagine the Senate removing 13 million people from healthcare to provide wealthcare for a few.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to speak here in the well of the House of the Congress of the United States of America. I do want to compliment you, Madam Speaker. I heard your statements earlier, and I would like to associate myself with the portion of your statement that dealt with transgender persons.

Madam Speaker, I stand before the world today with an impeachment update. I have previously indicated that

there will be a vote on an impeachment resolution before Christmas. I stand by this. To this end, I will be meeting with appropriate members of House leadership this week to discuss the notification process. I want people to understand how this process works.

I will have the opportunity to read the Articles of Impeachment from the well of the House. After this is done, there will be a time set for me to present them again before the House. It must be done twice. When that time is set, I will have to be notified of the time. I don't set the time. I have to respond at the appropriate time. For me to respond at the appropriate time, appropriate notice has to be given to me.

This is why I will be meeting with House leadership so that we can discuss the means by which appropriate notice will be given to me. We want to make sure there is no confusion about this process and no confusion as to how the notice is to be accorded to me.

I will meet with leadership to ascertain how the appropriate notice will be accorded to me so that I may present the Articles of Impeachment a second time so that, thereafter, there will be a vote on these Articles of Impeachment.

Because the system is such that it can be difficult to understand how people have actually voted, I want you to know that those who vote with me and those who are supportive of advancing the cause of impeachment, I will be proud to announce who they are, and I will give Members further updates as to how this will take place.

But I want to assure every American that this vote on Articles of Impeachment will take place before Christmas, and that this vote will be about the incitement of hate, about how the country is being pushed back, and how America is better than the direction that someone seeks to push us forward into.

This is a great country, and we cannot tolerate hate. This may be one of the few times in the history of the country that persons will be given the opportunity to take a stand against hate by casting the appropriate vote in the Congress of the United States of America.

I will give future updates on impeachment from this podium. I am always honored to stand in the well of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chair of the committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the legislation. I am opposed to it because it does not give hardworking Americans the same consideration that we will accord persons who are making billions and we will accord corporations.

Corporations are going to get great tax cuts, billionaires are going to get tax cuts. We will eliminate the estate tax, we will eliminate the AMT for billionaires, but we are not going to give hardworking Americans the opportunity to get the relief that they need with reference to the $20 billion worth of debt that the NFIP currently has.

If we don't eliminate that debt now, premiums will go up on hardworking Americans. Hardworking Americans won't be able to afford premiums, and many of them won't be able to afford homes. This is not the way to treat people who work hard and pay their taxes.

If we can give tax breaks to corporations and billionaires, we can afford to reduce this debt on the NFIP so that hardworking Americans can afford homes. It really is that simple.

Five years without another bill: this is our last chance. We can't pass this chance up so that we can take care of billionaires and corporations at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country. Mr. Speaker, because I love my country, I rise to thank those who voted to reject bigotry, racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, sexism, and hatred in all of its forms, Mr. Speaker. I rise to thank them for what they did when they voted to reject these things.

Mr. Speaker, because I love my country and because I cannot accept these things, I refuse to accept hatred. I refuse to acquiesce to any forms of bigotry. Mr. Speaker, because I rise to reject these things, I now announce that before Christmas there will be a vote on the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism; there will be a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, on the impeachment of the President.

Mr. Speaker, this vote will take place before Christmas because there still is a need for the public to weigh in. I announced earlier this year, I called for the impeachment of the President right here on the floor of the House. Since that time, I have read Articles of Impeachment. These Articles of Impeachment have been circulated, and we are giving people an opportunity to respond.

Momentum is building, Mr. Speaker. The momentum is building. More people favor impeachment than not. Momentum is building. People should weigh in. They should let others know how they feel about impeachment. They should let others know how they feel about the chief inciter of all of these ugly actions by way of persons responding to the chief inciter.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to say this vote will take place, but I am also proud to say something else. I am proud to say that I am an American, and while I have been told that there are political consequences for what I will do, I accept the consequences. I accept the consequences because I was not born in Congress. I wasn't born to be a Congressman. I am a child of God.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to come to Congress and acquiesce to bigotry and hatred. I am proud to announce that this vote will take place and people will be able to vote to table the Articles of Impeachment. They will be able to vote to reject them, or support them, or they will be able to vote to send them to a committee.

Whatever others will do is their choice. My conscience dictates that I will vote to impeach. Let others do what they may. History will judge us all. I pray, Mr. Speaker, that this country will continue to reject what the inciter in chief, Donald J. Trump, has been causing this country to have to endure.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House and have the opportunity to speak to not only the Members of Congress, but to the American people.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise because I am in opposition to a tax plan that has been said to eliminate loopholes, but has not done so.

Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. I will address but one loophole. I will address the loophole that allowed a person who made $3 billion one year--by the way, I don't begrudge him for making $3 billion. I like to see people make as much as they can make in this country, but I also think that every person ought to pay for his or her fair taxes on whatever they earn. This person made $3 billion.

How much is $3 billion?

Well, let me explain. Mr. Speaker, $3 billion, it would take a minimum-wage worker working full time, Mr. Speaker, 198,000 years to make $3 billion; 198,000 years. I don't begrudge a person for making it, but here is the point: if you make it, you ought to pay your fair share of taxes on it.

This country makes it possible for us to do great things. This country makes it possible for us to succeed. So if you have succeeded in this country, you ought to contribute to the country itself. He made $3 billion and paid taxes that were called carried interest. He did not pay ordinary income taxes. In fact, he paid less than half of what a person making much less--persons who may have worked for him, maybe a secretary, maybe somebody who was making money at a much lower level in that company--paid less than half in taxes in terms of the amount to be paid, the percentage of the earnings; less than half of the ordinary income tax.

It is called carried interest. Well, the commitment was that you were going to close loopholes. You haven't closed that loophole. You haven't eliminated that loophole. I know that there is talk about reducing the size of a big loophole and making it a little less big, but that is not what you promised. You said you were going to eliminate the loopholes. This loophole sends a signal to ordinary Americans who are working hard every day. It says to them that you are willing to allow the rich to have more to do more, but you believe that those who work hard every day can do more with less.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse that philosophy. I reject it. I believe that if you are working hard every day, if you are earning middle class wages, you ought to be able to get the tax break promised. I don't think that the tax break should go to the person who can make $3 billion and pay less than half of ordinary income tax on it.

Carried interest was a commitment that was made. The elimination of carried interest has not taken place. You have not kept your word. There are many other aspects of it. You can't talk about all of them in one message. But you can do this: you can make it clear to working class people, to middle-income people, that this tax plan is for those who are going to make the carried interest kind of money, the $3 billion, the money that will allow them to go on and do great things, but won't cause them to have to pay their fair share of taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in fairness for all, and that includes the very, very rich.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am honored to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America, although I am sad to bring the news that I shall share with you.

I am saddened by something that has happened in this Congress. The big banks are making big bucks. They are doing very well, and they just received a big bonus from Congress.

The big bonus is this: if you do business with them, you will have to participate in arbitration, and you won't be allowed to sue them to resolve your dispute by way of litigation. Congress has decided that the big banks making the big bucks can force you to go to arbitration, and you will have to pay a fee to negotiate your way through the arbitration process. I think that there is something wrong with this picture.

There is something wrong with this picture when we realize that one bank--and I will just single one out, I won't go through all of the entirety of the industry, but one bank, Wells Fargo, one bank, opened 3.5 million accounts in the names of persons without their consent. In the names of customers, 3.5 million accounts without the consent of customers.

This one bank, Wells Fargo, paid $185 million as a part of the resolution. This one bank, Wells Fargo, paid $80 million for enrolling customers into auto insurance that they didn't need. One bank, Wells Fargo, paid $2.8 million in refunds to customers. One bank, Wells Fargo, in 2012, illegally foreclosed on servicemembers' homes and autos--one bank, Wells Fargo--and for this, they paid $311 million. This was about $125,000 per servicemember.

So we find ourselves in a circumstance where banks that do these ugly things to customers won't have to go to court. They won't have to face a jury. They will simply require the customer to negotiate with them. I find this quite shocking, to be quite frank with you, and I am very saddened by it, because I know that, if you take from the bank, you will go to court. But, apparently, Congress has concluded that, if the bank takes from you, you go to the bank and negotiate.

It is a sad state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House, and I am honored to do so today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the Honorable Frederica Wilson. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend her not because of her color. She is a person of African ancestry, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't rise to defend her color. I believe that it is not the color of skin but rather the character within that determines the worth of men and women, so I rise to defend her worth. I rise to defend who she is. I rise to defend her integrity, her honor, and her dignity. I rise to defend an honorable woman.

Mr. Speaker, I do so because, in this country, we have allowed public discourse to be degraded to the extent that the President of the United States of America would call a Member of Congress, an honorable woman, wacky. Mr. Speaker, this is not a wacky person. This is a person of honor and integrity and of intellect.

Mr. Speaker, she is a former principal. She didn't just show up in the Congress one day. She was a State representative and a State senator before coming to Congress.

I rise to defend her. I rise to defend her because, Mr. Speaker, it has been said that she is an empty barrel. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that one who has served the country as well and as capable and as able that the maker of that statement would do so. But it says something about the influence that this President is having on people of honor and integrity. It says something about the influence that he is having on society. This is not an empty barrel. She is a person of intellect.

It has been said that she is all hat and no cattle. That is an insult. That is an insult because somehow someone is trying to send a signal that others will receive as a person who is an airhead. She is not an airhead. She is not a person who is all hat and no cattle. She has sponsored meaningful legislation. She has been in a fight to free many young women who have been taken captive. She is tenacious. She doesn't give out, she doesn't give up, she doesn't give in. She is a fighter, and I stand and I rise to defend her.

I do this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that Carlyle is right: ``No lie can live forever.'' She has been lied on, Mr. Speaker.

I do so because I believe that William Cullen Bryant is right: ``Truth, crushed to Earth, shall rise again.'' There are people who have tried to bury the truth about this good woman in an earthly grave of lies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend her because I believe that if we allow one person to go undefended in a circumstance like this, every person is at risk of being treated in a similar fashion. We are in some very difficult times, and many of us don't realize it. We have a person who is at the top who is setting a tone and tenor for the country who is demeaning the dignity and respect that his office commands.

Mr. Speaker, this has to stop. There are those who say wait until the next election. I am not one of them. I believe that the remedy for this kind of behavior and the impact that it is having on society is impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud Member of this House. I am always so honored to know that I have the preeminent privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. There are only 435 people who are elected as Members from the various States who have voting rights in Congress on legislation, who have this privilege, so it is an honor for me to do it. I want people to know that when I stand here, my words are sincere and my efforts are those that I believe can make a difference in the lives of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I called to the attention of the House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment, and I called these Articles of Impeachment to the attention of the House because it is a part of a process. It can be a three-step process, which has been used on multiple occasions in the past, a three-step process that allows the Member to give notice. After the Member gives notice, the Member does not have to allow a vote to take place immediately.

The Member can decide that, rather than have the vote take place within 2 days, the Member can give notice a second time and then allow that process to move forward, and the Speaker can then set a time for the Member to give a final notice, or present the actual Articles of Impeachment.

I have chosen to use the three-step process: initial notice; thereafter to come back before this House, which every Member has the privilege of doing and which has been done before, and again notice the House; and, thereafter, have the articles considered with a final reading.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is any secret that I have indicated that the President should be impeached. It is no secret. I don't think it is any secret that I have indicated that there will be a vote in Congress on Articles of Impeachment.

If perchance I have been misunderstood, allow me to make it perspicuously clear today: there will be a vote. There is a three-step process that we are pursuing. That process will continue when we return. And when we return, I assure everyone there will be a vote.

There has been some confusion. My suspicion is because where there are few facts, there is much speculation, so there has been some confusion about why we didn't go forward yesterday.

So now allow me to make it abundantly clear: no person, no living, breathing child of God influenced my decision to move forward as I have.

Others can give their opinions. No one did. I did not receive an opinion indicating that I should not go forward as I did.

I have made my decision. This is where I stand. If I stand alone, Mr. Speaker, I have no fear of standing alone.

If Rosa Parks could sit alone in a racist Southern town to deal with injustice and bring about some form of justice, surely I can stand alone in the well of the Congress and stand alone on where I stand with impeachment.

If Dr. King could go to jail and write one of the greatest essays on human rights I have ever read, surely I can stand in the well of the Congress--if he could go to jail--and I can extoll and expand upon why I believe we have to move forward with impeachment.

Finally, this: those of you who bothered to read the Articles of Impeachment, and I beg that you would, because that is why this time is being made available, so that everyone can read it and understand why we are going forward, and those of who you will read them will find that I don't approve of anyone calling mothers dogs. I don't approve of it. I don't approve of it. I don't care who you are. When you say ``SOB,'' you are saying that somebody's mother is a dog. I don't approve of that.

By the way, that is not widely published that that is in the Articles of Impeachment, but it is there. It is there for all to see.

So for those who believe that motherhood is sacred, for those who believe that a President of the United States ought not say ``SOB,'' and you know what it means--I never use the B word. I never use profanity. But I want you to know this: I am going to move forward with those Articles of Impeachment, and motherhood is sacred.

Mr. Speaker, I rise and stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I am always honored that I have this opportunity, and I see it as a preeminent privilege to be able to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

I love my country. I have said it many times right here at this podium. I salute the flag, Mr. Speaker. I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I sing the national anthem. I love my country.

And because I love my country, I can stand here in the well of the House of the United States of America and announce that I support the NFL men, who are professional football players. I can say I support them because I believe in what the flag stands for: liberty and justice for all. I believe in this. And if there is to be liberty and justice for all, the cause that they are part of has to be called to the attention of the American public. I support the NFL players, Mr. Speaker.

To those who say that ``they are so lucky, they are making millions, why don't they just play football, they ought to be happy,'' first, let me comment in this way: They are earning millions. Their bodies are being torn apart, in many cases. They are earning millions. They get concussions. They are earning millions. They suffer after they leave football. They are earning millions. And they are also earning pain as they play a game that amuses many.

So those who say they are making plenty of money and they ought to just go away, I contend that they are not doing it for the money. They are doing it because they understand injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere, as Dr. King put it. They want to eliminate the injustice that they see, and, in so doing, they have decided to take a knee.

I salute the flag. I support my country. I love my country. And I respect what they are doing in the form of peaceful protest to bring about change that ought to have been brought about decades or centuries ago; should have been, but has not been. Yes, we have come a long way, but we sure have a long way to go.

Now, to those who say ``they have earned millions, why aren't they happy,'' well, it is not hush money.

Is that what you are saying, that when they get paid, that is hush money that says that they don't have freedom of speech? Does that check negate their freedom of speech?

I think not. Freedom of speech is something that you cherish, whether you live in a mansion or you live under a bridge. Freedom of speech belongs to you. It doesn't matter your station in life. It doesn't matter your ethnicity. It doesn't matter your religiosity. Freedom of speech belongs to you because you are a child of God and you live in the greatest country in the world.

So I stand in support of the NFL players. I want them to continue. I want them to stand their ground. I want this movement to continue. And I want those who were thwarted to know that you are trying to thwart injustice. When you try to change the subject and make it about something that it is not, you are trying to thwart injustice. Even if you don't do it with intentionality, that is the reality.

We cannot allow injustice to continue. And I thank God that there are those who are making millions, those who are having their bodies abused, who are willing to take a stand by taking a knee against injustice, and they still respect this country and its flag and this anthem.

If there is one among them who has other thoughts, then I don't support that. I support those who have a righteous cause and who are respectful of the country, who can love the flag and still protest. I support that.

I am an American. I was born in the United States of America. I am a patriotic American. I believe in this country. And if you believe in it, you ought to allow peaceful protest to continue, because John F. Kennedy was right when he was paraphrased by Dr. King:

Those who make peaceful protest impossible will make other

forms of protest inevitable.