[Pages H2519-H2522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
                            AUTHORITARIANISM

  (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Green 
of Texas was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. Mr. Speaker, and 
still I

[[Page H2520]]

rise, proud to be an American, proud of what this country stands for. I 
also rise as a person who is censured. I have been censured, but I have 
not been silenced.
  I rise as an unbought, unbossed, unafraid, liberated Democrat. As 
such, I rise to speak on a topic today that I believe to be most 
important to the American people, most important to posterity, most 
important to the direction of the country, most important to who we 
are.
  The topic is about Congress and why Congress is the court of last 
resort for an authoritarian President.
  Let me start by saying this that I think is exceedingly important. 
There are many among us who would manage authoritarianism. They would 
want to find a way to work with it, to become a part of it if it 
benefits them, to make it something that is acceptable to many of the 
people in the classes and, perhaps, some of the people in the masses.
  I am not one of the persons who would do this. I believe that 
authoritarianism, Mr. Speaker, must not be managed. It must be 
eliminated.
  This country was founded upon the basic premise that it would be a 
democratic republic where you elect your Representatives to vote for 
you. This is a democracy. As such, in this democratic republic, I 
choose to stand and fight this movement toward authoritarianism. I 
stand to do so because the greatness of America is not going to be 
found among a very few who have power concentrated in their hands or in 
a single person who has power concentrated in his hands. That is not 
where the greatness of America is achieved.
  The greatness of America is achieved by the people having the power 
and the people making the decisions; by having a Supreme Court that is 
respected, that is honored; by having a judiciary that is respected; by 
having a Congress that is respected; by avoiding what could become 
authoritarianism that metamorphoses into something even greater in harm 
to this country than the authoritarianism that we face today.
  I rise to indicate that Congress is the court of last resort for an 
authoritarian President, and here is why. It is the court of last 
resort because when an authoritarian issues executive orders and 
expects them to be honored, even when the courts disagree; when an 
authoritarian believes that his orders supersede, supplant, if you 
will, the rule of law, supersede what has become commonplace in terms 
of understanding the rule of law in this country; when an authoritarian 
will defy Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, then we have to 
conclude that the Supreme Court may not be the court of last resort as 
it should be for an authoritarian President, someone who is assuming 
power that he should not assume with executive orders that cannot 
change the Constitution.

  When we have a President who, by executive order, believes that he 
can remove people from the country without due process, and when this 
President is told that due process must be accorded people before he 
can take this extreme action, and when this President is told not only 
must there be due process, but if you believe that the court has made a 
ruling that is inappropriate, that the court has made a mistake, you 
must still honor that court order and appeal; that the appellate courts 
will then take charge of what you believe to be an incorrect decision 
by the courts.
  When I see a President saying to the country that a court that has 
issued an order that he does not agree with but contends is 
inappropriate for various and sundry reasons, when I see that President 
say that the judge that issued that order should be impeached, you are 
now moving into authoritarianism.
  When that President then sits with others in his Cabinet and they are 
caught on national TV indicating why they can defy the Federal court's 
orders, after having been told that they have to appeal, after having 
been told that they cannot do what they have done, after having been 
told that they have to facilitate the return of someone that they have 
improperly, and according to what members of this administration have 
said, removed from the country by mistake, then you have to bring that 
person the relief necessary for that person to raise his hand and say, 
You got the wrong person; for that person to say, I want my rights of 
due process under the law in this country.
  We have a President who believes that his executive orders exceed and 
supersede the orders of Federal courts.
  How do I know? I know because he has not returned a person to this 
country that he was told to facilitate the return of such that he could 
receive due process or just facilitate such that this person could get 
due process. It hasn't happened.
  The lower courts have told him at the Federal level, the Supreme 
Court has told him, and the evidence now exists that he understands 
what facilitate means because there was a second person who was removed 
without due process, removed to another country without due process, 
and that person is being brought back because the judge in a Federal 
court said you have to facilitate the return.
  They know what facilitate means. They are just being defiant. They 
are just ignoring the orders of the Federal courts.

                              {time}  1110

  They are flouting the orders of the Supreme Court of the United 
States of America.
  Make no mistake about it: We are now dealing with an authoritarian 
President who I choose not to manage. I choose to eliminate the 
authoritarianism. I don't want us to try to find a way to get along 
with an authoritarian.
  If the Supreme Court cannot manage this authoritarian President to 
the extent that he would cease and desist and obey the Court's orders 
and if an authoritarian President now has total control of the 
Republicans who represent this House and the Senate--total control of 
them--they are not going to be able to do anything because he manages 
their affairs.
  They have become people who look for a sense of direction. He has 
become their North Star. He has become the means by which they conclude 
that they will go this way, or they will move in that direction.
  They can't do anything because they have surrendered their 
sovereignty. They have surrendered their power to make judicious 
decisions to an authoritarian President. The Supreme Court can't stop 
him. The Republicans who control the House and Senate won't stop him. 
We have an authoritarian President.
  When you have an authoritarian President, you do have a court of last 
resort: The Constitution. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution 
makes it explicitly clear that we can impeach, and we can impeach for 
this type of behavior. It is not in these exact words. It uses language 
that we are all familiar with: ``high crimes,'' ``misdemeanors,'' 
``treason,'' or ``bribery.''
  Yet, we have an authoritarian President who is defying the courts, 
who does not respect the separation of powers. We have an authoritarian 
President who would demean and minimize the role of the judiciary and 
our system of governance.
  With such an authoritarian President, impeachment and this 
congressional court of last resort is within the power of all 435 
Members of the House because the congressional court of last resort has 
to have a prosecutor. Any one of the 435 can become the prosecutor once 
you see that impeachable actions are taking place. Any one of us can 
become the prosecutor.
  The prosecutor will have what we will have called the equivalent of a 
grand jury. That will be the rest of the Members of the House of 
Representatives, 435 of us. Some of us can act as prosecutors. It 
doesn't have to be one. It can be more than one. It can be many. It 
could be as many as would want to sign a resolution to impeach.
  Impeachment and a congressional court of last resort is where we are 
now. This is the room where the congressional court of last resort 
would be convened, and it is convened here before a prosecutor, a 
Member of this august body. It is not known as a prosecutor, but I am 
saying it to you such that you can understand this process and see that 
it is akin to something else that you really do understand.
  This prosecutor, this person, this Member of Congress will have to 
stand

[[Page H2521]]

and read these Articles of Impeachment. This is done now because, 
remember, the Supreme Court can't control this authoritarian President, 
and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't control this 
authoritarian President. They have the power to, but they won't.
  Mr. Speaker, impeachment and this congressional court of last resort, 
Congress is where the court of last resort lies.
  I am familiar with impeachment. I understand the process. I want you 
to know that it is imminent. A vote takes place with this grand jury 
that I called to your attention, which would be the Members of 
Congress. We need but only a majority of the Members of Congress to 
vote in favor of impeachment, and a President can be removed from 
office. An authoritarian President can be removed from office.

  If you don't like authoritarianism and you believe that you have an 
authoritarian President, then you would vote for the Articles of 
Impeachment.
  Mr. Speaker, is there any proof that there are people who don't like 
authoritarianism and who would vote, in theory, for impeachment? Yes. 
Before the election that brought Donald John Trump to the Presidency 
this time, before he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court, there were many among us--and I am one of the many--who talked 
about this very topic and who prognosticated this very behavior that we 
are seeing. It was not the exact behavior, but behavior that would be 
indicative of a person becoming an authoritarian.
  There were some who said that he would be a fascist. There were some 
who said that he would be a dictator. The point is that there are many 
people who are Members of this House who made this prognostication. 
What is absolutely amazing is that many of them who made these 
prognostications and who have seen their prognostications become a 
reality may not vote to impeach.
  I am going to give you what I believe is a rationale. I think this is 
a vote of conscience. People have to vote their conscience. If your 
conscience tells you no, then I think you should follow your 
conscience. I cannot, in good conscience, say the things that I have 
said about this authoritarian President, see it become a reality, and 
then take no action.
  I cannot in good conscience, but there are people who can do this in 
good conscience. I have no ill feelings toward them. I don't count the 
votes. I count what is necessary to be done. It is necessary for us to 
take action to remove an authoritarian President from office.
  The only way it can be done is right here in this Chamber. Someone 
has to act as a prosecutor and bring the Articles of Impeachment to the 
attention of this august body, at which time there would be a vote on 
these Articles of Impeachment. As some people will vote to table, there 
is always going to be a vote to table.
  Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side have alleged 
that this is a great thing. This is a great thing. We are going to have 
impeachment again. This is a great thing. Let them bring it on.
  If you truly believe this, then you vote for the Articles of 
Impeachment. You vote against tabling because there will be a motion to 
table. Vote against tabling. All of my Republican colleagues who are 
saying this, you vote against tabling, and then see what the other side 
does since you are absolutely convinced that this is going to be a 
benefit to an authoritarian President.

  It is not going to be a benefit. We will take that vote. Those who 
vote to table will be voting against the Articles of Impeachment. Those 
who vote against tabling will be voting for the Articles of 
Impeachment.
  I said to you that I have some experience in dealing with this. I am 
the person who laid the foundation for President Donald John Trump's 
impeachment when he was impeached the first time around. I am using a 
personal pronoun only to communicate, but the truth is there were other 
persons who engaged in this process with me. I will tell you about 
these other persons.
  I have here something that has been removed from the wall of my 
office. It is something that indicates who the persons were who 
participated favorably, meaning indicating that there should be an 
impeachment, when the first Articles of Impeachment were filed. This is 
on the wall in my office. The press assumed that it would be only Al 
Green. They were wrong. They may be right this time. It may just be 
only Al Green.
  I will stand alone because when it is a question of conscience, it is 
better to stand alone than to not stand at all.
  The press thought that there would be probably Al Green and maybe one 
or two others, which may be the case this time. Yet, believe me, it 
will not deter me.
  What is interesting is that I have this on my wall. By the way, many 
of the people who are listed here as persons who supported H. Res. 646, 
many of the people who supported H. Res. 646, many of them who are 
listed here, they have a similar document in their offices, and they 
will have it on their coffee tables.
  When people would come in, because this became such an important 
issue, they were proud to display this and say, yes, I voted to 
impeach. Yes, I did. That was important.

                              {time}  1120

  It is going to become important again. Make no mistake about it, it 
will be important again.
  I am not going to name all the persons on this first article of a 
resolution for impeachment, but I will tell you that there were 58. 
They were known as the first 58.
  There is one person who I will mention because I am proud and he was 
proud to have associated with these Articles of Impeachment. I remember 
talking to him right in this area about impeachment.
  I will not divulge the entirety of the conversation, but I am proud 
to say this: The Honorable John Lewis has his name on these Articles of 
Impeachment--the Honorable John Lewis, the first 58.
  The first 58 was not sufficient, and I knew that it wouldn't be. By 
the way, whenever I say ``I,'' assume that I am saying ``we'' because 
there were persons who were engaged in helping me.
  I knew that it would not be enough, and I knew that we would have to 
continue to build on this to generate a mass such that impeachment 
could no longer be ignored. Many of the people who were opposed to 
impeachment were making it clear that certain things would have to 
happen before there could be impeachment.
  You would have to have bipartisan support for impeachment. You would 
have to have--well, let's just say certain things. If I say more, I 
will probably say enough that you will know who I am talking about, and 
I don't care to mention names at this time. If I am forced to, I will.
  We moved forward with a second impeachment. This was H. Res. 705. 
Many Members of Congress had something similar to this in their 
offices. It could have been a very large display that would unfold, and 
it was on coffee tables. It was placed in various places in 
congressional offices.
  I placed this on the wall in my congressional office, along with the 
other article that I just called to your attention. This was H. Res. 
705.
  It did not grow by what some would consider a very large number, but 
it did move to 66 Members of Congress with H. Res. 705.
  The reason I know Members are in possession of these documents that I 
have called to your attention that were displayed is because I sent 
them to the Members. I sent Members a thank-you, as we customarily do 
here, and it was something that they could display in the office. I had 
many Members and many people say that it was a good idea.
  Continuing, knowing that 66 was not enough, we brought articles 
before Congress again. This time, the number hit what I call critical 
mass. It caused people who were antithetical to the idea to embrace the 
idea.
  By the way, I never thought that it had to be the exact articles that 
I presented. I never thought it had to be that, but I knew that there 
had to be impeachment, and these articles that I presented had to do 
very much with invidious discrimination, something I will say more 
about later.
  This time, we had 95 people who supported the articles, H. Res. 498. 
What is important about H. Res. 498 is this. When you add the persons 
who supported H. Res. 498 with the persons who

[[Page H2522]]

supported the other articles, you then move beyond 100 people--well 
beyond 100 people who were supporting impeachment.
  Some supported one set of articles and some did not, but then they 
supported another, so you have H. Res. 498 with 95 persons supporting 
the Articles of Impeachment.
  There is but one solution to an authoritarian President who cannot be 
controlled by the Supreme Court because he flouts the orders of the 
Supreme Court, who won't be controlled by Members of his party because 
he has control over the party. There is but one solution. There is but 
one place where that solution can manifest itself, and that is the 
House of Representatives.
  Congress has become the court of last resort for an authoritarian 
President. As such, I pledged to many before today and pledge to the 
Nation today that in this month, in this month, there will be a vote on 
the floor of this House, a vote to advance Articles of Impeachment this 
month. It is necessary, and it will be done.
  I truly believe in what the country stands for. I know that it has 
not always lived up to the expectations written in the great documents 
that support what the country stands for. I know that it has not always 
lived up to these expectations, but I also know this. It is a country 
with due process, with free speech, with freedom of religion. It is a 
country where I can vote. It is a country where I can fight to make the 
difference so that it can live up to these great ideals expressed in 
these great documents, the Declaration of Independence, the 
Constitution.
  I am going to fight to maintain the right to fight. That is what this 
is all about. Not fighting in the sense that I am going to go out and 
harm someone, not fighting in the sense that I am going to use some 
means of using physicality. No, that is not what I am talking about.
  I am going to fight with peaceful protests. I believe in peaceful 
protest. I do not in any way condone persons who go out and harm other 
people, and I have said as much.
  Yes, I get all the backlash that others get when they say as much, 
but I absolutely will continue to say peaceful protest is the way to 
make change that can make the difference.
  I can do it through peaceful protest, and I am going to do it. That 
is the kind of fighting I am talking about, peaceful protests.
  I can also do it with litigation. We have protestation, litigation. I 
have signed on to many briefs, and I will continue to do so. 
Protestation, litigation, but we also have something else. We have 
legislation. That is what Articles of Impeachment are, legislation.
  Protestation, absolutely, I will never give up my right to protest. I 
am going to fight to maintain that right to protest, protestation. 
Litigation, I believe in the court system. Then, of course, this whole 
notion of legislation.
  These are the means by which we can make the difference. I assure my 
friends, my colleagues, persons, this is official notice. There will be 
a vote on articles to impeach Donald John Trump, who is now President 
of the United States.
  I do it because conscience dictates that this be done, and it has 
become a moral imperative that we have to proceed with.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, I close with this. This is something that came to my attention 
just recently. There are people who believe, I think, that I will be 
intimidated. They believe that I will be intimidated.
  Now, these are people--other than those who have already made their 
many threats that have not intimidated me, but there is a new movement 
afoot now to do what cannot be done, as they see it, fast enough 
through the electoral process, meaning my removal from office.
  They don't think that the electoral process works efficaciously--
effectively, if you will, for them. I was saying efficaciously, but 
let's just say effectively for them. The Governor of my State, while I 
am in trial currently defending the Ninth Congressional District--I 
have been in trial for many years, so this is nothing unusual to defend 
this district, to keep this district.
  It has been difficult. Lots of money has been spent just fighting to 
maintain the Ninth Congressional District. The Governor of my State has 
now decided that it is appropriate, according to the sources that have 
called it to my attention, and many have. Many persons in the 
legislative body in the State of Texas have called this to my 
attention--has established what is called a redistricting commission or 
committee.
  With this redistricting commission or committee, the Governor is 
going to try--I am being told--to draw the lines for these 
congressional districts so that it will be either difficult or 
impossible for me to get reelected.
  Here is my message to those who would stoop to this level of 
political shenanigans, as I see it. Here is my message to you: The 
people who elected me are more important than my being reelected. I am 
going to stand up for the people who elected me. My re-election is not 
the issue. You can take me out. There will be another Al Green. There 
is always going to be one more.
  The world seems to be put together such that there is always someone 
who will stand up. You can take me out, but you are not going to 
intimidate me. I am saying this to the Governor of the State of Texas: 
Do what you may. Redraw the lines such that I could never get 
reelected, but I guarantee you this, as long as I am here, I may be 
censured, but I won't be silenced.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________