JUSTICE FOR NORTHWEST OHIO RATEPAYERS

  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. That
couldn't be more true for the thousands of honest, hardworking people
and businesses I represent in northwestern Ohio.
  They were wronged for decades by the largest nuclear power corruption
scandal in both American and Ohio history. First Energy took the
public's money to buy influence and bail out failing nuclear plants,
costing the public over $1 billion and counting, at a minimum. That is
money stripped from families and our local economy.
  Just weeks ago, First Energy visited the Public Utility Commission of
Ohio seeking to raise electricity bills again--this time for 3 more
years. This follows a mistrial declared in the spring in the State in
its ongoing corruption case and Federal litigation that is ongoing for
conspiracy, wire fraud, and bribery.
  It is over time to recover the money taken and return it to the
ratepayers. Nuclear power executives must be held accountable. The
Ratepayer Justice Act I just introduced yesterday would do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on the Energy and Commerce Committee to act with
dispatch to schedule a hearing on this important bill. Mr. Speaker,
let's get to the bottom of this once and for all and return the
public's money.

                              STILL I RISE

  (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Green
of Texas was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and today, in the
name of we the people. I rise censored, Mr. Speaker, but not silenced.
I rise as a unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat--some would also add
unelected liberated Democrat. My friends over on the racist radio say
that proudly, and they have a lot of alacrity when they say it. They
seem to say it because they seem to think that somehow they played a
role in it happening. Well, be that as it may, I still rise in the name
of we the people.
  I rise in the name of we the people today, Mr. Speaker, because of
concern that I have with the killing that took place in Houston, Texas.
As a result of some other things that happened, there was a killing in
Maine. I sent out a tweet, as it were. I am not sure that they are
called tweets anymore, but a message by way of the electronic social
media. I would like to read this message because it is the essence of
my message today.
  It reads: @realDonaldTrump--I am told that by saying
``@realDonaldTrump'' in this message, the President should have an
opportunity to hear about it and possibly read it himself.
``@realDonaldTrump, your ICE force has killed a person in Maine. After
the killings of Good, Pretti, and Araujo, without accountability, we
cannot trust your Homeland Security or Justice Department to
investigate ICE. `We the people' demand accountability and
congressional oversight.''
  I rise in the name of we the people to demand accountability and
oversight. I do so because, quite frankly, I am concerned about the
possibility of a cover-up, and I am also concerned about the
possibility of a clean-up. Let's start with the clean-up, and then I
will move into the cover-up.
  The clean-up. You might recall, friends, that there was an assault on
the citadel of democracy, this Capitol. You might recall, also, that
there were persons who engaged in this dastardly act of cowardice. They
were here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power at the insistence
of the President, it seems. He delivered incited commentary that caused
much of what happened that day to take place.
  They were here and did some things that were unlawful. They were
unlawful, and we know they were unlawful because they were prosecuted,
many of them--not just 5 or 10, not just 20 or 30, not just 100 or 200.
Hundreds of them

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

                              {time}  1150

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