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

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

                              {time}  1200

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

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

                              {time}  1210

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