Rejecting White nationalism and White supremacy.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution resolves that ``the House of Representatives once again rejects white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States,'' and with that I agree.

As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to use my time to consider with my colleagues how firmly America has stood, and continues to stand, against white supremacy. It is a basic human flaw that our eyes open to truth too slowly and close on wickedness too quickly. Today, we have the opportunity to renew our gaze at the truth about our fellow men and women, and that each of them is created with untold dignity and worth.

As a result, we recognize that white supremacy and white nationalism peddle lies about our brothers and sisters in dignity. We reject these lies, and we stand on the shoulders of Americans who have gone before us in rejecting white supremacy and racism.

As Martin Luther King, Jr., observed, ``When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men''--yes, Black men as well as White men--``would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Dr. King's words are historical fact rooted in universal truth.

America's Founders gave us an incredible inheritance in the Declaration of Independence, in which they said ``all men are created equal.'' This declaration helped the Founders and all Americans who have lived after them identify the many ways that we dishonor that equality, recognize and rectify it, and set a more just path forward.

In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson--himself a slave owner--publicly supported the abolition of the slave trade, imploring Congress to ``withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa.''

George Washington said, ``There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.''

John Adams wrote that ``Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual tota extirpation of slavery from the United States . . . `' and ``I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence.''

Benjamin Franklin believed ``Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.''

Alexander Hamilton cited racial prejudice as something that ``makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience.''

And James Madison wrote that ``We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.''

The words of our Founders indict anyone who would believe that white supremacy or actions born out of that world view is in any way defensible.

It does all Americans good to revisit our path out of darkness that feeds racial injustice so that we never find ourselves slipping back, but rather move forward knowing that we are all created equal and all are created in God's image.

At the beginning of the American Revolution, slavery existed in all the 13 original States, and the slave trade with Africa was carried on unconstrained. Official actions to abolish slavery began in 1774, before independence was even declared, and this moral movement gained substantial ground over the next 35 years.

Delegates to the First Continental Congress in 1774 pledged to stop the importation of slaves into America, and by 1798 every State had outlawed slave importation. During the founding era, eight States proceeded to abolish slavery, either gradually or immediately. Were these good steps? Yes. Were they enough? Certainly not.

Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, forbidding slavery in the territory where the future States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin would be established. This law proved to be decisive in ending

slavery in America. In the 1850s, Abraham Lincoln cited the Northwest Ordinance frequently to show that the Founders opposed the expansion of slavery. And, in the 1860s, these States, along with a number of their fellow States, formed the coalition that elected Lincoln President, won the Civil War, and abolished slavery nationwide.

The principle that all men are created equal and have a fundamental right to liberty gave the emancipation movement its foundation.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, defending the ratification of the Constitution, the Constitution was grounded on ``the fundamental principles of the revolution,'' namely, ``the transcendent laws of nature and of nature's God'' and ``the rights of humanity announced in the Declaration of Independence.''

Our first Republican President, Lincoln, understood this well. When Lincoln was a young man, he said the Founders established ``political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tell us.''

In the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln explained that America was ``conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' As Lincoln argued to his opponent, Stephen Douglas, this equality applies to all human beings, regardless of race.

When President Lincoln spoke of America's earlier days, he said, ``I will remind Judge Douglas and this audience, that while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject, he used the strong language that he trembled for his Nation when he remembered that God was just.''

Mr. Speaker, from my faith background, I will tell you, God is just, and I do tremble when I consider his justice. I tremble when any person, in any way, pretends that white supremacy has any affinity with the Christian faith or its heritage, and, frankly, am very offended when that is brought up. The Bible is clear on the equality of all people. White people are entitled to no special privilege on this Earth, and they will have no unique standing in heaven. In fact, my Bible tells me we will all give account for what we do. Heaven is a place where every person there is united in bowing before the God who made us equal.

Knowing this, we understand that we should use this life to honor our brothers and sisters without exception. As James tells us, ``If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin.''

Partiality is unacceptable in God's economy, and racial prejudice finds no shelter among American values. Favoritism rooted in racism is evil in all its forms, including white supremacy and white nationalism.

Today, Madam Speaker, is a day like many others. Today, like every day, the world is watching America to see if we still believe in equality, if we still elevate human dignity at every turn, and if we will reject hypocrisy whenever it tries to take root among us. Today, our fellow citizens are watching to see their leaders live out the American principles alongside them.

Today, I stand here with colleagues to reaffirm these values and reject white supremacy as both dangerous and foolish. Its tenets are as ridiculous as America's democracy is remarkable.

Today, Madam Speaker, our message is, as it ever was, that every person is created equal in value, and that the hill of equality is one Americans will stand tall to defend, and, yes, even die to defend.

We are all, Madam Speaker, created in God's wonderful image. He made us and he breathed life into us. We are the very essence of his beloved creation. There is not a person you will find today, Madam Speaker, no one--I challenge you from the depths of any prison, to the sidewalks of any major city, anywhere in this country, White, Black, any color imaginable, any race imaginable, any place that they come from, male or female--there is not one person you will find today that, when you look into their eyes, they are not deeply beloved by their God who created them, and how can we choose any different. Any ideology that comes in face-to-face confrontation with God's creation is an abomination, and that is exactly what this ideology is.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is a freshman.

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining in the debate.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire the time I have left.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have heard from many here today, and I think we have all come to a common theme, and the common theme goes back to the simple rule that most of us would have learned growing up--and we have heard it referenced here today, but it may be as simple as in kindergarten--you hold hands; you look after each other; you treat people with respect no matter where they come from, what they look like, what the color of their skin is, what their gender may be, or what religion they may practice.

What is true on the floor today and what should be true in the hearts of every American--and, frankly, not just every American, but those around the world--is that we realize that we have been given a gift by God, that we have been given the strength by God, and we have been given the hope by God to treat each other with dignity, respect, and love. When we understand that, then it takes away.

But we also, Madam Speaker, today have realized that, when we as Members speak, people pay attention and people hold us accountable. We have talked about that in many ways, and that cannot continue in the way that we have seen it.

White supremacy is wrong. White nationalism is wrong. Anti-Semitism is wrong.

When we divide ourselves and we classify ourselves against each other, we bring ourselves down, not those whom we go after.

As long as we ever have anyone in this country who believes that they can climb to the top on the backs of others because they make fun of their race, their gender, their ethnicity, or any other thing, then we devalue the very breath that God gives us.

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier when I opened this up, there is not anyone we face today, anyone we come in contact with today who is not inherently and deeply loved by God. And it is pretty simple; He breathed life into them. I believe it with all that I am here.

And if I can believe that God created each and every person I see and everything we see around us, how can I not value that creation? How can I not stand against anyone who would tear that down, especially if there was ever a thought in this country from anybody, anywhere, to take and say this is a Christian value? Then I challenge them and say there will be a judgment. It is already written down that no man stands that way.

So today it is pretty simple. Place a ``yes'' vote on the floor. We support this resolution because it is not an American value; it is not what we stand for.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 41) rejecting White nationalism and White supremacy.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the measure under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution stands for one very simple proposition: White nationalism and white supremacy are hateful expressions of intolerance that have no place in the United States of America.

Unfortunately, what should be an obvious statement in 2019 has been challenged in recent days, and not for the first time, by one of our own colleagues. As those elected to represent all of America, Members of Congress should be the first to condemn white nationalism and white supremacy, which are the source of so much violence, so much hatred, and so much divisiveness throughout our Nation's history. These hateful ideologies are diametrically opposed to what America is supposed to be.

But, as the New York Times reported last week, Mr. King of Iowa was quoted as saying:

``White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization--how did that language become offensive?''

Well, I will tell him, and anyone else who may be confused.

This language has always been offensive. We fought a civil war to establish that. But this language and the philosophy it represents persisted. It motivated the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize African Americans; it sparked Jim Crow laws that oppressed African Americans through institutionalized racism; it inspired the murder of nine Black congregants in a Charleston, South Carolina, church; and the murder of 11 Jewish worshippers in a Pittsburgh synagogue; and it inspired racists, anti-Semites, and other assorted bigots at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that spread fear, hatred, and, ultimately, violence in celebration of white supremacy.

These hateful ideologies are dangerous, not because they too often lead to violence. These noxious views can also infect the policies that govern our Nation, sowing more division, and leading to more injustice in our society. When we establish Muslim bans; when we try to build walls to keep out those who do not look like us; and when we reverse a half century of progress on voting rights and civil rights, we are putting these hateful views into action.

I thank the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), for bringing this resolution forward. He knows from his experience--both as a leader in the civil rights movement, and as a Member of Congress whose own constituents were recently targeted in a vicious attack motivated by white supremacy--that when we see bigotry and hatred expressed in any form, we must condemn it, loudly and forcefully.

We can pretend that these sentiments do not exist in our country, in this Congress, or in the White House. We can try to sweep them under the rug, and to convince ourselves that we have moved past our shameful history on race. But we ignore white supremacy at our peril. If we do not speak out now, collectively as a Congress, clearly and without reservation, we will send the message that these views are acceptable, and they will continue to fester in communities across the country, generating more hatred, more repression, and more violence, in their wake.

Madam Speaker, I call upon all of my colleagues--Republican and Democrat alike--to reject the hateful ideology of white nationalism and white supremacy, the policies that flow from such hatred, and anyone who would espouse those views. Vote ``yes'' on this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ALLRED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) to close the debate on our side.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time to address this issue.

I understand and recognize the gravity of this issue that is before us. I can hear it from the voice of the gentleman from Georgia. I can hear it from Mr. Clyburn. And I can hear it from Mr. Nadler.

I know all of you, and I think I know all of you well. I thought you all knew

me well. But I began to read this resolution, Madam Speaker, and I started with the first ``whereas,'' and I am going to read it as it is here: ``Whereas, on January 10, 2019, Representative Steve King was quoted as asking, `White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization' ''--there is a dash in there, a pause--`` `how did that language become offensive?' ''

I understand how you interpreted my words when you read them this way. There is no tape for this interview that I did. It was 56 minutes long. There are some notes on the other end, but there is no tape. There is no way to go back and listen. But I can tell you this: That ideology never shows up in my head. I don't know how it could possibly come out of my mouth.

So I am going to tell you that the words are likely what I said, but I want to read it to you the way I believe I said it. And that is this: ``White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization--how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and civilization''--that is the end of the quote--just to watch ``Western civilization'' become a derogatory term in political discourse today? That is what I believe happened.

And it is 13 words, ironically, that has caused this firestorm. And, again, I regret that we are in this place. I read all of the rest of the resolutions that are here.

Number two, I reject the ideology. The statement is true, Mr. Clyburn.

Number three, same story. I reject the ideology that is noted in here. Your statement is true.

As I read these so far down, number four, number five, all the way through all of these resolutions, all of the ``whereases'' that are here in this resolution, I agree with all of them.

I agree with every word that you have put in this. It is an honest and a direct resolution put together to address a subject that has been too long before the public dialogue in this country.

And when I look down at the ``resolved''--that is usually the meat of these--it says: ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives once again rejects white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.'' Well, I agree with that.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I stood on this floor with a Bible in my hand, and I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Bible wasn't just a regular Bible picked up somewhere. That was a shirt-pocket-sized leather Bible that my Great Uncle John Richardson carried in his shirt pocket for 3 years in the Civil War.

I come from a family of abolitionists. Maybe I would have some artifacts from his cousin, my five times great-grandfather, if he hadn't been killed in that conflict.

This means something to me, the abolitionism that goes clear back into my family, and they paid a price with their lives to make sure that all men, and now all women, are created equal, and we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I absolutely believe in that. It is in my heart and my soul, and in my works. By their fruits you shall know them.

But The New York Times has a different version of this. They make a habit of attacking the President, as a matter of fact. And I look at this language that is here, this resolution that the House of Representatives once again rejects white nationalism, white supremacy, and hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States. I agree with that language, as I have said. But I would add to it the language that I used on this floor, this very place, last Friday afternoon, when I said I would strengthen it by adding my previous statements, which not only correctly reject white nationalism and white supremacy as evil ideologies, but also condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology that saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives.

That is where I stand. That is what I believe.

So I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for bringing this resolution. I have carefully studied every word in this resolution, and even though I would add some more that are stronger language, I agree with the language in it.

So I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's vote for this resolution. I am putting up a ``yes'' on the board here because what you state here is right, and it is true, and it is just, and so is what I have stated here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, due to a scheduled medical procedure, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives from January 10, 2019 to February 5, 2019. During that time, I missed 44 recorded votes. Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted: on Roll Call No. 22 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 23 on the Passage of H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 24 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 25 on the Passage of H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 26 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 27 on the Passage of H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 28 on the Passage of S. 24, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 29 on the Passage of H.R. 221, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 30 on the Passage of H.R. 116, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 31 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 27, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 32 on the Passage of H. Res. 41, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 33 on the Passage of H.R. 135, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 34 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 35 on the Adoption of H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 36 on the Passage of H.R. 190, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 37 on the Passage of Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern (D- MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 38 on Ordering the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 39 on the Passage of H.R. 268, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 40 on the Adoption of H. Res. 52, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 41 on the Passage of H.R. 150, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 42 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 30, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 43 on Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 44 on the Passage of H.R. 676, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 45 on the Passage of H.R. 328, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 46 on the Passage of H.J. Res 28, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 47 on the Passage of H. Res. 61, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 48 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 49 on the Passage of H.R. 648, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 50 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 51 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 31, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 52 on the Passage of H.R. 624, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 53 on the Passage of H.R. 502, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 54 on Approving of the Speaker's Journal, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 55 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 56 on the Passage of H.R. 428, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 57 on the Passage of H.R. 449, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 58 on the Passage of H.R. 769, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 59 on the Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider H. Res. 77, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 60 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 61 on the Passage of H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 62 on the Passage of Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Trahan (D-MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 63 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 64 on the Passage of H.R. 790, I would have voted ``Nay;'' and on Roll Call No. 65 on the Passage of H. Res. 79, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, proud to have the preeminent privilege of serving in the Congress of the United States of America, a proud American, and proud to say that, yesterday, this Congress went on record indicating that it is opposed to bigotry. It went on record saying it is opposed to hate.

I read to you the style of the resolution, H. Res. 41. It reads: ``Rejecting White Nationalism and White Supremacy.'' That is the style of the resolution.

I will not read all of the whereases, but I do think it appropriate to read the resolved.

``Resolved, That the House of Representatives once again rejects White nationalism and White supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.''

I thank all of my colleagues. I heard many of them speak, and much of what was said really touched my heart. I thank them for saying it, because it was made very clear yesterday that we reject bigotry. It was made very clear that bigotry will not be tolerated.

I am appreciative that this happened because there was a time in the history of our country where such a resolution would not have been brought before the House of Representatives. There was a time when people would deny the existence of racism and bigotry and hate, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism.

There was a time when people would have denied the existence, and then when you deny the existence of something, you don't have to deal with it because you say that it isn't there and it doesn't exist. Why would you deal with it? But yesterday, we went on record not only saying that we reject it, but we also acknowledged the existence of it, which is important.

I also have to single out just one Representative, Congressman Bobby Rush, who voted against the resolution--one vote against. I want to acknowledge that he was right. He was right because he said it wasn't enough. I concur.

I thank my colleagues for the resolution indicating that we oppose bigotry, but the real question that we have to answer at some point in the future is the corollary that flows from being in opposition to bigotry. The corollary is this:

If you oppose bigotry, if you reject bigotry, will you reject the bigot? If you reject racism, will you go on record rejecting the racist? If you are antithetical to anti-Semitism, will you go on record rejecting and opposing the anti-Semite?

This is the question.

I appreciate greatly and I am going to be eternally grateful to those who brought this resolution. It was timely. It was something that was necessary. But I also appreciate Mr. Rush's position, because the corollary has to be addressed at some point.

We cannot continue to say we are opposed to something. That is a talking point. We have to get to the action item, which is: What are you going to do about it if you oppose it? What will you do about it?

What will you do about it when it emanates from the highest office in the land? What will you do about it? Will you simply say ``I oppose it,'' or will you take a vote to indicate that it is an action item and you are going to reject it?

One step closer to impeachment, yesterday's resolution brought us one step closer. The clock is ticking. Impeachment is not dead.