Disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesús G. Chuy García of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for doing such an extraordinary job on all of this.

Mr. Speaker, for 43 long days, the Democrats held this House and the entire country hostage. Finally, with the lights back on, this body is returning to our regular legislative session. We have a lot of work to do.

My colleagues on this side of the Chamber are ready and eager to get back to our urgent legislative work we promised the American people we would do.

Just to name a few of those priorities, we have to continue lowering the cost of healthcare. We have to bring down prices for American families. We have to finish the regular appropriations process.

I wish I could say that our first order of business would be to get to those urgent priorities. However, of course, we are spending time on the floor about something else. This is something we could have resolved last week when we brought a unanimous consent to pass this discharge with the full support of the body.

Mr. Speaker, our friends over here, who are arguing today, stalled that. They objected to it. They wanted to have this exercise instead. That is why we say that this is a ``show'' vote. That is what this is. They are making a show of it, and it really is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, we have some heroic women in the Chamber today. I met with many of them a while back. They are here in the gallery. They have come forward. They have shown their faces. They have used their names to share the unspeakable tragedies that many of them were subjected to, some of them when they were very young. It is a heroic service to the country.

They are seeking justice, and justice has been delayed for too long. The Department of Justice many years ago should have brought these charges. It took too long to do it.

Now we are in this process of making sure all the American people get the information, but we have to do it in the right way.

After 4 years of Democratic control under President Biden, they were not truthful with us about a lot of things. The Democrats insisted the border was secure. We knew it wasn't. They insisted that inflation was transitory. We knew it wouldn't be. They misled the American people about the obvious mental and physical decline of the previous Commander in Chief. Now those same Democrats are demanding transparency. Suddenly transparency is their new word.

Out of nowhere, they have taken a curious concern in the Epstein investigation, all in the name of transparency.

However, the question has been asked here many times during the debate on the floor and everybody is questioning why it is that the Democrats have done this right now. We have to look at the obvious facts.

The Democrats had all the Epstein files in their possession for 4 long years under the Biden Presidency. The Biden Department of Justice had these files, and no one on this side, who is breathless today about the urgency of this release, ever said a word about it. It was the Democrats who could have urged President Biden's Department of Justice to go beyond prosecuting just Epstein and Gislaine Maxwell, but they didn't do it. It is a fair question to ask today: Why now? Why the sudden urgent interest in Jeffrey Epstein?

We know why. It is because the Democrats were never interested in transparency or executing justice or protecting the victims of this unspeakable tragedy before. The simple truth is obvious for everybody to see. This is a political exercise for Democrats. It pains me to say it. I wish that was not the truth, but it is, and it is undeniable. This is as deceitful and dishonest as their pointless stunt was to shut the government down.

Democrats are using the Epstein tragedy, the unspeakable evils that this guy committed with his trafficking ring and all of the abuses that they made these young women go through, they are using that as a political weapon to try to distract from their failures as a party and to try their best to try to tie President Trump somehow into this wretched scandal.

The President had nothing to do with it. He has been very clear. He has nothing to hide. That is why he endorsed the vote today. I suspect this vote will be probably unanimous.

Here is the important point that everybody needs to understand: We have been advocates of maximum transparency, but we have also insisted that the victims be carefully protected. The Oversight Committee has been doing extraordinary work. We have got some of the most vigorous advocates on the Republican and Democrat side on the Oversight Committee. They have been working in earnest to deliver transparency for the American people and to do it in a responsible manner.

What do we mean by that?

The bipartisan effort over there is already producing all the results that the discharge petition seeks and much, much more. Chairman Comer and all of these advocates over there have been releasing thousands of documents, for example, from the Epstein estate. By the way, in my view, that has been the greatest treasure trove of information because it has yielded for us Epstein's own personal flight logs, his financial records, his daily calendars, and so much more.

Importantly, none of that was addressed or is addressed in the legislation that is being voted on today. The estate files wouldn't even have been encompassed in that. It goes to show that the Oversight Committee is doing it in the right way.

From the very beginning, we have been insistent that this matter be handled carefully and with the utmost caution and care for the people who have been harmed. They should not be made to suffer any longer.

We are talking about real people's lives at stake here and young victims who don't want to be dragged into this political game who could get hurt further. However, the Democrats are rushing to release the thousands of unsubstantiated documents that may be included in this that may be in the public domain with the passage of this bill.

There are serious deficiencies in the legislation that I have noted at length,

and Republicans have to work to address those deficiencies in the Senate if and when this legislation is advanced.

I stood before the American public today at our press conference, and I explained in detail the dangers of the discharge petition. We have posted it at my website, speaker.gov, a summary that the legal counsel, a small army of lawyers, have put together. I used to be a Federal Court litigator. Many of my colleagues who have spoken today were. We understand the dangers of how this was haphazardly drawn up.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document titled ``How the Flaws of H.R. 4405 Could Revictimize Epstein's Victims, Create New Victims, and Damage the Judicial System''.

November 18, 2025.

How the Flaws of H.R. 4405 Could Revictimize Epstein's Victims, Create

New Victims, and Damage the Judicial System

BACKGROUND. On November 12, 2025, a motion to discharge in

relation to H. Res. 581 was filed and assigned to the

Discharge Calendar. Accordingly, the House is poised to

consider H.R. 4405, compelling the Department of Justice

(DOJ) to release its files related to Jeffrey Epstein and

Ghislaine Maxwell. While Republicans fully support

transparency and the release of the names of those who

conspired with and aided Epstein and Maxwell, the bill the

House will consider is flawed.

ANALYSIS. The flaws in H.R. 4405 include the following.

1. Fails to Fully Protect Victim Privacy. While H.R. 4405

permits the Attorney General to withhold ``personally

identifiable information of [Epstein's] victims'' and

``personal and medical files and similar files,'' this

authority is limited to disclosures that ``constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.''

Protections for Epstein's victims should go further. Congress

should give the Attorney General broader authority to redact

all victim information. This would prevent the release of

information that could be used to unmask victims who have

chosen to remain anonymous. Anything less risks revictimizing

those who were trafficked and exploited. The courts have

recognized this concern. On August 20, 2025, Judge Richard

Berman (SDNY) issued an order denying DOJ's request to

release Epstein grand jury materials, noting ``names and

identifying information [of victims] appear in the subject

materials.'' Judge Berman quoted a letter related to victims'

concerns, which stated: ``[T]ransparency cannot come at the

expense of the very people whom the justice system is sworn

to protect . . .'' and he quoted a letter from a victim, Jane

Doe 2, which stated: ``I beg the court to make sure it is the

upmost [sic] priority that in any sort of release ALL and

EVERY detail that could possibly reveal our identities be

redacted.''

2. Could Create New Victims. H.R. 4405 requires DOJ to

release information, even in cases where DOJ or the FBI has

determined it was false. Congress should avoid mandating this

kind of release. Doing so could ruin the reputations of

innocent persons, such as those who may have known Epstein

but knew nothing of his crimes, or whose names Epstein

exploited and used in order to get close to his intended

victims. Releasing information containing the names of

innocent people would subject the innocents to a guilt by

association, creating a new group of victims who have no

means to clear their names. To avoid this, the Attorney

General should be given additional authority to redact

information the FBI has previously deemed was false or not

credible.

3. Potentially Jeopardizes Grand Jury Secrecy. Rule 6(e) of

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits the release

of grand jury materials. An unauthorized release can be

prosecuted as a criminal offense, including obstruction of

justice. This secrecy exists to protect the individual. Grand

juries are not adversarial. There is no opportunity for the

subject of a grand jury inquiry to cross-examine, disprove

testimony, or challenge the evidence. If Congress compels

release of grand jury materials, it raises a risk that the

grand jury process will become politicized in the future.

Imagine how a malicious prosecutor could abuse and weaponize

the grand jury process by inducing testimony about a

political adversary, testimony the prosecutor knows is false

and which could not be contested, with the hopes a future

Congress would later compel disclosure. H.R. 4405 is

ambiguous as to whether it requires DOJ to release grand jury

materials from the Maxwell and Epstein cases. As such, as

written, the current text of H.R. 4405 creates a conflict of

laws. Congress can clear up any ambiguity by requiring the

Attorney General to redact grand jury materials.

4. Fails to Prohibit Release of Child Sexual Abuse

Materials. H.R. 4405 allows the Attorney General to redact

portions of records that ``depicts or contains child sexual

abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 . . .

.'' It necessarily follows that the redaction authority is

limited by whatever CSAM definition is found in 18 U.S.C.

2256. Unfortunately, Sec. 2256 does not contain any CSAM

definition, which means that H.R. 4405 bestows no real legal

authority on the Attorney General to redact those materials.

The bill should be amended to clearly prohibit release of any

It is dated today.

It summarizes just five or six of the major concerns.

Among them, it fails to fully protect victim privacy. It could create new categories of victims. It potentially jeopardizes grand jury secrecy.

It fails to prohibit release of child sexual abuse materials that are not appropriately defined in the legislation. It jeopardizes future Federal investigations. Moreover, we have national security concerns regarding classified information.

We will put this in the Record because we need the legislative Record to reflect what is the legislative intent behind this vote. I used to litigate cases. We used to litigate Federal statutes and whether or not they could survive, and legislative intent is important.

We need to state clearly for the record, and as Speaker of the House, I am saying to you this legislation that will pass today is flawed, and it must be amended.

The question is: Why didn't we amend it here before we passed it?

It is because the authors won't allow it.

It is because under the rules of the House under a discharge petition, they have to agree to consent for the legislation to be amended, and they are not doing that. Now we rely on our partners in the other Chamber to get that done, and they need to do that.

The victims deserve our utmost respect. In fact, they should be saluted for their courage. The young women who have not come forward, and some of them are middle-aged women who have not come forward, also deserve our respect, and they deserve to be protected.

Republicans support transparency. We want maximum transparency, especially when it comes to disclosing the names of anybody who had anything to do with these evils, anybody who conspired with or aided in any way Jeffrey Epstein must be brought to justice.

We want the bill to be amended so it doesn't at the same time violate victim privacy, create new victims, disclose the names of any whistleblower or informant, cause the release of grand jury materials or child sexual abuse materials, or undermine our national security. If and when the Senate takes this up, we will work with our colleagues over there to make sure that these things are corrected.

I will just close with this simple thought.

We have been at this a while, and it has dragged on for a while, but it is time for this to come to light.

I expect that this will be a unanimous vote, and it will reflect what I think every Member in this Chamber--

and I will say this--now, at least in recent days, every Member of the Chamber, on the Democrat side, didn't say anything for 4 years, but they are for maximum transparency now, and so is this side. But we want to do it in a respectful and careful manner so that we don't subject innocent people to further harm. That has been the whole thing.

I told all my Members today I will be voting ``yes'' on this, and I suspect almost everyone will. We will send it to the Senate, and I hope it is corrected.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I rise to raise a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with humility, fear, and conviction, conviction that American citizens have a right to choose their elected Representatives, fear that my convictions will be dismissed as naive, and humility that I am as liable to deceive myself about my first duties, where my strength comes from, and to whom I owe my loyalty as anyone else on this floor today.

It is clear to me that my responsibility as an elected Representative to my community is to say loudly, consistently, humbly, and with love that no one has the right to subvert the right of the people to choose their elected Representatives.

I like Chuy Garcia. I think his reasons for retiring are noble. We are not here to adjudicate the character of Chuy Garcia. I am asking the body to consider a set of facts laid before us tonight about how he chose his successor and deprived Americans the right to choose their elected Representative.

Moral accusations and bitterness are not going to move this country in a stronger direction, but we can't keep bringing these same broken tools to the urgent struggle of preserving our inheritance as a nation.

With humility, I lay out the facts.

One week before the filing deadline, Congressman Chuy Garcia filed for reelection and submitted the necessary signatures for that petition, but 3 days before the filing deadline, he also began collecting signatures for his chief of staff, who shares his last name.

Just hours before the filing deadline, Representative Garcia's chief of staff submitted the paperwork to run with at least 2,500 signatures attached to it, and Chuy Garcia's signature was the very first one listed in the petition. He had at least 3 days of work that he has publicly acknowledged where he knew that his chief was going to be running against him, and he did not communicate his intention to retire.

He did not communicate his intention to retire. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. If you are not going to run, you don't get to choose your successor no matter how noble the work you have done beforehand.

The day after the filing deadline, once it was clear that there would be no Democratic alternative to his chief in a D+17 seat, he announced his retirement.

It is easy to get caught up in the culture of D.C., of political complacency, or believing that your opponents are so broken that the ends justify the means, but you cannot win the right to represent people through subversion. All you do is engender distrust in the government and apathy in the citizens of this great country.

We don't have to say that a thing is perfect to say that it is worth fighting for. In fact, we can't truly fight for a thing if we don't acknowledge its shortcomings.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to adjudicate the character or quality of work of what has gone before in the career of Representative Garcia. That is not the question at hand.

No good work means that you are able to end your career with impunity in choosing your successor. This is not who we are as a country. People bled and died for the right to elect their own Representative.

To say that you can, at the last moment, submit at least 2,500 signatures, when your name is at the top of the list--and to the question of legality, this is not a question of whether or not what he did was legal. This body does not adjudicate State election law. That is not what we are trying to do here.

We do not choose the rules in Illinois' elections. We cannot imagine every illegal thing, every amoral thing, and make it illegal. Legality is smaller than morality, and the question at hand is: Do we condone a subversion of an election because it is playing by the rules?

That is not what we are here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, true love persists in a confidence, not in your supremacy in making a choice for your voters, but in your service and humility that they have the right to choose. When we start making choices for people without their consent, we have walked away from the fundamentals of democracy.

I feel deeply for the sacrifice that it has taken him to serve his community. That does not legitimatize the way in which he left his seat and choosing a successor and refusing to be forthright with his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, to the question of primary challenges, in both the 2020 and the 2022 election, as I have seen in reporting, Chuy Garcia carried 100 percent of the primary. That does not sound like a whole lot of a primary challenge when you are carrying 100 percent of the votes in the primary. That doesn't mean that he was not chosen in that, but you can't walk away from a commitment to allowing voters a choice and a clarity on what you are going to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a game. This is certainly not a short strategy. It is long work to remain committed to the primacy of Americans' right to choose their elected representatives. Nothing validates the choice to subvert an election, not the trespasses of an administration, not the long and noble work of a public servant, not the valid and unknowable bitterness of a family's suffering, not fidelity to identity politics. Nothing validates subverting an election.

We are not here to adjudicate, as I have said, the measure of Chuy Garcia's work or his character. The question is: Do you have the right to choose your successor?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a famous saying in Baptist circles: ``If you don't kill your sin, your sin will kill you.'' Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but there are natural consequences, and the consequences of subverting an election and choosing your successor are a slide toward a very ugly future for our country.

There is an argument that has been made that they don't know about it so it is not wrong. That is not true. That is not true. We know about it. We know about it, and that can place on us an accountability, not just when it is politically convenient to condemn someone but when it is in your own family. That is the point.

That is the point, that when there is a spade, you call it a spade, whether it hurts or not. You have to have confidence that Americans will make the choice for themselves. That is the whole point of this experiment in democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The point is well made that Americans are suffering. A nonpayment of utility bills, people having their cars repossessed, people losing their businesses, people going without meals, that is in my community, and that is real. We do not dutifully serve the long work of building a self-determining country by turning our constituents into petitioners who would only demand free things from us, a relief from this pressure of the consolidation of corporate power. No, we also have to stand before them with honor, confidence, and respect in their ability to choose their elected representatives for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are claims that this is not the work that we were sent here to do. Then what gives us the right to be here if not being sent here? There is a premise here. We have to be endowed with trust, and that has to be reciprocal with our voters.

I would argue that there is a very loud demand, a fervent, clear call by Americans right now for accountability and transparency, and it is not just about the Epstein files. It is all of it. They want us to stop this fight and be honest, deliberate, and respectful, to humbly serve.

That is what real leadership is. It is humility and service, not choosing for them what would be best for them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while there are many ways to litigate many of the votes, the question at hand is: What gives my colleague the right to represent a community? It is the choice of his voters. Nothing gives him the right to choose his successor.

We cannot walk down this path. When we stand and say that everything around us is bad, it risks us conforming to that wrongness and orienting our policy around it.

This is a false choice to say that I can either attack here or I can attack here. We can pursue wherever we disagree. We also have to call a spade a spade, and that is what this is about. This is about accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not called to do anything more than walk with humility, to love justice, and to work diligently. Chuy has worked diligently. Nothing in that legitimizes the choice to choose a successor or to support gathering over 2,500 signatures. It does not legitimize waiting for days when he knew that he was not going to run for reelection and ensuring that his chief of staff would be his successor.

That is not the path our country can stand on. A country that refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing when it happens has got bad things in store for it. I humbly ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, they are here as honored guests of the House. We are delighted they are here.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez) for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no more speakers on my side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity of the Speaker's presence to respond to some of the things that he said. In the very presence of the victims and the survivors who have come to join us today, the Speaker said that now would be the time we should be working on urgent legislative work.

Mr. Speaker, justice is urgent legislative work. The truth is urgent legislative work.

The Speaker says: Why now? Why now?

Mr. Speaker, you were the one who refused to swear in Adelita Grijalva for 50 days. We would have done it 50 days ago, but she provided the 218th signature on the discharge petition.

So why now?

It was because of your dilatory tactics, your delay, your postponement of it.

Now the gentleman says that there are not sufficient protections. There are protections in the bill for the victims to make sure that their names will be redacted. Yet, we hear even the Speaker of the House of Representatives openly inviting the U.S. Senate to start finger painting on this bill which we have waited more than 5 months to bring to the floor.

The Senate should pass the bill exactly as it is written. The President should sign it exactly as he said he would when he finally changed his mind, and the Epstein file must be released. Moreover, if the President is serious about what he is saying, he has got the power to release the Epstein file right now. Nobody is stopping him. It is within his possession. It is within his control. He can release the whole thing, and he can redact the names of the victims and others who are innocent in this process.

Mr. Speaker, Speaker Johnson said that these are unspeakable evils. However, because of the bravery and the invincible courage of the women who joined us today, they are no longer unspeakable.

They are spoken. They are articulated. The cat is out of the bag. We know what has been going on for decades. It has been a double standard of justice going all the way back to Alex Acosta, who got later rewarded with a Cabinet appointment in the Trump administration.

Alex Acosta had a 60-count Federal indictment ready to go against all kinds of people for an interstate sex trafficking conspiracy, with solicitation, child sex abuse, all of it. He traded that 60-count Federal indictment for 1 count in State court.

Jeffrey Epstein ended up getting the sweetest of sweetheart deals ever on the plea bargain front. He was free from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to do whatever he wanted in continuing to perpetrate his crimes and run his conspiracy. Then he would come and would watch TV and spend the night in jail. It was over in about a year. This was after the rape and sexual abuse of hundreds and hundreds of girls. He kept going, and he kept at it.

We want the whole truth to come out.

This is the United States of America. Even the British monarchy wouldn't put up with this. How about the American democracy? How about we say: No way. We are not going to allow this coverup to go on for 1 day more.

I am glad the President changed his mind after pulling out all the stops to try to get one of our Republican colleagues to change their mind, to remove their name from the discharge petition. He gave up.

I want to salute the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) for having the courage to stand her ground in the Situation Room in the White House and say, no, she wasn't going to be bullied.

I am glad the President changed his mind, but let's be clear: Mr. President, you have the power today to release the entire file. That is what you called for. That is what Pam Bondi called for. That is what Kash Patel called for. We don't need anybody calling for the Senate to slow things down for more weeks and more months.

The American people have had it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

I thank all of America for tuning in to this. I thank Representatives Massie, Khanna, and Greene and all of those who have insisted upon bringing the truth forward and a reckoning with the reality of one of the worst international child sex trafficking rings ever to exist in the United States and the coverup attendant to it.

We have the opportunity today to do justice for the victims, for the survivors who have come forward to say that the voice of the victims and the survivors must be put at the very center of our deliberations, not shunted off to the side, not submerged, not subordinated, but put at the very center. We must hear from the people who themselves were victimized by this nightmare.

Now, our colleagues across the aisle seem to want to make this into some sort of partisan contest. I haven't heard so much talk about the Democrats since the Democratic National Convention. All that we have done here is to say we want to bring the truth forward, along with a bipartisan group. We don't want the Senate monkeying around with this in order to slow things down. We want it passed in the Senate. We want it signed.

Before that, if the President is true to his word, and he wants to see all of this come to light, he can release it now instead of fighting, kicking and screaming every step along the way. I am glad he has changed his mind, and I hope he maintains the momentum he has to stick with the vast majority of the American people who want to see that the truth is done here. While he is at it, the administration could reconsider their terrible policies gutting Federal offices and programs designed to combat violence against women.

The DOJ terminated hundreds of grants to police departments, defunding the police when it comes to investigating violent sex crimes and to support victims. His DOGE destroyed programs to combat international human trafficking rings. Let's get back on the side of the women.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here, believe it or not, with a grateful heart. Over the last several days, many of my colleagues have reached out with kindness and understanding. I appreciate their concern for me and their desire to keep our Caucus united.

I wasn't expecting to stand here to debate my retirement, but before any of us are Members of Congress, we are husbands, we are grandfathers, we are sons, we are mothers, and we are sisters. We are regular people, but life reminds us that our jobs come second to the people waiting for us at home.

After nearly 40 years of public service, I decided not to seek a fifth term, and I am proud to have served with integrity and respect.

I turn 70 next spring, and I decided that it was time to dedicate more of my time to the people who have sacrificed the most so that I could serve: my wife of almost 50 years, my children, my grandchildren, and the family that steadied me through victories and through heartbreak.

When my daughter, Rosa, passed away in 2023 and left us four beautiful young children, it shook our entire world. Overnight, our house became a home for those kids. We did what every family does: We stepped up. We held them close, and we gave them love and stability.

Despite dealing with multiple sclerosis, my wife, Evelyn, carried the heaviest load as their day-to-day caregiver. Because of my wife, I was able to keep meeting the responsibilities of my job here and in the district.

I filed to run for Congress because this work is more important than ever, and I wanted to deliver for my community and to be part, hopefully, of a new House majority next year.

I followed the rules of Illinois and its election law. When the ballot was open for anyone to file--as they had over the past 6 years and the four times that I stood for election--and contrary to claims that were made earlier today, I did not circulate any petitions that I was accused of circulating. I only circulated when I filed on the first day.

As I looked ahead, I had to be honest about what the next term would demand and what my family needed. I saw the big picture: supporting my wife as we manage her illness, taking better care of my own health, and being present for the grandson that we just adopted 2 weeks ago. It was a tough decision, but I made that choice as any husband, father, and grandfather would make at that moment. I stood by my family values, as we ask others to do.

Every one of us knows the pressures that come with serving here, but I hope that none of my colleagues ever face the circumstances that my family has faced in the last 3 years.

Meanwhile, my district and my community are under assault by our own government, and I ask my colleagues to listen. Members may have seen the reports, but pictures don't convey the screams of families being separated, U.S. citizens being arrested without cause, and the indiscriminate gassing of innocent families, including a 1-year-old just a week ago.

Families in my district are living with fear and trauma that no one should have to endure in our country.

Last week, we returned after 54 days with the House shuttered, including a 43-day shutdown. We returned hoping for Democratic unity. Therefore, I was shocked to be called out in a resolution on the House floor.

I think you would agree with me that voters don't want these arguments in Congress. The voters want us to be working to help them afford healthcare, rent, and childcare.

Mr. Speaker, none of us wants to spend the next year trading divisive disapproval resolutions.

The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Our voters do not want this either. We should not be distracted by political ploys when our constituents want us to stay focused and to deliver for them.

I am going to finish my term with the same love and commitment that I brought to my first day of Congress here. When I arrived in this country as

a 10-year-old, I never dreamed I would be here. I hope that we can all agree on this: When a colleague chooses his family, that shouldn't be a moment for division. It should be a moment for understanding and unity. One day you might be the one making that choice, and you shouldn't have to debate it on the House floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 878. While I respect the sponsor of this resolution and appreciate very much her work on behalf of her constituents in southwest Washington, I cannot support this measure.

My friend and classmate from the 116th Congress, Representative Chuy Garcia, embodies the highest ideals of the American Dream.

Born in Mexico, Representative Garcia moved to the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago in the 1960s and never left. After earning his citizenship in 1977, Representative Garcia graduated from college and began his career in public service with a community-based housing initiative.

Since his time as a member of the Chicago City Council, the Illinois State Senate, and Cook County Board of Commissioners, Congressman Chuy Garcia has served his community, the Congress, and our country with great distinction.

As it relates to the matter under consideration, in nearly every election he has been a candidate, Representative Garcia has faced opposition in both primary and general elections. Representative Garcia has proven himself unafraid to campaign. He has sought other offices and come up short.

During the filing period in Illinois, any qualified citizen and any qualified resident of the State could have filed to challenge Representative Garcia. In fact, Representative Garcia won a competitive primary just last cycle.

Throughout his career in public service, Chuy Garcia has demonstrated a broad and deep respect for his constituents. This includes his fierce advocacy for Chicago's immigrant communities, teachers, public employees, and the economically striving and struggling among us.

Representative Garcia is a dedicated public servant, and his record of accomplishment is worthy of celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I once again remind the Members that any one of the citizens of this district could have filed petitions. In fact, Mr. Garcia has faced primaries before and general elections before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in the debate, I deeply respect the sponsor of this resolution. We are fellow appropriators, and I observe firsthand the energy and commitment she brings to serving the people of southwest Washington.

This resolution is wrong. It shouldn't be before us. The House has so much work we need to do. We need to address the affordability crisis in America, save healthcare, and fight the cost of the actual corruption happening on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Let's get back to work.

I commend my dear friend, Representative Garcia, for his long and distinguished tenure in public life and as a devoted public servant. I wish him and his family the very best as they begin the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.