Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, and still I rise.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not to speak of persons who die unjustly at the hands of the constabulary, I rise today to speak of members of the constabulary who die unjustly at the hands of persons who are among what we call ``the public.''

I rise today to accentuate five words: ``In the line of duty.''

These words may be meaningless to some, but there are those who have suffered the pain of having to live with these words for the rest of their lives after having lost someone that they love in the line of duty.

Emily Dickinson, the great American poet, reminds us that, ``A word is dead when it is said, some say. I say it just begins to live that day.'' These words take on meaning for those who are left behind when someone leaves in the line of duty.

I am standing here today in the House to make an appeal to those who have thoughts of doing dastardly deeds simply because a person happens to be a part of the constabulary.

I would beg that you not consider these thoughts, that you abandon them. And I would beg that if you have the opportunity to go to one of the homegoing ceremonies of a person who has left in the line of duty-- I have been to these ceremonies. I have seen the suffering of the families, the tears. I have seen the children who will no longer have a parent to go home to.

All life is precious. I have spoken many times about the lives that have been lost at the hands of the constabulary, but we should never forget that all lives are precious.

And when someone takes the life of a member of the constabulary out of spite, for no cause that can be justified, that person, of course, has to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But that doesn't end the suffering, just as it doesn't end the suffering for the civilian who loses his or her life. It doesn't end the suffering and the pain.

We ought not allow ourselves to become so removed from the lives of others that we cease to have some degree of sympathy and empathy for persons who lose their lives in the line of duty.

If a person finds some degree of comfort in knowing that a person lost life in the line of duty, then you must be a sadist. It is a sadistic thing to conclude that a life lost in the line of duty is something that you can take some degree of pleasure with. You need help.

And I am saying these words today. I am calling this to the attention of people that I don't know, but I know what my staff has reported to me, about persons who lost their lives in the line of duty, and how this number is ticking up, and how many of these lives were lost senselessly.

Madam Speaker, we must respect all life. I believe that we have a responsibility to those that we will never meet and greet, to say to the world that we disapprove of this senseless taking of life as it relates to those in the constabulary. And I am talking about those who are just sitting in a car and someone comes along and takes a life of a person serving in the line of duty.

My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I had great respect for him. I conclude that I am who I am today because of words that my uncle said. My uncle and I were in his police vehicle, and I was asking a lot of questions. And my uncle's words were, ``This boy is asking a lot of questions. I think he is going to be a lawyer.'' I didn't know what a lawyer was, but I respected my uncle's words. And because I had such respect for him at a very young age--I was less than 10 years of age--I concluded that I shall be a lawyer--perhaps not in those words--but I concluded that I would be a lawyer.

So all of my life from that point forward was dedicated to becoming a lawyer because my uncle, the deputy sheriff--well-respected--proclaimed that I would be a lawyer. I thank God that he didn't say, ``You know, this boy is asking a lot of questions. I don't think he is going to amount to anything. He doesn't know anything.''

A word is not dead when it is said. I remember when my uncle died, deputy sheriff, well-respected. I didn't make it to his funeral. I was in the sky over Louisiana on a plane trying to get there, and we were forced out of the sky by an act of God. Destined to stay overnight in Lafayette, I missed his funeral, and I missed him.

Madam Speaker, I want people to know that we who seek justice for those who have been treated unjustly, we don't do it out of some desire to see justice for one. I do it because I desire to seek justice for all. I know what ``in the line of duty'' means to people, and I know what my uncle meant to me.

Madam Speaker, today, I tell my dear friends, I stand here in the House

of Representatives proud to be a part of this great country, but with this very simple message: I beg, let's show respect and pray that we will receive respect for those who serve and those who put their lives on the line such that some of them will suffer to have the words ``in the line of duty'' recalled as they make their transition, as their homegoing ceremonies are commemorated.

I truly believe that this country needs to reconcile. We need reconciliation. There are just too many things happening now that are signs of this need of reconciliation that we have not had the opportunity to perfect. And I have suggested to the President that he establish a Department of Reconciliation with a Secretary of Reconciliation. Just as we have a Department of Labor and a Secretary of Labor, to deal with labor issues, we need someone to deal with the need for our country to reconcile our differences.

I am not justifying anything that has happened because of past occurrences with reference to ``in the line of duty.'' I am merely saying that there are so many of these ugly things happening that we ought to find reason to put in place a means by which we can have a discussion about them and properly educate people about all of the things that can make a difference in our lives as we try to adjust our lives for the things that have happened in the past. The past does impact the present as well as the future, and it is time for us to reconcile, Mr. President.

So Madam Speaker, I beg of Mr. President to give consideration to the establishment of a Department of Reconciliation. You would place on our agenda, long after you depart from the Presidency, the continuation of the need to bring this country closer together, to help us to understand each other better, to move forward with a greater desire and love for each other. I pray that we will do this, Mr. President.

And finally, I pray that I will never have to attend another in-the- line-of-duty ceremony. These things are related in this sense. There are people who believe that somehow the suffering that others have caused that have been inflicted upon people, somehow they are justified by taking the life of a person they do not know. I hope that we can prevent this from happening ever again. I know that it has happened, but I don't want to see it happen again. And I believe that we need to start this process of reconciliation. It will make a difference.

And I pray that we will never again have to go to these ceremonies where we all leave saddened by the loss of someone who was but only doing his or her job.

We need to resolve our differences in this country. There is no justification for what is happening.

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

Madam Speaker, when I arrived here in Congress in 2005, there was a necessary facility, also known as the men's room, right across diagonally from me outside of this Chamber. There was no such facility for women. In fact, it was the Parliamentarian's office to my left, just outside of this facility.

Madam Speaker, it was under the leadership of the Honorable Nancy Pelosi that we now have equal facilities for men and women just off the floor of the House. Things change, but they don't change on their own volition. The arc of the universe, the moral universe, bends because of the hands of women and men.

Today, we have an opportunity to again treat women with the same level of dignity and respect who are in the military as we do those who are without the military, and, to a certain extent, the same way we were treating men when I arrived in this Congress.

Things change. This is an opportunity to be a part of an historic change. It may seem small to you, but

to the people who have to bear the burden of this invidious discrimination, it is not the same.

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate it. I shall be terse and laconic and pithy and concise.

It is time for change to again come to the House of Representatives. I support this legislation, and I beg that my colleagues would do so. It is time for change.

Madam Speaker, it has been a preeminent privilege to serve under Chair Waters' leadership on the Financial Services Committee. I think I can say without question, reservation, hesitation, or equivocation that, under the gentlewoman's leadership, we have seen great change. But I also know this: that under her leadership, there is greater change to come. It is my honor to serve under the gentlewoman's leadership.

And still I rise, Madam Speaker, and I rise today to support H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act. And I rise to thank the ranking member for his support of this legislation. He has been steadfast, and he has been true to his word.

I am honored to support this legislation, and I think that it is appropriate for me to address, first, the question of whether invidious discrimination exists.

Madam Speaker, if you deny that invidious discrimination exists, then you have to deny the existence of the KKK. To deny the existence of invidious discrimination would necessitate a denial of those who were in Charlottesville screaming: ``Blood and soil,'' ``Jews will not replace us.''

I believe the case is self-evident: invidious discrimination exists.

Currently, we have a system that allows us to collect the empirical evidence necessary to not only identify the invidious discrimination but also help us to prevent the invidious discrimination. This legislation is absolutely necessary to acquire the empirical intelligence so that we may go forward and prevent invidious discrimination.

By acquiring this intelligence, I might add, we will also deter some of the people who have good sense such that they won't commit invidious discrimination because they will be aware of the intelligence acquisition.

How do we do this? Here is how it happens: Currently, when you make your application, Madam Speaker, there is a place for you to indicate whether you are a minority person. If I

am filling out the application, I would probably indicate that I am a minority person, although I don't like the term. I use it only to communicate. I do not like the term ``minority.'' But for the purpose of communicating today, I would indicate that I am a minority person.

The only thing this bill will do, as it relates to acquiring the intelligence, is give us another space so that we can now indicate that, if you so choose, Madam Speaker, you are a member of the LGBTQ- plus community.

In filling out this form, if I chose not to indicate I was a minority person, I wouldn't have to. I would just sign it, completing the other aspects of it, and I would be done with it.

It only allows for the placement of additional language on the document so that persons who desire to--and it is important to note, Madam Speaker, that you must have the desire; it is with intentionality, and you voluntarily do this--would indicate, if you choose to, that you are a member of the LGBTQ-plus community.

I must say, candidly, I really don't see how this can become the debate that it has become. At some point in this country, we have to understand that discriminating against people because of who they are is inappropriate. It is unlawful.

I am the son of a segregated South, where I was lawfully discriminated against. I know what it looks like. I know what it smells like. I know what it sounds like. I know what invidious discrimination tastes like. I drank from filthy colored water fountains in my lifetime.

I don't wish any of this type of behavior that I had to endure on anyone else, so I rise today in support of this legislation as a continuation of my mission to do all that I can to help others avoid the horrors of invidious discrimination.

I am so grateful to Chairwoman Waters for all she has done. She has always been a friend, not only to me, but to those who are among the least, the last, and the lost. And I thank the gentlewoman for all that she has done.

And still I rise, Madam Speaker. Again, I thank the chairwoman for the time and the opportunity.

I would say to all, I recall the debate around the yield spread premium, wherein a loan originator could say to a person, ``Here is a loan, you are lucky to get it for 10 percent'' when the person qualified for a loan at 5 percent.

We eliminated the dastardly yield spread premium and the harm that it caused. We have a similar circumstance with the rent-a-bank scheme that steals the American Dream, such that people who qualify for better loans will likely get higher loans because they don't always understand the scheme.

So I rise today, and I thank Mr. Garcia for what he has done to bring this bill to fruition. I thank the Chairwoman, and I absolutely support the legislation.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise tonight to continue to make my payments on a debt that I owe.

I am the son of the segregated South. I know what invidious discrimination looks like. I know what it sounds like. I know what it tastes like. I know what it smells like. Because I have suffered invidious discrimination, I want no one else to suffer what I have suffered.

I rise tonight to pay a debt because I didn't get here by myself, and the people who look like me, we didn't get here by ourselves. Along the way there were people of different stripes who made a difference, such that we could have the opportunities that we have today.

So I am proud to say that I am an ally of the LGBTQIA caucus. I am proud to say that I am a member of the congressional LGBTQ-plus Equality Caucus. And I am proud to say that Mr. Cicilline is a person who I have great respect for, a person who is making a difference not only in the lives of people who are a member of the community, the LGBTQIA community, but also persons across the length and breadth of the globe, because when you help some directly, you help all indirectly.

I thank Mr. Cicilline for this preeminent privilege to stand tonight and to be a part of making the world a better place for others. I desire, if I may, to continue.

I want to make the world know that the caucus that I am a member of, the LGBTQ-plus Equality Caucus, has 170 members. The caucus was formed in the 111th Congress. Today, we have introduced the original LGBTQIA- plus Pride Month resolution. This resolution encourages the celebration of the month of June as LGBTQIA-plus Pride Month. It tracks the accomplishments and the milestones and the fight for LGBTQIA-plus equality. It has 187 cosponsors, minus the 100. It has 87 original cosponsors.

This resolution is endorsed by the National Center for Transgender Equality, PFLAG National, the National LGBTQ Task Force, and the Transgender Foundation of America.

We introduced the first LGBT Pride Month resolution in 2013. This resolution had 25 cosponsors. We have introduced a Pride Month resolution in every Congress since 2013.

In 2020, the LGBTQ Pride Month resolution had 62 cosponsors. This year, the resolution has 87 original cosponsors.

Now I would like to just discuss some seminal moments in Pride history. June marks 52 years of Pride celebrations across the country. It was in June of 1970 that the first Pride march took place in New York City to commemorate Stonewall Inn, the site of an act of resistance in June of 1969.

In 1977, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected public official in the U.S.

In 1980, the Democratic Party became the first major American political party to endorse a gay rights platform.

In 2000, Vermont became the first State to recognize civil unions between same-sex partners.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional.

In November of 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Justice Court ruled that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying violates the State constitution.

In 2008, California voters passed proposition 8, a public referendum ending same-sex marriage in the State.

In 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, expanding hate crime laws to include acts motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Between 2009 and 2011, Vermont, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, the District of Columbia, and New York legitimized same-sex marriage.

In 2010, President Obama officially repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, allowing gays, bisexuals, and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down California's proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against sex discrimination laid out in title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to LGBTQ Americans.

Houston, Texas, has a history that we are proud of. We remember the uprising at Stonewall because it marked the beginning of a movement to outlaw discrimination and laws that prohibited LGBTQIA persons from having the same rights as other persons in this country. Nearly a decade after the resistance displayed in New York at Stonewall Inn, the gay rights movement for equality made its way to Houston, Texas.

Houston's own Stonewall movement occurred in June of 1977, when thousands gathered around city hall in

downtown Houston to protest an infamous antigay activist who was performing in Houston, Texas. According to OutSmart magazine, more than 4,000 protesters marched around the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where the event was held.

The first Houston Pride parade took place in June of 1978, along Westheimer Road; and more than four decades later, it has become the fourth largest Pride parade in the country.

This resolution that we have presented to the House today is one that we will continue to present. We will continue to present it because it is not only the right thing to do, but it is the righteous thing to do.

No person in this country should be treated in such a way as to be defined as mistreated simply because of who they are. We have a right to be ourselves, and we should never be put in a position such that it is perceived that being who you are is inappropriate in a country that extolls the virtues of liberty and justice for all, that extolls the virtue of all persons being equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In this country, every person ought to be proud to celebrate Pride Month.

Mr. Speaker, we, who are honored to be Members of Congress, are here to pass judgment on the great issues of our time. There is no greater issue of our time than the issue of war and peace. It is about life and death.

We should not be allowed to escape our duty, responsibility, and obligation to vote on issues of war and peace.

We must repeal this authorization so that Congress can take up its responsibility and vote on the great issues of our time.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the United States Senate for unanimously passing legislation to nationally recognize Juneteenth as a federal holiday.

Juneteenth marks the anniversary of General Gordon Granger arriving in Galveston, Texas, and delivering the news of emancipation to enslaved Texans on June 19, 1865.

More than two years after President Lincoln's January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and more than two months after the end of the civil war, the enslaved in Texas finally received word of their freedom from General Granger, who was backed by 2,000 Union soldiers.

These newly freed persons--the last to receive the news of their emancipation in the Confederate states--started a grassroots celebration in Texas known as `Jubilee Day' to commemorate the life- altering event. Jubilee celebrations spread throughout the South and eventually to the rest of the country and taking on the moniker `Juneteenth,' a portmanteau meaning June 19th.

Although official recognition of this day has been slow to come, work by individuals such as the late Al Edwards--former state representative and the father of the Juneteenth holiday in Texas--has led to all but three states recognizing Juneteenth with annual celebratory events.

Now, what began as a grassroots movement to commemorate Texas history is set to become our nation's next federal holiday.

In honor of the Honorable Al Edwards and every person ever enslaved, I eagerly anticipate the opportunity to vote for this legislation on the House floor, and I thank Senator Edward Markey as well as my colleague and friend Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee for introducing this legislation to ensure Juneteenth is nationally recognized.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, in the spirit of Shirley Chisholm. I rise unbought and unbossed, a liberated Democrat.

And I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of pain in my heart. I am saddened. And I am, quite frankly, very, very disgusted and disappointed.

I saw a news story this morning that brought me to tears. I could not believe what I saw and I heard. I would like to share now some passages from a story in The New York Times that relate to what I saw this morning, what I heard this morning. I would ask that persons who are very sensitive to things involving pain and suffering be mindful of what I am about to do and might govern themselves appropriately because this is very painful to hear and very sad to understand that it actually occurred.

This story is styled ``Footage Shows Louisiana Troopers Punching and Dragging Man Who Died.''

I was born in Louisiana, in New Orleans. I have friends there. I have some sense of what the State is like, but even this exceeds some of what I know can happen in Louisiana.

This article goes on to read: ``Relatives of Ronald Greene,'' no relationship as far as I know, ``were initially told that he had died from injuries he sustained in a crash after he failed to stop for a traffic violation outside Monroe, Louisiana, in May 2019, according to a lawyer for the family.''

May 2019. You can do the math. That was some time ago. Some of us would say it was a long time ago.

``Body-camera footage obtained and published by the Associated Press on Wednesday showed Mr. Greene, 49, screaming, `I'm sorry,' and `I'm scared,' after troopers opened the door to his car and jolted him with a stun gun after a high-speed chase.''

I recall instructions from my mother. Her instructions when I was a young child were to never run from the police. Never run from the police. She was emphatic about it, and she explained why. Never run from the police, she explained to me, her young son, because the police will catch you and when they do, they are going to whip you. She explained to me that the police are of the opinion that if you run, a part of your punishment is a good whipping. This is what my mother explained to me as a child. So, we find today Mr. Greene saying, ``I'm sorry,'' and, ``I'm scared.''

`` `I'm scared,' Mr. Greene screamed, according to the video.'' He went on to say, `` `I'm your brother. I'm scared,' '' pleading, if you will. The ``pleading'' is what I am adding. That is not in the story, but pleading.

``According to the AP, which said it had obtained 46 minutes of video footage from the encounter, one trooper wrestled Mr. Greene to the ground, put him in a choke hold,'' some things bear repeating, ``put him in a choke hold and punched him in the face. Another trooper briefly dragged him by his ankle shackles as he lay on the ground, according to the footage.''

We know about choke holds. We know about knees on necks. We know that people are not always treated with respect.

Mind you, Mr. Greene, so far, has not exhibited a weapon. Yes, he was running, in the sense that he was driving away from the police. Yes, he should have stopped by standards that we like to employ. But does running from the police, driving your car away from the police, does this entitle the police to kick, tase multiple times, and drag a person?

``Mr. Greene was jolted again with the stun gun while he was on the ground and handcuffed.'' On the ground, handcuffed, and jolted again with a stun gun. This is what the footage shows, according to this news article.

``The AP reported that the troopers, who were White,'' again, some things bear repeating, ``AP reported that the troopers, who were White, left Mr. Greene, who was Black, facedown and moaning for more than 9 minutes, as they wiped blood from their hands and face.''

Mr. Greene is facedown, pleading, 9 minutes. The officers are wiping blood from their hands and face.

`` `I hope this guy ain't got AIDS,' one of the troopers said on the video, adding an expletive.''

He was concerned for himself at a time when a man is bleeding and in need of attention, medical attention, I might add. Officers have a duty to provide medical attention. When we are in combat with enemies, enemies who would destroy us, destroy our country, if we catch an enemy and that enemy is hurt, in need of medical attention, we provide aid and comfort.

Mr. Greene was not an enemy to the United States of America. He wasn't an enemy of this country. Mr. Greene wasn't trying to kill these officers.

Yes, he resisted. But does resistance afford or grant the officers the legal right to abuse him to the extent that he finds himself on the ground bleeding; they find themselves wiping blood from their hands and their face, and then concluding, ``I hope this guy ain't got AIDS''?

There are people who don't want to hear the things that I have to say about invidious discrimination. They don't want to hear it because they don't want to acknowledge that it exists. Not only does it exist, it exists more than we know.

But for the body cameras, this wouldn't be in The New York Times. It is in The New York Times because there is now evidence, clear and convincing evidence, that it actually occurred. But there are people who don't want to hear a Member come to the floor of the House of Representatives and call these things to the attention of the world.

We call them to the attention of the world, because the world needs to know we have been right for years upon years, decades on decades, in making known these issues that have been ignored.

Now the truth is being revealed. George Floyd, the truth was revealed. Ronald Greene, the truth has been revealed.

Let's go on. This story indicates that: ``The Louisiana State Police said on Wednesday''--mind you, this is Wednesday in May of 2019--``The Louisiana State Police said on Wednesday that the investigation into Mr. Greene's death `remains under review by Federal and State authorities.'''

My dear friends, my dear brothers, and my dear sisters, if an animal--let's say a dog--if they had treated a dog the way they treated Mr. Greene, a human being, the investigation would be over, the punishment would have been assessed, and I would dare say that they would have received punishment much more severe than what I am about to read to you.

The article states: ``One of the troopers, who was involved in the encounter . . . was temporarily suspended and is back on the force.''

Some things bear repeating.

``One of the troopers who was involved in the encounter . . . was temporarily suspended and is back on the force.'' This is what the State police said.

I am not sure that the humane society would have allowed this to go without some additional repercussions, lawful repercussions, I might add, if an animal, a dog, were treated the way Mr. Greene was treated.

Remember, Mr. Greene was pleading: ``I'm your brother. I'm scared.'' Begging, ``I'm sorry,'' he said.

Dear friends, Mr. Greene's death was ruled accidental and was attributed to cardiac arrest. How can we allow this to stand?

The family commissioned an independent autopsy that found severe injuries to Mr. Greene's head and skull and several wounds to his face. But the

officers concluded his death was accidental. This is my commentary now. His death was accidental and was attributed to cardiac arrest.

In the world that I live in, this is called a coverup. In the world that I live in, this video is the evidence needed, coupled with the time that has elapsed, to substantiate the coverup.

There may be more evidence. There may be more evidence that would be of benefit. But my dear friends, for a human being to be treated as Mr. Greene was treated and then have one person temporarily suspended-- there may be other things that have occurred. This is a news story. All of the facts may not be in. One person suspended, and it reported that his death was ruled accidental, attributed to cardiac arrest.

We must pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. What more do we need? We have George Floyd, his death. We have now Mr. Greene. These incidents--as they are called by people who live in polite society-- these incidents continue to occur. What more do we need to pass legislation in the Senate of the United States of America, where we have people who have taken an oath to protect? What do we need to pass the legislation that will ban chokeholds? This man was choked.

What do we need to pass legislation so that lawsuits can continue, so that they won't be dismissed on grounds that are archaic? It may not be insane, but it is an inanity. What do we need to end this inanity? What is going on in the Senate, the Senate of the United States of America, land of ``liberty and justice''--I say the Pledge of Allegiance--``for all.'' I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I love my country, but I don't love what is happening in the United States Senate.

It is time for this piece of legislation to receive its day. It ought to be voted on, immediately, if not sooner. What is going on in the United States Senate? How can we tolerate this level of inhumanity? What is going on in the United States Senate?

At some point, on the infinite continuum that we call time, we are all going to have to account for our time. And on that day of judgment, it won't be based upon how many millionaires did you try to help because you were a Member of Congress and you had the opportunity to pass laws to benefit millionaires and billionaires. That won't be what your judgment is based on. It won't be based on how many full bellies did you try to feed. At some point, we are going to have to account for our actions. At some point, judgment is going to be how did you treat the least, the last, and the lost among us.

Judgment is not going to be how did you treat the well-off, the well- heeled, and the well-to-do. They always fare well. The judgment is going to be how did you treat the Greene's of the world, how did you treat the Floyds of the world.

Senators, I beg you, do not allow rules that benefit the lawlessness that is taking place to prevent you from doing the righteous thing. You have an opportunity to move on this legislation. I beg that you would do so.

I am but one person. I am sure that there are others who would agree with some of what I have said. But I come to the floor to say this, because I want my record to show that when I had a chance to stand up against injustice, I did so.

I am saddened by what happened to Mr. Greene, to Mr. Floyd, to Ms. Breonna Taylor, and to many others whose names that you don't know: Joe Campos Torres, thrown in a bayou in Houston, Texas, handcuffed; Billy Keith Joyvies; Randall Alan Webster, chased down the Freeway, shot; Ida Lee Delaney, shot out on the freeway in Houston. There are many names that you don't know. But if you do the research, you will find that in each one of those cases, there were concerns related to the way the police handled them.

So I have done what I can do today. But if God gives me the strength, I will be back again and again and again and again. I want my record to show I gave it my best, I tried, and I will continue to try.

At this time, I have a colleague who desires time. I am going to yield to him as much time as he may consume of the time that I have left.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

I thank the gentleman for his sage recitation. I did listen, and I am grateful that the gentleman has seen the need to be a friend to persons who are clearly in harm's way.

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

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise today understanding that William Cullen Bryant was right: ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again.'' Whether you believe that it was just a group of tourists walking through the Capitol or not, you should want this commission.

If you believe that it was an insurrection, you should want this commission. You should want this commission because you cannot bury the truth in an earthly grave of lies and not realize the words of William Cullen Bryant, ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Thompson and the ranking member for standing together to make this moment possible. Bipartisanship is achieved when you have good decent people who can stand together for the good of all.

God bless you, dear brothers.

Madam Speaker, those who tolerate hate perpetuate hate. A brief story: I saw the picture, the film, the depiction of the lady in New York when she was approached by a man who kneed her in her stomach, forced her to the ground, and kicked her with his feet on multiple occasions. That kind of hate we cannot tolerate.

He happened to have been a person of color. It must be known that regardless as to who you are, regardless as to your race or your color, Madam Speaker, if you perfect that kind of hate, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law allows. Those who tolerate hate perpetuate hate.

Madam Speaker, the great writer and intellectual Carlyle was right, ``No lie can live forever.''

Kill 300 people? No lie can live forever.

Destroy an entire business district? Try to hide it? No lie can live forever.

Hundreds hospitalized, families destroyed. No lie can live forever.

One hundred years later, truth crushed to Earth has arisen, and no lie can live forever.

Madam Speaker, I thank Ms. Chu for her diligence and her persistence in getting this done.

This is a moment for sober reflection. This is a time for us to understand that there is a lot of pain in the Asian-American community.

There are people who are suffering, and it gives us an opportunity now to let them know that they are not alone, to let them know that liberty and justice for all applies to them, to let them know that we will stand against the hate as we stand with them. It is a time for sober reflection.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the Civil Rights Act. Well, what do the organizations that protect and promote the Civil Rights Act actually say?

More than 220 of them, I might add, say that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is critical to promoting economic security for pregnant workers and their families.

They say that women of color--more than two-thirds of Black women, 55 percent of Native American women, and 41 percent of Latina women--are the sole primary breadwinners for their families. They say that they support reasonable accommodations.

They say that a woman ought not be fired or be threatened with being fired for simply coming to work bearing a child, having a child.

They say that they support this legislation.

But the question really is, who are they? They are the Human Rights Campaign. They are the Anti-Defamation League. They are the League of Women Voters of the United States. They are the NAACP. They are the American Civil Liberties Union. They are the AFL-CIO. They are Mary Kay Henry. They are the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. They are the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. They are Rabbi Jonah Pesner. And they are for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a practitioner, I rise.

Having practiced law, I saw firsthand how predatory debt collection works. I know of the threats to get persons demoted. I know of the threats to cause people to lose their jobs. I know of the many threats to cause people to go to jail if they didn't pay a debt.

This is unlawful. It ought not happen, but it does. We know that there is no debtors' prison in this country, but people still threaten people with going to jail if they don't pay debts.

Yes, servicemembers ought to be protected. I stand for them. But I also stand with the hardworking Americans who, through no fault of their own, will sometimes find themselves owing debts.

This must pass. I support H.R. 2547.

Mr. Speaker, the British statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, is credited with having stated that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This is the reason why, in part, I will be introducing legislation for a slavery remembrance day. Currently, no such day exists in the United States.

National days of remembrance provide an effective means to honor those impacted by horrific events. They prevent the tragedy from fading from our memories by educating the generations to come, and they highlight the modern-day implications of such events.

My resolution would provide a day for slavery remembrance, and the language of the resolution would commemorate the lives of all enslaved people, while condemning the act and the perpetration as well as perpetuation of slavery in the United States of America and across the world.

The resolution would discuss the Middle Passage, the Underground Railroad, and the lives of Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, and John Brown. It would also make the 18 persons who were elected to Congress from the Reconstruction era as honorary cosponsors of the resolution in a posthumous way.

I am proud to do this, and I ask that all Members please consider becoming original cosponsors of the resolution.