Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand here in the House of Representatives, to have the opportunity to address colleagues, friends, and the Nation. I especially thank the leadership for allowing these privileges.

I am grateful to the many people who are still here as we continue with our statements on the floor of the House. You work tirelessly, and it seems that you work endlessly, Mr. Speaker. I think it appropriate that we thank you for being here with us into the late hours as we present our floor messaging.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here tonight to announce that my dear friend and colleague, Representative Emanuel Cleaver, has joined me in reintroducing a resolution in recognition of Fair Housing Month.

Housing, Mr. Speaker, is a basic human right, but access is too often limited based upon race, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation. This resolution marks the 51st anniversary of the congressional passage of the Fair Housing Act, properly styled title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based upon race, national origin, religion, sex, or familial status. This year, Mr. Speaker, also marks the 31st anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

More than 50 years ago on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech. It was considered, and it is still considered, one of the greatest speeches in American history.

In his speech, Dr. King called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. Passionately, he argued that all men are created equal and should be treated equally. Although that was not the case in America at that time, he believed it must be the case for America's future.

I must tell you, we have come a long way, Mr. Speaker, but we still have a great distance to go to realize the dream of Dr. King, a world where persons are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Dr. King was a very strong supporter of fair housing, and he envisioned a society free of discrimination.

I would like to speak just a moment about access to affordable housing. Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development releases the ``Annual Homelessness Assessment Report.'' This is released to Congress. It provides the best available estimates of homelessness and how it is impacting the United States.

According to the 2018 report, there were 552,830 persons experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in 2018.

The report also provides details on the demographics of the people experiencing homelessness. For example, for women and children in 2018, nearly 160,000 children and youth experienced homelessness, representing nearly 30 percent of the total persons who are in a state of homelessness. Over 216,000 women and girls experienced homelessness, or 40 percent of the total persons who experienced homelessness.

Racial minorities were disproportionately represented among people experiencing homelessness in 2018. African Americans comprised 40 percent of all people experiencing homelessness, despite making up only 13 percent of the Nation's general population.

Hispanic or Latino persons comprised 25 percent of the total, despite making up but 18 percent of the Nation's general population.

Nearly 38,000 veterans experienced homelessness in 2018, or 9 percent of the total.

Furthermore, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the U.S. has a shortage of more than 7.2 million rental homes that are affordable and available to the lowest income renters in our country.

After the 2008 financial crisis, it became clear that we need to address the epidemic of discrimination in lending where communities of color are disproportionately targeted. I can recall, having been on the Financial Services Committee, how we received testimony from persons who indicated to us that as a result of this downturn in 2008, the community of color, the African American community in particular, lost a generation of wealth. This is something that we are still trying to recover from.

This is why we need the Fair Lending for All Act. The Fair Lending for All Act would create such a fair lending testing program that would penalize individuals who discriminate. When they do so, and they discriminate invidiously and cause harm to persons, when they hold predatory loans and they make these loans, they will be held accountable because we must ensure we are not only understanding the patterns of housing discrimination more thoroughly but also understand that we are providing clear oversight and guidelines to combat housing discrimination.

In 1968, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, commonly known and well-known as the Kerner Commission, concluded in a groundbreaking report that White racism led to pervasive discrimination in employment, education, and housing.

In 2015, the Black homeownership rate was just over 40 percent, virtually unchanged since 1968. Over that same period, White ownership increased 5.2 percentage points to 71.1 percent, 30 percentage points higher than the Black homeownership rate.

As a result, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968, 1 week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. In fact, there are many people who contend that before the demise of Dr. King, the Fair Housing Act would not have been signed as quickly as it was.

Dr. King, as you know, was assassinated. For many of us, it was a sad and dark day in the history of our country. We were saddened by what happened to Dr. King, notwithstanding the fact that the Fair Housing Act became law as a result of his untimely demise.

The Fair Housing Act was conceived to battle discrimination in housing related to these housing transactions that are supposed to allow everyone to access housing but don't always accomplish those goals.

More than 4 million Fair Housing Act violations occur each year against people of all protected classes, including based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Less than 1 percent of the violations of Fair Housing Act laws are reported each year.

In 2017, approximately 28,843 housing discrimination complaints were filed. Of these, 20,595 complaints, or approximately 70 percent, were filed with local private, nonprofit, fair housing centers.

Housing bills in the 116th Congress include H.R. 123, the FHA Additional Credit Pilot Program Reauthorization Act.

We introduced this on January 3, 2019. This would extend section 258 of the National Housing Act, which established an automated process for providing alternative credit rating information for mortgagors and prospective mortgagors.

I would add that, simply put, this would give persons who pay their light bills, their gas bills, their water bills, all of their utility bills timely but they don't have thick credit files--in fact, they have thin credit files, and some of them have no credit at all, in addition to these bills that they pay on a monthly basis--an opportunity to have these payments scored so that they, too, might have the opportunity to own a home.

Representative Vicente Gonzalez is one of the cosponsors of this legislation.

H.R. 166, the Fair Lending for All Act, was introduced on January 3 of 2019, and this would establish an Office of Fair Lending Testing to test for compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, ECOA, and to create criminal penalties for invidious discrimination in lending.

H.R. 149, the Housing Fairness Act, was introduced on January 3, 2019, and it would instruct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a nationwide testing program.

This nationwide testing program would be utilized to detect and document differences in the treatment of persons seeking to rent or purchase housing or obtain a refinance of a home mortgage loan. It would measure patterns of adverse treatment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability status, or national origin of renters, home buyers, or borrowers. And it would measure the prevalence of such discriminatory practices across the housing and mortgage lending market.

H.R. 165, Improving Access to Homes for Heroes Act. This was introduced January 3, 2019. It would provide Congress with the information it needs, as we work toward ending homelessness among our veterans, by requiring HUD to provide Congress with an annual report that gives a comprehensive assessment of the efforts being made to provide housing assistance to our veterans, and it would also require public housing agencies to include veterans in their public housing planning.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be associated with all of the bills. We are honored to act as original sponsors of all of these pieces of legislation, but I am much more proud of the fact that, in this country, we are still making progress, but we really have come a long way.

I can remember a time when the public housing in this country was segregated, literally--tax dollars providing housing that was segregated.

I am proud to say that we have come a long way and integrated the public housing, housing paid for with American tax dollars.

I can remember a time in this country when there were neighborhoods that persons of African ancestry were restricted from living in. Restrictive covenants were prevalent. And there are still some neighborhoods that there is a degree of difficulty acquiring access to; but, generally speaking, restrictive covenants are no longer in existence to the extent that they are commonly used to exclude persons of color, and other persons as well, based on religious preferences, from the neighborhoods.

This is a country that still has a long way to go, but this is a country that has made some great strides.

Notwithstanding the strides, however, we must continue to do our very best to make sure every person who wants housing and can afford it can get housing, which means that we have to have affordable housing.

I was very proud this week that just passed, in Houston, Texas, to visit an area in my district, the Ninth Congressional District of Texas, where a project had been razed, as in eviscerated, and there was a raising, if you will, of another project.

This project cost approximately $30-plus million, and it was subsidized in part from CDBG dollars from this Congress to the tune of about $3 million.

It was a wonderful thing to see this new growth, if you will, this new housing development in this community. It is a wonderful project that has amenities that you might expect to find in an upscale neighborhood.

Within the center for persons to use, the common area, there is a business center right within that complex. There is also a facility for meetings. There was an exercise room. And their plan is to have a swimming pool. Yes, people who need affordable housing do swim. They enjoy exercising, and they want to have the opportunity to go online and conduct business just as other people do.

So it was a wonderful thing to see this project have all of these various amenities that you might find in an upscale neighborhood.

I was there with a good many people who were just proud to be a part of the community and to see this development take place within their neighborhood.

As you know, we dwell in our houses, but we live in our neighborhoods. And in living in a neighborhood, you want to make sure that you have got quality housing. You want parks. You want schools. You want the opportunity to have your food source immediately available to you, readily available.

This is all a part of what is being developed as a result, in part, of these new housing projects coming online.

So it is important for us to continue to use community development dollars in a very positive way, so that we can continue to develop, not just homes for people, but neighborhoods for people to live in as well as homes for them to dwell in.

Houston, Texas, I am proud to say, has a mayor who has made it his mission to be a good partner in the wise and judicious use of these community development dollars. That is but one project that I can call to your attention. I have attended the ribbon cutting of many other projects that are similarly situated.

I would add, as I come to a close, that the housing crisis that we are experiencing now is one that is quite visible. In my lifetime, I don't think I have seen this number of people dwelling on the bridges, dwelling along the side of freeways, dwelling under trees.

We say that home is where the heart is. If this is true, we have to query: Where is the heart of the homeless? Where is the heart of the homeless? Is it on a bridge or under a bridge or near a park bench at night? Is it someplace where those of us who lead lives adorned with luxury don't have them in sight?

Where are the homeless? Where is the heart?

But the question really isn't, where is the heart of the homeless person. The question is: Where is our heart?

Where is the heart of a nation that is the richest in the world that can tolerate this level of homelessness that is in plain sight?

You don't have to look very far to see it. Many of us take the freeways and we avoid it, but it is right there for all to see.

Where is our heart? Where is the heart of the country that can put people on the moon, the country that can house people in space stations; where is the heart of the country that can do all of these magnificent things, yet have persons who are sleeping under bridges?

I am proud that the Honorable Maxine Waters, the chairperson of the Financial Services Committee, has a bill that we are taking up, a bill that would accord some many billions of dollars for the homelessness part of it, some $5-plus billion, and it would attempt to tackle this problem of homelessness in a very positive way.

It is not just another Lilliputian effort. This is a noble effort to do what we can to provide homes for people who are living on the streets of life in the richest country in the world.

So, this month I am proud to bring this resolution to the floor, and I am proud to tell you that we are going to tackle these problems. We may not solve them immediately, but we have the will to solve them eventually.

This is our challenge. This is our quest. And this is what we must do in the richest country in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, May 2, 2019, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a document styled ``Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,'' Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because this Congress has a date with destiny. Mr. Speaker, the tintinnabulation of history are sounding. The bells of history are reminding us that we have a responsibility to our country that we must take up.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to announce that I will bring Articles of Impeachment

against the President of the United States of America for obstructing a lawful investigation. I do so, Mr. Speaker, because I will not put party above people; I will not put politics above principle; and I will not put this President above the law.

Mr. Speaker, I don't do this because I want to. I do so because I have to. We cannot allow the paralysis of analysis to thwart the obstruction of justice cause that must be brought before the Congress. This is a day that we all must start now to decide what our votes will be because history demands that we all take a stand.

I have not lobbied one person and will not do so. I say to people: Vote your conscience. But if you have read this document, there are a good many people who will conclude that the President has obstructed a lawful investigation.

Mr. Speaker, there are people who cannot say that I was right when I said some 600-plus days ago that the President was engaging in obstruction, and they will not say that I was wrong. But to those people who can't say that I am wrong and will not say that I am right, you know that I kept my word every step of the way, and I am going to keep my word today.

If this House does not bring these Articles of Impeachment before this august body, each Member has the authority and the opportunity to do so. I will not allow history to show that this Congress did not take a vote on the impeachment of a reckless, ruthless, lawless President.

I absolutely believe that we must honor our date with history.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise because I love my country. I rise today on a mission of mercy.

I am on a mission of mercy for people that I will likely never meet and greet. Perhaps by some fortuitous circumstance, I may encounter some of them, but I know not who they are currently in the sense that I know them personally.

I rise on behalf of the many people who are seeking asylum, and I do so, Mr. Speaker, because it has been reported on many news stations-- outlets, if you will--that our President intends to reinstate the family separation policy.

I rise on a mission of mercy, and I make an appeal to the most powerful man on the planet Earth. My appeal is that you would not--N-O- T--you would not reinstate this policy.

I beseech you to please, Mr. President, treat these people the way you would want to be treated if you found yourself in similar circumstances. I beg that you would understand that separating babies from mothers is unacceptable by any standard that we know of.

No one supports the notion of taking babies from their mothers, children from their parents.

So I am begging and pleading with the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man on Earth: Please, Mr. President, do not reinstate this policy.

I also appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the President to do the right thing, the just thing.

If we are not pleased with the laws in this country, we have a means by which we can address the law. If we believe that something is unacceptable, there is a way for us to address it. The way to address this problem is with immigration reform.

I beg the President and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please, let's try to resolve this with legislation. Let's not do what we have done and, quite frankly, have not atoned for.

Some of the children are still not back with their parents who were separated previously. This is the United States of America. This is not what we do. We don't take children from their parents and then place them in places where we cannot find them such that we can reunite them.

This is my appeal, Mr. President. I make the appeal because, as a Member of Congress, I believe that at some point we are going to have to account for the actions that we engage in while we are here. I don't want it on my record that while I was in the Congress of the United States of America and I had the opportunity to at least speak to power, to speak truth to power, and make an appeal on behalf of those who are among the least, the last, and the lost--I am making my appeal. I am doing what I can to help those who are fleeing harm's way.

Mr. President, you don't have to do this, and I beg that Members of both parties would please encourage him not to do so.

This is a moment for us to reflect and a moment for us to demonstrate to the world that what we preach, we will practice. We have, for years, encouraged other countries to take in refugees. We have gone so far as to pay countries to take in refugees. We have funded countries to take in refugees. We ought to practice what we preach.

Those who are not qualified should not come, should not be brought into our country. But I would also say this, that we should not say to the world: Go back, refugees, asylum seekers. You are not welcome in the United States of America.

This is not the country that would proclaim such a thing. Our laws we stand on, and I stand on those laws.

Madam Speaker, I would like to honor the life and legacy of a distinguished member of my Houston staff, a constituent, and more importantly a dear friend who passed away on Thursday, March 28, 2019 in Houston, Texas.

Ms. Bessie Swindle was born June 5, 1939 in Loreauville, Louisiana, relocating to Houston, Texas as a young adult where she went on to become a pillar of the Sunnyside community.

Over the course of more than fifty years, she used her skills as a community organizer to make a difference in Houston. Prior to serving as an outreach coordinator in my Houston office, she founded and served as president of the Cloverland Civic Club, representing 400 homeowners in the neighborhood, sponsoring fundraisers, aiding needy families, and raising money for scholarships.

She was involved with several organizations and used her voice to represent Sunnyside residents as a Parent/Teacher Association member, Troop Leader for Girl Scouts of America San Jacinto Council, President of the St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church ``55 Plus'' Club, Community Liaison for former Harris County Precinct 7 Constable Michael Butler and Constable Perry Wooten, member of Mayor Bill White's Phone Tower Commission, and member of the City of Houston Police Officers Civil Service Commission. She also served as president of Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs and Precinct Judge for Harris County Voting Precinct 271.

During her distinguished lifetime of service, she was the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including Parent of the Year from James H. Law Elementary in 1975, the Mayor's Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service in 1996, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus Award in 1999, the Sir Knight Dennis Armelin Humanitarian Award in 2004, Mayor Bill White's proclamation of Bessie M. Swindle Day in 2007, the naming of the Bessie Swindle Community Center in Sunnyside, Houston, Texas in 2009, as well as the street naming of Bessie Swindle Way in 2010.

It is eminently clear that Ms. Bessie M. Swindle was no ordinary community servant. She used her influence to constantly stand up for those who needed her assistance--and she made a difference. Ms. Bessie Swindle will be greatly missed for her wit, wisdom, and willingness to work hard. Her contribution will never be forgotten.

I would like to send my condolences to Ms. Swindle's family, friends, and all those who will miss her dearly. I hope that, even in this sad time, Ms. Swindle's record of unselfish dedication to her city and community will serve as a bright light for those who dare to follow in her footsteps.

Ms. Bessie M. Swindle is survived by one daughter: Jackie Swindle. She is also survived by four brothers, one sister, and many beloved nieces and nephews.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the life of a great and noble American, Ms. Bessie Swindle, who will be laid to rest.

Madam Speaker, Ms. Swindle was born in 1939 at a time when she could buy a hat but she couldn't try it on. She was relegated to the balcony of the movie and the back of the bus.

Yet, notwithstanding all of the obstacles that life afforded her, she was a servant to multiple elected officials: two constables and two mayors.

She has been given a day in her honor by Mayor Bill White in 2007.

She was, literally, a commissioner without a commission. She was a council person without a council. She was a lawyer without a license. She was the person who gave hope to the hopeless and help to the helpless.

She lived up to the words of Ruth Smeltzer:

Some measure their lives by days and years,

Others by heartthrobs, passions, and tears.

But the surest measure under God's sun,

Is what for others in your lifetime have you done.

God bless you, dear Bessie. We love you. Your spirit will live forever, and your legacy will continue to change the lives of others.

You made headway when others were making headlines.

We love you.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise with love of country in mind and liberty and justice for all in heart.

I rise to remind us of the words of the great French intellectual, Voltaire, who reminded us that those who can make us believe absurdities can cause us to commit atrocities.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to the border. I have seen the security people who are there, the Border Patrol officers. They are victims, Mr. Speaker, victims of policies that, unfortunately, do not respect the humanity of many people. I have seen the children stacked in cages. I have seen the parents grieving.

Mr. Speaker, I know why people are fleeing the countries south of the border. They are doing so because they are, literally, many of them, running for their lives. They are seeking safe harbor in the United States of America because we have extended an informal invitation by and through our Statue of Liberty.

We have, with our words and our deeds, said to the world that we are people who you can trust and who you can depend on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with liberty and justice for all in mind because those who would want us to believe that babies who are coming here are an invading army, if you will, they are wrong. Those babies are coming because their mothers believe that they can find safety in our country.

Mr. Speaker, would anybody deny that a mother who would send her child to this country or some distant place, possibly understanding that the child could be harmed along the way, can anybody deny that this is being done because that mother has such great love for that child that she wants her child to have the opportunity to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Can anybody deny that these parents who come, traversing harm's way, are doing so because they are trying to leave a circumstance that has greater harm?

Mr. Speaker, I rise with the understanding that Voltaire was right. It is an absurdity to believe that women and children and people who are fleeing harm's way are invaders.

I also would remind us of other words of Voltaire. He also reminded us that, ``It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.'' I would not utilize the word ``fools,'' but I will say that it is difficult to free people from chains that they revere. Those who want to separate us from the rest of the world, especially the world of color, they revere these chains that bind and bond them to this notion. I think it is going to be difficult to separate them, but not impossible.

I believe that people of goodwill can always win and that we of goodwill must continue to preach the message and gospel of liberty and justice for all.

I believe that we can make a difference in the lives of people who we will never meet and greet. Those persons who are trying to get here will probably never vote for me. There is no reason for me to do this other than I believe in my heart that an injustice is being perpetrated at the border.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that this problem at the border requires greater scrutiny and greater attention from the American people and from those of us who represent them. It is my belief that if we want to do something about this problem, we have to acknowledge that it is a humanitarian crisis that we are dealing with and that the humanitarian crisis cannot be solved with a wall alone.

We cannot conclude that, if we leave the world alone, it will leave us alone. We are a part of this great world of humanity. There is but one race and that is the human race. We must do our part to protect all within the human race, especially our neighbors to the south.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House of Representatives.

Each time I am afforded this opportunity, I have tried to savor the moment knowing that it is not eternal and knowing that, at some point, we will no longer have this preeminent privilege. But I do appreciate having the opportunity to serve the people of the Ninth Congressional District and to serve my country. I love my country.

I thank the gentlewoman for what she has done with H. Res. 257. I support this resolution, and I would like to compliment the lady for what she has done since she has arrived in Congress.

She has truly hit the ground running. She came from the State house. She is a lawyer. She has been an advocate, and she understands the issues associated with criminal justice. So I thank her for what she has done and what she is doing with this resolution.

Madam Speaker, it was never intended for the executive branch of the government to investigate itself.

The Framers of the Constitution, in Federalist 65, addressed this. Federalist 65, the Federalist Papers.

I invite people to please read the Federalist Papers. If you can't read them all, just read Federalist 65 and 69.

Some things are made perspicuously clear. One of the things made clear is that impeachment is solely within the province of the House of Representatives.

Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America; Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America--these are the authors of the Federalist Papers, and they were prophetic with some of their writings.

While I would not agree with all that they did in their lifetimes, I will tell you that what they have done with reference to impeachment is prophetic, because they understood that at some point you could have a President who was unfit to hold office, but who had not committed a crime but should be removed from office before the next election because of the harm the President is imposing upon society.

Understanding this, they were in support of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which deals with treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as the means by which a President can be removed from office after having been elected.

They understood that there might be a time such as this and a President such as Trump.

They understood that we, the Members of this august body, should be empowered such that we could take up the cause of the American people. Not because we are Democrats, because it is not about Democrats; it is about democracy. Not because we are Republicans, because it is not about Republicans; it is about the Republic and what Franklin said when he called to our attention: You have a Republic if you can keep it.

It is about maintaining this Republic. They were prophetic. They understood that you cannot allow the executive branch to investigate itself, because if you allow such to happen, you find yourself with what has happened with Mr. Mueller.

He has investigated, but he cannot hand it over to us because he is an agent of the executive branch of government. And, as an agent of the executive branch of government, he is required to submit his report to the executive branch, a report that is all about the head of the executive branch of the government.

This is why the Framers understood that it was necessary to empower another branch of government to do this. How prophetic and how wise they were to do so.

It was not intended that we would outsource this investigation to the executive branch, which is, in essence, what has occurred. We have allowed the executive branch to assume what is truly the responsibility and the duty and the obligation of the House of Representatives.

This is ours. This is what we must do.

When there was a Republican administration in this House, I indicated that I wouldn't get in the way of that investigation, but I also indicated that the House should do its job.

And if the House is to do its job, it is contemplated that the Judiciary Committee would do exactly what the Representative from the 13th Congressional District in Michigan is doing now and, that is, take up the question of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee by way of a resolution such as what she has called to the attention of this Congress.

I salute her for doing so because this is what was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution. This is what Madison contemplated, Jay contemplated, and Hamilton contemplated.

And, to give further evidence of what they contemplated, we but only have to review the impeachment in 1868 of Andrew Johnson.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in Article X of the Articles of Impeachment against him for speaking ill of Congress.

There is no requirement that the President commit a crime, that the President commit an offense for which he must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a President can be impeached.

Congress determines what the standard is for impeachment. Unfortunately, we have allowed what happens on the judicial side of the law to be conflated with what happens on the political side of the law.

The judiciary, or the judicial side, would have a crime. This is what Mr. Mueller was investigating, to see if a crime had been committed--a crime. And, if a crime is committed, of course the President can be impeached for committing a crime.

But the President can also be impeached if he has not committed a crime, but he is doing harm to society. This is the law.

When we say no person is above the law, we are talking about not only the law as it is codified with reference to criminality, but also the law as it has been codified such that impeachment can be the punishment in the sense that the President would be indicted.

It is not the same as an indictment, but it is quite similar, and the President would then have to face trial in

the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

There is no punishment, per se, with this entire process. It is just a means by which a President is removed from office. And, if he has committed a crime, he can, of course, still be prosecuted for the criminal activity.

So, tonight, we are here to thank the Member for what she has done in filing this resolution, H. Res. 257. We are here tonight to acknowledge that the Framers of the Constitution contemplated what she has done. She is in order.

We are here tonight to acknowledge that it is now within the hands of the Judiciary Committee, this resolution, and it is my prayer that the Judiciary Committee would take this resolution and bring it to a vote.

I believe that it is time for us to do what the Constitution contemplates by way of the words of the Framers and by way of what Federalist 65 has called to our attention.

However, I still stand tonight where I stood when I initially took to the floor of the House of Representatives and indicated that this President should be impeached. I stand where I stood then, and I also stand on the premise that, if the Judiciary Committee does not act, any Member of this august body can bring impeachment to a vote.

I stand on this. This is what the rules allow. And as a Member of Congress, I have given an assurance that there will be another vote on impeachment in the House of Representatives.

I will do it. I don't like using personal pronouns because my mother always said: ``Alexander, whatever you will do, you will do with others.''

But, because of the way the process is codified, I will do it because I love my country.

I will do it because I understand that we have a person who is unfit to be President holding this office.

I will do it because I want to protect the democracy.

I will do it because I believe in the Republic.

I will do it because I salute the flag and I believe in liberty and justice for all.

I will do it because I believe that Lincoln was right when he spoke of government of the people, by the people, for the people being forever a part of our country, our land.

I will do it because it is the appropriate thing to do at a time such as this, with a President such as Trump.

And finally this, Madam Speaker, I have not suggested that I have whipped or would whip, meaning encourage others to vote a certain way. I have consistently said you should vote your conscience.

I still stand by it. Vote your conscience. Vote your conscience, knowing that, at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time--at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time, there will be people who will review our actions through the vista of time.

And, when they review our actions, the query will be: What did they do when they had an opportunity to take up the cause of justice?

They will want to know what did we do. And the only way they can know what we did is for there to be a vote.

At some point, we have to move beyond talking points to action items. The only way to make this an action item is for there to be a vote.

And those who look through the vista of time, perhaps generations unborn, when they look through the vista of time, they will want to see the record. And the record will show where we stood when we had the opportunity to remove an unfit person from office, an unfit President.

The record will show where we stood, but, more importantly, it will give them some clues as to what was happening in this House at the time. It will give them some evidence of where we were.

And I assure you, Madam Speaker, at some point on this infinite continuum, people are going to ask the question: What was wrong with them? What was wrong with them?

They had a President who was separating babies from their mothers at the border, with no means of reuniting them.

Babies are still separated from their parents.

They will want to know: What was wrong with them? They allowed this?

They will want to know: How could you decide that you are going to take up the cause against persons who make commentary in the House, but you won't take up the cause against a President who went so far as to say there were some fine people among the bigots, the racists, the xenophobes, the homophobes, the Islamophobes, the nativists; among those persons who marched and proclaimed ``Jews will not replace us,'' persons who said, ``blood and soil.''

How could you allow this to go unchallenged?

They will want to know: What was wrong with them? Why would they allow such a person to continue in office, a person who demeans the country when he demeans its heroes, a person who demeans persons by simply deciding that name-calling is more appropriate than debating issues.

And, by the way, calling a person who is a bigot a bigot is not name- calling. That is properly labeling the actions of a person, the behavior of a person.

And, by the way, for those who may not have paid attention, if you have been following these various TV programs, news programs, information sources, host after host, persons who are being interviewed, have said that the President is a racist. They have said that the President is a bigot.

I understand that it is difficult for some to say. Not for me. Not for me. I know what bigotry looks like. I know what racism smells like. I know what it sounds like. I know what it tastes like. I suffered through it.

I would not want to see what I had to endure become a part of the fiber and fabric of this country ever again. Whenever we see evidence of this ugliness rearing its head, we should do what we can to stare it down and stop it.

I stand here tonight believing that we have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to allow what this Congresswoman has called to our attention to move forward. I stand on the Constitution in saying this, and I will stand with her. I am proud to be associated with her and what she is doing.

When we do bring this to a vote, my hope is that every Member will vote his or her conscience. That is all that I ask, just vote your conscience, and let the record reflect where we stood.

As Dr. King put it, the truest measure of a person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience. The truest measure of a person is where you stand in times of challenge and controversy.

These are times of challenge and controversy. The question is, where do we stand? The record will show where we stand.

There are some who will say that this is going to be a hard vote. I have a sense of what hard votes are like. I have had to take some hard votes since I have been in Congress. I have had to take some hard votes and never had a person say thank you for taking that hard vote. I have taken my share of hard votes.

I have some members of the clergy that still have not found favor with some of the votes that I have taken, but I took them because it was the principled thing to do, because it was the constitutional thing to do, because it was not only the right thing to do, but the righteous thing to do. So I know what hard votes are like.

People expect me to take hard votes, and they expect me, after I take my hard votes, to go back and convince my constituents that I did the right thing. Nobody seeks to protect me from hard votes. I know what hard votes are like.

I understand when people say this would be a hard vote. I understand it. But that is why we came. We were elected to take hard votes. If it were easy, then we wouldn't be here. Other folk would do the easy things. People who get elected to Congress are expected to take hard votes, to do that which is difficult.

Let us understand that the record will reflect the vote. It will give people who look through the vista of time some indication as to why we are doing what we are doing and have not done what we should have done.

Madam Speaker, again, I am proud to stand in the well of the Congress of the United States of America. I never take for granted this preeminent privilege. I will always be grateful to the Speaker

of the House and all the various officers of this House for permitting the time. I am grateful, and I thank them for being as magnanimous, if you will, as they are, but also for following the rules and allowing me to speak. This is a great opportunity.

I pray that we who hold public trust will honor the Constitution of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise; and I rise today because I love my country and because I love the people, and I love their lives and I care about them. And because I love them and I care about them, I call upon the President of the United States of America to ground the 737 MAX 8.

This plane is unfit to fly. We have had two go down in the last 6 months. Two down within 6 months is two too many.

We cannot put profits above people, Mr. President. This is an opportunity for you to exert your executive power in a positive way on behalf of people who fly these planes.

It is not about the pilots; it is about the planes. These planes are unfit to fly, and we cannot put profits above people, and they are to be grounded until they are fit.

Ground them until they are fixed. They are unfit to fly. Fix them before we fly them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the chorus of persons who are complimenting the chairwoman for many jobs well done. This, of course, is just another of the many wonderful things that she is doing to help people across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 206 because it addresses the launderability of money at the foundation of criminality.

When it comes to arts and antiquities, according to an Art Basel report by UBS, the United States remains the largest art market, valued at $26.6 billion, and it accounts for 42 percent of the global total in 2017.

This means, of course, that the United States is likely to be the largest destination for stolen ethnic and cultural arts--black market, black market art, black market money. That is why we have to find a way to prevent the laundering of this money.

The United States of America should not allow ourselves to be the financier for those who perpetrate dastardly deeds in many countries around the world. An example might be Syria, where you have terrorists who will take stolen artifacts, find a way to put them into commerce, and use that money to support terrorist activities.

That is not what we are about. We must find a way to close the loopholes that allow persons in this country to purchase these artifacts and allow that money to get back to those who would perform these dastardly deeds. I call them dastards. That is with a ``D,'' dastards.

These dastards must be stopped. This resolution is a great step in the right direction to prevent the perpetration and perpetuation of this activity.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. And I rise tonight on the Republican side of what we call the aisle.

I do so, Madam Speaker, because the issue that I will call to the attention of this august body is not an issue that I consider a Republican issue. I don't consider it a Democratic issue. I consider this an issue for the American people, past, present, and the future.

This is an issue that has plagued our country almost since its inception. It is an issue that we have avoided with intentionality, avoided because of discomfort, avoided through the years. But it is an issue that we have to address.

So I rise tonight, Madam Speaker, with love of country at heart on the Republican side of the aisle. And I rise to announce, as I have before, that we have to take up the question of impeachment.

I rise, Madam Speaker, to say this and to give some explanations. There are many things that are being misunderstood. I trust that I can bring some degree of clarity to the issues that are misunderstood.

And I know, Madam Speaker, as I rise, and understand that this will come to a vote in this House; I know that it will be a tough vote for many people. I understand. It will be a tough vote for a multiplicity of reasons. It will be a tough vote.

I know what tough votes are like, so I understand. I have people in my community, one example, members of the clergy that I have had to explain some very tough votes to. I have some that have, to this day, not agreed with the tough votes that I have had to take.

Tough votes. I came here to take tough votes. I came here to deal with tough issues, the difficult. I came to do what I believe should have been done long before now; but the opportunity to do it has presented itself since I arrived in Congress, so I take on this challenge. And I understand that this will be a tough vote.

Before I get to some of the nuances of the explanation that I would like to give, let me just tell you who I will be voting for when I take this tough vote. I will be voting for the slave mother who had a baby ripped out of her arms, taken to the auction block.

This is why I can relate to those mothers on the border who had their babies ripped out of their arms; and still, many have not been returned to their mothers, their fathers. I can relate because I understand the historical context. I will be voting for them.

Tough vote, but I will be voting for the slave father who never got to see his child because the mother and the child were taken away, auctioned off, sent to some distant plantation; never allowed the opportunity to enjoy the love that a father ought to with a

child. That is the historical context of why I will be voting and what I will be voting for.

I will also be voting for the elderly mother who was of African ancestry, who had to say ``yes, ma'am'' and ``yes, sir'' to the 3-year- old children of the master. At that time it would have been called the boss, but it was the master; had to say ``yes, ma'am'' and ``yes, sir'' to the children.

To the father, I will vote for the father who was called ``boy,'' demeaned in the presence of his son. I know. I saw that happen to my father. I know about that elderly mother. I saw it happen to her, the elderly black mother. I will be voting for them. They have come through the years to get me here. I won't forget them.

I will be voting for the LGBTQ person who was fired for showing up at work and saying I married the love of my life, who happens to be the same sex as that person was. I am an ally of the LGBTQ community.

I am going to vote for those persons who have been discriminated against.

I will be voting for those who lost their lives in the Tree of Life synagogue, lost their lives to bigotry, hate.

I will be voting for those who lost their lives at the church in Charlotte.

I will be voting for the woman, who was a peaceful protestor, who lost her life in Charlottesville among the bigots, the KKK, the neo- Nazis, the xenophobes, the homophobes. I will be voting for her.

And here is why I will be voting for all of them: because these Articles of Impeachment will be about bigotry emanating from the Presidency--in policy, I might add, bigotry in policy. There is clear and convincing evidence that we have bigotry in policy. I will be voting for the people who are the victims.

To those who would tell me this is not something that the Congress ought to entertain, here is what I would say. I would say, if the Congress of the United States of America could, in 1868, impeach President Andrew Johnson for speaking ill of Congress, this Congress can impeach for bigotry in policy.

It is just a question of whether 218 people, assuming all are present, will vote for it. That is what it is. It is just a question of whether we have the will to do it. The way is before us.

Article II, Section 4, all of the noted constitutional scholars-- maybe there is some exception; there probably is one someplace--have concluded that Article II, Section 4 not only allows a President to be impeached for criminality, a President can also be impeached for misdeeds.

As a matter of fact, those who desire to edify themselves can read Federalist 65, read the words of Hamilton and Madison and Jay. Read their words. Let them communicate with you through the vista of time.

You will find, when you read their writings, that they were prophetic in their thoughts, that they understood that there would be a time such as this, and they have given us the recipe for this time and the means by which we can take corrective action.

When you read, you will find that, without question, they indicate that impeachment is not something that will be done without some degree of turmoil, that impeachment will be something that will sometimes be along party lines. Party lines occur when impeachment is brought before this august body.

By the way, I brought impeachment twice before, so I am talking about something that has occurred and something that will occur again.

So impeachment is something that was anticipated. It is something that is a remedy that is constitutional, and I plan to bring that remedy before this body so that we may take a stand.

Dr. King was a great man and somebody I admire, and I talk about him quite regularly. Dr. King reminded us that the truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy. When you have hard votes to take, where do you stand?

I don't believe bigotry should be a talking point, something that we use to get the base out at election time. We go out and we talk about, oh, how bad certain people are and we announce that they are racist, that they are bigots. I don't think it ought to be a talking point. I think it should be an action item.

I am bringing the vote because it is going to be an action item for Congress at last. Again, it will be an action item, not just a talking point. I am going to put the moral imperative to vote for all of these people that I called to your attention and countless others above political expediency.

Political expediency allows us to push this issue to the next generation. Political expediency has allowed us to reach this point in our history where bigotry is rearing its ugly head. It is no longer covert, but it is now overt. We have reached this point in our history. So I refuse to except political expediency as a remedy.

Why not wait? Let's defeat at the polls as opposed to impeach here in the House.

I don't buy into that.

Now, there are many who would say let's wait on the Mueller report. The Mueller report has nothing to do with bigotry. It most likely has to do with criminality associated with obstruction of justice, probably has something to do with emoluments, could have something to do with collusion, which is a layperson's way of saying conspiracy. It could have something to do with all of these.

But I assure each and every person who is within the sound of my voice by whatever means, it will have nothing to do with bigotry. So there is no need to wait for the Mueller report because the Mueller report won't address bigotry. Those who would rather impeach for some other thing, then wait for the Mueller report.

By the way, I don't plan to get in the way of the Mueller report, but I will say this: The Framers of the Constitution never intended for the executive branch to investigate itself, and that is what is going on.

The Framers of the Constitution understood the implications of having the executive branch investigate itself. One such implication that we see now is that the Mueller report may not be presented to Congress. It is going to the President before it gets to Congress.

The Framers never intended for the executive to investigate itself. That is the responsibility of Congress. That is why I brought Articles of Impeachment.

Pardon me for using a personal pronoun. My mother taught me better.

That is why I brought Articles of Impeachment in a previous Congress when we had Republicans in charge.

I am not going to be hypocritical and conclude now that Democrats are in charge, we don't have the same duty, responsibility, and obligation. I am not that kind of guy. We are going to go on record. It will be a hard vote, but we are going to go on record.

Some would say: Well, how do you get the proof of the bigotry?

Easy answer--it appears to be a tough question. Easy answer: the same way we got the proof that we brought to the floor of the House for colleagues who had resolutions that were to condemn for bigoted statements. Same way, we get them from news sources.

We have plenty of empirical evidence to show us by clear and convincing evidence as a standard, or whatever standard the House uses, because there is no standard codified in the law for the House. But by whatever standard the House should use, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support bigotry in policy emanating from the Presidency, plenty of them: S- - - -hole countries; and then you go out, by the way, where people of color happen to reside, I might add, and you go out and develop an immigration policy that adversely impacts those people of color, changing the law to adversely impact them.

Bigotry in policy? Ha. I talked about the babies at the border-- people of color, I might add--separating them. We didn't do that at Ellis Island. We didn't do that when 12 million people came from Europe, Scandinavia. We didn't do that. We didn't separate them from their children. We didn't have a flotilla out there to stop them. We didn't try to build walls to keep them out. They came.

The people who are at the border, by the way, are exercising their rights under the law that we promulgated, that we, the United States of America,

put in place that says that they can come up and ask for asylum.

By the way, I do not contend that all who seek asylum should be granted asylum. I do think that the process, the law that we put in place, ought to be honored. And if we don't like the law, then we should change the law. There is plenty of opportunity to do so. There has been plenty of opportunity to do so. Change the law if you don't like the way we have decided to deal with these issues.

There is plenty of evidence that in the past we have accommodated persons who were trying to flee harm's way, bringing their children with them. When those persons were fleeing Castro's Cuba and traversed the shark-infested waters of the Gulf of Mexico--I say ``shark- invested'' because there are so many people who are saying: Well, we don't want them to do this because they can be harmed along the way.

We didn't say that about the people who were traversing the shark- infested waters of the Gulf of Mexico. We created a policy called wet foot, dry foot. One foot on dry land, and you had a pathway to citizenship. That was the policy of the United States of America, to accommodate.

I am not saying bring the world in. I am saying follow the law. It seems to me that is what we are all about. I believe in the law of the land that I live in and that I love. And I love my country.

So I want to assure persons that we will use the same standard of proof that we have been using on previous occasions.

Now, the next question: Impeachment is like voting to go to war. Casting a vote to impeach is comparable to casting a vote to go to war.

I visit the VA hospital annually, Madam Speaker, and I take flags to every veteran in that hospital. This year, we took 600 flags, and we needed more.

I would ask persons who believe that this is comparable to casting a vote to go to war, go to the place where you can see the price of freedom. Go to the place where you can see what the cost is, where you will see that it is not in silver and gold. Go to a VA hospital, a VA hospital where you will see persons who have lost an arm, lost a leg, no longer have vision. Many of them leave and don't return the way they left. Just go and see what the price of freedom is like.

They fight for our freedom. They are willing to give their lives for our freedom. That is what a vote for war is all about. Many don't ever return. They are the liberators. They accord us our freedom by putting their lives on the line, and it is that freedom that we have that allows us to vote to impeach.

Voting for impeachment is not a vote to go to war. You ask somebody who has lost a leg in those hospitals, talk to them. Oh, you may find one person whom you can use and try to equate that to the rest of the world, but I assure you, those veterans don't consider impeachment comparable to voting to go to war.

I would also add this: There are those who believe that bigotry is something that the Senate won't take up.

If we use that line of logic, I shouldn't have gone to law school for fear of failure.

If we use that line of logic, we shouldn't have sent H.R. 1 over to the Senate, because it has been prognosticated that the Senate won't take it up in any meaningful way.

If we use that line of logic, there are bills that we send to the Senate quite regularly that we would not send because of a belief that the Senate won't take up these bills. So I don't buy into that logic. But I do believe that we should give the Senate an opportunity to do its job. It ought to have that opportunity.

Remember now, this is not about Mueller, this is about bigotry emanating from the Presidency. This is about having the country, by and through its representatives, go on record in terms of where we stand in this time of challenge and controversy as it relates to bigotry emanating from the Presidency.

Impeachment is something that we all should respect because it is constitutional. It is what the Constitution permits. It is also what I believe I have a duty to bring before the Congress. I will do so.

I don't guarantee more than one vote, and that is my vote. There are people who seem to think that if they can convince me, that the people who voted for it previously won't be voting for it this time. That the people who voted for it previously, they have changed their minds, they are going to be against you. They are not against me. I am not against them. I say to them, vote your conscience. Stand where your convictions are now.

But there are people who seem to think that by convincing me that I will be alone, that somehow this will cause me not to act. My dear brothers and sisters, how you have underestimated me. My dear brothers and sisters, I didn't come here to go along so that I could get along and move along. My dear brothers and sisters, you have grossly underestimated me.

If I stand alone and there is but one vote cast, I assure you that one vote will be cast and I will stand alone. I understand that in the eons to come, people will look back on this time and they will query what was wrong with them. What was wrong with them? How could they tolerate an unfit person holding the highest office in the land? How could they tolerate it? They will want to know what was wrong with them.

But I also know this. They will see that there was at least one person who stood on the ground of righteousness, who put the moral imperative above political expediency.

And I will know also that the world will know where this country stands on the issue of bigotry. I didn't come here to manage bigotry. That is what we do. We always want to get back to bigotry as usual after it rears its ugly head. Let's put that head down and get back to bigotry as usual. Let it be covert, but not overt.

My guess is some people have said to the President: Mr. President, you can do all of these things without displaying your bigotry. They didn't say it that way, but they probably tried to convince him. You don't have to be raw. Do it the way others have done it and you will be appreciated.

I don't want to get back to bigotry as usual. I think we send a message to the world when we impeach a President for bigotry and policy, and that is what I am talking about: bigotry and policy. Not just his words--I don't think that we ought to have a bigot in office, but not just his words--but for what his words have been transformed into, what they have metamorphosed into: bigotry and policy.

I think that we would send a positive message to the world in terms of where we stand, and we would also send a message to many of the people in this country as to how much we care about them, those who suffer from bigotry on a daily basis. If you take out the head bigot, you will send a message to the bigots along the way at the lower end of the ladder.

Now, about the people who are suffering; they have elected us time and time again, many of them, on the belief that this time they are going to take up racism. This time they are going to take up homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and nativism. This time they are going to take up the issues that impact my life on a daily basis. Yes, it is still here. The glass ceiling exists because of bigotry. There is a glass ceiling. Yes, it is still here.

There are people who have jobs of color and they have to train persons of a different hue to take the job that they have and become their supervisor. It still happens. It is still occurring in the United States of America. The country I love, by the way.

You can love your country and want to see it improve. That is what all of these bills are about here. Everybody that is filing a bill wants to improve the country. That is all I want to do, too. The unfortunate circumstance for a good many people is I want to deal with an issue that we have, for too long, placed on the back burner of our contemporary agenda. I am going to place it on the front burner. There will be a vote.

How do you know there will be a vote? Well, the rules allow it. The rules allow any Member of this august body to come forward with a privileged resolution.

Now, if you want to change the rules, you can do so. Republicans didn't do it

when they were in control of the House. But you can do it. Let's let history show that because one Democrat wanted to bring articles of impeachment, that a Democratic Party did what a Republican Party did not do. Let history reflect that. Change the rules. You have to live with the history. I don't. I am going to be on the right side of the history.

Now, someone would say: But, Al, you will be on the wrong side of politics. Do you know what? The people that I know suffered, the people who lived and died so that I could have this opportunity, the people who found out what a billy club hits like, found out what a 90-pound German Shepherd bites like, found out what a high pressure water hose stings like, the people who lost loved ones to a cause so that I could have this opportunity, I don't know that they want me to be on the right side of politics. I think they want me to be on the right side of history. But I also believe that they want me to be on the right side of this moral issue of our time, and that is whether we will tolerate bigotry emanating from the Presidency.

So to everyone, understand this is not going to be about obstruction of justice. I came to the floor and called that to the attention of the country. There is evidence to move forward on obstruction of justice, but I choose not to do so. It is not going to be about conspiracy. There is evidence, but I choose not to do so.

This is going to be about bigotry, and it is going to be about where do you stand? The truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy? Where do you stand when bigotry is the issue that you have to vote on?

And to all of my colleagues, I want you to know I love you. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on. I respect you. And I only say to you, vote your conscience. Decide what side of bigotry, what side of history, what side of righteousness you are going to be on.

I know where I will stand. I will hold my head up high, notwithstanding all of the slings and arrows that are going to come against me. They are coming. They are going to demean me in every way. My mother probably wouldn't know who I am when they are done with me. I understand it.

Gandhi gave us the formula. First they ignore you. These are the words of Gandhi. Then they laugh at you. Then after they have ignored you and they have had a moment of laughter and they see that you are not going away, then they fight you. Then they demean you. I understand.

So do what you may. Say what you may. But I know, within me, that I am doing the right thing.

I know that Gandhi is right. He said that after they have ignored you, after they have laughed and had their moment of pleasure about it, then they fight you, but then, Gandhi reminded us, then you win.

I am prepared to suffer through until victory. I won't give out. To quote my good friend, Mr. Lewis, who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, ``I won't give up. I won't give in.'' I will do that which my ancestors call upon me to do. I pray to God that this House will vote its conscience. Vote your convictions.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 14, 2019, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I do so today because I love my country and I believe in what it stands for.

Because I love it and believe in what it stands for, I believe that my country is worth liberty and justice for all. I believe it is worth government of the people, by the people, for the people. I believe that it is worth the belief that all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our country is worth it. And because our country is worth making real these great and noble American ideals, I do not believe that an unfit President should be allowed to stay in office.

If we acknowledge that the President is unfit, if we say that he is causing harm to society, then we have to honor Article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America, which calls for the impeachment of an unfit President who is causing harm to society.

This is where I stood some many, many weeks ago, this is where I stand now, and I stand here because I love my country.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentle, yet courageous, lady from California for leading this floor discussion debate, if you will. I thank the Rules Committee for allowing this rule, this amendment to be in order, and I also would like to thank my staff for the stellar, outstanding job they have done to help bring this amendment to the floor.

Madam Chairwoman, on November 19, 1863, the 16th President of the United States of America standing near the battlefield at Gettysburg proclaimed that ``government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.'' That is what our bill, H.R. 1, is all about, government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Madam Chairwoman, you cannot have government of the people, by the people, for the people without the precious right to vote. The right to vote is something that people have fought for in this country. Dr. King marched for it; John Lewis went to jail for it, the Honorable John Lewis, a Member of this House; Schwerner, Goodman, Chaney died for it.

The right to vote, H.R. 1, is about protecting the right to vote. This amendment is one that will help us to inculcate new, young people into the voting process. The amendment simply allows those who are in high school to receive voter registration information while they are in school on the school campus.

It does not change the laws related to registration and qualification to vote. It merely allows the principal at a school to go to the young people and provide them with voter registration information so that they may decide. It does not impose upon them a duty to register, but it does give them the opportunity to. This is a good thing in a country where we believe that government of the people and by the people shall not perish from the Earth.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Chair, I close with these words. This is a participatory democracy. If it is to function efficaciously, then the right to vote must be protected.

I join my colleague on the other side in his position that all votes should be counted and that every person who has the right to vote should be in a position to vote. This amendment helps to assure that young people will start to participate in the participatory democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, and still I rise, with love of country in my heart.

And still I rise, as I did some 659 days ago, more than 21 months, when I first stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and called for the impeachment of the President. In so doing, I had to fend off the multitudes who wanted to know what crime the President had committed, what law did he break.

We had to fight that fight, and we won, because it is now generally perceived and believed that the President does not have to commit a crime to be impeached.

In fact, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America addresses that question when it deals with high crimes and misdemeanors as misdemeanors or misdeeds, pursuant to the understanding that we have of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And still I rise now, understanding that we have had to fend off those who have said: You have to wait for the Mueller report. You have to wait. Why not wait?

Here is why you don't have to wait: Because the Mueller report is dealing with violations of the law. Misdeeds don't necessarily require a violation of the law.

If you are corrupting society, if you are creating harm to society, if you are causing things to happen in society that are unacceptable to the people in the United States of America, an unfit President can be impeached for those misdeeds that corrupt and harm society.

We are winning that fight. This fight is one that is easily won because, as we proceed, it is going to become intuitively obvious that these misdeeds are the problems, and the misdeeds are creating the concerns in society.

It is my belief that we have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation under the Constitution to deal with an unfit President.

There are those who would want me to withhold my thoughts until after there has been an investigation, when we have clear and convincing evidence before our very eyes of the misdeeds: separating babies from their mothers, who happen to be of color, I might add; talking about s- hole countries that happen to be where people of color live, I might add; talking about good people, or very fine people, in Charlottesville, among those who are bigots, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and Islamophobes.

Yes, the evidence is there, because the President was putting in his policies these bigoted statements. These statements went beyond his words. They became a part of his policies. For this, he can be impeached.

I stand where I stood 659 days ago, and I will continue to stand until this President is removed from office.

We can investigate to the extent that we engage in what Dr. King called the paralysis of analysis, just investigate until it is time for another election, and then the election becomes the focal point.

My dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, those who desire to wait may do so. I will not wait. Impeachment is not dead.