Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader and all of those persons in leadership who make it possible for us to have these opportunities.

I am especially proud to be here tonight because we have two resolutions that will be presented. These two resolutions have been presented before. One is H. Res. 154. This resolution is one that honors and praises the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The second is H. Res. 155. It is a Black history resolution.

It is interesting to note that the NAACP was founded during Black History Month. The NAACP was founded February 12, 1909. The NAACP has a proud history, and I will say more about it in just a moment.

Next, I would like to talk for a brief moment about the resolution that we have for Black History Month.

Black History Month didn't start out as Black History Month. The Honorable Carter G. Woodson initiated what was called Negro History Week. Negro History Week was a time for us to acknowledge the accomplishments of African Americans, at that time called Negroes. We have metamorphosed through many titles, many names, from Negroes to African Americans.

Black History Month was something that Mr. Woodson found to come into being in 1976. This was done by President Joe Ford. As it has been designated as Black History Month, we have celebrated it as such across the length and breadth of this Nation.

Carter G. Woodson was a person with great vision. He obviously knew that in 1926, when this was initially brought to the attention of the public, there was not a good likelihood that you would be able to have a Black History Month. But he knew that, if you can start someplace, you might finish in a greater place. So he started in 1926 with Black History Week, and it has metamorphosed into a month.

You and I know that every day is a day that we should celebrate all history, and Black history is no exception. I am not a person who believes that we should have Black History Month forever. I think that Black history, properly incorporated and celebrated within American history and world history, would be more than enough. But today, we are honored to celebrate Black History Month and the NAACP as an organization that was founded during Black History Month.

I would like to say just a few words about this NAACP resolution in terms of the first time we brought it to the floor of the Congress of the United States of America.

When we brought it to the floor the very first time, the cosponsor of the resolution was Mr. Henry Hyde, and the person who controlled the time was Mr. Jim Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner, at that time, was the chairperson of the Judiciary Committee. I recall Mr. Sensenbrenner standing

over to my right and making his commentary about the NAACP. He spoke with a degree of fervor that I thought was needed at the time.

Mr. Sensenbrenner, while he brought it to the floor and did direct the traffic, I would note that it was not an easy resolution to get past the House of Representatives. It did pass with consent of the House. It was agreed to, if you will.

Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Hyde had a difficult time getting it through the House. I am proud that they did, and I am pleased that none of the Members at that time voiced objections to the resolution being agreed to. Mr. Sensenbrenner I will always remember as a person who was a champion for this resolution, and Mr. Hyde was the cosponsor of the NAACP resolution.

The NAACP is celebrating its 110th anniversary. This is probably the Nation's oldest and best known civil rights organization, founded on February 12 of 1909, the date of the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, the centennial of his birth.

It is interesting to note that Black History Month was considered because of Abraham Lincoln's birth as well, so the two resolutions have this in common, Black History Month and the NAACP's being celebrated and recognized today.

It was founded by a diverse group of persons who were outstanding citizens. I would also add that it was not founded by a group of persons all of whom were African American. I will call off the names for you to give you some indication.

Ida Wells-Barnett, the well-known W.E.B. Du Bois, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villard, and William English Walling--all persons who were founders of the NAACP.

The NAACP, for the early part of its history, had a minority of minorities, meaning African Americans were not the dominant force within its leadership. They had persons who were carrying the torch of freedom such that African Americans could be a part of it. But it is interesting to note that, early on, the leadership was predominantly Anglo persons.

The NAACP, as indicated, is the oldest, largest, and most widely recognized grassroots-based civil rights organization in the United States. The active membership is in all 50 States, including State conferences of branches and local branches, as well as branches in prisons and chapters on college campuses and high schools throughout the Nation.

The NAACP has its national headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.

The NAACP is here to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

The NAACP is committed to achieving its goals through nonviolence, including negotiation, litigation, and protestation.

The NAACP is well known for its litigation. The Honorable Thurgood Marshall, an African American to become Supreme Court Justice, was the chief litigator for the NAACP. Under his leadership, with the assistance of a good many other people, the NAACP was able to win many lawsuits before the Supreme Court. The lawsuit Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most notable lawsuits that the NAACP championed.

The NAACP has used political pressure, marches, demonstrations, and effective lobbying to secure the voice for those who are considered voiceless in the United States of America.

The NAACP has been fighting segregation in public schools under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, as I indicated earlier, and its greatest victories, of course, include, as I indicated, Brown v. Board of Education.

The NAACP, in 2005, launched the Disaster Relief Fund to help hurricane survivors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama to rebuild their lives.

So the organization has metamorphosed into one that does more than champion the causes of civil rights as they relate to persons being discriminated against. It also champions the causes of those who are among the least, the last, and the lost in our society: persons who have been locked out, persons who have been left behind, persons who but for the NAACP might not have a voice.

I was very honored to be a part of the NAACP's disaster relief help. I am also honored to have been a branch president of the NAACP in Houston, Texas.

The NAACP was instrumental in the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which generally and greatly expanded the legal definition of a hate crime. This was an important piece of legislation. I was honored to be here at the time we took up the legislation.

Hate crimes are still crimes that we have to not only acknowledge exist, but the law ought to have consequences for persons who commit these dastardly deeds.

Throughout its existence, the NAACP has led the charge to defend the constitutional right to vote. That is an important piece of commentary, the right to vote. The NAACP is still a part of the effort to assure every person the right to vote in this country.

The NAACP has taken on the challenge of dealing with the photo IDs that are required in an insidious way. It has also taken on the challenge of making sure that persons are properly registered so that they can vote, and also making sure that those who would thwart the efforts to register persons to vote are not successful in doing so.

The NAACP has led the effort to strengthen the Voting Rights Act and to protect the principle of one person, one vote. The NAACP led the charge in raising awareness about and challenging voter suppression laws in Federal courts across the Nation.

The NAACP board of directors unanimously elected Derrick Johnson as its President and CEO, who is doing an outstanding job. I am proud to be associated with him and the endeavors.

I am a proud member of the NAACP. I have been such for a good deal of my life. I am honored to have a life membership, to have a golden heritage membership, and to have a diamond membership.

I believe those of us who have benefited from the NAACP ought to be members of the organization that has made it possible for us to have many of the opportunities that we have. I always acknowledge my membership in the organization, and I encourage others to do so who happen to be members as well: the NAACP, a proud organization that we celebrate during this Black History Month.

The Black history resolution covers more than the NAACP. It talks about Black migrations. It emphasizes the movement of people of African descent to new destinations and new social realities. This focuses on, primarily, the migration of African Americans in this country. It focuses specifically on the 20th century through today.

It deals with patterns of movement, including the relocation of persons of African ancestry from Southern farms to Southern cities; from the South to the Northeast, Midwest, and West; and from the Caribbean to the United States. Black people have been in motion in the 20th century and up to this date, and this resolution acknowledges this.

It also talks about the interactions with law enforcement that often result in some ugly circumstances, imprisonment and convict leasing.

Convict leasing is something that we should give a little bit more emphasis to.

In the State of Texas, we recently discovered a grave site containing 95 bodies. These 95 bodies were of persons who were victims of the State's law that allowed convict leasing.

Many times persons were charged with minor offenses and while they were incarcerated, they could be leased to private parties for the purpose of having them work as convicts. And many times--too often, I might add--the persons who were leased out, were not treated properly. In fact, they were treated poorly.

Many times they were not given proper food, proper clothing, and proper shelter; and as a result, many of them died at an early age. In this grave of 95 persons, there are persons who were thought to have been teenagers at the time of that death.

We are not absolutely sure they were all African Americans, but the suspicion is that a good many of them were. Some of them were likely to have been Anglos as well.

After finding their bodies in Sugar Land, Texas, on the site of a school,

school property, the bodies were exhumed, and they were to be relocated to another place. And in so doing, a good many of the citizens, the activist community, decided that this was an inappropriate thing to do--the bodies being exhumed and reinterred at another location.

There was a serious meeting before the school board. And the school board and the county commissioners, the commissioners court decided that it would be appropriate to further study the possibility of inhuming these bodies in the place where they were exhumed.

And my hope is we would follow through on this and give them not only a burial site with a proper plaque to memorialize their being in this place, but also to do a little bit more and have some sort of structure or facility that would allow persons to acquire intelligence about what actually happened to these people, how they lived, and how they died, and why.

This country has come a long way, but, of course, we still have much more to do. But we want to make sure that we do not overlook the history associated with persons who were leased as convicts to private persons for the purpose of performing work for them.

This migration that I spoke of earlier, known as the Great Migration, was caused by a lack of economic opportunities because of harsh segregation laws in the south and because of the terror that was perpetrated against African American communities by the KKK.

The KKK, obviously, was active in the south; and the KKK, obviously, was in the business of terrorizing African American persons. And it is interesting to note that while this House has condemned a good many persons for their activities, I have not been able to find a record showing that the KKK has been condemned for its activities by way of a resolution that actually focuses on a person who has been associated with that organization.

The KKK has a horrible history in this country, and it is my hope that we in the House of Representatives will take up a resolution condemning this entity for what it has done.

I plan to bring such a resolution to the attention of the House.

This resolution on black history indicates that prior to 1910; more than 90 percent of African Americans lived in the south. And by the 1970s, 47 percent of all African Americans were living in the north and in the west.

This is why it is called the Great Migration. When you have this much of a population moving for opportunities, moving for reasons associated with concern for their well-being, that is a significant migration.

And during World War I, when slowing immigration from Europe created a labor shortage in the north, companies began recruiting African Americans to fill the assembly lines, to work in steel mills and railroads and factories. It was not unusual to hear persons talk about ``going up north,'' going up north so that they could have opportunities in the north that they were unable to acquire in the south.

African Americans who migrated to the north still faced racial discrimination in the form of redlining, in the form of racially based housing ordinances, in the form of higher rent based on race, and for the resurgence of the KKK, and the rising instances of race riots.

African Americans were not always welcomed with open arms when they sought to migrate to these new destinations.

African Americans created their own cities and neighborhoods, free of discrimination, where their culture expanded.

For example, in Harlem, New York City, that housed over 200,000 African Americans, there was a culture that was created there in Harlem. And we are proud to say that that culture still exists. Harlem has been a very important part of African American history.

Efforts were made to provide educational opportunities for African Americans, including the founding of what is now North Carolina Central University.

Greenwood, Oklahoma, is another part of the history that we ought to acknowledge. It was a part of Tulsa, and became the home of a thriving black business--a section also known as Black Wall Street--until the Tulsa riot of 1921, in which a white mob literally burned down Greenwood.

U.S. history has some parts of it that we are not proud of, but we do have to acknowledge.

In Houston, Texas, there is an area known as Freedmen's Town. And freed slaves were given the opportunity to purchase land and build their homes along the bayou, known as Buffalo Bayou in Houston, Texas. And this was at the end of the Civil War.

And over six decades, the town thrived with churches and schools and stores and theaters and jazz spots--clubs, if you will. This was a thriving area dominated by African Americans.

I would also like to mention another personality;

Judge Frank M. Johnson, who was said to be one of the most courageous judges ever to occupy a Federal bench; he was a part of the effort to integrate the south. There are many people who have praised him, including Dr. Martin Luther King.

He is the person who issued the order to require the constabulary to allow the marches to proceed across the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery.

He is the person who filed the order--along with the other judges--to integrate the bus line, that was called the Montgomery bus boycott. He opened the doors to persons of all hues, especially those of African ancestry who had been locked out.

Frank M. Johnson will ever be remembered as a champion of human rights. In fact, he will also be remembered as a person who did it under adverse circumstances, because he had to have, for many years, 24-hour security. His mother's home was torched at one time.

It was not easy to be on the side of African Americans in the early part of history.

Frank M. Johnson took such a stand.

We would also recognize Senator Edward Brooke, III, who became the first African American popularly elected to the United States Senate.

He was from Massachusetts, and he served there for many years. He was the first attorney general of African ancestry in any state.

In 1962, he cowrote the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing. He was the first Republican to call for President Nixon's resignation in light of the Watergate scandal.

The history of African Americans in the north is one that is rich; the history in the south is one that is rich; but they all started, to a greater extent, with a migration that proceeded from the south to many destinations in the north, as well as in the west.

So today, we have a resolution that encourages the continued spread of knowledge regarding black history, and that it not be limited to one month, but that we do this throughout the entire year.

I am so honored that my colleagues have signed on to this resolution. We have had more than 60 colleagues to sign on to one, and I would hope that as we continue to present these resolutions, we will have more persons who will find favor with them.

In closing, simply this: The success that we have had as African Americans--if we look closely at our history--we will find that it was not something that was acquired by our own efforts alone.

Of course, we have done our part to extricate ourselves from some circumstances that were indeed unpleasant and very harmful and hurtful, but there were other persons who were there to be of assistance and help.

Many of the stations at the Underground Railroad had persons who were not of African ancestry that were there for us as we were traversing our way to freedom.

In many of the battles that were fought in the courtrooms, there were persons who were funding the litigation that were not of African ancestry.

The Spingarn brothers are such persons. The NAACP awards its highest medal annually in the name of the Spingarns.

When we have had few people to stand with us, the Jewish community has been there. When we have had few people to stand with us, the LGBTQ community has been there. When we have had few to stand with us, we have had persons of all stripes; Muslims have been there; persons of all faiths have been there.

At the March on Washington, if you take a close look at that march, you will see persons of many hues, many stripes, persons from many walks of life.

So we are here today, proud to be here in the well of the Congress of the United States of America, but we understand that we didn't get here by ourselves, and we are proud to celebrate black history. But we are also proud to acknowledge that black history includes the history of a lot of persons who were associated with our efforts to acquire our freedom, our liberty, and the opportunities that we enjoy today.

Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for the time, and I proudly yield back the time such that you may continue with the business of the House.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 28, 2019, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise.

And I rise today with love of country in my heart and a belief that the record has to be set straight.

The record has to always reflect the truth, and there is a truth that is being obscured.

I want to set the record straight because there seems to be a belief that, if you have committed acts of bigotry, if you have been a racist, if you have been engaged in homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, there seems to be a belief that, if you can do one thing, somehow that thing will eradicate and eliminate all of the bigotry that you have perpetrated.

I rise to correct the record because I want the record to show that at least one person came to the floor of this Congress and made it clear that, yes, unemployment may be low for African Americans--yes, it may be low--but it is still twice that of Anglo Americans, generally speaking.

Yes, you may have signed a bill to deal with some aspects of criminal justice in a just way, and that is appreciated. But there is still more work to be done. But notwithstanding the fact that there is more work to be done, it is still appreciated.

But the record has to be set straight, and here is what the record should show: that that does not eliminate the bigotry emanating from the Presidency.

Eliminating bigotry does not occur because you signed one bill. It does not occur because unemployment is low. It does not occur.

If you want to have the record reflect that you have done something to atone for your bigotry, then you have to do something a little bit more than to simply sign a bill.

And I am not saying to you that an apology is in order. I say to people: Tell the truth. Just tell the truth.

Say: I was wrong when I instituted a policy that separated babies from their mothers that emanates the type of bigotry that we don't condone in this country.

Say: I was wrong when I said there were some good people among those who were the racists, the bigots, the xenophobes and homophobes in Charlottesville.

Say: I was wrong when I said that you don't have to be so kind when you are taking persons into your care, custody, and control and you are part of the constabulary, you are part of the policing force in this country.

Just say you were wrong if you want to atone. Signing bills won't do it. Going to church won't do it.

Asking forgiveness will cause you to be forgiven. And I will forgive you, but that doesn't mean that you are no longer going to be sanctioned for your bigotry.

I want to thank those who have stood and made their points clear as it relates to bigotry.

I am listening to these morning programs now. They are all talking about bigotry emanating from the Presidency, not necessarily in those words. They are talking about the racism that the President perpetrates.

I appreciate what they are saying, but we have got to do more than talk about it. We cannot allow a President to remain in office who has engaged in this kind of bigoted conduct.

It is time for us to take a stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

There were no fine people in Charlottesville. You ought not separate babies from their mothers. You ought not have policies that would condone bigotry and encourage others to engage in it.

I believe that we have a duty to take a vote, and at some point in the near future we will take another vote, notwithstanding the Mueller report.

Mr. Speaker, still I rise, and I rise because I love my country. I rise because it is Black History Month, and I am always, during Black History Month, amazed at what Dr. King called to our attention in his letter from the Birmingham jail. It is one of the great masterpieces of written word in the history of our country. I encourage all people to read his letter from the Birmingham jail.

But I think that as important as it is, it is equally as important to read the letter that Dr. King was responding to, because if you don't read the letter he is responding to in his letter, then you cannot totally appreciate the letter from the Birmingham jail.

I am not going to read the letter in its entirety. I will just tell you a little bit about it. This letter--I hold a copy of it in my hand--was signed by eight of the leading citizens in the area, members of the clergy, all. These leading citizens were admonishing persons to proceed with caution.

Dr. King reminds us, however, that the time is always right to do what is right.

They said in their letter, ``But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.'' The time is always right to do what is right.

And I would also add--this is not in Dr. King's retort, but that we should not allow political expediency to trump the moral imperative to do what is right. The time is always right to do what is right.

People are saying today: We should wait. We don't have to move now. Let's wait. Let's let something else happen before we take any position.

They go on to say in their letter, ``We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership, which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area.'' To the many who say, let's have a dialogue, let's have a discussion about the race question; we need to talk about the race question.

I say to my dear brothers and sisters, dear friends, and dear Members, this was written April 12, 1963. We have been talking about the race question long before this and since this. The time is always right to do that which is right.

Dr. King reminded us that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. He said that in his letter. That means that if we allow injustice to exist in the White House as it relates to bigotry, and xenophobia, and homophobia, and Islamophobia, if we allow it to exist in the White House, I say to my dear brothers and sisters, it is a threat to every house in this country. Injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere.

So I happen to be one who is willing to accept all of the criticisms, and all of the slings and arrows. Send them my way. I will do what is right.

The Constitution allows it, in fact, my constituents demand it. It is time for us to take the issue up again. It is going to happen, I say to my dear brothers and sisters. I believe that we cannot allow bigotry and policy emanating from the Presidency to go unchecked.

So I can only say to you, impeachment is the solution, and the place for that solution to be properly addressed is the United States House of Representatives. Right here in this well. Impeachment is not dead.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today, Madam Speaker, to take a stand for liberty and justice for all against bigotry and hatred.

I rise to call to our attention, Madam Speaker, that the refusal to resign because of blatant bigotry is a symptom, the refusal to resign when it is obvious, intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, that there is the bigotry. The refusal to resign when there is clear and convincing evidence of bigotry, when there is guilt beyond all doubt, when there is a smoking gun, the refusal to resign under these circumstances is a symptom.

The problem is at the Presidential level. It is the refusal to take on a President who has exhibited bigotry in policy. When we allow bigotry in policy to proceed with immunity, we allow persons to believe that they, too, can emulate that which comes from the highest office in the land.

Madam Speaker, this level of bigotry in policy cannot be tolerated. You have, in Virginia, a Klansman and blackface next to each other in a yearbook. It has been acknowledged as that of the Governor.

With that acknowledgment and with that additional indication that it was done on a previous occasion, blackface, there is enough evidence not only to ask that the Governor resign, but to demand that he do so.

But I understand why this level of bigotry is going to be tolerated to a certain extent, because we don't want to take on the President. If we allow the President to exist with his bigotry, how can we demand with any degree of credibility that the Governor resign?

We have to start at the top. This level of bigotry is trickling down to this extent that people are going to refuse to acknowledge their bigotry. They will lie and deny. They will do all that they can to stay in office.

We have to take a stand, and I stand today to say that we cannot allow this incident to go unchecked. Because what will we do next when there is a Nazi standing in a photograph and there is a noose in a photograph, there are swastikas?

This is going to continue. It doesn't end with Virginia. This is but one symptom, and we have to do what we have always done.

It has been our policy when this level of bigotry surfaces, when it shows its ugly head, we take it on. There is a means by which we can deal with bigotry in policy, but if we allow political expediency--the belief that we ought to defeat a bigoted President--to trump the moral imperative to remove him from office, the moral imperative to impeach bigotry emanating in policy from the Presidency, we have a moral imperative to do so, and we can do so.

There is a committee that can convene to deal with bigotry emanating from the Presidency creating the symptoms that we see in others who refuse to leave office after their bigotry has been revealed. There is a committee that we can convene. That committee is called the Congress of the United States.

Any one Member of Congress can call to the attention of this august body that such thing has happened; and when it is called to this body's attention, we can take a vote, we can go on record.

Are we going to allow bigotry to emanate from the Presidency or will we go on record? I say we go on record.

I am one Member of Congress who, after 400 years of bigotry and hatred and slavery and all of these other ugly features and evidence of harm to society--forgive me for getting so wrapped up in it, but I have to say it. After all of this, for 400 years, it is time for Congress to take this vote.

We have had 400 years to deal with it, and we haven't. What better way to deal with bigotry in this country than to say to the world: We will extricate a President from office for his bigotry?

There will be a vote on impeachment, regardless of what the Mueller commission says.

Bigotry in policy will not be tolerated.

Madam Speaker, I rise once again as a proud American. I love my country. I love what it stands for, in terms of its great ideals. And, Madam Speaker, as a proud American, I rise today to address the question of hostage taking.

One of the principles that we employ in international diplomacy--and I am being a little bit euphemistic by saying ``international diplomacy''--is that of not negotiating with hostage takers.

If you take one of our planes, highjack one of our planes, and you demand a ransom, we will not negotiate with you. Grab an American off the streets in some distant place, and we will not negotiate with you.

It doesn't matter that you start out at $50 million and then reduce your desire to have a ransom to $10 million, maybe. We don't negotiate with you. You are a hostage taker.

The United States of America, the greatest and richest country in the world, which can pay the price, refuses to negotiate with hostage takers.

Madam Speaker, this is bigger than the President. This is about whether or not we will allow any President to take hostages and demand a ransom that must be paid or else the hostages will continue to suffer. This is about whether we will allow any President to do this-- not just a Republican President, any President.

It is un-American to take persons hostage within this country and demand a ransom when we wouldn't allow it on the international stage.

I am a person who decided that it was appropriate to meet with the hostages, and I did. I met with the hostages who work with the IRS. I heard their clarion call for help, their appeal for some understanding.

When I met with them, it became very clear to me that there is pain beyond the pain of not having the check to pay the bills.

Some of these persons literally indicated that they were having some mental concerns that would have to be addressed because they played by the rules. They have come to work; they have done their jobs; and now they find themselves in this most tenuous position of being denied the wages they have earned.

There is something wrong when a President will hold people hostage to the extent that they have mental issues as a result of the hostage taking.

One of the things called to my attention was that they don't believe that this all ends with them the moment they are allowed to go back to work and receive the wages that they have earned. They believe that they may have to have some additional counseling to help them through and to better cope with the experience that they never contemplated they would have as a result of being employed by the United States of America, the richest country in the world.

This is bigger than this President. It is about him, but it is bigger than him. It is about whether or not we will allow hostage taking within the country and yield to it, or will we demand that we do what we continue to say is our bedrock principle when it comes to negotiating with hostages on the international stage, and that is, you release our people; you let them go.

Mr. President, let our people go. You have become a modern-day pharaoh. You are holding people hostage, Mr. President. Don't you see what you are doing to the fiber and fabric of this country? Don't you see how you are ripping it apart? You are a modern-day pharaoh. Let our people go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the question.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 I missed the following vote:

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise, Madam Speaker, on behalf of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

I rise, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the more than 40 percent of people in this country who believe that an unfit President ought to be impeached. I rise on behalf of the many people who believe that somehow the voices of those who favor impeachment have been muted.

And I want you to know, Madam Speaker, and to those who are listening, I want you to know that there is at least one person in the Congress of the United States of America who believes that an unfit President ought to be impeached.

I rise on behalf of those, Madam Speaker, who believe that if President Barack Obama had behaved the way the current President has behaved, he would have been impeached. I rise to take a stand on behalf of the many who believe in impeachment of an unfit President. More than 40 percent of this country believes it. More than 80 percent, thereabout, of Democrats believe it.

And I rise on behalf of the many people who understand that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, the many people who believe that babies ought not be confined in small, confined places where they have to trip over each other if they want to traverse from one side of the room to the other. These are babies. I rise on behalf of these babies.

And I rise on behalf of the many people who believe that if these babies were White babies, the response would be vastly different. We know that we would not tolerate what is happening in this humanitarian crisis if these were not people of color. We wouldn't tolerate it if they were White. We ought to treat all babies the same. We know that this President is a bigot, and we know that this policy at the border is rooted in bigotry.

Madam Speaker, I want you to know that this will not be my last time standing in the well of the Congress to deal with this issue. Let others do what they may; take on the issues that you choose; but know that I believe an unfit President ought to be impeached, and we ought not have a double standard such that we treat people of color differently from the way we treat people not of color. And that is what is happening right now at this border.

If they were coming in from the north and they were White, the reaction wouldn't be the same. The fervor would be greater. The demand for justice would be greater.

We have to take a stand against bigotry. We cannot allow it to continue to grow in this country. We are the place where the President is to be brought before the bar of justice. Only the House of Representatives can do it.

And I declare this day that impeachment is not dead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for extending this opportunity for us to speak tonight. This is an important issue for all Americans.

I rise tonight on behalf of Mr. Michael Nguyen, an American citizen. Mr. Michael Nguyen, an American citizen who was on a mission of mercy to Vietnam and who is being detained in Vietnam.

I would ask that persons please not allow the last name Nguyen cause you to think anything other than the fact that he is an American citizen who makes America the beautiful a more beautiful America. He was on a mission of mercy.

He is being detained; being detained without the benefit of bail, something that we routinely expect to be the case in this country; being detained without the benefit of a lawyer, something that we are all entitled to under the Constitution in this country when charged with criminal offenses; being detained

without the benefit of a speedy trial, something that we take for granted; being detained in Vietnam, Mr. Speaker. This is something that every American ought to be concerned about, when we have one of our own being detained without the benefit of bail, without the benefit of a lawyer, and without the benefit of a speedy trial.

Mr. Nguyen is a resident of California's 45th District, and Mr. Nguyen is being represented by Mrs. Walters. Mrs. Walters is here tonight. I know that she has been engaged and involved in doing what she can to help extricate Mr. Nguyen from his circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the extraordinary work that she has done to extricate Mr. Nguyen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a person who came to Congress and has done an outstanding, great job since he has been here. I don't know whether he came to be a freedom fighter, but that is how I know him. He really takes a stand against injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his powerful words and look forward to our continuing to work together to extricate Mr. Nguyen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), another Member who has been involved and engaged in this process, who has been with us on phone calls when we have talked to our Ambassador to Vietnam, and who has been a party to our contacting the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I want to reiterate what he said about this being a bipartisan issue.

This is an issue that crosses the lines that sometimes divide us. There is no chasm between us when it comes to the extrication of Mr. Nguyen. We want him back.

I would like to call to the attention of all who are within the sound of my voice, who are viewing this at home, that there is another Member who is not here tonight but who has played a significant role in this effort to bring Mr. Nguyen home. He is Mr. Alan Lowenthal. Mr. Lowenthal is from California's 47th Congressional District, and he has been a real champion on causes such as this.

He understands the laws of Vietnam. He understands the culture of Vietnam as well as any, and he has really had a major push to try to get Michael home. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for what he has done. While he is not here physically, I do know that he is here in spirit.

What has been said about Michael's detention is correct. Michael is being detained without bail, as has been indicated previously. In Vietnam, unfortunately, the investigation can go on for weeks, months, and can exceed a year.

When investigations go on for this length of time and the person being detained does not have the opportunity to visit with family members, is denied access to family members during holiday seasons, such as what is occurring here now in our country, when a person is detained without the benefit of bail, without the benefit of speedy trial, when this happens, unfortunately, the detention itself becomes punishment. The detention itself becomes egregious. The detention itself becomes reason for us to complain to the Government of Vietnam.

If you have charges, yes, you should investigate, but you should file your charges. You should not detain and then at some point have some charges brought that may or may not necessitate a long period of additional detention.

This is an American citizen. We have expectations. We believe that every country has a right to its autonomy, every country is sovereign unto itself. But we also believe that every country should respect the human rights and dignity of people who are within the confines of their country.

Mr. Nguyen has a necessity to be with his family and his four young children. They miss him. They want to be with him. This is their father who is expected to be at home, especially around this time of year when we are all celebrating the holidays, many different holidays, but they are celebrated in this country.

We are making an appeal, a human cry, a clarion call to the Government of Vietnam to release this husband, release this father, release this man who has been on missions of mercy to Vietnam to work with his wife as a volunteer when they are helping young children to receive surgery.

He has demonstrated his love for the people of Vietnam. He has demonstrated his willingness to go above and beyond, to be of service to the people of Vietnam, and I ask that the Government of Vietnam release him. Let him come home. If you have charges, sure, you should file them; but if not, let's not allow the investigation to become a form of punishment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the Members who have appeared on the floor tonight. There are others who would be here, but circumstances do not permit.

I want to thank the leadership for allowing us to get this message out to the masses, to the American people, and, hopefully, to officials in Vietnam.

I want to thank the Secretary of State and our Ambassador to Vietnam for their intervention. We are all doing as much as we can, but we all have to do more. Until he comes home, we have not done enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise, and still I rise, a proud American, always proud to have the preeminent privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today reflecting upon the words, the lyrics, if you will, of a song that many of us have heard. The lyrics, as I paraphrase them, are:

One day at a time, one day at a time, sweet Jesus. One day

at a time. Just help me to make, just help me to take, one

day at a time.

Many of us who are sons of the segregated South survived, to a certain extent, understanding the lyrics of ``One Day At a Time,'' knowing that, if you just take one day at a time, it can become a lifetime.

Sons of the segregated South learned early that they had to compromise.

I saw something on television yesterday that caused me to reflect on all of these things, Mr. Speaker, when I saw a President who was born into plenty, not poverty, a President who was born with a pat hand, a President who was born into a life unlike that of the sons of the segregated South who were African American, who understand how to

negotiate and what negotiation is all about--of necessity they do. Not all, but generally speaking they do.

I saw a President yesterday, Mr. Speaker, who proclaims himself to be a great negotiator. Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was revealed to many of us that what he sees as negotiation is dictation, a President who sees compromise as capitulation for the other side, who has always walked into his opportunities, if you will, knowing that the other side would have to give in or he would muscle his way over them.

Well, I am proud to say that two Members of the Congress of the United States of America, the House and the Senate--it is what the Congress consists of--two Members stood their ground. Speaker Pelosi-- and I say Speaker Pelosi because once you are a Speaker, you are always a Speaker--and Minority Leader Schumer did not allow themselves to be dictated to. They understand that compromise is the methodology by which we can realize significant change.

I am proud of the two of them, and I am proud to say to you that, as a son of the segregated South, I saw hope when I saw them take a stand for the American people, take a stand for justice, take a stand for the great ideals that we all stand upon.

One day at a time, Mr. President, one day at a time, and we will have dealt with all of the great issues of our time.

But I am proud to know that you will find, Mr. President, that negotiation is more than your being a dictator, that you are going to have to compromise if you want to realize some of the great things that we have to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, and I thank the creator of all of creation for giving me this one more day, and I pray that I will do better today than I did yesterday because I still see life as one day at a time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for according us this time. It is an honor to have the privilege of standing here in the House of Representatives to present a resolution tonight, and I am grateful that the time has been allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored tonight to present this resolution, H. Res. 1166, honoring and praising the American Jewish Committee, known as AJC, on the occasion of its 112th anniversary.

I am honored to say that this resolution has other persons who are sponsors: Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Meng, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Moore, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Rothfus. I am honored that

these Members have cosigned, if you will, in that they are cosponsors of this resolution.

I am honored to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this organization, the American Jewish Committee, has been around now for 112 years in the business of protecting Jews and other minorities from anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, hatred, and human rights violations.

When these things occur, you can count on the American Jewish Committee standing up, speaking out, and making their position known.

The American Jewish Committee is currently fighting against the rising tide of hate and bigotry. And there is empirical, as well as anecdotal, evidence to support the fact that there is a rising tide.

Per the FBI, there were 6,121 hate crimes in 2016; in 2017, 7,125 hate crimes. A rising tide. Three of five hate crimes target ethnicity or race; one of five will target religion. Hate crimes in this country are being addressed by the American Jewish Committee. 2,013 hate crimes against African Americans in 2017, 938 hate crimes against Jewish Americans.

The American Jewish Committee is confronting hate and making a difference in the lives of people.

This organization was founded November 11, 1906, in New York City by a group of Jews who wanted to raise awareness about the persecution and targeting of Jews in Russia.

I might also add that this was around the time that the NAACP was founded. It was founded just some years later in 1909. And a good many members of the founding persons associated with the NAACP were Jewish people.

The NAACP and the AJC have had a partnership, a friendship, a relationship for many, many years in this battle against hate and bigotry.

The AJC supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965, supported the historic decision in the Supreme Court case of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka. And I would add, not only did the AJC support it by filing various briefs and doing research, but also with money. Members supported this lawsuit with money.

Thurgood Marshall was the lead counsel for the NAACP in Brown v. Board of Education, but there were other persons who were not of African ancestry associated with this litigation who helped to fund it. It was a costly piece of litigation, and I am proud to say that AJC was supportive of the NAACP in Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka.

The AJC has been at the forefront of strengthening ties between Jews and Latinos. The AJC concerns itself with the human rights and human dignity of all people regardless of ethnicity.

The AJC's Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council is a group of some 50 persons, Muslims and Jews, who have as their aim protecting and expanding the rights of religious minorities in the United States of America. Those who will divide us along religious lines are confronted by the AJC, the American Jewish Committee.

It has launched a global campaign encouraging people of conscience around the world to attend Jewish services, and especially this was made known after the attack at the Tree of Life congregation in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were killed.

I was fortunate enough to attend a Shabbat service in Houston, Texas, where our mayor, the Honorable Sylvester Turner, spoke and where we, persons of goodwill, had the opportunity to express our desire and our belief that we should combine our efforts to make sure that we developed a symbiotic relationship as we moved forward with this global campaign to encourage people of conscience to get to know persons of different religions so that we could have together what we could never accomplish apart.

The AJC, in 2015, launched what is known as the Mayors United Against Anti-Semitism campaign to build a nationwide coalition of elected officials committed to fighting anti-Semitism, a nationwide coalition. I am proud to say that that continues to this day and that elected officials are responding to the clarion call to unite against bigotry, hatred, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, and nativism. The AJC is there to fight for the rights of people to live in dignity with peace and harmony.

The AJC is international in scope. It has 11 international offices, 22 in the United States, and 36 international Jewish community partnerships. In truth, it is international in scope. It is also an organization that has been there for the State of Israel.

It is a steadfast supporter of Israel, becoming the first American Jewish organization to open an office in Israel, and an effective advocate for Israel's security. The AJC has been and continues to be a strong partner for the State of Israel.

I am proud to tell you that I have a friend, who at one time was the head of AJC. At the time, I was the head of the NAACP. I share this brief vignette because I think it is important to explain how things can really work and how people can work together.

My friend, David Mincberg, as I indicated, was the head of AJC, and I had the good fortune to be a leader of the NAACP in Houston, Texas. We had a city council person, whose name I need not mention, who made a racial slur, said a very ugly thing, and David and I had the opportunity to bring our organizations together.

Upon doing so, we concluded that we should talk to other persons of goodwill in the city so as to build a coalition to confront the council person who made the racial slur. With a strong coalition, the NAACP and the AJC were able to call for the resignation of this council person.

These two organizations, taking the lead, were able to do something that, in my opinion, could not have been done but for the unity exhibited, and the coalition that was constructed could not have done it, and that was to have this city council person leave city council.

This is the kind of strength that the AJC brings to issues associated with hate and bigotry. The AJC does not tolerate hatred and bigotry. Much of what I express with reference to hatred and bigotry I acquired from associating with persons who are part of the AJC.

I have understood, as a result of working with my friends at the AJC, that we can never, ever tolerate hatred and bigotry, regardless of where it comes from, regardless as to what the source is. We have got to be bold. We have to show courage. We have to stand up together against hatred and bigotry.

These are some of the things that the AJC has exhibited over the years in my presence.

And I said my friends at AJC. I call people friends who are persons that I do more than have dinner with, persons whom I do more than associate with, persons whom I have more than a relationship with. I call friends persons whom I can disagree with and still maintain a relationship with them.

Over the years, these friends and I have stood together, and we continue to stand together.

So, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of this august body H. Res. 1166, and I call to the attention of those who are within the sound of my voice, those who may be viewing at home, I call to their attention H. Res. 1166, a resolution that honors and praises the American Jewish Committee on the occasion of its 112th anniversary.

I suggest that it be resolved by the House of Representatives that the House of Representatives, itself, recognize the 112th anniversary of the historic founding of the American Jewish Committee, and that the House of Representatives should honor and praise the American Jewish Committee on the occasion of this anniversary for its efforts regarding human rights worldwide, for its interfaith dialogue, and for the promotion of Israel's security and its place in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to have presented this resolution, and I would have the world know, and all of my friends know, that I look forward to returning to Houston, Texas, and meeting with my friends who are associated with the AJC, the American Jewish Committee, as we continue our struggle to end hatred and bigotry--not to manage it, not to make it less tolerable, but to eliminate it in its entirety wherever it exists.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to stand in the well of the House of Representatives. As a proud American, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak truth to power as well as speak truth about power. The power that I desire to speak truth to is the Speaker of the House, and I want to say something about the Speaker of the House.

Today, I acknowledge the Speaker's righteousness when he made a decision--I am not sure that it is one that he contemplated with any degree of time--but at some point, there was a decision made to allow Articles of Impeachment that I filed to move forward, such that there could at least be a vote to table it or not. He did not interfere with the process. He did not try to change the rules so that there would be no opportunity for a Member to move impeachment forward, to the extent that we did.

I am proud of Speaker Ryan for doing this because, as a result, I hold in my hand what I call the historic 58. Fifty-eight Members of Congress, some of whom were ranking members of full committees, voted to allow this process to move forward. On a second occasion, 66 Members, the historic 66, voted to allow the process to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ryan did not try to circumvent the process. For this, I say that I am grateful. I respect him for not trying to circumvent the process. Mr. Speaker, had he tried to circumvent it, I probably would be standing here saying some words that would not be similar in any way to what I am saying currently.

I am mentioning this because there is a question that has been put to me by many members of the press as to whether or not we will move forward again with impeachment. I am here to say without question, reservation, or hesitation that we should not allow ourselves to get back to bigotry as usual. There seems to be a desire to avoid the question of bigotry emanating from the Presidency. There seems to be a desire to move on to something else; let's find another way to deal with the problem.

But that is not what the people who suffer from the bigotry have to endure, just the conversations. They have to deal with the actual bigotry, the actual ugliness that is being fostered across the length and breadth of this country as a result of the bigotry. There are people who are suffering.

The culture is changing. Bigotry is real, and people have to deal with it. Because they do, I don't think we should allow bigotry to go unnoticed as it emanates from the Presidency. Because I don't think so, I will make an announcement sometime next week, more than likely, as to whether or not we will have additional Articles of Impeachment brought before the House.

I have never interfered with the Mueller investigation; I don't intend to interfere with it. But I just believe that we ought not allow bigotry to go unnoticed. We ought not try to get to a point in this country where we will allow bigotry to be nothing more than a talking point. It ought to be an action item.

The greatest place to ascertain whether it is an action item is how we as Members of Congress not only talk about it, but how we vote when the issue is given an opportunity to be voted upon.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I will make an announcement sometime in the near future as to whether or not there will be another vote on bigotry emanating from the Presidency. I also, again, thank you for not circumventing the process. Republicans had a majority, and you could have done it without a single Democratic vote. You respected the right of individual Members. It is the right of the individual that you have protected under your leadership. I pray that protection will continue.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise, proud to be an American, proud to have the opportunity to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mention the midterm elections of 2018, said by many who count and who are supposed to know to be one of the highest turnouts ever, exceeding 100 million voters, said to be approximately 48 to 50 percent of those who are eligible to vote, depending on how you count and who is counting.

In Texas, it is said that, on November 1, the number of Texans voting early exceeded the entire turnout for 2014. The numbers indicate that 3.3 million or more 18-to-29-year-olds voted early, a 188 percent increase over 2014. It was a record turnout.

Why was there a record turnout? is the question that we have to grapple with. Yes, people turned out because they wanted better healthcare. They turned out because they want better jobs. They turned out because they want better schools, better education. They want better housing.

But they also turned out because they were opposed to bigotry and hate. Nobody can give you the empirical evidence to support entirely the number that turned out because they were antithetical to bigotry and hate. But we know by anecdotal evidence that many people turned out, in addition to the other things, because they want to see bigotry and hate not managed, but they want to see it eliminated in the greatest and richest country in the world.

Many people turned out with the expectation that we would do something about all of the things that I have named, including bigotry and hate. Many people turned out because they want bigotry and hate to become more than talking points. They want bigotry and hate in this country to become action items.

They want to see us visibly do something about the bigotry and hate that has found a means by which it can multiply, it can grow, in this country.

We have seen evidence of it in elections, a Senator who says: I'd go to a public hanging.

We have seen evidence of it in our places of worship, people killed in a synagogue.

We have seen evidence of it in the streets with words and behavior that are unacceptable. ``Jews will not replace us,'' they said in Charlottesville.

We have to do something about bigotry and hate, and it has to be more than simply talk. Talking points are good; action items are better. It is time for the Congress of the United States of America to stand up for the many people who suffer from bigotry and hate in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing the time and commend her for her many years of service and her efforts, in a bipartisan way, to establish the NFIP program such that it would be responsible, such that it would take care of the needs of the many people across the length and breadth of our country.

I also thank the chairperson of the committee for his years of service. I know this is not the last time that he and I will be on the floor together, but I do want to thank him now for his years of service.

Mr. Speaker, the NFIP is important to families because if the family cannot get the flood insurance, they cannot purchase the home. It is important to Realtors because if the home can't be purchased, the Realtors, obviously, cannot sell the home. It is important to the builders because the builders are the people who rely on home sales to make determinations as to what the market will bear and whether they should construct homes in a given area.

So this really is about people in terms of their families, but it is also about people and the economy. It is about whether this economy will continue to grow. It is about whether or not we will provide a program that will give builders some sense of stability such that they can move forward with their construction projects.

My hope is that this 1-week extension will be granted. I pray that my colleagues join us and vote for the extension. But my hope also is that we will have a long-term program developed, because the Realtors are depending on us; the contractors are depending on us; the families are depending on us; and the country is depending on us.

The National Association of Realtors estimated that, if the program lapses for 1 month, about 40,000 home sales might not close nationwide. This is a significant number of homes in a market that currently needs an additional shot in the arm.

Mr. Speaker, we are here for the families, the builders, the Realtors, and the economy.