Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the well of the House, I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to say that today I rise because I believe that separating children from their parents because they are fleeing violence is antithetical to American values.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I do not believe that this is consistent with the golden rule and that this is not doing unto others as we would have them do unto us if we were similarly situated.

I rise because I believe that this is not what the good Samaritan would do. The Good Samaritan not only provided immediate aid and comfort, but also took the person who had been harmed to a place where that person could receive additional aid and comfort and went so far as to say: I am leaving this amount with you. If this is not enough, I will come back, and I will give you more.

This is antithetical to our values. Separating children from their parents, be it mother or father, is still a separation of a child from the person whom the child has grown to believe will be there to protect him or her.

This is antithetical to what we believe in. It is antithetical to the notion that we are our brother's keeper, that we look out for others; that there is but one race, and it is the human race; and that all of God's creation was meant to live in harmony as it relates to humans.

Mr. Speaker, this is not being one's brother's keeper. You cannot be your brother's keeper without keeping your brother. We have become a country who would like to see those who are in harm's way helped--but by someone else. If you are fleeing violence in Syria, let's make sure that someone else can help you.

Mr. Jose Escobar, my constituent, was fleeing violence. He was brought up from El Salvador by his mother, trying to save her son, and now he has found himself separated from his wife and his two children with $20 in his pocket and sent back to El Salvador. I went there to see him. I know of what I speak.

Mr. Speaker, this is antithetical to our values, and it is detrimental to our existence as a great nation. It is time for us to take a stand and demand that this administration that can find reason to criticize football players, that can find reason to say there were some fine people among those in Charlottesville, and that can find reason to call women names, it is time for this administration and this President to end this antithetical policy as it relates to American values.

I proudly stand here as a proud American.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 13, 2018, I missed the following votes:

1. Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2851, H.R. 5735, and H.R. 5788. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this motion.

2. H. Res. 934, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2851, Stop Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017, H.R. 5735, Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act, and H.R. 5788, Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act of 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am proud to rise and stand in the well of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the flag, I sing the national anthem, and I believe in what the flag stands for: liberty and justice for all. But, Mr. Speaker, I find now that the flag is being used as a tool to suppress what it stands for: liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, peaceful protest is how I arrived in the Congress of the United States of America. If not but for peaceful protest, I probably, most likely, and believe in the sincerest corners of my heart that I would not be in the Congress of the United States of America.

Peaceful protest has brought about positive change in this country, but peaceful protest is now under assault from the highest office in the land: the Office of the President.

Peaceful protest is under attack, and I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to defend peaceful protest. I rise especially to defend it as it relates to the flag because the flag stands for liberty and justice for all. Peaceful protest is about liberty and justice for all.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a very shocking piece of information, perhaps not shocking to some, but it should shock our consciences. This piece of information was compiled by The Guardian and reported by Vox.

The information is as follows: racial minorities make up 37.4 percent of the general population--some things bear repeating: 34.7 percent of the general population--and 62.7 percent of the unarmed people killed by police; 37.4 percent of the population, 62.7 percent of the people who are unarmed and killed by the police.

Why wouldn't we protest this? Why wouldn't somebody decide that this is unacceptable and I will peacefully protest it? Why wouldn't someone take a knee at a football game to protest this?

Why would the President of the United States find reason to link that peaceful protest to disrespect for the flag when the flag stands for liberty and justice for all? That has to include these people who have been killed by the police.

By the way, it doesn't matter how great the economy is; their lives will not be brought back. It doesn't matter how many jobs people have; those lives will never return. So being comfortable and being able to say ``I have a great job'' won't bring back people who have lost their lives.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad commentary when the President of the United States brings peaceful protest into dispute as it relates to the flag.

I believe that we have a duty and an obligation to protest wrong when we see it. It is as old as the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock, it is as old as the Boston Tea Party, and it is as old as the farmers coming to Washington, D.C., in their tractors to protest.

Peaceful protest is at the foundation of this Nation. And for us to allow the President to assault and attack peaceful protest by and through the flag, which stands for liberty and justice for all, is an insult to the country.

So here is what I propose to do by way of standing against what the President seems to stand for. He has brought Mr. Kaepernick into disrepute; that is what the President would do. I plan to salute him. I will have a flag flown over the Capitol of the United States of America to salute him for his courage, for his willingness to suffer the slings and arrows that have been thrown at him by the highest office in the land to protect liberty and justice for all, which is what the flag stands for.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by Mr. Olson. It is a bipartisan effort. But it is also an effort to save lives, because in 2015 with the Memorial Day flood we had 7 people lose their lives; and, in 2016, with the tax day flood, we had 8 people lose their lives; and, of course, Hurricane Harvey claimed 68 lives across the State of Texas.

This is not only about dollars and cents, it is about saving lives, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank all of my colleagues who have been associated with this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Culberson and I have worked together not only on this effort, but also to serve people.

We do have people who are still living in temporary shelter in Houston and we have people who are still awaiting FEMA's assistance. With some 4.7 million people in the area having been impacted, it is exceedingly important that this amendment be adopted.

Mr. Chair, I am appreciative that the chairman has indicated his support of it, and I thank Mr. Culberson, Mr. McCaul, and other colleagues for bringing this amendment to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise as a person who loves this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a person who refuses to go along to get along. I rise as a person who will speak truth to power and truth about power.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because in our country, our children are being murdered in schools. Our children are prognosticating that eventually it will come to the school that they happen to attend. Our children are concerned about their safety in what should be one of the safest places for them on Earth: the schools that they attend.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, because there are parents who have sent their children to school and never have had them to come home again. I rise because these parents are suffering, because our Nation is suffering. There is great pain within the population.

People of goodwill understand that we must do more than have moments of silence, words of prayer, expressions of condolences. People expect those of us who have been elected to the Congress of the United States of America to do what they sent us here to do, that is, have legislation brought to the floor, allow for some debate, and then take a vote. It is expected that we would vote on the legislation that is pending.

We have more than 100 pieces of legislation dealing with gun safety pending before the House, and it is not being acted upon.

I rise to ask, Mr. Speaker, that you bring this legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives so that the people can express their voices, can express their concerns, can take their positions by and through their legitimately elected Representatives. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for you to act, for you to bring the legislation to the floor so that we may vote on it.

If there is someone who truly believes that the solution to this violence, to this killing, to these murders, if there is someone who believes that the solution is a good guy with a gun, put that solution into legislation, Mr. Speaker, and let's vote on whether the solution is a good guy with a gun.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go along to get along.

Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that you won't be returning to Congress. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you are not going to do your job, if you are not going to brin legislation to the floor--by the way, all of it, not Democratic legislation, not Republican legislation. This is not about Democrats; it is not about Republicans. This is about our children, who are being murdered in schools.

If you are not going to bring that legislation to the floor, you ought to just step aside. This is bigger than you. It is bigger than all of us. It is about our children and how they are being murdered in schools. It is time to take the courage that has been embedded within your soul and your constitution and bring that legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I speak truth to power. I speak truth about power. There is a problem. Mr. Speaker, you are the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what I am hearing today, because I was there, and I understand that at the time we entered the financial crisis, the banks were not lending to each other.

There are many aspects of this to focus on, but today I will simply focus on the $163 billion that the banks made last year. A better name for this bill would be ``Too Much Is Not Enough.'' $163 billion, but that is not enough.

The banks would have us now eliminate the Volcker rule, which prevents the banks from using the money on the consumer side, taking that money and moving it over to the investment side, and go to Wall Street and gamble. If they win, they keep the profits; if they lose, they can socialize the losses.

This bill is not a bill that benefits consumers. It is a Big Bank bonanza. Too much is not enough, and too much is too much for me. I will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, we only had four Democrats shooting. Somewhere along the way, we have to do better recruitment. You and I both know we are term limited as co-chairs, and my replacement next year will be another Texan.

Where is my Texan?

Okay. Congressman Mark Veasey, and I know he shot better than I did, so maybe he will improve our lot next time. It is a lot of fun, the camaraderie is great, and I just am honored to have that time to be the vice chair, now the co-chair of it, and so thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in the well of the House. I consider this an extraordinary privilege.

Mr. Speaker, there are seminal moments in time, moments in time that can impact the rest of time; seminal moments, sometimes where wrong is placed on the throne, where might is used to justify wrong; seminal moments in time, but, Mr. Speaker, might cannot make wrong right.

Might cannot make wrong right; it can only prolong wrong.

Seminal moments in time, where might is used to justify wrong.

Might did not make slavery right. There were those who used false religiosity to try to justify slavery. They had the might, they had the power, they could impose their will, but might will not make wrong right.

Might did not make segregation right, to force people to go to separate areas, to use a level of power to impose an indecency upon a people. Might can never make wrong right.

Mr. Speaker, might has not made invidious discrimination right. It still exists today. No matter how much power we have, we will not make it right simply because we have the power to try to justify it with the might that we have.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, might will not make bigotry emanating from the Presidency right. It will not.

There are many who want to just let it go, let it go, the bigotry, put it behind us.

Bigotry emanating from the Presidency impacts this country. It gives this country a stained image in the world.

The President represents this country. He represents every one of us. We may differ with him, but he is the standard-bearer. The bigotry that emanates from the Presidency is something that we all have to concern ourselves with. We can't just say it is all over with, let's let that go.

Yes, it has happened and it continues to happen, and might will not make it right.

He has power, but his power is not going to cause his invidious and harmful commentaries to become right.

I am here today to simply say this, Mr. Speaker, that while the President has the power, impeachment is the remedy.

A President who has said that there were some good people among those in Charlottesville; a President who would ban Muslims from the country; a President who has said LGBTQ persons shouldn't be in the military; a President who has called the sons of some professional athletes--called their mother's dogs, SOBs; a President who has said that in----

Mr. Speaker, this type of language has been accepted on the floor of this House. People address language to the Presidency----

Mr. Speaker, the Presidency is about the people. It is about the people's House. And the people have a right to address this invidious discrimination emanating from the Presidency. I am not going to stand for it. Others may stand for it.

You know that there is bigotry emanating from the Presidency, yet you would not want me to stand here and address it. I will address it.

This President has exhibited a kind of bigotry that this country ought not tolerate.

When he said that there were some s---hole countries as he was addressing his immigration policy, he was putting his bigotry into policy. And that is something we all should concern ourselves with, the fact that the President's policies are based upon his bigotry.

Impeachment is the remedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I want to thank the President and compliment the President. I thank the President for indicating this morning that he will not--N-O-T--will not interfere with the Mueller investigation. He said as much on national TV. I compliment him for saying this, Mr. Speaker, because if he does so in contravention of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution, it would be tantamount to impeachment.

So, I compliment you, Mr. President, for being forthright, and I assume you meant what you said. However, you went on to say: ``I may change my mind.''

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the President meant what he said initially, and that he will not change his mind. Because, again, to do so in contravention of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution will be tantamount to impeachment. The only body in this country that can litigate impeachment is the Congress of the United States of America.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all--especially the President--if you do this, Mr. President, I assure you there will be articles of Impeachment brought before the Congress of the United States of America.

Now, Mr. President, I am in no rush to do this. As a matter of fact, I don't enjoy using the personal pronoun when it comes to this kind of dialogue--monologue, in this case, as I am talking directly to you. But, Mr. President, if no one else does, I will. I will not allow the Constitution to be ignored and, to a certain extent, trampled upon. I will bring the Articles of Impeachment. As a matter of fact, I have instructed my staff to draft them. They will be ready to go.

I also have instructed my staff to tweet this message that if you do so, Mr. President, if you interfere in contravention of Article II, section 4, I will bring the Articles of Impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 817.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to speak from the well of the House of Representatives.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would call to our attention the fact that there is a time when we should put all politics aside. This is such an occasion, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend my condolences and sympathies to the Bush family. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because I want the world to know that I have great respect for the family.

Politics aside, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Barbara Bush, the First Lady--not currently, but in my world, once a First Lady, always a First Lady. I rise because this First Lady demonstrated something that this country can be proud of.

She was a person who has left a legacy of respectability as it relates to being a First Lady of the United States of America. She respected herself. She had standards. She had principles. She had boundaries. There were certain things that she wouldn't do and would not allow to be done while she was in the White House. Respectability: she respected others which engendered respect for her.

I rise because she will be missed. I rise because she has left this legacy of respectability.

I also rise because, as a neophyte newly elected to Congress, I received an indication that her husband wanted to speak to me. I went over to speak to him. I had no idea as to why he would ask for an opportunity to visit with me, but I did visit with him. I thought it would be a 5-minute meeting. It went much longer than 5 minutes.

He obviously was in one party and I in another. We did not know each other, but we spoke at length. The thing that I remember as we were bringing our meeting to closure, I remember his calling to my attention that one of my greatest challenges in Congress would be to develop an agenda for myself.

There are many people who will have agendas for you. The great challenge in Congress is to develop your own agenda. So on my agenda, I want my record to show that I stood in the well of the Congress of the United States of America to thank the First Lady, Ms. Barbara Bush, for her service to her family, to her country, and indeed to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to have this great privilege of speaking in the House of Representatives. We have a total of 441 Members of the House, including those delegates, those who cannot vote, 435 who can, and it is an honor to be one of the 441.

I never want to take for granted this privilege that has been accorded me by the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas, so I thank them for allowing me to serve, and I am grateful to the leadership in the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight, I rise, if you will, because I would like to reference H. Res. 817. This was introduced on April 11, 2018. This resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 contained the Fair Housing Act, and it is the Fair Housing Act that this resolution actually addresses.

I am proud to say that the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver is the person that worked with me. In fact, we worked with each other to produce this resolution. I am proud also to say that this resolution has a total of 54 cosponsors that are officially acknowledged, and then we have two additional cosponsors that have not been officially placed on the Record, but they are still cosponsors of this resolution.

This resolution does something that is important. It celebrates and commemorates, if you will, the passing of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination. It prohibits it based upon race, color, national origin, sex, familial status, disability, religion, and should have other categories added. It should have sexual orientation. It should have gender identity. So there is still work to do.

And for those who may not believe that persons are discriminated based upon gender identity and sexual orientation, those persons who are fired from their jobs because of their gender identity, fired from their jobs because of sexual orientation, they have stories to tell, because they not only know that it happens, they have experienced it. They have had a firsthand encounter with this type of discrimination.

It also exists in housing. People are discriminated against because of who they are, because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and for the other reasons that we have already codified into law.

So it is my hope that one day I will stand here with a resolution that will celebrate not only what the law is currently, but also what the law will be at that time, and, hopefully, it will include other classes of individuals.

I am also proud to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution is one that is subject to have additional cosponsors. I have talked about original cosponsors, but there are others who will become cosponsors. The Congressional Black Caucus has a good many members who are cosponsors of this resolution. I am proud to tell you that we plan to continue to acquire cosponsors such that, by the end of this month, we will have many additional cosponsors.

Mr. Speaker, housing is important, because where you live can impact your health. If you live near landfills and rock crushing companies, that can have an impact on your health. This is why a good many people find themselves combating, fighting, in a very political way, the placement of these types of facilities in their neighborhoods.

There is empirical evidence to show that where you live can impact your health, where you live can impact your education. If you live in an area with poor schools, it is likely that you will have a poor education. There are exceptions, but exceptions don't make the rule. Exceptions prove the rule.

Where you live can impact your employment. If you live in an area with high unemployment, you are likely not to have a job. If unemployment is exceedingly high, as is the case in some places around the world and in this country too, there are persons who are not likely to have jobs.

If you live in an area where you are likely to be in poverty, you are likely not to become wealthy. Your wealth can be related to the area that you are born in, where you live. There are exceptions, but there are also persons who don't acquire the opportunity to become an exception.

Your life expectancy can be impacted by where you live. If you live in a war

zone, your life expectancy will be impacted and your personality can be impacted. If you live in a hostile environment, hostility all around you, it is likely to impact your personality.

So where you live is important, which is why invidious discrimination in housing is something that should not be tolerated, and I am proud to say that there was a struggle that was overcome so that we could have this Fair Housing Act.

I would like to do this now. I would like to give a bit of history of the Fair Housing Act that was signed into law in 1968, April 11, 1968. A little bit of history is important.

If you understand the history, you can understand why I make the comment that the law, itself, was written in ink, but it was signed, in a sense, with the blood of the many who died and made sacrifices so that the bill could become the law. I believe that the history of the times is important.

It was signed April 11, 1968, as I have indicated, during the sixties. The sixties were not the best of times for this country. In the 1960s, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy proposed a Civil Rights Act. However, he was not to see it become the law because on, November 22, 1963, he was assassinated. Upon being assassinated, President Johnson was sworn in as President on Air Force One that very same day, November 22, 1963. Then, in July, July 2, 1964, after the death of President Kennedy, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race.

Now, it is important to note that President Kennedy, who was a great President, highly respected and admired, proposed the Civil Rights Act, or a civil rights act. He lost his life before he had the opportunity to see it come to fruition.

But it is also important to note that President Johnson worked tirelessly to make real the noble American ideal that was called to the attention of our Nation by President John F. Kennedy. President Johnson was, if you will, the person in the Senate who knew how to speak Southern.

He knew how to communicate well with the Southern Senators and the Members of the House. He knew the rules of the Senate. He knew how persons had voted in the Senate, and he knew how to leverage the votes and the rules to get Senators to do things that they might not ordinarily do.

So when you couple his knowledge of the Senate with the fact that we had lost a great President, and this great President had proposed this Civil Rights Act, you can understand how President Johnson, a great President, was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed that outlawed discrimination based upon race.

In 1967, we had what was called the long, hot summer. There were what were called riots. I prefer another term. I see what happened as rebellions. There were people who were suffering. I don't justify what happened, but I can explain that there were people who were rebelling.

Now, whether you agree with the rebellions or not, they took place. That was what precipitated what was called the long, hot summer. In fact, it was such a rebellious time that, on July 28, 1967, the Kerner Commission was appointed to investigate the causes of these rebellions.

President Johnson appointed this Commission. He wanted to get to the bottom of what was going on in this country. And on February 29, 1968, the Commission released its report, which said, in essence, that the rebellions--they didn't use the term ``rebellions,'' that is my term-- the rebellions were caused by discrimination, that this Nation was becoming two separate people, if you will, people who were segregated from each other. This is in a very general sense. That we were becoming two nations, in a sense, separate and unequal.

This was something that I think President Johnson was impacted by. But there were many others who were impacted by this.

Dr. Martin Luther King, he was trying to bring this country together. He was an integrationist. And in trying to bring this country together, Dr. Martin Luther King went to Memphis. He was trying as best as he could to achieve some degree of fairness for those who were working as sanitation workers.

President Johnson announced, on March 31, 1968, that he would not seek reelection; and then some days later, on April 4, Dr. King, while in Memphis, was assassinated.

So now we had the death of a great President; we have the death, now, of the great human rights, civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, taking place; and then President Johnson, the same President Johnson who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the same President Johnson sought to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which contained the Fair Housing Act. It was within about 1 week of the demise, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King that he was able to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The important aspect of this history is this: that these acts, though written in blood and signed in ink, were able to be signed because of the death of great persons, and also many persons who were not so great. They weren't great in the eyes of history because they were not documented as having done the things that President Johnson or President Kennedy or Dr. King accomplished.

But there were other great people, as well, who shed blood and gave their lives. There were people who were found to have marched, and some of them were protesting and lost their lives. There were people who suffered the indignation and humiliation associated with segregation and the fact that there were those who wanted to maintain the institution to the extent that Medgar Evers lost his life. They wanted to maintain the institution to the extent that Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney lost their lives.

They wanted to maintain segregation. They wanted the South. They wanted the country to remain two separate nations, if you will, within this Nation: one, unfortunately, discriminated against, and another having all the benefits that this great Nation could offer.

The loss of lives allowed us to achieve an integrated housing system within this country. The integrated system was just not enough, and still is not enough, because housing discrimination exists to this very day. The empirical evidence is there. The truth of the matter is that we can do more to eliminate the discrimination.

One of the best tools to eliminate discrimination in housing is testing, where you send out persons of different races, different ethnicities, and you ask them to acquire housing at a certain location. Those who are of one race may find that housing is available to them, but those of another race may find that it is not--at the very same location, on the very same day.

We have found that testing is one of the best tools to eliminate discrimination, especially in housing. But I want to announce today that testing is also a great tool to eliminate discrimination in lending.

This Civil Rights Act, this Housing Fairness Act, and all of the tools that we have used to achieve the degree of integration in housing and fairness in housing that we have achieved, this has been done, in great part, because of testing. That same tool of testing that helped us to integrate housing in this country is a tool that we can use to allow persons to receive fair treatment in lending, fair access to capital.

The truth is that access to capital in this country makes all the difference in your life. If you can go into a bank and you are qualified and you can get a loan to buy a home, that home that you will buy will impact your life in ways that I have talked about, impact your life expectancy, impact your education. It can have a positive impact on your life. It can be the means by which you will move from one status in life to another. Just living in that neighborhood and buying that home can be meaningful to you.

We believe that that loan should not be denied a person because of that person's race, color, creed, national origin, sexual identity, sexual orientation, familial status, religious status. That person's loan should not be denied. It should be granted because of your qualifications.

This is why I am a proponent of testing. This is why I want to see more testing in banking. This is why I believe that we need additional laws to protect those who apply for loans, because access to capital makes a difference in your life. This is why I will

be introducing, in this Congress, legislation to make it a crime to discriminate in lending.

People who deny people access to capital are committing an offense. People who deny people access to capital are impacting their lives. I want to make sure that people who do this are properly punished for what they do. If we can pass such a law, I believe it will deter those who would discriminate against persons because of who they are, and it would cause them to better understand that every person who is qualified for a loan ought to acquire that loan.

So I am leaving you with the notion that we are building on what happened with the Civil Rights Act. We are building on the sacrifices that have been made by persons such as Dr. Martin Luther King and a good many others. We are going to build on it.

We are going to introduce legislation that can help all persons receive not only the house that they merit by virtue of having the money, but also acquire the capital in lending such that they can afford the house that they qualify for by way of the loan they will receive.

I am honored to thank you for the time that I have been accorded, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful that I have the opportunity to stand here in the House and make this presentation, and I am grateful to this country for allowing a person who, at birth, would never have been thought to stand in this position in the House of Representatives.

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 28 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, April 13, 2018, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise because I love my country. I love what it stands for. I love the concept of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

And, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in this and because I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, I rise to announce that I do not approve of nor do I support of the notion that we should have war by Twitter, that we should announce that we are going to war with a tweet. I disapprove. I do not support it.

Questions of war should be brought before the Congress of the United States of America for our input, our debate, and our vote. It is easy to say what you would do when you don't have to vote to do it. I believe Congress has a responsibility, a duty, and an obligation to stand up in times like these and make our positions known on questions of war and peace.

This is the Congress of the United States of America. This is our responsibility, and, Mr. Speaker, I am having my staff, as I speak now, tweet out my opposition to that tweet. I want to make sure the people that read Twitter are aware of my position.

I don't know what others will do, but I know this: I am making my demand that Congress have this opportunity to have input.

And, Mr. Speaker, because I love my country, because I love the Constitution, I believe that, if this President should fire Mr. Mueller, Mr. Speaker, he should be impeached. Whether he will be or not is a question to be decided in the House of Representatives, but I can guarantee you this: there will be articles of impeachment if he fires Mr. Mueller. Whether someone else will bring them or not, I do not know. But if no one else does, there will be articles of impeachment because I will bring them.

I love my country. I am not going to watch this President decimate the Constitution.

I love my country. We didn't act when he fired Comey. We should act if he fires Mueller, and I plan to take that action.

I say this in closing: We have seen, under this President, a deterioration of respect for the rule of law. This country is great because no one is above the law. Are we now going to allow the President to be beyond justice?

This is a moment in time, a crucial, critical moment in time for every person to determine whether they are going to be the true patriots that we claim to be. This is our moment. Let us stand up for the Constitution and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor the memory of an exemplary man, Mr. Marchris Glen Robinson.

Mr. Robinson was born on December 13, 1964 in Kingston, Jamaica. He grew up in Patterson, NJ, where he attended Madison Avenue Baptist Church and graduated from John F. Kennedy High School. Later, he moved to Houston and became a member of Brookhollow, the Church Without Walls.

Mr. Robinson was united in holy matrimony to Ms. Ingrid Williams Robinson on February 18, 1995 and they were blessed with three children, Marchris Glen Robinson II, John-Anthony Glen Robinson and Sydni Marie Robinson.

Mr. Robinson earned his Bachelor's in Criminal Justice from Stockton University, a Doctorate in Jurisprudence from Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, and a Certified Master of Business Administration Degree from McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.

Mr. Robinson pursued several professional paths, including managing Government and Regulatory Affairs, General Counsel for two Texas State Senators, and practicing commercial litigation for two law firms, prior to becoming the First African American Briefing Attorney of the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas, under Chief Justice Alice Oliver- Parrot.

Mr. Robinson was a dedicated legal expert with the Court of Appeals until he made the decision to become an entrepreneur and form the Robinson Law Group.

Mr. Robinson faithfully served the community in several capacities, as Chairman of the Stadium Park Management District and an active member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Leadership Group for 2017 Plan Downtown Committee, John Ben Sheppard Public Leadership Foundation, United Way Project Blueprint Leadership Class XI, and Greater Houston Partnership.

Mr. Robinson held accomplishments and accolades from his community involvement and legal career, being recognized as the recipient of the Pennzoil/Quaker State Business Scholarship, Meadows Foundation Scholarship, Henry T. Courtney Scholarship Award, Young Black Achiever of Houston Award, as well as Texas Young Lawyers Association Minority Involvement Scholarship.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marchris Glen Robinson will be missed dearly by his wife and surviving children; as well as his other family members and friends. May he rest in the peace he has earned through his dedication to the community and the legal industry.