Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I love my country and because I refuse to support the Senate ``wealthcare'' bill. It is not healthcare, but ``wealthcare.''

It is a ``wealthcare'' bill because it will cut more than a trillion dollars from healthcare. In so doing, it will transfer approximately $238 billion to high-income earners.

It is a ``wealthcare'' bill. It will rob the poor, who need healthcare, to reward the rich with ``wealthcare.''

I refuse to support it. I refuse to participate in the concentration of wealth that has taken place.

Currently, according to Oxfam, eight people own as much wealth as half the world. This was as of January, 2017. There are eight people with as much wealth as half the world.

Mr. Speaker, Big Business and the super rich are fueling inequality not only in this country, but around the world. They do so by dodging taxes. They don't pay their fair share of taxes. They do so by driving down wages.

Many people assume that the country cannot afford healthcare because the people that we live in and around don't have what the super rich have. My friends, America is not a poor country. The wealth is just concentrated at

the top. Those who are at the bottom and in between believe that the country can afford things that it can't. This is all about the concentration of wealth.

They are using their power to influence politics. You can't speak truth to power if you are afraid of the big banks. You can't speak truth to power if you are afraid of the Big Oil companies. You can't speak truth to power if you are afraid of the big insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies.

If you are going to speak truth to power, you have got to stand up to the people who are driving this country into a Third World position. I refuse to participate in it.

Mr. Speaker, currently, 1 in 10 on the planet are living off of $2 a day. In this country, millions are going to go without proper healthcare, if the Senate ``wealthcare'' bill passes. They will go without proper healthcare, while millions in bonuses are going to be accorded those who are with insurance companies and receiving a part of the ``wealthcare'' transfer.

Mr. Speaker, in this country, the top 10 percent hold 76 percent of the wealth. In the United States of America, the top 10 percent hold 76 percent of the wealth. They are able to get away with it because they convinced all of us that one day we might hit the lottery and be in the same position as they are and control the world.

Well, my friends, if you don't hit the lottery and you have to continue your life, you ought to have decent healthcare in the richest country in the world.

You ought to have the best healthcare that we can provide, in the richest country in the world. We are not a Third World country, and I will not participate in this transfer of wealth that is taking place so that those who are wealthy can do more with more.

It seems that we believe that if you are poor, you can do more with less. But if you are wealthy, you need more to do more. This is a shameful, sinful circumstance that we find ourselves in.

As for the Senate ``wealthcare'' bill, it is a piece of trash, and it ought to be thrown on the ash heap of history.

No one who believes that people are equal and deserve good healthcare can, in good conscience, vote for that bill. I am glad they pulled it, but I hope that they will improve it to the extent that I will be able to vote for it. But if they do not, I say to you without question, reservation, hesitation, or equivocation, I will not support that transfer of wealth, that bill that would concentrate wealth, and I won't support the tax bill that will concentrate wealth, if there is one.

This has got to stop. This inequality of wealth has got to change. We have got to turn it around. Let's do so by providing good healthcare and not ``wealthcare.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, and I am proud to do so, to present the Pride Resolution as June is Pride Month.

I am also very proud tonight to have with me a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus, who happens to be the co-chair--one of the co-chairs. There are 6 co-chairs and 11 vice chairs, 109 members.

So at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the co-chair, after which I shall make some additional comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words, and I especially thank him for coming to the floor tonight. It means a lot that a member of the caucus would be here, and I want to let him know that I wish him the very best with the Pride parade next year.

In Houston, we had our Pride parade. It is one of the largest events in Houston, Texas. Literally, thousands upon thousands of people line the streets, and everybody is celebrating a rich history that is American history. Again, I thank the gentleman for his attendance.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution has 26 original cosponsors, and this resolution is one that we have presented for many years. As I am grateful to the many who have signed on to this resolution, I have to mention Senator Sherrod Brown because he has presented a resolution on the Senate side to acknowledge June as Pride Month.

He has done so because of the circumstance that was called to our attention by Mr. Polis. The White House has not issued a resolution, breaking with an 8-year tradition. This is something that is expected. It is something that has occurred, and people tend to look to the top for the tone and tenor of our behavior to be demonstrated.

I regret that we did not get the resolution from the White House. My prayer is that at some point the White House will have a change of heart, a change of mind, and will present a resolution.

But be that as it may, tonight we are proud to present this resolution, and it is important that I present it as an ally of the LGBTQ community. I am an ally of the community for good reason, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know what discrimination smells like. I know what it talks like. I know what it walks like. I know what it looks like. I have been the victim of invidious discrimination. I lived in the South. I am a son of the South, and the rights that were accorded me under the Constitution of the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, were denied by my fellow citizens of the South.

I lived in the South, Mr. Speaker, born in Louisiana, lived in the South at a time when I had to drink from colored water fountains. And I must tell you, a good many of them were not the kinds of fountains that you would want to drink from. They were filthy, to be quite frank with you.

I lived in the South at a time when I had to sit in the back of the bus. There could be many seats available in the front of the bus, but I had to make my way to the back to claim my seat.

I lived in the South at a time when I had to sit in the balcony of the movie. It didn't matter that there were seats in the lower level. I was always shown the balcony.

At a time when I had to receive my food from the back door, couldn't go in to many restaurants, and if I did have a restaurant that I could go in, it was some room in the back that was set aside for coloreds only--colored water fountains, colored restrooms, back of the bus, balcony of the movie, and, when we were locked up at that time, it was in the bottom of the jail.

I know what invidious discrimination is like, Mr. Speaker, which is why I am here tonight, because I believe that, until all of us are free of invidious discrimination, every one of us is at risk of being a victim of invidious discrimination.

This resolution is important because it speaks of the many gains that have been made in the LGBTQ community: Barney Frank, the first openly gay Member of Congress; Annise Parker, first openly gay mayor in the city of Houston; speaks of Stonewall; speaks of many accomplishments; speaks of a lot of the tears that have been shed.

But tonight I want to really focus on the very end of the resolution. Rather than go through all of the whereases, I want to go to the be it resolved.

Resolved: That the House of Representatives recognizes that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer--LGBTQ--rights are human rights and are protected by the Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of America; recognizes that all Americans should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

This is important, Mr. Speaker, because in this country today, in the United States of America today, we still have people who are being discriminated against because of who they are.

In the United States of America, there are still people who have rights that are accorded them under the Constitution, very similar to my circumstances--not the same, but very similar, very similar, not the same, to my circumstances--wherein the rights that were accorded under the Constitution were denied by my fellow Americans, and people today are having rights denied by their fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cicilline, David Cicilline, Representative Cicilline, has a bill, H.R. 2282, the Equality Act. This bill has 195 cosponsors. This bill would address the inequalities that we see in America.

Examples are always good. In this country, the Supreme Court has made marriage equality the law of the land. One would think that, if it is the law of the land, all persons who are married would be treated the same as all other persons who are married. All persons who happen to be of the LGBTQ community would be treated like I would be treated if I were married, as a person who is not a member of the community, but an ally.

That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. In the United States of America, if you are married and you are of the LGBTQ community and you wear your ring to work the next day and proudly announce that you are married, you can be fired. You can be fired for engaging in an act that is constitutional in the United States of America.

Why? Because we have about 31 States that have not clearly defined the fact that all persons are to be treated equally, endowed by their Creator with these certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All persons, this would include people who are of the LGBTQ community. But, unfortunately, in a good many States, they can be fired for just showing up to work and announcing that they are of the LGBTQ community.

Mr. Speaker, no one should be denied the right to work because of who the person happens to be when it is a lawful--lawful--status that you occupy. Marriage is lawful in this country. People ought not be punished for being married.

People ought not be punished for their sexual orientation in this country. In this country, you can be denied service, certain services, because of your sexual orientation. One would think that we were long past the time when people would judge you and draw conclusions about who you are and what you represent simply because of your sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not a limitation on a person's dignity, on a person's humanity. Sexual orientation does not divest a person of citizenship, does not divest a person of rights supported under the Constitution. Sexual orientation is but a means by which a person was born into this world.

I believe that my God doesn't make any junk. I believe that my God created people purposefully and created them as they are to be who they are in a world where all persons should be treated equally, created equally by God, treated fairly and equally by humanity.

So since I believe this and I have had these experiences, it is appropriate that I stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives to say to the world that we as a great nation should not allow ourselves to continue to deny human rights and human dignity to people because of their status, a status that they were born with, a status that the Supreme Court recognizes, a status that is to be protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am proud to stand here and take up the challenge and the cause. I am a person who believes that, until we have paid the debts to others for the work that they have done to accord us our freedom, we still have a job to do. There is still great work to be done.

I didn't get here because of my work alone. I didn't get here because I am the person who ought to have this position. There were people who sacrificed and made it possible for me to have this opportunity. There were people who surrendered their lives so that I would have the opportunity to stand here tonight.

So I owe a debt, and I am standing here tonight to continue to repay the debt I owe to others who made it possible for me to have the rights and enjoy the rights--to be more specific, enjoy the rights--that I enjoy in this country, and I want others to enjoy these rights as well.

This is not to say that all of the discrimination against African Americans is over and the world is a perfect place. It is not. But it is perfect enough for me to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and stand for justice for others just as persons have stood for justice for me.

So I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker. It has been time well spent, in my opinion. I am honored that this resolution has been presented. I am honored that it has cosponsors--26.

My prayer is that one day the House of Representatives will pass this resolution; my prayer is that one day Mr. Brown's resolution will pass in the Senate; and my prayer is that one day this President will issue a proclamation, if you will, a resolution of a sort, recognizing June as Pride Month, LGBTQ Pride Month.

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 6 o'clock and 42 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 29, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a setback because it allows the American public to be subject to rip-offs. It allows you to be ripped off when you get your auto loan. Without your knowing it, it will allow you to pay a higher amount than you should be paying.

It allows you to, without your consent, have the money that you place in the bank be taken away from your account, moved over to another place, and used to gamble; if they win, they keep the profits--all done without your consent.

It allows, without your knowledge, the person that you are working with to invest your pension and to put his interests ahead of your interests.

This is a rip-off bill. We should not support it. The American consumers are placed at risk. This is the time to stand. We must say ``no'' to H.R. 10. It is, indeed, the wrong choice.

Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following votes:

1. H. Res. 374, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this motion.

2. Motion on ordering the Previous Question on the Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express gratitude and appreciation to the many who have called. I rise to thank people for the kindness that they have shown. I rise to express my most deepest heartfelt appreciation for those who have had the courage to stand up to hatred, to stand up to bigotry. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say thank you.

I want to especially thank those who are in leadership. I especially want to thank two persons: Representative Clyburn and Representative Bennie Thompson. They both called me to express concern and to give me advice as to how to proceed.

For those who may not know, some very ugly things have been said, but they are not in any way comparable to the many kind words that have been expressed.

So thank you to all on behalf of my staff, many of whom are young people who are having this as their first experience with Congress. Thank you on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to explain why some of these ugly things are occurring, and the best way to do it, in my opinion, would be to use the words of J. Patrick Kinney. J. Patrick Kinney has written a poem styled ``The Cold Within,'' and this poem speaks to the extreme cupidity in our world--not stupidity, cupidity. It speaks to the extreme religiosity. It speaks to the extreme prejudice that some have to endure. It speaks to the extreme wealth and the abuse of it.

J. Patrick Kinney talks about a cold night, possibly the coldest night ever on the planet Earth. These are his words:

Six humans trapped by happenstance

In bleak and bitter cold.

Each one possessed a stick of wood

Or so the story is told.

Their dying fire in need of logs

The first man held his back

For of the faces 'round the fire

He noticed one was Black.

The next man looking 'cross the way

Saw one not of his church

And he couldn't bring himself to give

The fire his stick of birch.

The third one sat in tattered clothes.

He gave his coat a hitch.

Why should his stick be put to use

To warm the idle rich?

The rich man just sat back and thought

Of the wealth he had in store

And how to keep what he had earned

From the lazy shiftless poor.

The Black man's face bespoke revenge

As the fire passed from his sight.

For all he saw in his stick of wood

Was a chance to spite the White.

The last man of this forlorn group

Did nought except for gain.

Giving only to those who gave

Was how he played the game.

Their logs held tight in death's still hands

Was proof of human sin.

They didn't die from the cold without

They died from the cold within.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I rise today with a sense of responsibility and duty to the people who have elected me, a sense of duty to this country, a sense of duty to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice. I do not do this for political purposes, Mr. Speaker. I do

this because I believe in the great ideals that this country stands for, liberty and justice for all, the notion that we should have government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I do it because, Mr. Speaker, there is a belief in this country that no one is above the law, and that includes the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, our democracy is at risk. Mr. Speaker, this offense has occurred before our very eyes. It is perspicuous. It is easy to understand.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a President who fired the FBI Director who was investigating the President for his connections to Russian involvement in the President's election.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the President firing the FBI Director because he was investigating someone else. It is because the FBI Director was investigating the President himself. And after firing the Director, he went on to let us know that he considered the investigation when he fired him. And then he tweeted language that would be intimidation or a warning, an admonition, very strong, to say the very least.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this to go unchecked. The President is not above the law. It is time for the American people to weigh in.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are a part of this democracy. This is a participatory democracy. The American people don't participate on election day only. The American people participate daily, and this is your day to act. This is your day. I am speaking to the American people. It is time for you to act. It is time for you to let us know where you stand.

I have seen a poll that indicates that a majority of those who are being polled are for impeachment. And I have seen another poll that says a plurality of those. Whether it is a majority or a plurality, let us let the American people weigh in. The American people should speak up, speak out, stand up so that we will get a sense of what the American people want.

This is not something to be taken lightly, and I do not. I think this is one of the highest callings that a Member of Congress has to address. I believe that this is where your patriotism is shown, where you demonstrate to the American people where you really stand. So I take this stand. It is a position of conscience for me. I have not talked to another person in Congress about this. Each Member of Congress has to make his or her own decision, so this is not about my encouraging other people to do things, other than the American people.

This is about my position. This is what I believe. This is where I stand. I will not be moved. The President must be impeached.

For those who do not know, impeachment does not mean that the President will be found guilty. It simply means that the House of Representatives will bring charges against the President. It is similar to an indictment but not quite the same thing.

Once a President is impeached, then the Senate can have a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the President; whether he is guilty or not guilty, to be more specific. But the House of Representatives has a duty that it can take up, and that is of impeachment.

I stand for impeachment of the President. How can you weigh in? Well, you can contact my good friends over at Free Speech For People. At that organization, they have a petition. The petition would allow you to weigh in and become a part of the nearly 1 million people who have already said the President ought to be impeached. You can weigh in at impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org. And believe me, if a plurality of the people are saying it now, and that is the poll that I really put my emphasis on, the one that says a plurality believes that the President should be impeached, more than 40 percent, I think that can grow. I assure you, once you weigh in, American people, there will be a difference in the attitudes about this.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity because but for this opportunity, you might not hear my voice. I am a voice in the wilderness, but I assure you that history will vindicate me. I assure you that righteousness will prevail. I assure you that no lie can live forever, and truth crushed to Earth will rise again.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1628 is an assault on hard- working Americans and their families.

Trumpcare is sickness care for millions of Americans who will lose their healthcare coverage and have to receive healthcare in hospital emergency rooms.

Trumpcare is tax care for the 400 richest families, who will receive about $7 million a year ad infinitum if this bill becomes law.

Trumpcare is less care for Americans who will buy cheap health insurance policies and find they are worthless when they get sick and need care.

Trumpcare is insufficient care after the $8 billion over 5 years for high-risk pools in this bill runs out across the country.

Trumpcare is discriminatory care when states can determine that you deserve unaffordable high risk care.

Trumpcare is no care for Americans with pre-existing conditions who cannot afford their premiums.

Trumpcare is a careless political scheme concocted to win elections and line the pockets of the very wealthy at the expense of the millions who will lose healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 5, 2017, I missed the following vote:

1. Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1219. Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO'' on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the topic of casualties of inaction, casualties of inaction, Mr. Speaker, because there are some things that we can do if we would but only act. There are some circumstances that we can change if we would but only act. So today, I want to talk for just a moment about some of the casualties of inaction.

Mr. Speaker, a recent report has indicated that women are casualties of inaction when it comes to their earning power in the United States of America, the greatest country in the world. Mr. Speaker, the report seems to indicate that women earn about 80 cents for every dollar a man earns--about 80 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Mr. Speaker, this is an abomination. It is something that a great nation should not tolerate, and it is something that we can change if we but only have the willpower to do so.

Women earn about $40,742 if they work year-round on a full-time job. Men earn about $51,212 working full-time, year-round. This is about $10,470 difference.

Mr. Speaker, women should not be a casualty of $10,000-plus in their annual salaries. This is something we can change.

But when we look closer at these numbers, Mr. Speaker, we realize that Asian women earn about 85 cents for every dollar a man earns, Black women earn about 63 cents for every dollar a man earns, and Latinas earn about 54 cents for ever dollar a man earns.

Well, what does this really mean in terms of what they can do if they have the equality of opportunity to receive proper pay? Here is what it means:

If this gender gap were eliminated, women would have enough money for approximately 15 more months of child care per year. So children are suffering. This inaction is impacting children. Children are casualties of our inaction.

Women would have approximately 1.2 years of tuition and fees for a 4- year public university, or they would have the full cost of tuition and fees for a 2-year community college--casualties of inaction.

Women would have 78 more weeks of food for a family; so families, literally, can suffer from a lack of food. Food on the table is important in the richest country in the world. Women should not earn less such that their families would suffer.

Women would have 7 more months of mortgage and utility payment.

Women would have 11 more months of rent.

Women should not find themselves making less than what men make in the richest country in the world, in a country where we have the technology, the know-how, and the ability to make a change. They should not have this circumstance.

We can change this circumstance if we so desire. We but only have to have the will. The way is there to make sure women are treated equally in this great society.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to have task forces that are looking into this, not just for today or tomorrow, but to look into it until there is a solution that is available. Until we have the solution, we should not stop taking the action necessary to make a change in the lives of women.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, we ought not allow the people who have made it possible for every man to breathe the breath of life to be treated unfairly, because every man alive owes his very existence to some woman who is willing to suffer the pains of labor so that we could breathe the breath of life.

Mr. Speaker, I will say today what I said when we were working to pass the Affordable Care Act, what we said when we were having some 181 witnesses to appear over a 2-year period having 79 hearings: I said then that I would fight to make sure that health care would not become wealth care in the richest country in the world. I still stand on that basic premise.

We cannot allow health care to become wealth care in the richest country in the world. Wealth care is where the wealthy will receive the very best care that is available; and the poor will get care, but it won't be health care. It will be sickness care. It will be sickness care because, when they are sick, they will be able to go to an emergency room and get care. When they are sick, they will be able to get emergency care, which will cost all of us more, but they won't get preventive care. They will get stabilized if they have diabetes, but they won't get the continued care that they need to treat that disease. We don't want, in the richest country in the world, health care to become wealth care.

Recently, we had a piece of legislation that was going to accord the 400 richest families in this country $7 million a year. That was what the bill would have done that failed. The 400 richest families making $3 million a year would get $7 million additional every year in the final analysis ad infinitum. That is $7 million additionally.

We are the richest country in the world. We can afford to take care of those who find themselves living in the streets of life who cannot take care of themselves. We cannot allow health care to become wealth care in the richest country in the world. How rich are we? Well, one year a man made $3 billion. By the way, he is not the only person to make this kind of money. I just use this kind of example.

A minimum wage worker making $7.25 an hour, it will take that worker 198,000 years to make $3 billion. That man making $3 billion will get the best wealth care this country can afford. But we have got to make sure that those who are working at minimum wage, working full-time, living below the poverty line, make sure that they get the best health care.

I am a proud Texan. I love my State, but I don't like what we have done when it comes to health care. Texas has refused to help those living in the streets of life. We look out for those living in the sweets of life. We take care of them. But Texas has the opportunity to receive $100 billion--with a B--to expand Medicaid.

Medicaid expansion, this is for those persons who are not as fortunate as we are here in Congress who will have the best health care in the world, by the way, as we cut health care for those who cannot afford it, as we cut the expansion of the Affordable Care Act for those persons who would get Medicaid, as we cut Medicaid. We are going to have good health care.

Texans who happen to be oil barons and rich, are going to have good health care. We are going to have good health care. But those who need Medicaid, who could benefit from the $100 billion that the State of Texas has refused to accept and has never said that it wasn't needed, are not. There has never been a case made for a lack of need for the $100 billion to help Medicaid expansion for people who are in need of help and need of health care.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this in the richest country in the world--and we are. Don't let people try to convince you that we are broke. We are not broke. We can afford to take care of people who need health care.

I will close with this: we ought to have a sense of responsibility for every person in this country who may get sick. There is this notion of, but for the grace of God, there go I. If we had been fortunate enough to have good health, remember, you may not always. But for the grace of God, there go I.

Mr. Speaker, although Trumpcare is a terrible Healthcare plan, it is a terrific Wealthcare plan.

Trumpcare is terrific Wealthcare because in the final analysis, it allows the 400 richest families to get $7 million a year ad infinitum, $7 million a year forever.

In the final analysis, 79% of the cuts become Wealthcare dollars for the very rich, not healthcare dollars for the very poor.

In the final analysis, it sacrifices $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to enrich the lives of millionaires and billionaires.

In the final analysis, it provides more money for Wealthcare and less money for Healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, Trumpcare is more Wealthcare and less Healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes:

Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on this motion; H. Res. 156, Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 1004 and H.R. 1009. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the shock that was felt across the Nation.

This was done when, on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court, he announced:

``We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.''

These 24 words, Mr. Speaker, had a far-reaching impact upon our Nation. These words ushered in an era of de jure desegregation that has changed the course of history that has created a new sense of destiny, and literally these 24 words opened doors that were closed to many persons and created new opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on, let me thank the many cosponsors of H. Res. 79, which recognizes the significance of Black History Month, and H. Res. 17, which honors the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, on its 108th anniversary. I thank the many cosponsors and the many persons who have worked on these issues.

I have a staff that has worked tirelessly to make sure that we have these resolutions prepared, such that they could be filed timely. I am grateful to my staff. One such staff member is with me tonight. My legislative director, Ms. Amena Ross, is in the Chamber with me. I am appreciative that on Valentine's Day she has chosen to be here as opposed to where she probably could be and will probably be going shortly.

Mr. Speaker, given that in this month, the month of February, we celebrate Black history as well as the founding of the NAACP, I think that it is appropriate for me to speak on the topic from desegregation to resegregation. Mr. Speaker, it can happen.

Mr. Speaker, while Brown v. Board of Education has not produced the utopian society many hoped for--it has not ended the de facto segregation that many prayed for. It has not engendered the quality education for all children and has not transformed public schools into perfect schools or equal schools--I still contend and firmly believe that we are a much better nation with Brown v. Board of Education than without it.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important for us to give empirical evidence of these words that I have just spoken, my positions, if you will. I would like to do so by allowing the words of a Southern judge. I would like to allow his words to speak for themselves.

This is a message that was delivered by a Southern judge on October 4 of 1957. Mr. Speaker, I shall not call his name. I do not want to embarrass his family. But he was the vice president of a bar association. He was a circuit court judge. He received his BA from a prestigious institution, and he taught sociology.

Mr. Speaker, please hear now his words so that people may understand why Brown v. Board of Education was so important to so many in this country. These are his words:

``Segregation in the South is a way of life. It is the means whereby we live in social peace, order and security.''

Mr. Speaker, I trust that many people can understand why persons of my generation are concerned when we hear the terms ``law'' and ``order,'' terms that indicate law enforcement will take law into its own hands by some standards. In fact, there was law and order at the Edmond Pettus Bridge on

Bloody Sunday, but there was not justice at the Edmond Pettus Bridge.

Many people seek justice when they look for law enforcement to enforce and maintain order. They look for justice as well.

He goes on to say: ``Ninety-eight percent of both races prefer segregation.''

He is now speaking for people that we now call African Americans. At that time, they were called Negroes.

``Integration is urged by the NAACP, a few Southern mulattoes''--this is a means by which light-skinned African Americans were separated from the darker African Americans.

He says that `` . . . a few Southern mulattoes, Northern Communist- front organizations and left-wing labor groups who would use the unsuspecting Negro as their tool.''

It is remarkable that someone would think that people yearning to be free would see those who are lending a hand as persons who are using them as tools.

He goes on to say: ``It does not work any economic hardship nor deprive the Negro of any of his constitutional rights.''

He is talking about segregation.

Then he goes on to say: ``The Negro has made great strides and the Southern white man is largely responsible for these advancements.''

This is a judge. One can only imagine what it must have been like to appear before him if you were Black.

He goes on to say: ``If in the South the Negro was permitted, as he is in some Northern States, to obtain the ballot by simply reaching 21 years of age, it would mean that no qualified white man in many counties throughout the South could ever hold public office. It would also mean that in the halls of Congress, seats now held by competent white representatives would be held by ignorant, incompetent Negroes.''

These are the words of a judge shortly after the Brown decision.

He explains: ``An exhaustive study of the program and results of integration in the schools of Washington, D.C., which the NAACP and other left wing groups''--thank God for the NAACP and leftwing groups-- ``fostering integration said would be a model for the rest of the United States to follow, clearly reveals that the average white student who was integrated in the class room with the Negro has been retarded two to three years in his educational progress. Therefore, it is not to the best interest of America that the white children, particularly in certain congested sections, be retarded three years in their educational advancement.''

He then states later on in his speech that `` . . . we have already, by constitutional amendment, authorized our legislature as other Southern States will do, to abolish the public schools if the Negro and white children are ever integrated therein. Make no mistake about it, we will abolish our public school system and establish private schools for our white children, and we will still provide and see that the Negro is educated separately. It will cost dearly, but we will do it.''

Finally, he concludes with these words. This is a judge. These are facts in the sense that these are statements that he had made. The history is there for those who wish to read it.

He indicates that: `` . . . As long as we live, so long shall we be segregated, and after death, God willing, thus it will still be!''

Mr. Speaker, I call this to our attention because it is important for us to understand what the horrors of segregation were really like; that this was not something that persons of African ancestry enjoyed; that segregation caused many persons more than an inconvenience. It really cost a good many people their lives.

So I thank God, Mr. Speaker, for the NAACP, for labor unions, and for people of goodwill of all hues who worked hard to make sure we arrived at this point in our history.

I thank God for Brown v. Board of Education, but I also understand that the Brown case, Mr. Speaker, was as much about fate as it was about facts. I contend that, but for the intrusive hand of fate, the Brown decision could have been, at minimum, a partial endorsement of segregation.

Unfortunately, because the Chief Justice at that time, whose name I shall not mention--I need not embarrass his family--was a notorious supporter of the doctrine of segregation.

However, Mr. Speaker, after arguments were made in the Brown case in 1952, and before the decision was announced in 1954, fate intruded, and the Chief Justice suffered a heart attack from which he did not recover.

A conservative President then had the duty to appoint a man to the new seat as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. President Eisenhower appointed a man who participated in the World War II internment of Japanese Americans. This was Governor Earl Warren. He was appointed as the new Chief Justice. With this appointment, many persons thought that little would change on the Supreme Court. However, when Warren achieved a unanimous decision outlawing segregation, President Eisenhower is said to have stated that this was one of the biggest mistakes that he made by appointing Warren to the Supreme Court as his Chief Justice.

The Brown decision, Mr. Speaker, was little less than a minor miracle, and it has had a remarkable impact on our society. I probably stand here today because of the Brown decision. At the time the decision was rendered, there were two African Americans in Congress. Today we have approximately 50 African Americans in Congress.

The Brown decision has made a difference in the lives of people. Integration of schools has been of benefit to young people.

I have an article that I would like to read from. It is styled: ``The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms.'' This is from the Century Foundation, a reputable organization.

In the general sense, here is what the article addresses:

It indicates that students in integrated schools have higher average test scores.

Students in integrated schools are more likely to enroll in college.

Students in integrated schools are less likely to drop out.

Integrated schools help to reduce racial achievement gaps.

Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity.

Attending a diverse school can help reduce racial bias and counter stereotypes.

Students who attend integrated schools are more likely to seek out integrated settings after they leave school and enter life.

Integrated classrooms can improve students' satisfaction and intellectual self-confidence.

Learning in integrated settings can enhance students' leadership skills.

Finally, of the many things--and I have not cited them all--diverse classrooms prepare students to succeed in a global economy.

Mr. Speaker, there is little question in my mind and in the minds of many that integration has made a difference in the lives of people in this country. Integration has not only been of benefit to us in classrooms, but the truth is that we live in a society wherein integration has allowed us, by virtue of Brown v. Board of Education, to sleep where we sleep, to eat where we eat, to live where we live.

Brown v. Board of Education has had far-reaching implications beyond that of the classroom. In fact, the economic order, the political order, and the social order were positively impacted by Brown.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I believe we have to, in this country, protect the integration and desegregation that society has produced.

I see that I have another colleague present. Mr. Speaker, can you give me the amount of time that I have left?

I assure my colleague that I will provide ample time.

Continuing, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the re-segregation of our society. I believe that it can occur, and I believe that we must guard against it. I believe that the voucherization of public school funding has been and continues to be the enemy of desegregation and integration.

Allow me to explain. After the Brown decision, as I have indicated, many States sought to repeal the requirement that they maintain a public

school system, and many did. After the Brown decision, vouchers were seen as a means by which public schools could be privatized, so that the public school system would exist with private tax dollars that were in the form of vouchers, and would allow people to still go to the schools of their choice. ``School choice'' was one of the watchwords of the day.

After the Brown decision, in 1955, thereabouts, Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, proposed that vouchers be used to allow children to go to the schools of their choice, allow their parents to have this opportunity to send their children to the schools of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, these vouchers, had they been used as proposed, would have continued to perpetrate segregation and perpetuate it for years to come. These vouchers were not used, thank God. I regret to say, however, that many States are currently proposing voucher systems that can lead to the re-segregation of society.

We have a duty to protect the gains that have been made, that have been fought for by the NAACP, by labor unions, by people of goodwill of all hues. We have got a duty and an obligation to protect these gains, and not allow our country to slip back into a dark past that no one wants to relive.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we continue our progress, we will remember the past that we have been able to extricate ourselves from. And in so doing, it is my desire that we give special attention to these attempts to use tax dollars, to voucherize tax dollars so that public schools can be privatized with tax dollars, which can lead to separation, which can lead to the re-segregation of society.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have my colleague, the Honorable Jim Clyburn present from South Carolina. He is known as a historian par excellence. I am so honored to yield to him so that he may speak on the subjects related to Black history and the NAACP.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

I thank Mr. Clyburn for those wonderful comments. They were most edifying, and I am sure that a good many people have acquired a better understanding of Allen University.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say this in my last 2 minutes. I am grateful that the NAACP was there not only for me, but for this country. The NAACP filed and won many cases, but Brown v. Board of Education has to be one of the most outstanding pieces of litigation that it engaged in.

Of course, you can't talk about Brown without mentioning the Honorable Thurgood Marshall, who was the lead counsel in the Brown case who went on to become a Justice on the Supreme Court.

The Brown case has transformed American life. It desegregated and integrated American society, the economic order, and the political order as well. I am blessed to be here because of

Brown v. Board of Education, and my hope is that we will understand that desegregation and integration are here now--and we will fight for them--but we have to also understand that we can go from desegregation to resegregation. We must be careful, we must vigilant, and we must protect the gains that we have made.

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

Mr. Speaker, in April of 1963, literary history was made when Dr. King published his letter from the Birmingham jail.

In that letter, Mr. Speaker, Dr. King proclaimed: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Mr. Speaker, these words were true then and they are true today. Injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere.

And, Mr. Speaker, when the Republican leadership decided to hold up Merrick Garland, they did more than hold up a nominee. They did more than prevent him from being heard. They did more than approve him such that he could become a Justice on the Supreme Court. They did more than prevent President Obama from having the opportunity to appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker.

When they held up Merrick Garland, they hijacked justice. They hijacked justice and prevented the American people from having the opportunity to hear of the credentials of Merrick Garland so that he could receive just consideration. They didn't have to approve him, but they should have in the sense of justice. They should have given him the opportunity to be heard.

They hijacked justice. When you hijack justice, this type of injustice cannot go unchecked. We cannot allow the legitimization of that hijacking to take place today.

If we move forward with the nominee being proposed by the Republican leadership by the President of the United States, this would be an effort not only to legitimize, it would legitimize the process that they employed to hijack justice.

I refuse to stand with those who would hijack justice. The American people refuse to stand with those who would hijack justice. The American people are demanding that a just system be in place.

The only way a just system can be in place is for what happened to Merrick Garland to be rectified. This is not retaliation that I am speaking of. This is not retaliation. This is rectification.

There has to be rectification for what happened to Merrick Garland, and rectification requires that the Senate take up Merrick Garland. I believe the American people want the Senate to take up Merrick Garland so that he, too, can receive justice; so that this country can receive justice; so that the American people can receive justice; so that they can hear about Merrick Garland's credentials.

Yes, the current nominee has great credentials, but so does Merrick Garland. There are many adjectives that can be used to describe the current nominee, but there are many great adjectives that can be utilized to describe Merrick Garland.

Merrick Garland deserves his day. Without his day, we cannot go forward in a just way. So I encourage the American people to do that which is just; contact those who have a voice in this and say to them: Do not approve any nominee until there is justice for Merrick Garland and justice for the American people, justice for what occurred when they hijacked a nominee to the Supreme Court, hijacked a nomination, hijacked an opportunity. Hijacking cannot be tolerated.

Dr. King was right; injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere. But he also went on to say immediately thereafter that life is an ``inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.''

This hijacking that took place last year is going to impact all in this country indirectly because every person in this country will be subjected to the rulings of a Supreme Court with a nominee that will have an asterisk by his name because his opportunity exists as a result of a hijacking that took place.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and we ought to realize that this injustice cannot be tolerated and must be rectified. It is not retaliation. It is rectification.