Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 28 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, December 5, 2025, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson); and the ranking member for allowing me to carry and present the Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, following the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation invoked the systemic risk exception to guarantee uninsured deposits at those banks. Before 2023, the systemic risk exception was invoked but five times, all occurring between September 2008 and March 2009.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note at this point the importance of the knowledge of what has occurred in Congress. We call it institutional knowledge. Institutional knowledge is important because this legislation gives us the opportunity to explain why institutional knowledge can make a difference.

Because the Honorable Maxine Waters was present in 2008 and saw what occurred when banks were afraid to lend to each other, she was able to give the necessary input when we had the Silicon Valley and Signature Bank failures. She was able to give the necessary input to prevent a further run on banks in this country. Institutional knowledge should never be undervalued. We must maintain and keep our institutional knowledge.

To prevent further panic in the financial system following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the FDIC chose not to follow the typical resolution process for failed banks, in which a failed bank is immediately sold to a competitor.

The Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act would continue this practice, requiring that for any use of a systemic risk exception, the Government Accountability Office would have to produce the same post- failure report within 60 days of invocation of a systemic risk exception and a more comprehensive report in 180 days.

We deserve transparency--we, the Members of Congress--but the people in this country deserve transparency also. It is this transparency that helps people to have the confidence in the system necessary to prevent runs on banks.

Again, I would want people to understand that institutional knowledge is a supreme exemplar of what can occur when we have these circumstances that require bold action, but you can't have bold action, Mr. Speaker, without bold people. I thank the ranking member for her bold action.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and still I rise, a proud, unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat.

And still I rise, censured but not silenced. It is important to have this photo tonight because it will get us into some very important issues.

This was the occasion when I stood before the President as he stood behind me giving a statement at a joint session of Congress. I was seated right over in the third row up.

The President started to talk about his mandate. I collected my portable items, and I was about to make my way out to the aisle so that I could traverse my way out through the doors. That was my means of peacefully protesting, but as I moved and he talked about his mandate, something came over me. It was spontaneity. It was not contrived.

I stood and I said to the President: You don't have a mandate to cut Medicaid. That was what I said.

Now, the press has distorted that, a good many of them, these opinion makers, opinion shapers. They want to define people and define what you say notwithstanding your having said something contrary to what they would like to hear.

They said that I said he didn't have a mandate. I never said he didn't have a mandate. I said he didn't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, and I still stand by it.

By the way, it became something that people across the country agreed with. So, I said it, and then I left. I left after having been told that I had to leave because the Speaker concluded that I was out of order.

I have no hard feelings as it relates to the Speaker. I have no animus to his requiring me to be removed, although I am the only person who has ever been removed from a joint session of Congress.

Here is what happened after I left. The President, from this podium, looked over toward my Democratic colleagues, and the President said to them, as he was talking, words tantamount to them being lunatics. He said it. Members of the Congress of the United States of America are at a joint session of Congress, and the President calls the Democrats lunatics.

I wasn't here. I don't know what I would have done had I been here and he called me a lunatic, because I never insulted him by saying something negative about his personhood. I didn't do that, but I was censured. The President was not censured for calling Members lunatics at a joint session of Congress. He has not been reprimanded in any way. We have allowed him to normalize his behavior.

I was censured. I had to stand in the well. I accepted my punishment. I accepted it. I never criticized the notion that it was improper for me to be removed. I did say that I didn't think the punishment was appropriate in terms of being censured, but I never said anything that would cause the President to believe that I was disrespecting him as a human. He called Democrats lunatics--no penalties, nothing done.

We cannot allow the President to normalize demeaning people, calling them names, low IQ. We can't allow him to do this. If we do, at some point, what I have in my hand now will occur. I have in my hand an article from Politico dated November 20, 2025. When we allow the President to say these things with impunity, this is what we face. November 20, 2025, 10:42 a.m. Eastern Standard time--it is styled: ``Trump calls for Democratic lawmakers to face trial for `seditious behavior.'''

I don't agree with that, but that is not the point. There is more to be said.

It goes on to say, in bold print: ``SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!'' he wrote on Truth Social.

The President is saying now that someone, Democrats, have engaged in seditious behavior punishable by death.

Then, he goes on. The article reads: ``President Donald Trump on Thursday called for six Democratic lawmakers to face arrest and trial after they made a video encouraging U.S. servicemembers and members of the intelligence community to refrain from following orders if they broke the law.''

What does that mean if they broke the law? Well, it means this: If the President gives you an unlawful order, you are not to follow that order. That is what it means. By the way, that is what the law says. You don't follow unlawful orders. We don't want people following unlawful orders.

I am not going to name the people, but then it goes on to say: ``It's called SEDITIOUS''--this is the President now. ``It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,'' Trump charged in a post on Truth Social. ``Each of these traitors''--now they have become traitors. ``Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise to call to my colleagues' attention that they are no longer claiming that this is a clean CR. The truth is that it is a dirty, filthy, and stealthy CR that has been contaminated with millions of dollars for people who have not earned it. They want to take it from the taxpayers of this country because they have concluded somehow that they have been harmed where no harm has been proven or brought to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that healthcare for all is important because we in Congress have the best healthcare in the world. Yet, people with the best healthcare in the world do not see fit for persons who need it and who are among the least, the last, and the lost to acquire healthcare, something that they have.

Healthcare is becoming wealthcare for too many people in this country. We need to extend the subsidies. We need to make sure that everybody who can get to a doctor gets care. This is not a poor country.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to take a poison pill and let my colleagues tell me I will regurgitate it next week. The poison pill has killed the

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise now to proudly yield to a person with great honor and integrity. She is a Member of this Congress who has been on the right side of righteousness. She is a Member of this Congress who stands for those who are among the least, the last, and the lost. She hails from the 14th Congressional District in the great State of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

The Kirk Resolution and Political Violence

I bid the gentlewoman a good day, and we will proceed now, Mr. Speaker, again.

And still I rise.

And I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with the notion in mind that what I have stood for I still stand for. What I have stood for I still stand for. It wasn't that long ago, Mr. Speaker, that I stood right over to my right, the seat next to the aisle. Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States of America was here for a joint session of Congress, the President of the United States of America indicated that he had a mandate.

I, with a degree of spontaneity, Mr. Speaker, from right over there, the second seat from the aisle, collected my portable items and was about to make my departure. I traversed up to the doors and made my exit as a means of protesting what the President was saying.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I did this, I became overwhelmed with just the notion that something was going to happen very ugly and it would be something that would hurt people who are on Medicaid and Medicare. I also brought up Social Security when I spoke, but these are the things that I was overwhelmed with. As a result of understanding what was about to happen and knowing that the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid had a mandate to cut more than $800 billion, I was overwhelmed, Mr. Speaker. I did rise to my feet, and I did say to the President: You have no mandate to cut Medicaid.

My colleagues across the aisle became very rambunctious and decided that what I was saying did not merit being heard, so they performed very loudly. I am not angry with them. They performed loudly. I wanted to make sure that the President heard my statement, and I repeated myself and added Medicare and Social Security.

My colleagues continued, and I continued.

I was evicted, and I was later on censured, censured but not silenced. Yes, I stand today where I stood then. Censured but not silent I stand today where I stood then. It is best captured in this photo that depicts what occurred: censured not silenced.

So I stand today where I stood then, and I stand today where I stood then because there is a CR that has been brought before this House, and if I had voted for that CR, then I would legitimize what I stood against.

I refuse to legitimize what I stood against when I said: You don't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and I introduced Social Security into the equation.

That is what this was about for me, today. The question was whether I would stand where I stood then or whether I would now agree that what was done then is something that I condone now. I condemned what happened then. My mind has not changed. The people who will suffer will still suffer.

Mr. Speaker, why would I now decide that I am going to bless, if you will, condone, a CR that continues what happened, when my Republican colleagues did what they thought was right, I assumed, and passed the legislation without the help of Democrats?

If you can pass the initial legislation without the help of Democrats, Mr. Speaker, then why do you want me to join in your CR?

Pass this without my help.

Censured but not silenced. I stand now where I stood then. I went out, and I addressed the press. I didn't go out to address the press, the press asked and appealed to me to come over. I was making my way to my home where I could watch the rest of the joint session of Congress, but I went over to the press, and I said to them what I said to the President. I am on record.

Why would I now decide that I somehow conclude that what was done to Medicaid and Medicare is somehow something that I would now condone?

I have said, and I continue to say that this piece of legislation that was passed--not the CR, but the original legislation, that one big, ugly steal of a bill--this piece of legislation as it continues to develop is going to hurt people on Medicaid. If you live long enough, Mr. Speaker, you are going to need Medicaid because if you live long enough, then you are going to need some sort of long-term healthcare if you are fortunate enough, and you are going to get that from Medicaid.

I refuse to change my position. I stand now where I stood then, and I believe that what we are doing is the greatest cut in healthcare history. It is the greatest cut in healthcare ever.

All we are trying to do as Democrats, or at least this one Democrat-- I don't speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself and everybody who agrees with me.

What we are trying to do is to protect Medicare. That is all that CR is about for me. It is about a lot of other things as well, but I am trying to protect Medicare as I tried at the joint session of Congress. I am going to stand where I stood then.

I am proud to tell you that Democrats have produced some documents

that encapsulate--that are terse but very much substantive in terms of what this appeal is all about. The style of it is: What are the elements of the Republican healthcare crisis?

There is a healthcare crisis. The Democratic Party has passed this on to me. I want to give them full credit for it. I am going to adopt it as my own, but I did not produce it.

It says here--this is a part of the crisis--slashing Medicaid with the largest cut in history. I said that. I am repeating myself. Some things bear repeating. Slashing Medicaid with the largest cut in history. I can't condone that. If I had voted for this CR, that is what I would be doing. You passed it without my help before. Why would you expect me to support it now? I want to change that. I am not a status quo politician.

Next point: dramatically raises premiums, copays, and deductibles for tens of millions of Americans. There are people who are living on the margins, barely capable of affording healthcare, and this legislation is going to make it impossible for some of them to afford healthcare. These premiums and copays and deductibles are going to go up for a good many people who can't afford them. We are trying to change that, or I am. I support this.

It goes on to say: forcing hospitals and community health centers across the Nation to close. That is no joke. People are starting to see it. They are starting to express their consternation. They are starting to let the people know that somehow this must not happen. They want to change it. If they want to change it, why would I vote to continue it? I refuse to change my position. I stand now where I stood then.

It goes on to indicate: setting in motion $536 billion in cuts to Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, that sums it up.

I stand now where I stood then. I am a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, unafraid, censured, not silenced. I stand for the people I have been faithful to in my congressional district. I am going to be faithful to them until the very end, wherever and whenever that occurs. I stand for what is best to help them through these turbulent times and the crisis that the GOP healthcare initiatives have introduced to people who are in need of healthcare.

I close with this, Mr. Speaker. This is the richest country in the world. We cannot allow healthcare to become wealth care. We also cannot allow healthcare to line the pockets of the wealthy. That is another form of wealth care, healthcare to become wealth care for the wealthy.

The cuts are going to line the pockets of the very wealthy in this country. That has been published. It has been accepted, it seems, by all or a good many except me. I don't accept that. I refuse to allow healthcare to become wealth care and do it in the sense that it becomes the wealthy who benefit the most from the cuts that are taking place.

Mr. Speaker, I stand now where I stood then, censured but not silenced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend the vote series today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 265 and YEA on Roll Call No. 266.

Mr. Speaker, still I rise.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, as a liberated Democrat.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, unbought, unbossed, unafraid.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of the House of Representatives to be removed from a joint session of Congress and, thereafter, to be censured. I have been censured, Mr. Speaker, but I have not been silenced. Censured, but not silenced.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in agreement with the President. This is, indeed, a dark day. Yesterday was a dark day--dark days because of lives that have been lost. This day, the USA Today has published an article styled: ``24 years after 9/11, alliances fractured,'' referring to what happened on 9/11, the lives that were lost to terrorism.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another article that I would call to your attention in The Washington Times. It is styled: Growing leftwing violence blamed for deadly shooting.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address violence. I wish to address violence, and I wish to start by indicating that, yesterday, I published a tweet. This tweet, Mr. Speaker, indicated, in essence, that this is the time for all persons of good will to take a stand against violence and that persons should do this because Dr. King was right, and his words are right today:

``We must all learn to live together as brothers,'' he said. I would add: and sisters.

We must all learn to live together as brothers and sisters, or we will perish together as fools.

I did not know Mr. Kirk. I don't believe I have ever met him. I meet a lot of people, so I may have, but I don't believe that I have.

Here is what I know about him: He was a human being. He was a child of the same creator who created me. He had every right to express his views. He had every right to differ with me and anybody else as much as he wanted to. He had every right to be where he was and to speak on the issues of importance to him in ways that I might not agree with, but he had a right to do this.

He had a right to life. He had a right to say these things in venues across the length and breadth of this country and, I would say, across the globe. These were his rights.

He had the right to be where he was and to do what he was doing.

I don't know him as a person who has said things that I would always agree with, but I want his wife and his children to know that I am saddened by his demise.

I am saddened by the fact that he was assassinated. I am saddened by it. It is painful. I regret that it happened, and if I could have prevented it, I would have.

I don't believe that we should have a country that somehow would have people lose their lives, be assassinated, and then people gloat and celebrate an assassination.

I ask today: What did Mr. Kirk and the victims of 9/11 and the persons who have died in churches while praying, persons who were killed as they were praying in various religious institutions, children who have been murdered in schools, what did they all have in common? The one thing that they all had in common, and there may be others, is that they were innocent people. They were innocent people. They were innocent people going about their business. None of them were breaking the law.

This is bigger than any one of us or any group of us. It is bigger than any person's religiosity. It is bigger than where you happen to be at a given time. This is about the right to life and the right to speak freely. It is about what the Constitution affords all of us in this country and about the necessity for every one of us to protect these constitutional rights.

This is about people who have been fortunate enough to have been born in the United States of America or people who have come to the United States of America. It is about people who just happen to be passing through.

It is about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and especially life, because without life, you cannot have the liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All of these people have in common the fact that they were innocent and the fact that they have lost their lives, some to terrorism, persons who came to this country to impose and inflict terrorism upon people, and some from terrorists within the country, some from people who were just crazed, some from people who were persons who should not have had the opportunity to have the type of weaponry that they had. But they were all persons who were innocent. They were all persons who had this right to life that I stand for.

Today, I believe it appropriate that I first say a prayer, and then after the prayer, I will make some comments about current circumstances.

I don't ask everyone to pray with me. You pray with me if you desire. If you choose to do other things, then do those other things, but I pray this prayer for my country.

Most Gracious Creator, we know You by many names, but we also know that by any name You are the creator of all that was, is, and ever shall be. By any name, You created air, the breath of life. By any name, You created water, the elixir of life. By any name, You created the star that we call Sun, the light and warmth of life. By any name, You created the terra firma that we call Earth, the foundation and the home of life. And by any name, I beg that You would understand and pray that You would give me the courage to not only speak truth to power, to speak it in a righteous way, to have the courage to do all that I can to protect all of

Your creation. I ask You to give me the strength as I speak today to talk about the circumstances that have created concerns that have to be addressed. I beg that You would give me the strength in Your name, by whatever name I make this appeal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to address CNN. Yes, I am a Congressperson who believes that you have to speak truth not only to power but also truth about power.

I want to address CNN. I understand that when you do this, you are not likely to get an invitation to be on their airwaves. I understand it. They have the power to mute by simply denying you access, but I just thank God for C-SPAN, unfiltered C-SPAN. C-SPAN does not mute. C- SPAN does not conclude that because you are a person who will speak truth to power and about power that you shouldn't have access to the airwaves.

I am going to talk about C-SPAN now because it was on C-SPAN this day that I heard one of their reporters indicate that we should, not in these exact words perhaps, but that we should tone down the language, and indicate that we should probably be concerned about certain words, two were mentioned.

We should be concerned about saying ``fascism,'' language that is incitive is the way it was put--perhaps not in these exact words, but incitive language, language that would cause people to do ugly things, incitive language, ``fascism.''

Then, this reporter mentioned another word, allegedly a word that would create, what I would call, some spark within a person that might drive a person to say something or do something that would be harmful, incitive language. Well, that word was ``racism.''

Now, this reporter mentioned fascism and racism on CNN. Yes, I am going to continue to demean CNN for what they have done. I know that this reporter meant well.

By the way, I have respect for the reporter, but I know what is happening at CNN and how CNN has become a status quo news source. To maintain the status quo, CNN will do things that, quite frankly, don't allow us to make the change necessary to benefit all Americans.

This reporter mentioned these two words, ``fascism'' and ``racism,'' as incitive terms. Interesting to note, the reporter did not say ``anti-Semitism.'' By the way, I fight anti-Semitism every day of my life. I am antithetical to it, and I am going to fight it. I think we have to end anti-Semitism. I am going to fight to end anti-Semitism, but on CNN, ``anti-Semitism'' is a word that you can use to address the anti-Semite and to deal with those persons who are perpetrating and perpetuating anti-Semitism, but you can't use ``racism'' on CNN.

``Racism'' is an incitive word. CNN would have us end anti-Semitism and allow us to address it in all of its forms. These are all forms of invidious discrimination. It is all right to address anti-Semitism, but not racism.

If you are going to talk about racism, you have to use softer language because the word ``racism'' is incitive, according to CNN.

Well, CNN is saying to the world, they want to end anti-Semitism, as I do, but they are saying they want to manage racism. CNN manages racism by not allowing it to be addressed and confronted to the same extent as they would allow anti-Semitism to be addressed.

Again, I am antithetical to, I am going to fight anti-Semitism, but I am also going to fight racism. I am not going to kneel. I am not going to cower. I am not going to back off. Racism has to be fought. It has to be dealt with because it, too, exists in this country.

We cannot pretend that racism doesn't exist. If we are going to acknowledge invidious discrimination, we have to acknowledge it in all of its forms, and I would hope that CNN would get a better understanding of what it is doing by managing racism and doing what it can to eliminate anti-Semitism.

It is my belief that people of good will can fight both racism and anti-Semitism, and if we are going to do it, we have got to speak truth about power. We have got to speak truth to those people who have already concluded that the loss of Mr. Kirk, the conservative activist, as is stated in The Washington Times, already concluded that this was some leftwing person, and then they used plural language and say ``they,'' the leftwing.

If it was a leftwing person--I don't put any special boundaries around that person--whoever it is, ought to be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows. It doesn't matter what their party affiliation is. But what does matter is you shouldn't jump to conclusions. We don't have the empirical evidence of what happened, last I heard. Maybe it has been announced just recently. I am talking about the authorities. For people to come to the floor of the House and make statements about how leftwing people have caused this to manifest itself, Mr. Kirk's demise, without any evidence of it, and for CNN to infer in some way that ``racism'' is a term that may have promoted what happened to this man; they are wrong. They are wrong to do it. Members of Congress who do it are wrong.

To blame the harm that was caused to some person who is said to be on the left or on the right, that is wrong. You can't blame people in a wholesale fashion for things that happen to some individual person. Left or right, you can't blame everyone.

You can blame the person who did this. If you want to talk about language that precipitates this kind of behavior, language that may in some way influence people, then you are going to have to start at the top. You are going to have to start at the top. You are going to have to start with a President of the United States who told police officers: You don't have to be nice when you are arresting people. The President of the United States told people at one of his rallies that they could assault someone who was there and not to worry about it. The President of the United States says ugly things about people. The President of the United States came right here, and right at that podium just below the Speaker called Democrats lunatics. It was the same night that I was evicted from the joint session of Congress, the only person ever to be evicted. The President was right there at that podium. That President at the podium said that the Democrats were lunatics. Is that incitive language?

I say to CNN, here is what is interesting about it. You allow the President's language to be spoken, but you won't allow people to come on your station and talk about the racism that exists, and it does.

If we are going to talk about how these things are developed, speak in terms of individuals. The President of the United States of America has decided that the Department of Defense will be the Department of War now, taking us a quantum leap backwards in time to when it was previously the Department of War, but we had the good sense to understand that it would be better to be a Department of Defense than to be warmongers.

The same President who says he wants the Nobel Peace Prize changes the Department of Defense to the Department of War. The same President who has promoted what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza; who has gone so far as to say: Let's just buy that property or take it and make it some sort of resort. The same President who went so far as to say to Mr. Netanyahu: Yes, you can go on, you can do what you need to do. It was not in those exact words, but that was the implication. This is the same President who wants the Nobel Peace Prize.

I cannot believe that the Nobel Committee, the Nobel authorities would ever give a person who has behaved as this President has--who wants a Department of War, who has sanctioned the collective punishment against the Palestinians, sanctioned the ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians, sanctioned ethnic cleansing, collective punishment--the Nobel Peace Prize.

I know you are waiting for me to say the other word. Yes, I am going to say it. This President has sanctioned the most heinous of crimes against humanity, and those are crimes against humanity that are being committed on the Palestinians. He has sanctioned the most heinous crimes against humanity, and he wants the Nobel Peace Prize. I say to the President, you are not deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

To those people who want to blame the leftwing for things, if a leftwing person has done something, I am not opposed to that person being blamed. I will blame that person. However, don't blame all people who happen to be on what you call the leftwing for what is happening. Don't do that. Explain what the person has done.

I came to this floor. I am here in this House now, and I am giving you explicit things. Tell me what the so-called leftwing has done. They speak in these broad, general terms about people without giving the explicit evidence of the thing that they claim that they have done. Speak with specificities. Have the courage to speak with specificities. They don't have the courage to speak with specificities. They just want to use a broad brush.

Yes, I am going to say it, the President doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize because he has sanctioned genocide in Gaza. The world sees it, and this Congress sees it, with not one resolution to condemn the genocide taking place in Gaza, not one. There won't be one. There won't be one. Not one.

Few people are going to come to this floor and say it even exists. We are going to manage genocide in Gaza and condemn what is happening in Ukraine. How can you condemn what is happening in Ukraine and not condemn what is happening in Gaza? You can't do it, not in a righteous way, not in a righteous way.

The Congress of the United States of America ought to be on record condemning what is happening to the Palestinians. For those who would claim that they have no reason to be, that this is just something that we should allow the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve, here is my retort. Your tax dollars, your tax dollars are fueling the genocide that is taking place. If you wanted to do something about it, you wouldn't fund it. Those planes are our planes. The munitions are our munitions.

Now, someone is going to say that I am somehow creating the fervor, the incitive response that may take place because I speak the truth. Truth has, in and of itself, an absolute defense. Who can deny? Who will deny in good faith that what is happening in Gaza is something other than genocide? It is genocide. We have the blood of what is happening to those innocent people on our hands.

I started by talking about innocent people. They are among the innocents. We can't care more about some babies than other babies. We will allow the killing of Palestinian babies and maybe every now and then say something about how wrong this is, but we are not going to say that about other babies. We want to make sure that people understand that those babies have the right to life, that those babies should grow up, and they should have an opportunity to succeed in the world. Palestinian babies and children haven't been to school in years now. What is going to happen to them?

We have now allowed Mr. Netanyahu to go into Palestine, into Gaza, and go to Gaza City. It is obvious that he is trying to destroy it. Yes, he is trying to destroy it. There will be no home for the Palestinians. They have already destroyed roads, bridges, schools, hospitals. Mr. Netanyahu doesn't want peace. He wants all of Palestine. I speak in specificities, all of Palestine. He doesn't want peace.

In fact, the Knesset just last year took a vote, and the vote was to say in explicit terms there will be no Palestinian state from the river to the sea, from the river to the sea, not in those exact words. They said west of the Jordan. That is the river, and west of the Jordan is Gaza. From the river to the sea, west of Jordan, West Bank, from the river to the sea.

If you say ``from the river to the sea,'' you will be sanctioned by this Congress. We can't say that. The Knesset in Israel can pass in that body legislation saying that there will be no Palestinian state from the river to the sea.

Here is my point. From the river to the sea, Palestine and Israel must be free, both of them, two states. I stand for a two-state solution. There are others who stand for evicting the Palestinians, sending them to some other place. This is their land, their home. They have got every right to live where they live, and this war has gone on too long, taken too many lives.

What happened at the genesis of this with the attack on Israel was wrong. It was sinful. It was harmful. It was terrorism. It was something that merited a response, but it didn't merit collective punishment. It didn't merit ethnic cleansing, and it didn't merit genocide. Those are crimes against humanity.

Today, dear friends, I will mourn the death of Mr. Kirk and all of the persons who have died in their places of worship, killed at the hands of assassins, all of the children who have died in schools. It is about all of them and all of the people who died on 9/11.

Any person who is on the left who has committed a crime against another person, violence against another person, I condemn you. Any person on the right who has committed a crime against another person, I condemn you. I speak with specificities about the incitive commentary emanating from the highest office in the United States of America. We see it, but we ignore it.

I refuse to ignore it. I don't believe in committing crimes. I have spoken from this very podium, this very area about peaceful protests. I have indicated to people, no violence. I am a person who does not promote violence. There are people who will say that I promote violence by fighting racism. That is not promoting violence. That is ending the violence that racism perpetrates on people, and I am going to continue to fight racism.

I have stood right here at this podium and talked about peaceful protest and how we must engage in peaceful protest. Peaceful protest is what got me to Congress. Most of the people who are minorities in Congress, somehow peaceful protest has benefited them.

If I could cite a single moment in time, it would be at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, 1965, on what we now call Bloody Sunday, because at that moment when they were trying to cross and they were beaten, this is violence we are talking about, with specificity, I might add. Date: 1965. Place: Edmund Pettus Bridge, Selma, Alabama. People wanted to peacefully march.

My dear brother, John Lewis, told me the story of how he thought he was going to die on that bridge, how they were beaten all the way back to the church where they started.

At the moment that happened and the moments that followed, when Lyndon Johnson was accorded the opportunity to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965, when he signed that Voting Rights Act of 1965, when he signed it. Yes, he signed it with ink. Yes, it was a pen.

Mr. Speaker, it was written with the blood at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. That is why it is called Bloody Sunday. It was on a Sunday that it occurred. It is Bloody Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in specificities. When he signed it, yes, there were only six Members of Congress who were of African ancestry that we know of. There may have been some others that we didn't know of because of the definition of how someone becomes a person of African ancestry, their blood and that sort of thing. We knew there were six. There were five persons who were Latinos. There were four persons who were Asian.

Since the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, section 4 of voting right act, section 5 of Voting Rights Act. All of these in concert, working together, we acquired more than 60 people of African ancestry in this Congress. More than 50 persons in this Congress are Latinos. More than 20 persons in this Congress have Asian heritage.

It is the Voting Rights Act. Yes, that Voting Rights Act was there to deal with racism. It says so in the act. It says race. We can't discriminate against people based on race. It also goes into some other aspects of discrimination, all of them invidious, but we can't do it.

We have to say ``racism'' if we are going to talk about the case involving race. CNN doesn't want that to be said. If this were anti- Semitism, we could say that anti-Semitism is being imposed. We could fight it and use that language. We can't use ``racism.'' By the way, I would support saying ``anti-Semitism.'' I would. I do support saying it. We have to be able to say ``racism,'' too.

That is what is happening now across this country, especially in Texas, where the President of the United States--specificities--had the Justice Department to send a letter to the Attorney General of the State of Texas, indicating that four districts, all of which had minority representation, four districts should be redrawn because the State of Texas drew them specifically such that minorities would be elected.

Then the Attorney General from the State of Texas had a retort. He refuted what the Justice Department said. He said: No, our lines were drawn for partisan advantage.

That is lawful. If you draw the lines with race in mind, then that is unlawful. We can't draw lines to prevent people from acquiring a representation based upon race. We can't do that.

The Attorney General refuted it. That should have ended it; but, no, it didn't. Notwithstanding the evidence that the Attorney General presented, indicating that they didn't do what the letter from the Justice Department alleges, Texas went on.

What Texas has done is racist. We can't say that on CNN. If we say that it is racist on CNN, we become persona non grata. We are not going to be back on CNN. If we are there, the host would send little signals to let people know that this was something that was imposed and not something that was desired.

CNN is a status quo news network. I am not a status quo Representative. I want to change the status quo. I don't want to manage the status quo. CNN does. CNN wants to manage racism and eliminate anti-Semitism.

I want my dear friends to know that what Texas has done is racist, and I am using specificities. I have called to the attention of the public those two letters, and they are available.

Mr. Speaker, I have to do what I do. I don't ask others to follow me. I am uniquely qualified to do what I do. I only ask those others who know that I am speaking truth: Don't be the one to try to trip me up. Just let me do what I can do. My friends will do as best they can to do what they can do. Together, we will get things done.

We have to be truthful about our circumstances, or we will never end them. They will always remain the same.

I close, my dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters--and I say this because, like Dr. King, I believe that there is but one race and that is the human race. Like Dr. King, I believe that all persons have been created equal, as has been indicated and elucidated in many documents that we hold near and dear in this country. I believe in one race. That is the human race.

My dear friends, as a human being, I knew Mr. Kirk. I know the humanity that he had. I know the decency that should have been afforded him. I know that what happened to him was wrong, and it doesn't matter who did it. It was wrong.

If it turns out it is a leftwing person, as defined by people, that is wrong. I am not going to stand for that. Quite frankly, I don't know any Democrats that would stand for that. It doesn't matter. We aren't going to say the person shouldn't be punished.

I speak in specificities. I don't come to the floor and paint with a broad brush. I don't think all of my colleagues on the other side are racist. I don't label all of them as rightwing nuts. If I see someone do something, I am going to call them out. I am not going to label everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I knew his humanity. I knew that he had every right to say what he was saying. He had every right to say things that I would never agree with. He had every right, if ever given the opportunity, to vote against me. That is not a reason for anybody to impose violence upon him.

He had every right to do these things and walk away and go back home to his family. He should have spent the night either with his family or knowing that his family was secure and they knew that he was secure. He had every right to raise those babies.

This was a wrong that was perpetrated. I want to go further and say the people who have been killed in their places of worship had every right to worship as they chose and to do it in their various places of worship.

Children have the right to go to school. Their parents have the right to pick them up at the end of the school day.

I don't label the attempt on Congresswoman Giffords' life as a rightwing plot. I don't do that.

I believe that people are responsible for their behavior. On a day such as this, I don't know that we ought to allow this to go unnoticed when there is a headline that reads: Growing leftwing violence blamed for deadly shooting.

I believe in specificities. I believe in the decency that human beings should afford each other.

I am going to continue to do that because Dr. King was and is right. We do have to learn to live together, all of us, as brothers and sisters, or we will all perish together as fools.

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

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise, Mr. Speaker, to call to the attention of this august body some important information.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress ever to be evicted during a joint session of Congress. I have been censured, Mr. Speaker, but I have not been silenced.

Still I rise today to call to our attention some history associated with the Voting Rights Act and to bring to our attention how this Voting Rights Act has had a positive impact on our Nation, on this Congress, and, I would say, indirectly on the entire planet Earth.

A very important aspect of this Voting Rights Act is section 2. Section 2 had its genesis, as is the case with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday occurred in March 1965 at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

One of our Members, John Lewis, was there. In fact, he was a leader of this march on Bloody Sunday. As such, he informed us--I talked to him on more than one occasion about it--how they started the march at a church, how they approached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and how, on approach to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they could see the bridge itself.

As they got more along the way, they could see that there were persons waiting for them. Some of these persons were on horseback. Others were not, but they were armed. These persons had intentions that were less than honorable.

They knew that the intentionality was less than honorable, yet they marched on, forward, knowing that this could become an unpleasant scene, that persons could be harmed.

They had been trained, and they had been lectured by Dr. King, who taught them how to engage in nonviolent, peaceful protest and how it is necessary to, when engaging in this protest, not engage in acts of violence because, in so doing, you can harm the actual protest movement itself.

They were there, unarmed, marching peacefully from Selma to Montgomery. After having been told by the officers that they must turn back and peacefully marched on, they were then beaten--clubs, men on horseback. They were beaten all the way back to the church where they started.

The Honorable John Lewis reminded me that he thought he was going to die on that bridge, beaten all the way back to the church where they started.

This is what is important about Bloody Sunday, aside from many other things. There are many things important, but this is important. Bloody Sunday was a date that had some other circumstances that we don't often talk about.

I am just going to read something that will help us better understand why Bloody Sunday and this time in our history is so horrific, and it gave a President an opportunity to do something that, but for Bloody Sunday, he could not have done.

This is what I would like to read. Four deaths are directly attributed to the events of Selma to Montgomery marches: Jimmie Lee Jackson, who was shot by a State Trooper in February 1965 before the main march; James Reeb, a White minister, beaten in March 1965 after Bloody Sunday; Viola Liuzzo, a White civil rights activist, shot and killed in March 1965; and Jonathan Daniels, another White activist, shot and killed in August 1965 during a later demonstration related to the marches.

All of these things happened around Bloody Sunday, but Bloody Sunday afforded President Lyndon Johnson the opportunity to sign into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

My speculation is but for these horrific events and for the world having the opportunity to see the horrors of invidious discrimination, the horrors of segregation, the horrors associated with people who had hate in their hearts and were determined to prevent people of color from having the same rights that they enjoyed, meaning the people who were Anglos enjoyed--this Bloody Sunday is marked by violence, but it is also a mark in history that gave us the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965, by Lyndon Johnson. Here is what is important. When it was signed on August 6 in the 89th Congress, there were 6 Black Members of Congress--6, 5 Latinos, 4 Asians, a total of 15 persons of color that we could identify as such.

As of January 3, 2025, in this Congress, the 119th Congress, we have 68 Black persons, from 6 to 68; Latinos, from 5 in 1965 to 58; Asians, from 4 in 1965 to 24--a total of 150.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that a good many of these 150 are currently at risk. If things continue as they are in Texas, then we are likely to lose a third or more of these 150 Members of Congress.

Let's talk about Texas for just a moment. In Texas, we have evidence and, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Civil Rights Division,

Washington, DC, July 7, 2025.

Hon. Gregory Abbott,

Office of the Governor, Texas Capitol,

Austin, Texas.

Hon. Ken Paxton,

Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Attention: Austin

Kinghorn/Ryan Walters,

Austin, Texas.

Dear Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton: This

letter will serve as formal notice by the Department of

Justice to the State of Texas of serious concerns regarding

the legality of four of Texas's congressional districts. As

stated below, Congressional Districts TX-09, TX-18, TX-29 and

TX-33 currently constitute unconstitutional ``coalition

districts'' and we urge the State of Texas to rectify these

race-based considerations from these specific districts.

In Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 45 (2023), Justice

Kavanaugh noted that ``even if Congress in 1982 could

constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under

Sec. 2 for some period of time, the authority to conduct

race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the

future.'' 599 U.S. 1, (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). In SFFA v.

Harvard, the Supreme Court reiterated that ``deviation from

the norm of equal treatment'' on account of race ``must be a

temporary matter.'' 600 U.S. 181, 228 (2023). When race is

the predominant factor above other traditional redistricting

considerations including compactness, contiguity, and respect

for political subdivision lines, the State of Texas must

demonstrate a compelling state interest to survive strict

scrutiny.

It is well established that so-called ``coalition

districts'' run afoul the Voting Rights Act and the

Fourteenth Amendment. In Petteway v. Galveston County, No.

23-40582 (5th Cir. 2024), the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals made it abundantly clear that ``coalition districts''

are not protected by the Voting Rights Act. This was a

reversal of its previous decision in Campos v. City of

Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1988). In Petteway, the

Fifth Circuit aligned itself with the Supreme Court's

decision in

Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009), and determined

that a minority group must be geographically compact enough

to constitute more than 50 percent of the voting population

in a single-member district to be protected under the Voting

Rights Act. See also Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30

(1986). Opportunity and coalition districts are premised on

either the combining of two minority groups or a minority

group with white crossover voting to meet the 50 percent

threshold. Neither meets the first Gingle's precondition.

Thus, the racial gerrymandering of congressional districts is

unconstitutional and must be rectified immediately by state

legislatures.

It is the position of this Department that several Texas

Congressional Districts constitute unconstitutional racial

gerrymanders, under the logic and reasoning of Petteway.

Specifically, the record indicates that TX-09 and TX-18 sort

Houston voters along strict racial lines to create two

coalition seats, while creating TX-29, a majority Hispanic

district. Additionally, TX-33 is another racially-based

coalition district that resulted from a federal court order

years ago, yet the Texas Legislature drew TX-33 on the same

lines in the 2021 redistricting. Therefore, TX-33 remains as

a coalition district.

Although the State's interest when configuring these

districts was to comply with Fifth Circuit precedent prior to

the 2024 Petteway decision, that interest no longer exists.

Post-Petteway, the Congressional Districts at issue are

nothing more than

vestiges of an unconstitutional racially based gerrymandering

past, which must be abandoned, and must now be corrected by

Texas.

Please respond to this letter by July 7, 2025, and advise

me of the State's intention to bring its current

redistricting plans into compliance with the U.S.

Constitution. If the State of Texas fails to rectify the

racial gerrymandering of TX-09, TX-18, TX-29 and TX-33, the

Attorney General reserves the right to seek legal action

against the State, including without limitation under the

14th Amendment.

Respectfully,

Harmeet K. Dhillon,

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.

Michael E. Gates,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.

Mr. Speaker, the first is a letter from the Department of Justice. This letter from the Department of Justice is addressed to the Governor of the State of Texas, Governor Gregory Abbott. It is also addressed to Attorney General Ken Paxton. The letter is dated July 7, 2025.

The reference line is: ``Unconstitutional Race-Based Congressional Districts Texas-09, Texas-18, Texas-29, and Texas-33.''

It references unconstitutional race-based districts. This letter, dated July 7, has language indicating that if the State of Texas fails to rectify the racial gerrymandering of Texas-09, Texas-18, Texas-29, and Texas-33, the attorney general reserves the right to seek legal action against the State including, without limitation, under the 14th Amendment.

There is an accusation made against the State of Texas that the State of Texas engaged in unconstitutional race-based congressional district gerrymandering, I suppose, as this letter would indicate.

However, this letter, which has a July 7 date on it, requires the State of Texas attorney general or the Governor, or both, to respond by July 7. The letter is dated July 7, and the response is required. It says here: ``Please respond to this letter by July 7, 2025, and advise me of the State's intention to bring its current redistricting plan into compliance with the U.S. Constitution.''

Let's focus on these dates for just a second. The date of July 7, the date of the letter, and the request for the response is the same date. It can be said maybe this was a mistake and they meant to insert another date. It could also be a means by which we tell a person: Call me. Contact me right away. Contact me today. Contact me ASAP, as soon as possible.

I believe that there was a conversation that took place. I believe that that conversation is, in part, why we have the maps that we have today.

The attorney general for the State of Texas responded to the Justice Department. I include in the Record the letter from the attorney general.

Ken Paxton,

Attorney General of Texas,

Austin, TX, July 11, 2025.

Hon. Harmeet K. Dhillon,

Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil

Rights Division, Washington, DC.

Dear Assistant Attorney General Dhillon: I am in receipt of

your July 7, 2025, letter concerning Texas congressional

districts and welcome a discussion both of the

constitutionality of those districts, and how they can best

serve Texans. I fully support Governor Abbott calling a

special session for the Texas Legislature to conduct

congressional redistricting to take advantage of recent

changes to the legal and political landscape.

As you know, I have stood shoulder to shoulder with

President Trump in fighting for the constitutional rights of

Texans, and of all Americans. My office filed 107 lawsuits

against the unconstitutional policies of the Biden-Harris

Administration, setting the constitutional framework for

opposing the liberal agenda including DEI, open borders,

anti-gun hysteria, and transgender procedures forced on

children. I also filed the landmark Texas v. Pennsylvania

lawsuit and have vigorously defended one of the most

comprehensive election integrity bills anywhere in the

country. Nothing is more important to me or the office I am

proud to lead than upholding the Constitution and combatting

the left-wing assault on American values.

We agree that the time for race-based decisions in

government is over. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in SFFA v.

Harvard, ``Eliminating racial discrimination means

eliminating all of it.'' 600 U.S. 181, 206 (2023). We also

agree that Justice Kavanaugh has acknowledged temporal

constraints on race-based decisions required under Section 2

of the Voting Rights Act. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 45

(2023) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

I am also keenly aware of the Fifth Circuit's decision in

Petteway v. Galveston County, 111 F.4th 596 (5th Cir. 2024)

(en banc). My office successfully briefed that case's

implications for Texas congressional districts earlier this

year. See First Amended Motion for Partial Judgment, LULAC v.

Abbott, No. 3:21-cv-00259 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2025), ECF 848;

see also Defendants' Brief Addressing the Effect of Petteway,

id., ECF 815. Indeed, a coalition claim under the Voting

Rights Act brought against Texas Congressional District 18

has been dismissed under Petteway. See Order Granting Motion

to Dismiss, id., ECF 972; see also Response to Order

Requiring Additional Briefing, Id., ECF 917. Around the same

time--which is to say, after the Petteway decision--your

office dismissed all of its claims against Texas election

districts. I agreed with your decision in that regard, and

still do. I applaud your leadership and legal acumen in

recognizing the futility of the claims brought against Texas

under the Biden-Harris administration.

We also agree that, had the Texas legislature felt

compelled under pre-Petteway strictures to create coalition

districts, the basis for such decisions--as you say--``no

longer exists.'' However, my office has just completed a

four-week trial against various plaintiff groups concerning

the constitutionality of Texas's congressional districts, as

well as its State House and State Senate maps. The evidence

at that trial was clear and unequivocal: the Texas

legislature did not pass race-based electoral districts for

any of those three political maps. Texas State Senator Joan

Huffman, who chaired the Senate Redistricting Committee,

testified under oath that she drew Texas districts blind to

race, and sought to maximize Republican political advantage

balanced against traditional redistricting criteria. See,

e.g., Tr. Jun. 7, 2025, PM Session at 33; Tr. Jun 9, 1025, AM

Session at 54. Dr. Sean Trende, renowned redistricting

expert, testified on behalf of Texas that its electoral maps

correlate more closely with partisan advantage than any

racial consideration. See Tr. Jun. 9, 2025, AM Session at 67-

177, id.

Finally, we agree that there have been substantial changes

in the law since Texas drew its congressional districts in

2021. In the four short years since then, the Supreme Court

has issued Milligan, SFFA, and Alexander v. South Carolina

State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024). At the same

time, voting patterns in the state have undergone tremendous

change, including--as you are certainly aware--Texas's

historic support for President Trump in the 2024 Presidential

Election.

The Texas Legislature has led the Nation in rejecting race-

based decision-making in its redistricting process--it has

drawn its current maps in conformance with traditional, non-

racial redistricting criteria to ensure Texas continues to

adopt policies that will truly Make America Great Again. As

permitted by federal law, the congressional maps in 2021 were

drawn on a partisan basis. See Rucho v. Common Cause, 588

It is addressed to the Justice Department, Civil Rights Division.

There is a part of this letter that addresses the allegation that Texas engaged in race-based gerrymandering.

There are two pages. The attorney general has in bold print, the only bold print on the pages, these words: ``The Texas Legislature did not pass race-based electoral districts for any of'' some three maps that are discussed in the letter, which includes the maps that are addressed by the Department of Justice. By the way, the President made the request that this be done.

The attorney general for the State of Texas said, no, they don't do business like that. They don't draw lines to benefit people of color. They draw their lines to gain some partisan advantage.

Let me read just a little bit more of what it says in this one paragraph. It says: The evidence at the trial--there was a trial concerning the maps that the Justice Department is referencing.

``The evidence at that trial was clear and unequivocal. The Texas Legislature did not pass race-based electoral districts for any of those three political maps.''

Texas State Senator Joan Huffman, who chaired the Senate Committee on Redistricting, testified under oath that she drew Texas districts blind to race.

Remember the Justice Department said Texas needs to redraw these lines. The exact words are unconstitutional race-based congressional districts.

The attorney general goes on to say: ``Huffman, who chaired the Senate

Committee on Redistricting, testified under oath that she drew Texas districts blind to race.''

I am a part of this trial that is referenced here. I have been litigating against the State of Texas most of the time that I have been in Congress. I am protecting the Ninth Congressional District and 18th Congressional District.

Some things bear repeating. ``Huffman, who chaired the Senate Committee on Redistricting, testified under oath that she drew Texas districts blind to race, and sought to maximize Republican political advantage balanced against traditional redistricting criteria.''

As evidenced in this letter from the attorney general for the State of Texas to the Justice Department, she is saying she didn't do that. The reason that they are asking us to draw these lines is just not there. It doesn't exist. We don't do business like that in Texas.

In fact, this is true because it is the State of Texas that had White-only primaries. Yes, in the State of Texas, if someone was a person of color, at one point in the history of the State of Texas, they could not vote in the primary election simply because of the color of their skin.

That is a kind of hate for those who may not have analyzed this to the extent that I have. That is a kind of hate. We call that racism. Racism is a form of hate where we just don't like people because they show up with the wrong complexion. That is Texas. By the way, that is my State.

In Texas, persons could not vote because they were of color. They could not vote in the primary. The primary would decide the winner of the election. If someone couldn't vote in the primary, they didn't have a choice as to who would ultimately be the victor and become the representative.

This case went all the way to the Supreme Court as it relates to Texas. Mr. Lonnie Smith, a dentist in Houston, Texas, took this case involving all-White primaries all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not have all-White primaries. Texas immediately responded. They agreed with the Supreme Court. There should not be any more all-White primaries.

Texas concluded that the just thing to do--and I say just, I don't know that these words were ever used, but I assume that they were acting with some sense in a belief of justice or injustice. The Texas governing body decided that since we can't have all-White primaries, then we will have all-White pre-primaries.

The State of Texas decided to have all-White pre-primaries, and, again, people of color could not vote in those primaries. He went back to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said: Texas, we just told you that you can't have all-White primaries. So now we tell you that you can't have all-White pre-primaries.

I call this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to understand that Texas has a shameful, sinful history of thwarting the efforts of people of color to vote. They have a shameful, sinful history.

This is why section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was so important, because it addressed that shameful, sinful history such as to prevent Texas from doing what the Justice Department alleges Texas did and what the Texas Attorney General said: No, we didn't do that. We don't draw lines like that.

Texas proceeded to honor the request of the United States Justice Department and proceeded to honor the request that it said was unlawful. In a sense it was an unlawful request because Texas hadn't gerrymandered to benefit people of color, Texas was gerrymandering to gain partisan advantage.

Moving on to the drafting of the lines. The Governor of the State of Texas called a special session to draft lines. It is said to draft lines, to have this redistricting, this actual gerrymandering, to take place. Some brave, bold, and courageous members of the Texas Statehouse understood the rules and knew that if Texas could not get two-thirds of the body present, then they could not move forward and conduct this type of business. That would necessitate having 100 persons present. They left with enough such that Texas could not acquire the 100 persons.

They were bold, brave, and courageous because they have families that have to be taken care of. They have obligations, and they have bills that have to be paid. They have to look out for themselves and others.

In so doing, they put a lot at risk. They were fined $500 per day for each day they were away. There were threats made to remove them from committees, all sorts of threats, but they weathered all of those storms, those storms that included threats and fines.

The special session ended without the maps being adopted. However, in the second special session, the Governor prevailed and the maps were presented. They were voted on, and they are now the law of the State of Texas.

These maps are maps that were drawn pursuant to this letter from the Attorney General by--well, the Attorney General's name is not on the letter, so let me not confuse anyone. There is another name on the letter. There is Attorney Dhillon and Attorney Gates.

These two letters, which are in contradiction with each other, the Attorney General's Office for the Justice Department having indicated that lines were drawn to benefit people of color and the State of Texas saying: No, we didn't do that.

Now we have these maps, and we are litigating. We want to prove that the State of Texas has again violated the Voting Rights Act as it has done in each decade that the Voting Rights Act has been in effect. It violated it. We want to prove that this is another violation.

Here is the difficulty: The only way to prove it is enough evidence-- I think this is the evidence we need.

I was there when a person testified at great length that this was being done for political reasons.

Now, the disadvantage that we would have but for these letters--and some other evidence that I shall not go into--the disadvantage that we would have if not but for this would be that we would have to somehow get that person to confess: No, I didn't really draw it for political advantage. I did it for racial reasons.

That is not likely to happen. That is the position that we are being put in by having section 5 of the Voting Rights Act eviscerated and by having section 2 now being eviscerated. We are losing that which helped us acquire these 150 persons whom I call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, who are a part of Congress now, as opposed to the 15 who were there when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965.

So we are going to be put in a position where unless we can find some way to get into a person's head, we are not going to be able to prevail with this kind of litigation.

This Supreme Court has done this country a disservice with these latest rulings. This Supreme Court is well aware, these persons are all aware of the history. They know that this Voting Rights Act of 1965, while it was signed with the ink--the ink of a pen in the hand of President Johnson, it was written with the blood of people at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the blood of people who died in the days before and after. It was written in blood. Yet they would overlook that part of the history, fast-forward to today, and it seems that they are now about to eliminate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

This means that if Texas prevails with these maps and can remove five people simply because a President says that those five belong to me--I think he may have used the personal pronoun of me, as opposed to indicating that these maps belong to the people of these districts, but he claims them as his own and that they should belong to him, which means he can then use them to maintain power and dominance over the Congress and dominance over the Senate and Supreme Court that has a conservative majority that seems to favor much of what he does.

He believes, and he is moving forward. We are moving forward in court. One would say that this can be resolved, and as a result of it being resolved, if you are right, Congressman Green, and you can have this proof that you have presented, perhaps you

would prevail with some sort of injunctive relief that would keep these maps from going into effect.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, I am the guy who has been litigating against the State of Texas most of the time that I have been in Congress. That is an estimate. It could be a little bit less, but I have been there fighting for the Ninth and 18th Congressional Districts.

The courts don't generally do this. They don't provide that injunctive relief. They give deference to the State legislators because they are charged with the responsibility of drawing the maps, so they give them sort of the benefit of the doubt as it were, and they go on to allow us to litigate. We have been litigating against the last maps for more than 2 years. El Paso, Texas, I have been there to testify. As such, litigating against it, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if things go as they have gone, and I pray that they won't, it will be another 2 years before we get an answer. These lines that have been put in place will remain, and as a result, other States will try to respond as best as they can to maintain some sort of equilibrium.

California is responding to what Texas is doing. California did not initiate; California is responding. This would not be occurring in California--this effort to redistrict in an equitable way to offset what is happening in Texas wouldn't be taking place but for what is happening in Texas.

Those who would contend that California is initiating this, they are entirely wrong. Texas initiated; California is responding.

Texas is going after five seats. If California can produce five additional seats on the Democratic side, as opposed to the five that are produced on the Republican side, then we are still at equilibrium, where we are now.

That is not good enough for the President. The President has his eye on Missouri. There is an African-American seat in Missouri that the President is eyeing, as it were, a President who believes that all of this is just fair for him to maintain power.

They will go after Missouri. They are likely to try to get something done in another State, perhaps Indiana, and it goes on.

Rather than compete and redistrict at the end of a decade, this mid- decade redistricting is a way of cheating rather than competing. You can compete with the lines we have and wait until we get the empirical evidence necessary to redistrict, or you can cheat now and steal congressional seats so that you can maintain power, but you are doing it in a race-based way, which is unconstitutional. Proving it can be difficult. If you look at the seats that are vulnerable, the seat in Missouri is a person of color. The seats in Texas identified were held by people of color. The seat in Indiana, one of them could conceivably be a person of color.

This is racism. Racism is still alive and well. There is a tragedy associated with racism as it relates to trying to prove it. One I have already called to your attention, getting people to confess. If you commit a racist act, you are not likely to confess that you have done it. Every now and then miracles happen, but not likely.

Here is the other side of racism. Currently, in this country, when racism rears its ugly head, if you do as I am doing and you say that is racism, if you stand up and say it and stand up against racism, you become persona non grata.

Racism cannot be used against racism. What do I mean by that? Let me restate that. You cannot use language that identifies racism to identify it and attack it. You can't because when you do, people know that you become persona non grata. You can't say: This is racism.

You are left without the defense of identifying racism when you want to assault racism. We should be able to assault it. We should be able to attack it. You can't do it because when you do, the status quo across the media and many persons who can make a difference will reject what you are doing simply because you are saying this is racist. That is the case.

It is not like anti-Semitism. There is a big movement to eliminate anti-Semitism in the country, but when it comes to racism, we want to manage racism and eliminate anti-Semitism. We need to eliminate both.

Where is the movement, Mr. President, to eliminate the racism in lending in this country? It does exist. Racism in lending exists in the United States of America, and it can be proven. It could be proven with a methodology known as testing. We can test. We can send people out of different hues to get loans, and we can find, as we have found, that persons of color who are more qualified are less likely to acquire the same interest rate, a good interest rate, as I shall say for our purposes--less likely to get a good interest rate, less likely to get as much money as a person who is Anglo and less qualified.

In this country, there is this White privilege that nobody can talk about. A few of us will, but you become persona non grata when you talk about White privilege.

It exists in lending. It also exists when you are ready to buy a home or rent a place, rent a home. White privilege exists in this country. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to address it. People don't want to hear it. It is okay to talk about anti-Semitism but not about racism.

Let me explain why. When you address anti-Semitism, you are looking into the window of life. You are looking into someone else's backyard in another country. When you address racism, you are looking into the mirror of life and see the reflection of your own deeds. These are the deeds that we don't want to confront. These are the deeds that cause people of color to be able to sometimes get loans that are equal to their contemporaries who are White, but a good deal of the time, they do not. Those are car loans. They are loans for homes. They are just loans in general. These are statements that can be proven with empirical evidence.

I was the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the Financial Services Committee, and we have looked into these things. I can give an assurance that if we do it again today--let's erase the past. Let's do it again today. Oh, but we can't do it because this House won't allow that. This House will not allow us to acquire the empirical evidence. We can't do that testing with this House.

We go back to where we were in 1965 at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. So much changed as a result of the lives that were lost and Bloody Sunday. So much is changing now to revert back to that time when persons of color had difficulty voting and difficulty winning office because there is still hate in the hearts of many Americans.

They are not going to confess, but the evidence is there when you do the testing, when you look into the loans and lending, when you look into houses being sold, where they are being sold, and to whom they are being sold. The evidence is there.

We have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation in this Congress to talk about these things. More importantly, we have a responsibility to do something about them. We are not doing very much in this Congress to fight racism. We have done a lot to fight anti-Semitism.

By the way, I am against anti-Semitism. I am going to fight it. I am going to stand up against it. I would just like for a good many of those people who insist on fighting anti-Semitism to be as vocal about fighting racism. I don't see it. I don't see it.

When we have a judiciary that can't seem to control the President because of some theory associated with a unitary Presidency, meaning that the President has the authority to just fire and hire anybody who he wants--we will find out whether he can do that with the Fed soon-- but when you have that and then you have a Congress who will do nothing except differ with him until it is time to vote, you then have a judiciary that can't do anything and a Congress that won't do anything, then what is left?

Two things are left. The first is something that this President doesn't like. He doesn't like it. They pretend, oh, wow, there goes impeachment again, but they are preparing to prevent it by stealing votes and by stealing congressional seats. That is what is happening in Texas.

They really don't want this impeachment again. He is already a twice- impeached President and 34 times a felon.

They don't want this. Yet, we are still in the countdown to impeachment. This is one of the remedies that we have. It is probably the only one that we have currently that we can impose upon the Congress for a vote; it is impeachment.

The other remedy is one that belongs to this country and has been here since, probably, before the arrival of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock; the farmers coming to Washington, D.C., with their tractors to protest what was happening to their land; and Dr. King's famous speech on The Mall where he gave his ``I Have a Dream'' message, and that is we the people. That is why I wear this necktie. It is my favorite tie. It is one of my favorites, I should say.

We the people. We the people protest. Protestation is a part of the fiber and fabric of this Nation. When we can't prevail with all else and we have an authoritarian President, then we the people will have the last word.

I was honored to participate in a march just this week. We the people, hundreds of people, marched from over at Union Station through the Capitol. We the people.

Nobody was arrested. The building was not assaulted. We the people just engaged in peaceful protest. People were very vocal with their language. Yes, there was profanity that was used by some of the persons, we the people. That is not unusual at marches, by the way, but it was peaceful. It was nonviolent.

A couple of names. Jessica was there. She gave an awesome message. We had others there who gave messages, as well. My point is this as it relates to the march: That is a part of the reaction that we the people can have to let the status quo know that we are not happy and that we are not satisfied with what is happening.

Here is the thing that concerns me about this march and future marches: When they are peaceful and people protest in a nonviolent way, you don't get as much coverage as you do if you do something that breaks the law. Then the entire march is painted as one of being violent because a few people might do something that is contrary to the law. A few people, and then the entire march: They were violently protesting.

Yet, when you do it and you have hundreds of people marching, protesting peacefully, very little coverage. Very little coverage.

I greatly regret that the status-quo media chooses not to allow the marches that are peaceful to receive the same coverage as the marches wherein violence takes place or some breach of the law takes place.

I assure you that the countdown to impeachment is on. We have laid the foundation previously for impeachment, and we will lay it again. We will lay it again. The countdown to impeachment continues.

The Edmund Pettus Bridge and Bloody Sunday--I am in Congress today because of Bloody Sunday. I owe it to the lives who were lost to bring impeachment against this President. I owe it to them. Those who cannot say ``impeachment'' and who cannot say ``racism,'' all I ask of you is: Let me do it for you. I will do it for you. Just let me do it for you, and you continue to do the good things that you are doing.

We shall overcome, and we shall impeach this President.

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

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, unafraid; censured, but not silenced.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to address the topic of racism infused in Texas politics.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from the Justice Department. It is a letter that has as its reference Unconstitutional Race-Based Congressional Districts, and then it cites the districts: Texas District 9, occupied by a person of color; Texas 18 was occupied by a person of color, who is deceased, to be filled soon; District 29, occupied by a person of color; District 33, occupied by a person of color.

Now, this letter goes on to infuse race into the conversation. The last sentence in the last paragraph reads: ``If the State of Texas fails to rectify the racial gerrymandering of TX-09, TX-18, TX-29, and TX-33, the Attorney General reserves the right to seek legal action against the State, including without limitation under the 14th Amendment.''

Race has been infused into this letter. It was sent to the Honorable Greg Abbott, the Governor of the State of Texas, and the Honorable Ken Paxton.

Dear friends, at the end of the day, if they can fulfill what they proclaim in this letter, there will be more White representation in Congress from Texas and less Black and Latino representation. This is nothing more than an attempt to silence many of the voices that are emanating from communities of color in the State of Texas. It is racist.

Now, in this country there seems to be a problem with people saying ``racism.'' It is okay to say ``anti-Semitism,'' but don't say ``racism.'' Racism has not received the same amount of

acclaim when it comes to dealing with racist issues that anti-Semitism has received when it comes to dealing with things that are anti- Semitic.

Well, I am not afraid. I am going to speak truth to power and about power. Here is the truth: Under this President, Republicanism is eroding and devolving into racism. This President has declined to allow persons from countries of color to come into the country when he has opened the door to Anglos from South Africa. This President has found a way to circumvent what would ordinarily be a society that appreciates and respects people of all colors, and he is turning society against people of color.

This letter, if they succeed with this, will be the equivalent of having a mid-decade redistricting without the empirical evidence necessary to do it with a sense of justice. They will do this, and in so doing, it is comparable to having the halftime at a basketball game, and one team decides, because they have the power to do so, to remove two players from the other team and let that team proceed with three players, and they will now proceed with five. Oh, no, wait, you have to have 10 players on the floor, so what they will do is they will just take those 2 players and add them to their team. They will play with seven, and the other team will play with three.

They are diminishing the amount of representation that people of color will have in the State of Texas. Republicanism is being equated to racism too often in this country, and that is not the case. Republicanism has always been about conservative policies, but now they are about racist policies.

This President is infusing, injecting racism into Presidential policy. It is unconstitutional. I am going to fight it, but more than that, I am going to tell the truth about it. If I happen to be one of those who is extricated, who is removed, evicted, I will be bloodied but unbowed.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to silence me. You can come after me, but you won't stop me. You won't silence me. I refuse to allow Republicanism in the form of racism to dictate the policies in the State of Texas without my voice being heard.

Finally, this: I say to my friends that I have on my Texas tie. I am proud to represent my State. I am proud to say I stand against Republicanism as racism.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise today to speak truth to power, as well as speak truth about power. I rise to speak truth about what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza.

I rise to ask: What do we call it when we have a group of people who are being denied food and denied the very essence and necessities of life? What do we call it when their homes are being destroyed, when their schools are being destroyed, and when their churches and their infrastructure are being destroyed? What do we call it when we do this to them as a group? We call it collective punishment. It is called collective punishment, Mr. Speaker.

What do we call it when we have a group of people who are being pushed around, pushed from one end of Gaza to the other? What do we call it when they are literally being slaughtered as they are seeking food? What do we call it when people say that they ought to be removed from their land? We call it ethnic cleansing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what do we call when it appears to me that there is a deliberate and systemic effort to destroy in whole or in part the Palestinian people? What do we call it when we destroy them in whole or in part?

We are witnessing before our very eyes, Mr. Speaker, genocide in Gaza, and we say nothing.

I am amazed at how this country that stands for liberty and justice for all, this country that has a Statue of Liberty, how this country can see what is happening in Gaza and not call it what it is.

There is a fear among us. We refuse to speak truth to power. We refuse to speak truth about power. Today, I am going to do it. I am doing it because these are precious babies that are being slaughtered.

We see the bodies. We see the homes. We see the infrastructure. We say nothing. Who are we? What is wrong with us? What is going on? Here is what is going on.

We have an authoritarian leader who is supporting another authoritarian leader. Our President and the Prime Minister of Israel are working together, and they are doing this. Our President said there would be hell to pay if they did not move or if they did not surrender--not in those exact words, but that was his intentionality. He is talking about the people of Gaza.

I am not talking about Hamas. They did a dastardly deed. What Hamas did can never be justified. They were wrong, but you can't justify what is happening in Israel right now. It is collective punishment. It is ethnic cleansing, and it is genocide.

Mr. President, Donald John Trump, I say to you, Mr. President, you have been trying to hide from this, but, Mr. President, you can't hide. I charge you with genocide.

Mr. Netanyahu, you are the perpetrator. I charge you with genocide.

Also, I want this Congress to know that, yes, I voted against sending any additional monies to Israel for munitions. I voted against it. This genocide is going to continue until we have the courage to say no more--no more money to kill babies, no more money to say you are going to move people and create some sort of riviera on the Mediterranean, no more.

I will not vote for any more money. I stand where I stand. I said what I said, and I mean what I mean.

We cannot, as a great nation, continue to stand silent as we see collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in Gaza committed against people and children.

We can't stand silent. History will not be kind to us.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I voted against sending more military aid to Israel. I voted against it because I saw it as I currently see it, as a vote against collective punishment, a vote against ethnic cleansing, and a vote against genocide appearing before my very eyes.

I refuse to have my fingerprints, my imprimatur on the killing of innocent people, including children. I voted ``no.'' I will not become a ``yes'' because Mr. Netanyahu doesn't want peace. He wants all of Palestine. My imprimatur will not be on it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise now, as I did during the Joint Address to Congress when I told the President and the Nation that there is no mandate to cut Medicaid. The waste, fraud, and abuse argument is a facade, because no empirical evidence has been presented to justify cutting more than $1 trillion from Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. These deep cuts will allow the richest Americans to receive, on average, an additional $30,000 annually, while the poorest Americans will lose approximately $700 annually.

This legislation is a complete betrayal of the American people, extending additional tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals in this country while cutting lifesaving, urgent services for the most vulnerable among us. The cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) alone will take health care and food assistance away from millions of veterans, seniors, and families across the country.

Congressional Democrats offered many amendments to ensure that critical services would not be cut. I submitted an amendment to ensure that individuals who have had their SNAP benefits stolen are able to receive a reimbursement. I also submitted an amendment which would help raise awareness of the risk of renal medullary carcinoma, an aggressive form of kidney cancer found in young individuals with the sickle cell trait. These common-sense amendments would not substantially add to the deficit, yet they were still rejected by Congressional Republicans, alongside all other amendments submitted to make this bill less cruel.

With H.R. 1, President Trump and Congressional Republicans have shown that they want a billionaire bailout at the expense of working families.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.

I say ``and still I rise'' because I have been censured, but I would like to assure people that I have not been silenced; censured but not silenced.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, proud to say that I am an ally of the LGBTQIA+ community, an ally. I rise as an ally, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge that H. Res. 550, the original LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution of 2025, is a part of the history of the records of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a resolution that I am honored to present annually, and it speaks to the accomplishments of the community. It also addresses many of the things that are shortcomings in our society as they impact the community.

I am proud today to rise and say that as an ally of the community, this resolution has 125 cosponsors. For many, that might not seem like a lot. I can recall a time when we had many, many persons who wanted to sign on. For reasons that were associated with elections and politics, they would not sign on.

I think people are overcoming those concerns and those fears, and they are recognizing the fact that we should not discriminate against people because of who they are.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be beneficial for people to talk to people who are from the community before drawing conclusions. I especially say this as it relates to the trans community. There are many issues to be discussed about the trans community.

Today, having talked to people from the trans community, having had an opportunity to have dialogue and ask questions and get answers from the people themselves, I acknowledge that I have come to the conclusion that this community exists because people literally want to be themselves.

I spoke to a trans person who informed me that this person--without giving any hint as to who it is because the person had spoken to me in confidence--this person indicated that since the person could recognize the image in a mirror, the person realized that there was a need to have a different image. The person wanted to be of a different sex than the person was assigned at birth.

I have talked to more than one person who has given me similar evidence. I think we ought to believe people when they say this. I just don't think that people would go out of their way to try to convince us that this is appropriate and would do some of the things necessary to identify themselves properly just to get attention.

Nobody wants to get attention by having surgery that costs thousands of dollars. Nobody wants to get attention by facing a society that rejects, too often, people because they don't understand who they are and what they are all about.

We are talking about people who just want to live their lives and be left alone. They are not trying to impose themselves upon other people. These are decent human beings who just want to be left alone and be allowed to be themselves.

I cannot for the life of me understand how someone could see this as harmful to society in the main. I myself have been discriminated against. Having been born a son of the segregated South, having been born an African American, I have been discriminated against.

I can remember when I had to go to the back door to get food simply because of how I looked. It had nothing to do with any behavior that I exhibited. It was just because of the color of my skin I had to go to back doors.

I had to drink from a filthy colored water fountain with a pristine White water fountain next to it simply because of the color of my skin and how I looked. I had to sit in the balcony of the movie and the back of the bus simply because of how I looked.

I am so grateful to God for giving me those experiences because it gives me some sense of appreciation for what others go through simply because of who they say they are.

We cannot have the great country that we claim we are if we continue to discriminate against people because of who they say they are. This is the United States of America with liberty and justice for all. That has to include the trans community.

It really does have to include it to the extent that they can walk the streets and not be in fear. There are still people who will harm members of the trans community if they can catch them at a certain place and at a certain time when nobody is looking just because of who they are.

We talk about other people living in fear, and I think we should because there are others living in fear, as well. Little attention is given to this community and the fear that it has to live and coexist with simply because of who they say they are.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this resolution today. I plan to continue to introduce the LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution. I have been doing so for some time now.

I had the honor of serving with the Honorable Barney Frank when I was in Congress. The Honorable Barney Frank, a Member of Congress from 1981 to 2013, is recognized in this resolution as an honorary cosponsor of the resolution.

This resolution tracks the history of persons having the opportunity to first embrace themselves with the protestations that started and to move on to the point where now persons can actually embrace marriage and live with the person and love with the person that they choose.

As an ally of this community, I find none of this offensive. I find all of this to be natural for human beings who want to just simply be themselves.

I am also honored to say that in Houston, Texas, not only will this resolution be celebrated but also there is a Pride parade that would rival any parade in this country. People show up in the thousands, the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands. They line the streets, and they celebrate. To a certain extent, some commemorate lives who have been lost simply because they are a part of this community.

This is something that I would hope we could see around the country to a greater extent than we see it. Houston, Texas, has embraced it. Many other places have.

Until it is embraced in the small towns, in the boroughs, in places where people are now at some point in some places afraid to announce who they are, until this attitude of pride is embraced by the workplace--workplaces where people cannot indicate who they are because if they do, they are likely to lose their jobs--until that same level of pride, that same spirit of embracing people for who they are, judging them by the content of their character, not what they believe them to be within, I think we ought to believe people when they tell us who they are.

Today, my prayer is that this LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution will inspire people to do more than simply say hello, but they will become an ally. I am recruiting. The Pride community needs allies.

It needs people who are willing to stand up publicly and say: I am an ally of the community.

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleagues that when we do this, we are doing what is expected of people of good will who want to see people simply live their lives, enjoy who they are, and just simply be themselves, we will promote and will help to cause a good many people that we may never meet and greet to benefit from another person becoming an ally of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Mr. Speaker, I close with this: The LGBTQIA+ community does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a country that prides itself in pledging liberty and justice for all. This is an opportunity for every person who has never had the opportunity to talk to a person from this community to just do so.

I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, if you do so, you will leave with a different attitude. I absolutely believe this. I also say to you, Mr. Speaker, don't worry about the pride community trying to impose anything on you. If you don't know a person from the community, you are not likely to be invited to a wedding, so you don't have to worry about some imposition. Just worry about making America all that it claims it is.

I plan to do it, and I invite others to do so, as well.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to let people know this not just for the Honorable Chip Roy, but I have relationships with people across all lines in this Congress. When he comes to the floor and says that he wishes me safe travels, I want to let people know that I will extend that to him, but also that notwithstanding what others may think, I have great respect for the gentleman. I don't have to agree with him to have great respect for him, and the gentleman doesn't have to agree with me, but at some point, we have to do what we are doing now and let people know that we have respect for each other notwithstanding these differences.

I really appreciate the way the gentleman has called for regular order. That means something to me. So while I have not been on the floor with the gentleman when he has done it, I want him to know that I have noticed that he has done it. I appreciate the gentleman, and I consider him a friend.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very special message--an admonition, a prewarning--for the most powerful man in the universe, I am told, the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, there is talk of having to go back into Iran. There is talk of the job not having been done as expected.

I make no comments about whether he should or shouldn't go, but I do comment on the Constitution. I do say to the most powerful man in the universe: Mr. President, if you go back into Iran and do not get the consent of Congress or appropriately notice Congress, Mr. President, I will bring Articles of Impeachment against you again.

Mr. President, no one person should have the authority to take 300- plus million people to war on his own volition. The Congress of the United States must be engaged in this process.

Mr. President, it is pretty simple. Either you will respect the Constitution of the United States of America, or you will expect Al Green.