Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country. And, Mr. Speaker, I rise today understanding that we are in mourning. Our country is grieving. There are many reasons for this, but we still haven't acknowledged that there is something we can do to eliminate some of the mourning and grieving. We are mourning because police officers are being murdered. Many have been murdered across the length and breadth of the country. We are mourning because persons are losing their lives at the hand of the police. Many have lost their lives. We are in a state of mourning, but it goes back far beyond George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, Sandra Bland. It goes back to really the founding of the country because we have not atoned for some of our transgressions. Literally, we have committed crimes against humanity for which we have not atoned. Slavery was a crime against humanity; we have not atoned. What we did to the indigenous population was a crime against humanity; we have not atoned. The internment of the Japanese, based upon our xenophobia, we have not atoned. Banning Chinese from the country, we have not atoned. What we did to Muslims, banning them from the country, we have not atoned. There must be atonement. We have to reconcile. We did not do so in 1868, as it relates to slavery. We should have, but we had a President who was antithetical to it, Andrew Johnson. So, I am going to offer a resolution, a resolution to create a department of reconciliation such that we can accomplish our atonement, get out of this grieving, and bring our country together. When we had a systemic need for dealing with agriculture, we created a Department of Agriculture. When commerce was in need of some help, we created a Department of Commerce. We have a Department of Labor because labor needs the kinds of legislation and the kinds of benefits that a Congress can accord labor, the persons who actually work for a living. When we needed defense, we created a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security. So, I am proposing that we have a department of reconciliation so we can deal with the issues that have haunted this country for centuries. A department of reconciliation with a secretary of reconciliation, a department of reconciliation with a budget, a department of reconciliation with under secretaries so that we can accomplish our atonement with a department of reconciliation. It can be done. I am not asking for a commission. This is about a commitment. A department indicates that you are committed to a cause. We were committed to labor; that is why we have a Department of Labor. We were committed to education; that is why we have a Department of Education. We now need a department of reconciliation, a commitment to ending this long, sorrowful grieving that we have suffered over the years so that we can understand each other better and work together better with each other. If we fail to do this, if we fail to reconcile, Dr. King's words will become our greatest nightmare. He indicated that we must learn to live together as brothers and, I would add, sisters, or we will perish together as fools. We need a department of reconciliation. I will introduce a resolution for such.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, when you are a son of the segregated south, when you have heard your mother called girl, and your father called boy, when you have had to go to the back door, when you have had the Klan burn a cross on your property, you know hate when you see it. You know what a hate crime is when it takes place. What happened in Georgia was hate personified, it was a hate crime. I will march with the people who will be opposed to this. I will stand with them. We cannot allow this kind of injustice to go unchallenged. It is better to stand alone than not stand at all. This is a hate crime and we must--we must seek justice for those victims, and we must demand that these persons who are calling these viruses by names associated with people, that they ought to stop, and we ought to demand it. I do so. I demand that they stop.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a picture of a symbol of national shame. It is the Russell Senate Office Building. The Russell Senate Office Building is named after Richard Russell, a racist and a bigot. For 49 years, taxpayer dollars have gone into this facility. For 49 years, people have had to endure knowing that this facility is named after a bigot. I believe that it is time for change. It is time to take the name of Richard Russell off this building. We don't have to name it in honor of someone else. Let it revert to the name that it had prior to Richard Russell; it was the Old Senate Office Building. I ask that we do this, and I am going to write a letter to each and every Senator explaining this and hoping that each and every Senator will at some point decide that a building paid for with taxpayer dollars should not be named in honor of a racist and a bigot.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, my constituent, Mr. Jose Escobar, was living his American Dream, married to an American-born woman, two American-born children, living in an American-built house, paying American taxes. Yet when he reported to ICE, he was taken out of the arms of his wife and babies, sent to El Salvador with $20 and the clothes on his back. It took us more than 2 years to get him home, but I went to El Salvador with his wife, and we brought him home. Madam Speaker, I will support this legislation because I want no one else to experience what Mr. Jose Escobar experienced.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today in strong support of this legislation because it includes trans women. Some of the most brutal, horrific crimes created in the minds of people have been perpetrated upon trans women. Madam Speaker, this legislation protects them, as it protects all women. I support it and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind words. He and I spoke earlier today, and I believe that there are people who assume things about us that are just not true. There are probably people who assume that he and I don't get along, but they don't understand that there are things that can bring people together that supersede the physicalities that we place all of our emphasis on. I would have the world know that he and I talk and that we don't have hard conversations about the things that are important to both of us. I appreciate his kind words.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear brother. God bless him.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, a very proud and liberated Democrat, unbought and unbossed. I rise today with a question, Madam Speaker. The question is: Should the taxpayers of this country, the good people of the United States of America, should their tax dollars be utilized to pay for the upkeep, the maintenance, and the utilities on a building that is named in honor of a bigot and a racist? Should our tax dollars be used for such a purpose? Madam Speaker, let me share something with you. This is the Senate Russell Office Building. This is how the Russell Senate Office Building looks. It has a certain degree of majesty associated with it. This is where Senators do their work. The press is found in this building, in an area just off of a rotunda. This is the Russell Senate Office Building. This is what it looks like to the naked eye. This is what people see when they drive by. Unfortunately, there is much to be seen that the eye cannot reveal to the brain. The building named after this man, Senator Richard Russell, is a symbol of national shame. And I think that because it is a symbol of national shame--and I shall say more to you about it, Madam Speaker, as I do what I am about to do, which is to label it for what it is: a symbol of national shame--we ought not pretend that this building is a place that ought to honor a person with such a name. It is a symbol of national shame paid for with tax dollars. These lights and the utilities are paid for with tax dollars. Who was Senator Richard Russell? This is the Senator, Madam Speaker, who, in 1935, participated in the very first filibuster of a civil rights bill--Richard Russell--when he and his colleagues stopped an anti-lynching bill with 6 days of nonstop talking. Senator Richard Russell, in so doing, allowed the lynching to continue without legislation that was antithetical to it. In this country, up until 1968, some 3,446 persons--more than 3,000 Black people--were lynched in the United States of America. There are people who don't want to hear this. There are people who would say: Wait. At some point we will get around to doing the right thing. We will bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice, and we will change the name of this building. There are some people who would say: Wait, Al, don't bring this up now. Madam Speaker, I refuse to allow those who are not suffering to determine the timeline for the suffering to end for those who do suffer. I am one of those who happens to be suffering, and it is painful for me to see this symbol of national shame in the United States of America, the country I love. I believe that it is time now for us to make that change. We have had some 40-plus years--about 49 years--to change this, and we haven't done it. It is time to change it. I am not going to wait for someone else to say that it is okay to come to the floor and say that you can make this change. I am a liberated, unbought, unbossed Democrat. It is time for this to change. It has got to change. How soon should we change this? Immediately, if not sooner. If it doesn't change today and doesn't change tomorrow, I will still stand my ground. It has to change, and I will await that change. It must change. A little bit more about Senator Russell. It was in 1972, shortly after his demise, that the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 99-1, that the old Senate Office Building be named the Russell Senate Office Building. Madam Speaker, the vote was 99-1. They knew when they did it that he was a bigot and a racist. Madam Speaker, when I say it ought to happen immediately, I assure you there are some names that I could give this evening of people who have similar histories who are still alive, and if we named a building after one of these people, then this Congress would assemble and would change that name immediately. I know what we can do when we want to do something, so there is no question about whether there is a way to get this done. The question is: Do we have the will to do it? Do we have the will to take a racist and a bigot's name off of a building that is housing the Senate, Members of it? I decline to go into the building. I will never say that I will never go in, simply because there are times when, of necessity, I may have to. But when I do, I do it with a degree of shame. I am not proud when I have to go into that building. The last time I was there it was to show some other person the rotunda where his statue happens to be. He occupies a space all to himself. It is not like going through other areas where you see multiple personalities represented. He has a space all to himself, a bigot and a racist; and we, who have the power to make the change, tolerate it. A bit more about Senator Russell. Here is a statement from the Senator; perhaps not a direct, exact quote, but here is a statement from the Senator: ``As one who was born and reared in the atmosphere of the Old South, with six generations of my forebears now resting beneath southern soil, I am willing to go as far and make as great a sacrifice to preserve and insure white supremacy''--some things bear repeating. He said: ``To preserve and insure white supremacy in the social, economic, and political life of our State as any man who lives within her borders.'' He is taking a pledge to maintain white supremacy, Senator Richard Russell; a Senate office building in his honor, in his name. Let's just continue with a bit more about Senator Richard Russell. Senator Richard Russell blocked the passage of a 1942 bill to eliminate poll taxes. Senator Richard Russell co-authored the ``Southern Manifesto'' in 1956 with Senator Strom Thurmond, in opposition to the integration of public schools. Fought integration. It was segregation. He was a segregationist. It was segregation that caused me to get on a bus that was in disrepair, that would break down, to ride within blocks of other schools predominated with persons who are Anglo, or were Anglo at the time, ride past those schools for some 20 to 30 minutes to get to another school in another city. That is what segregation did. It was segregation that caused me to get books that were hand-me- downs when the other schools where Anglos were had the books. When they were finished with the books, when they got new books, then I could get a better book that was not the latest edition of the book I needed. It was segregation that caused me to have to go to colored water fountains. It was segregation that put me in the back of the bus. It was segregation that forced me to the balcony of the movie. It was segregation that locked us up in the bottom of the jails. I know segregation. I know what it looks like. I have seen its ugly face. The Klan burned a cross in my yard. I know what it smells like. I have had to drink from those filthy water fountains. I know what it sounds like. I have had people call me ugly names. So I just hope my friends will not get too discombobulated when they hear that Al Green came to the floor and said what he is saying now. Don't expect me to tolerate this. You can get some others to do it, but you won't get me to do it. I will not tolerate this. I demand that this change take place. I am not asking. Why would I engage in the protocols of polite society when this level of bigotry exists in my face? Let's talk a little bit more about Senator Richard Russell. He led the 60- day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964; led the southern boycott of the Democratic National Convention in 1964, after LBJ--one of the greatest Presidents ever, in my opinion--signed the Civil Rights Act. He called the Civil Rights Act shortsighted and dangerous. Those civil rights acts, the act of 1965, when President Johnson signed it, he signed it in ink, but it was written with the blood of those who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the Honorable John Lewis having been one of them. I remember talking to him. He said he thought he was going to die. Signed in ink but written in blood. John Lewis was a great and noble American. That Civil Rights Act is probably the reason that I am here. I probably wouldn't be in Congress if not but for what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge; people who had the desire to see liberty and justice for all, but who also had the ability to take the blows to their bodies without resorting to retaliation. If they had retaliated on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, it would have been just another melee. It would have been just another skirmish. But they didn't. And because they suffered, I am able to stand here and make these comments. So you can well understand, I hope and I pray, that--because I know how I got here--I am not going to tolerate this. I know how I got here. I didn't get here because I am so smart. I got here because somebody found out what a 90-pound German Shepherd bites like. I am here because somebody understands what it is like to go to jail for a cause. I am here because somebody understands what it is like to lose a loved one--Myrlie Evers--for a cause. So let's not play games. I am not here to satisfy and satiate those who would say wait, give us a chance to do this on our own terms. You have had 49 years; 49 years too many, in my opinion. So I am not going to wait. And I will be back again to talk more about this after I finish what I am about to say now. Senator Richard Russell twice, 1949 and 1964, introduced legislation--this is a painful thing to read. This is a painful thing to have to utter--twice introduced legislation to move African Americans out of Southern States. That is Senator Richard Russell. So dear friends, I beg your pardon if anyone takes offense at what I have said. But I must tell you, I would say it again, and probably will, given the opportunity because, at some point in life, you just have to take a stand. The people who sent me here, they didn't send me here to go along as a result of toleration of things like this. They didn't send me here to go along so that I could move along. They sent me here to take a stand. And there are times in life when it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I am a liberated Democrat. I stand alone, but I stand on truth. I stand on the words of Carlyle, ``No lie can live forever.'' This is the ultimate manifestation of insidious prevarication to imply that this should be honored with the name of Russell. Now, there are those who are going to say, well, Al Green, what would you name the building? A tactic quite often used, because when I say, well, let's name it--you complete the sentence--they will say, well, I think it ought to be named--you complete the sentence. But that is not what I am saying, dear brothers and sisters--and I say brothers and sisters, because, in my heart, I believe there is just one race, as Dr. King put it, the human race. And I believe that all persons are created equal, from a bass black to a treble white on God's keyboard, as he put it. So, my dear brothers and sisters, that is not what I am saying. I am saying, take this name off, Russell. I am saying, let it revert back to the name it had before Russell was placed on it. That name was the Old Senate Office Building. I am saying, let it revert back to the Old Senate Office Building, and you decide the name. The name I will leave to you until and unless there is a need to prevent this from happening again, something similar. But there are many people worthy of having this building bear their names. This man is not worthy. This man does not deserve this honor. So let it revert back to the Old Senate Office Building, and then do what we do; get a committee; get a commission; find a way to name it appropriately. And then I believe that those that I speak for, who do not live in the suites of life, who live in the streets of life, those that I speak for, who are among the least, the last, and the lost, those that I speak for, who are not among the well-off, the well- heeled, and the well-to-do, those that I speak for, many of whom have gone to glory, but I believe that they will find reason to know that change, long though it may be in coming, that change can take place, and that this country will be a better place for it. The country I love, by the way. I am not the guy that you are going to tag with this mantra, this label, this caption, this style: He doesn't love his country. I love my country. I am not the guy that you are going to tag with, he is a flag burner. I wear the flag. You can't tag me with being a guy who refuses to stand for the national anthem. I stand and I sing the national anthem. You can't tag me with being the guy who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I say the Pledge of Allegiance. But now, tag me, label me as the guy who loves his country and who refuses to accept this level of bigotry, who refuses to accept allowing the tax dollars from people who are eking out a place in the world, for their tax dollars to be used for this. I am that guy. I am the guy who is going to stand up for this--against this, if you will. Finally, this: I never came to Congress to say what I am saying. I came to Congress to help people who were in need of housing. That was what I thought I would do. I came to Congress to help people get a decent day's pay for a hard day's work. This is not something that I planned, but it is something that I cannot stand, and I have to stand against it. There is just something that won't allow me to tolerate this. I know that this will engender some additional detractors. I get the calls; I know. But there just comes a time in your life when you have to decide that there are some things worth making a sacrifice for. I choose to do what I do because I know how I got here. Madam Speaker, I am grateful, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise with gratitude and appreciation for the Biden administration. This administration did not give up, did not give in. This administration has become now a symbol of hope and help for working class people. It is time for us to put more emphasis on the workers and less emphasis on the billionaire class.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat unbought and unbossed. I rise today to address the question of life and death, the question associated with the Governor of the State of Texas indicating that on tomorrow people may go out into the public and to public venues without a mask. He is leaving it to the public to make decisions associated with life and death. Life and death in Texas because the 7-day average for hospitalizations is 6,000. The number of people that died on last Sunday was 65. Life and death. And he leaves it in the hands of people who may somehow believe that he is risking his life. Not so. Not to the extent that the public will be, those who haven't been vaccinated because on December 22 of last year the Governor was vaccinated. The Governor has resources. If by chance he should contract the virus, the Governor will have access to the finest medical care in the world. The Governor will get to the hospital expeditiously either by some car that will have some officer driving at a high rate of speed because the road will be cleared for him or he will pursue his needs by way of helicopter. The Governor has resources. Better example. The former President, who called the virus a hoax, when he contracted the virus, he went to the finest medical center, received the finest medical care, and he survived. His friend, who attended one of his rallies and 9 days later contracted the virus, died. This is a matter of life and death. The virus has not dissipated. It has not gone away. So to the people of Texas, I love you, but I say this to you: If you don't have the resources that the Governor has, if you don't have a helicopter, if you don't have access to the best medical care in the world, if you don't have a doctor that will be waiting on you when you get to the hospital, if you have to go to the emergency room--the Governor won't go to the emergency room, he will bypass that. So if you can bypass the emergency room and you can have the finest medical care in the world, maybe you should consider going into public venues without a mask. But if not, remember, it is a question of life and death, and the life you save may very well be your own.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I thank the Honorable Bobby Scott for the opportunity to be heard. I will be terse. Madam Speaker, unions protect people. Unions protect people because those workers will organize and make sure that there is a safe work environment. This is important because if not but for the union, many companies would simply build into the cost of doing business the injuries that may be sustained. I am a member of Local 1550 of AFSCME and proud to say it. Madam Speaker, I support this legislation because it will save lives.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. My dear friends, you say you have a bill. Where was your bill when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and you could have passed it? You say you have a bill. The same bill that you had to replace the Affordable Care Act that you never passed? The same bill that you had to rebuild the infrastructure across the length and breadth of this country that you never passed? Where is the invisible bill? I rise to support this bill that will deal with elimination of deadly force racism that can take the lives of Black people with impunity. I rise against your invisible bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. You used God to enslave my foreparents. You used God to segregate me in schools. You used God to put me in the back of the bus. Have you no shame? God created every person in this room. Are you saying that God made a mistake? This is not about God; it is about men who choose to discriminate against other people because they have the power to do so. My record will not show that I voted against Mr. Cicilline having his rights. My record will show that when I had the opportunity to deliver liberty and justice for all, I voted for rights for all.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in 2017, when my Republican friends had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they passed an approximately $1.5 trillion tax break for the very wealthy. Mr. Speaker, the wealthy weren't suffering. There was no pain. They were not about to be evicted. There were no mortgage payments behind. But they got $1.5 trillion approximately in tax breaks. Mr. Speaker, I ask my dear friends on the other side to see this, if they will: As a tax break for the working class, let's let people who are making $75,000 a year have an opportunity to acquire some money to help them. If it goes into a bank account, it will come out. They are not wealthy. At some point we have to realize that those who are among the working class cannot do more with less, while the wealthy need more to do more. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to save this country, save these people who are suffering. I will vote for this resolution. I will vote for reconciliation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I had tears well in my eyes as I heard Mr. Hoyer, and I know that hearts are hurting. This is a very sad time in the history of our country. No one is celebrating. No one wants to see this occur. Mr. Speaker, I was at the Committee on Rules by way of Zoom. I was there for the entire hearing. Those Members on the other side, this is something that they understand and they take seriously. Regardless as to what is said, I could sense that they are hurting too. I just want to thank everyone for all that has happened and the appreciation that has been shown.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the healing that we talk about that has to begin, the healing has to start with some of these people who were there initially, who helped to lay this foundation, 110 people. I want to recognize Congresswoman Maxine Waters. A lot of them were threatened. Their lives were disrupted. Mr. Speaker, I include their names in the Record. Members Who Voted for Impeachment Total Number: 110

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may God bless our country as we go forward. MR. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my good friend, distinguished Republican Member, our leader of the Budget Committee.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, at some point on the infinite continuum that we call time, we will all have to account for our time. We are all going to have to answer the question: Where were you when a pandemic was gripping the land? What did you do when you had the opportunity to put money in the pockets of people who needed it? Where was your courage when you had the chance to cast a vote to make a difference in the lives of people? I say to you, my dear friends, this is the time for us to take a stand for the American people. Let's vote ``yes'' to put money in their pockets, because we caused them to stay home as a result of the pandemic. The government is for this reason. This is why the government exists: to take care of people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, this bill will not end all the suffering. However, it will ease the pain for many who are suffering, with $25 billion for eviction prevention, $13 billion for food in the form of SNAP, and $600 cash in pocket. It won't end all the suffering, but it will ease much of the pain. For this, I thank Chairman McGovern, Mr. Cole, and Ms. Shalala. Of course, I am always honored to serve in the Congress of the United States of America under the leadership of the Honorable Maxine Waters, and I thank her for her $25 billion in rental assistance.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and tonight I would like to initiate this event with some words of thanks for the many people who work late into the night with us. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of them for what they do and for staying here for the duration. And there are other persons who are without this facility who are also here until we leave, so I thank them for what they do. I also, tonight, would like to make note of the Houston Chronicle. That is the largest newspaper in Houston, Texas. And I would like to thank the Houston Chronicle for exercising some of its courage and some of its wisdom in terms of what it has produced with some of the news stories as of late. The Houston Chronicle has printed two stories that I would like to focus on tonight. They are about policing in the State of Texas. I have two documents that I include in the Record. They both deal with policing in Texas. The first one is styled: ``Blistering Government Report Blasts Poor Training, Oversight of Texas Law Enforcement.'' The second one is an editorial, titled: ``Editorial: Hairstylists Get More Training Than Texas Cops? That's Unacceptable.'' [From Houston Chronicle Local, Nov. 30, 2020] Blistering Government Report Blasts Poor Training, Oversight of Texas Law Enforcement (By St. John Barned-Smith and Eric Dexheimer.) Last year, more than 600 Texas law enforcement officers received a dishonorable discharge from their agencies for misconduct. Yet more than a quarter of them were rehired to work as sworn officers. To qualify for a peace officer license, Texas cops need fewer hours of basic training than licensed cosmetologists and less than half the education required of air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors. While the basic training requires officers to spend 48 hours on the firing range, it demands only two hours of ``civilian interaction'' instruction. The difficulty of purging bad officers from the ranks of Texas police and outdated and inadequate officer training highlight how state lawmakers have rendered the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement unable to meaningfully oversee the profession, according to a blistering new report by the Sunset Advisory Commission. The commission reviews the performance of state agencies every 10 years or so. The Sunset Advisory Commission's critical findings come amid a contentious nationwide re-evaluation of the fundamental role of police. The deaths of Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and George Floyd, among others, have prompted calls for stronger oversight from police departments and civilian review boards, as well as stricter limits on police use of force. But in Texas, the regulation of law enforcement is ``by and large, toothless,'' the Sunset report concluded. Although it is charged with licensing police and correctional officers and 911 dispatchers, the law enforcement commission differs from state agencies that regulate other professions in that it has almost no authority to act against an officer's license. Instead, most oversight of police conduct is left up to each of the state's 2,700 law enforcement agencies, which set their own policies and standards. Without a shared definition of professional conduct, many have widely differing rules. For example, ``In the Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex, chokeholds are an acceptable technique west of the 3200 block of Sandy Lane, but are not allowed on the east side of the same street because it crosses two different . . . jurisdictions,'' the Sunset report found. Texas' patchwork of uneven oversight has resulted in ``a fragmented, outdated system with poor accountability, lack of statewide standards, and inadequate training,'' the Sunset report stated. While advocacy groups and demonstrators have demanded better police oversight, they also have called on cities to reallocate millions of dollars from law enforcement budgets into community services. That, in turn, has sparked swift blowback from conservative politicians and supporters of law enforcement. In Austin, a lawmaker recently filed legislation prohibiting local governments from cutting police budgets. Washington-based criminologist Matthew Hickman said the protests and impassioned conversations about police reform have revealed holes in how municipalities, states and the federal government oversee law enforcement officers. Accountability starts at the department level, he said, with internal affairs investigation. At the other end, in the most egregious circumstances, the Department of Justice can pursue civil rights investigations against problem departments. Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, said the Sunset report was just the beginning of the process of state lawmakers' evaluation of the law enforcement commission. Legislators will hold hearings next year and almost certainly change some of the Sunset staff's recommendations. ``What you're seeing there is not going to be state law,'' he said. While his organization agreed some changes were needed, he said, it opposed granting the state commission sweeping new enforcement powers to investigate and discipline officers. Still, policing watchdogs said the report's findings rang true. ``Right now, it definitely feels like at the state level, there's little to no regulation of law enforcement that's happening,'' said Chris Harris of the nonprofit public interest justice center Texas Appleseed, ``and to the extent there is, it's not effective.'' And one key Houston-area legislator said he was inclined to make some changes. Reforms to the agency are ``long overdue,'' said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who said the Texas law enforcement commission should operate more like other regulatory boards such as the State Bar of Texas or the State Board of Pharmacy. The report was notable for its sweepingly critical evaluation of nearly every facet of the agency, calling its regulation of the profession ``fundamentally broken.'' It said the changes it recommended were stopgap and called for legislators to form a blue ribbon committee ``to comprehensively look at how the state regulates law enforcement and recommend needed changes to improve law enforcement regulation in Texas.'' It took particular note of the state's inability to discipline officers for misconduct. It pointed to a recent incident in which the San Antonio Police Department fired an officer for giving a homeless man a sandwich filled with dog feces. Yet the officer, Matthew Luckhurst, was able to return to the force. He was later fired--for good--after another feces-related incident. The example highlighted the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement's limited authority to take any action against an officer's state license. The agency may act only when officers fail to complete mandatory continued education, if they are convicted of or received deferred adjudication for felonies or certain misdemeanors, or if they receive a second dishonorable discharge. The agency has even less authority to sanction individual law enforcement agencies. Roger Goldman, retired law professor from the Saint Louis University School of Law, said that about two-thirds of states have stronger oversight abilities at the state level than Texas, and that in many states, officers can have their licenses revoked for misconduct even if they haven't been convicted of a crime. Many states across the country are taking other tacks to try to prevent bad officers from getting hired at other departments after allegations of gross misconduct. Some states are now requiring departments to screen candidates more rigorously. In Vermont, for example, lawmakers passed a bill requiring departments to provide information about why they fired officers to other departments when those officers try to get new jobs. In Connecticut, lawmakers implemented rules requiring regulators to create a list of officers fired for serious misconduct but whose licenses were not decertified. The list prevented officers from being rehired by other departments, Goldman said. Matt Simpson, with the ACLU of Texas, said that while the Sunset review recommended a panel to study needed changes, lawmakers in the meantime should ``ensure public safety is not threatened'' by unqualified cops and pass reforms to give the law enforcement commission more authority to discipline officers dishonorably discharged, as well as empower the agency to sanction law enforcement agencies that ``fail to hold up their end of the bargain in hiring and training qualified law enforcement officers.'' Simpson also urged the Legislature to pass reforms that set statewide use of force standards and require a focus on de- escalation and proportional response; require officers to intervene if they witness other officers using excessive force; and pass citation requirements for low-level offenses.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with this one on the ``Blistering Government Report Blasts Poor Training Oversight of Texas Law Enforcement.'' This is from the Houston Chronicle. The Houston Chronicle indicates: ``Last year, more than 600 Texas law enforcement officers received a dishonorable discharge from their agencies for misconduct. Yet more than a quarter of them were rehired to work as sworn officers. ``To qualify for a peace officer license, Texas cops need fewer hours of basic training than licensed cosmetologists and less than half the education required of air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors. While the basic training requires officers to spend 48 hours on the firing range, it demands only 2 hours of `civilian interaction' instruction.'' Some things bear repeating: 48 hours on the firing range and 2 hours of civilian interaction instruction. Something has got to change, and I am pleased to see that the Chronicle is a part of the movement to bring about the change, the reform that is necessary. This story goes on to read, and it is dated, by the way, November 30, 2020, at 10:16 a.m., when it was last updated. It goes on to indicate: `` . . . in Texas, the regulation of law enforcement is `by and large, toothless.''' This is from a sunset committee report. I want to focus for just a moment now on why this is so important to me. I have a constituent, a constituent who has made his transition, and it is because of an encounter with a peace officer in the State of Texas. I want to talk about Joshua Johnson and how the death of Joshua Johnson has had an impact on my life and, I believe, on the lives of many others who are familiar with this story. I believe his case is one for us to examine another way of taking these cases of questionable shootings by police before the authorities. In the case of Joshua Johnson, he was a 35-year-old Black man, and at 6 a.m. on April 22, Joshua Johnson was housesitting for a neighbor. He went out of his home, or that home, and he went out into the street. He had an encounter with a peace officer who was there. Much has been said about the encounter, but what I will tell you now is based on facts, because we have an actual recording of what an officer has said that, in my opinion, has corrupted this investigation. Joshua had this encounter, and as a result, he was shot twice. He, later on, died. But let's not continue from this point. Let's step back for just a moment. His parents lived within yards of where he died. His father took his mother to work that morning, and when he returned, his son had lost his life. He acquired the opportunity to go and bring his wife to the area near the scene, and there was an investigating officer there. This officer took it upon himself to explain to the Bearys--these are the parents of Joshua, Ms. Wilhelmena Beary and Mr. Richard Beary. He took it upon himself to tell them what the facts were. He told them that their son approached this officer who was in a car, a vehicle, and that this officer told their son to lower a pistol. It was a BB pistol, according to the report. The son had his phone flashlight on. He did not lower the pistol, and as a result, he was shot twice and he was killed. Now, the officer that called this to the attention of the Bearys did not talk to the officer who did the shooting. He did not have the benefit of a video recording. He did not have the benefit of an autopsy report because one had not been performed. This was just 2 hours after Joshua's death. He did not have the benefit of a ballistics report. He did not talk to the medical examiner before making these statements. There was no way for him to know what he would say, but he said it, and it has become the narrative for Joshua's death. This officer who shot Joshua twice--and this is the part that will tear at your heart--he shot Joshua twice and drove away, shot him twice and left the scene and drove away and went around the corner. If he shot him because he was in fear of his life, and this is typically what is said, should he not have concern for the lives of people in that neighborhood that he was sworn to protect? Joshua didn't die immediately, but he did die within some short time after he was shot. So the Bearys find themselves being told how their son died by someone who didn't see it, didn't have a video recording of it, didn't have an autopsy report, didn't have a ballistics report, didn't talk to the medical examiner. They had someone who literally gave them a story that some conclude was made up. Can you imagine? Your son is on the ground. Your son is there. You can't go over and see your son. And you are told that your son has died because he pulled a BB pistol on a peace officer. This is important in terms of what the officer said because of this training: 2 hours of civilian interaction instruction, not nearly enough. That officer who was investigating should have been better trained such that he would not have told this story without having more of the actual facts, such that what he would tell them they could believe. No ballistics report. No autopsy report. No conversation with the medical examiner. Didn't talk to the officer who shot Joshua. Yet he told them that these were the facts in terms of how their son had lost his life. This officer needed better training. Unfortunately, in Texas, they are not getting this training at this time, and I am proud of the Chronicle for pointing it out. But he also needs training in terms of how you present yourself and how you protect the people in the neighborhood that he was in. Let's talk about the shooter. How can a police officer shoot a person twice, not be fired upon, and simply drive away? It makes no sense. Drive away. If you believe that this person was a threat, wouldn't you want to protect the people that you are sworn to protect and defend by staying there, or wouldn't you call for additional help? You shoot him twice and you leave. Joshua died. There is more to the story, but my point tonight is this. The Houston Chronicle has apparently decided that enough is enough and that there should be better policing in the State of Texas. I have decided that there is another way to deal with these cases. The grand jury is one means by which we can take cases to court, but there is another way. In Texas, we have something called the court of inquiry. I believe that it is time for us to use this tool, the court of inquiry, to get the facts and have transparency such that the public can understand what is happening, that they cannot acquire intelligence on when these cases go before a grand jury because it is all sworn to secrecy. No one can tell you what happened before the grand jury. Maybe the district attorney can give you some semblance of what happened. But the court of inquiry allows any person who believes that a crime has been committed to go before a district judge and explain what the facts are. And if that judge believes that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, then that judge goes to another judge, an administrative judge, and makes an appeal to the administrative judge to convene the court of inquiry, then a third judge will actually conduct the court of inquiry. I think that in the State of Texas, because of the training--or the absence thereof--as it relates to our peace officers, this court of inquiry is going to be of great benefit as we move forward. It is time to change the paradigm. Simply allowing these cases to go before a grand jury and never know what actually happened is not enough. I believe that the Houston Chronicle has set a proper course for us to move in a direction that will change policing in the State of Texas, and I would invite persons to please read these two articles that I have called to your attention. Mr. Speaker, I leave you and all who are listening with these words: Joshua Johnson shouldn't have lost his life that morning. Joshua Johnson shouldn't be another statistic. Joshua should be with his parents. My prayer is that these parents will receive the justice they deserve because they have been waiting approximately 230 days for some decision from law enforcement, and they have not had that decision. There is some hope. The district attorney's office is moving forward with an investigation. My prayer is that this family will receive the justice that they deserve because their son shouldn't have lost his life on the 22nd of April this year at approximately 6 a.m. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today on behalf of my constituents, Marc and Debra Tice, the parents of Austin Tice. Marc and Debra have asked that I extend their sincerest gratitude to the House of Representatives, all of its leadership and membership, for the passage of H. Res. 17, a resolution that, in effect, supports the President's desire to bring their son home. Hence, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to their request, I thank Speaker Pelosi, because I had a personal conversation with Speaker Pelosi about this resolution, and I believe that that led to its coming to the floor. I thank Majority Leader Hoyer. He, in effect, orchestrated the bringing of this resolution to the floor. I thank Congressman Hill for his support of the resolution at the committee level and for his efforts to bring his constituent, Dr. Kamalmaz, home. I thank the outgoing chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Eliot Engel, for his efforts to bring the resolution out of committee. I also thank the ranking member, the Texan, Mr. McCaul, who is a person who has worked with me on many endeavors. He made this bipartisan early on, and I thank him for what he has done to help us get it through the committee. I thank Senator Cornyn, Senator Murray, the 41 cosponsors of H. Res. 17, the 52 Senators and 152 Representatives who signed on to a letter to the President. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Debra Tice to President Trump. Friday, 13 November 2020. Dear President Trump, Thank you, from the entire Tice family, for your steadfast commitment and determination to bring our beloved Austin safely home. Yesterday there was a news story from the region that Austin Tice had been released and was on a plane headed home. Our phones were going crazy, our email was exploding, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram--every kind of social media was buzzing with an outpouring of high hopes and great joy. Many, many news outlets reached out eagerly hoping to verify this great news. We know you can make this joyful news a reality. We know the Syrians are ready to work with you. Please, please bring Austin home for the holidays. Respectfully, Debra Tice.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while they have asked me to extend their gratitude, I personally would like to thank the Tice family for their unwavering commitment to have Austin returned home and allow him to be with his family and his friends. They also wished that I would thank President Trump on their behalf. I have a letter that is the best evidence of why they would have President Trump be thanked for what he has done. The letter reads: ``Friday, 13 November 2020. ``Dear President Trump, ``Thank you, from the entire Tice family, for your steadfast commitment and determination to bring our beloved Austin safely home. ``Yesterday there was a news story from the region that Austin Tice had been released and was on a plane headed home. Our phones were going crazy, our email was exploding, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram--every kind of social media was buzzing with an outpouring of high hopes and great joy. Many, many news outlets reached out eagerly hoping to verify this great good news. ``We know you can make this joyful news a reality. We know the Syrians are ready to work with you. ``Please, please bring Austin home for the holidays.'' It is signed, ``Respectfully, Debra Tice,'' Austin's mother. The President is known to respond to letters of this kind by simply writing on a copy of the letter a message to be returned to the sender. I shall read the President's statement: ``Debra--Working so hard on this--Looking for the answer. We want Austin back. I will never stop.'' Mr. President, I salute you for your desire and your commitment to bring Austin home. And, Mr. President, I pray that it will be done before Christmas. It would be a wonderful thing, Mr. President, for this family that you now know and you have communicated with, for this family that has suffered for some 8 years without their son. You would do well and serve them well, Mr. President, if you would honor the commitment that you have indicated on this letter. It would bring joy unlike any these parents have ever experienced if you would do so. So, Mr. President, I salute you. I salute you for your desire and commitment to bring Austin home. And I suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that he is an American citizen, but I also suspect, Mr. President, that it has a lot to do with what you know about Austin. Austin is an American hero, a veteran captain of the Marine Corps. Austin loved his country. He was willing to fight for it and, if necessary, sacrifice his life for it. Austin played by the rules. In college, at age 16, he wanted to be a lawyer. But also, Austin was one of those rare, unique persons who not only wants to help, but who is willing to go to great lengths, great extremes to be of service. He was a freelance journalist, as you know, Mr. President, and as such, he was willing to go into harm's way to places that most of us would never go into to be of service, to help people. So Austin decided that he would take his talents and his desires to Syria. He went to Syria, and he crossed over the Syrian border in May of 2012. In August of 2012, he was detained at a checkpoint someplace near Damascus, and he has been missing ever since. There have been what we call in the intelligence agencies, I believe, signs and proof of life. We know that he is alive, and we know that 8 years of this experience is taking a toll on Austin. Austin deserves our greatest efforts to bring him home, because Austin is an American hero. His parents are in need of his touch, of his presence. They need to hug their son. So the appeal has been made, and, Mr. President, you have said that you believe that you will do everything that you can. I am paraphrasing. You said you will never stop and that you are looking for the answer. I believe the answer is within your power, and I believe the Tice family will be eternally grateful, as will most Americans, if you will bring their son home and do so before Christmas. On behalf of the Tice family, Mr. President, I salute you for your desire and your commitment to bring him home. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairperson of the committee, Mr. Engel, and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. McCaul, for supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am on a mission of mercy. I have been on a mission of mercy for 8 years because it has been more than 8 years now that Austin Tice has been detained in Syria. Eight years it has been. That is also how long this family has been grieving. I, too, know the Tice family. I have met with them multiple times and talked with them multiple times today, in fact. I am grateful to many people who have made it possible for this resolution to come to the floor, so I think it important that I immediately thank them. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi because I talked to her personally about the Tice situation. I thank Majority Leader Hoyer; I had a conversation with him. I want to thank Congressman Hill for his steadfast resolve to not only help Austin but to help Dr. Kamalmaz, his constituent. Again, Chairman Engel has been stellar, superb, and supreme in allowing this to come to the floor. Mr. McCaul has been a great partner. He has demonstrated the kind of bipartisanship that the public expects from us on issues such as these. Of course, I thank the 41 cosponsors of this legislation. Finally, I thank the Tice family for having the courage, the strength, the intestinal fortitude to stay with it. Never one time have they given up on the belief that their son, their eldest son, can be returned home to them. Who was Austin Tice? Well, he loved his country. He loved his country. He went to the Marines. He was a Marine captain, a veteran Marine captain. He is such. He played by the rules. At 16 years of age, he was in college. He received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown University School of Foreign Services. He played by the rules. He went on to get an opportunity to help others. He believed in helping other people. This is why he went to Syria. He went to those places where few of us would dare to go, and he went because he wanted the world to know what is happening in these distant places. And while he was there, he went missing. A month after he was not heard from, a 43-second video emerged with the title ``Austin Tice is Alive.'' We know that he is alive. We want him back alive. We are asking all who can be of service to do so. The President has weighed in. He has sent the Tice family a message indicating that he is going to work hard to bring Austin home. Mr. Speaker, this resolution today is another step in the direction of bringing Austin Tice home. He is a great American. He has played by the rules. He is the kind of son that any one of us would want to have and the kind of son that Debra and Marc Tice are blessed to have. But their blessing should not end with having a son; their blessing should end with having their son with them. Again, I thank all who have played a role in getting this resolution to the floor.