Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairperson DeFazio for his leadership on this issue of importance to all Americans. I especially want to thank the staff for being people with great integrity. They are honorable people. With them, we can do great things. Without them, we can do very little. Mr. Speaker, there is no national drinking water standard for chromium-6. The American Cancer Society lists chromium-6 as a known and probable human carcinogen. Mr. Speaker, there are an estimated 200 million Americans exposed to drinking water with unsafe levels of chromium-6. This amendment, if passed, will require the EPA to establish national standards for chromium-6. Lives will be saved, and the American people will be in a better place. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, Mr. DeFazio for his efforts. I also would like to thank Debbie Strauss at KPRC Channel 2 for calling this issue to my attention.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the great Thurgood Marshall won 29 of 32 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He was eminently qualified then and he is now, and this is a proper thing for us to do. I want to close with this: If Judge Taney and his cohorts had their way, there would be no person of color in this building today. Madam Speaker, if they had their way, you would not be at that podium. Madam Speaker, I stand with Mr. Hoyer. I am grateful for what he has done, and I will vote for this legislation. Its time has long since come, and we are doing the right thing. Dr. King reminded us, ``the time is always right to do that which is right.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. Madam Speaker, I rise today not to speak of persons who die unjustly at the hands of the constabulary, I rise today to speak of members of the constabulary who die unjustly at the hands of persons who are among what we call ``the public.'' I rise today to accentuate five words: ``In the line of duty.'' These words may be meaningless to some, but there are those who have suffered the pain of having to live with these words for the rest of their lives after having lost someone that they love in the line of duty. Emily Dickinson, the great American poet, reminds us that, ``A word is dead when it is said, some say. I say it just begins to live that day.'' These words take on meaning for those who are left behind when someone leaves in the line of duty. I am standing here today in the House to make an appeal to those who have thoughts of doing dastardly deeds simply because a person happens to be a part of the constabulary. I would beg that you not consider these thoughts, that you abandon them. And I would beg that if you have the opportunity to go to one of the homegoing ceremonies of a person who has left in the line of duty-- I have been to these ceremonies. I have seen the suffering of the families, the tears. I have seen the children who will no longer have a parent to go home to. All life is precious. I have spoken many times about the lives that have been lost at the hands of the constabulary, but we should never forget that all lives are precious. And when someone takes the life of a member of the constabulary out of spite, for no cause that can be justified, that person, of course, has to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But that doesn't end the suffering, just as it doesn't end the suffering for the civilian who loses his or her life. It doesn't end the suffering and the pain. We ought not allow ourselves to become so removed from the lives of others that we cease to have some degree of sympathy and empathy for persons who lose their lives in the line of duty. If a person finds some degree of comfort in knowing that a person lost life in the line of duty, then you must be a sadist. It is a sadistic thing to conclude that a life lost in the line of duty is something that you can take some degree of pleasure with. You need help. And I am saying these words today. I am calling this to the attention of people that I don't know, but I know what my staff has reported to me, about persons who lost their lives in the line of duty, and how this number is ticking up, and how many of these lives were lost senselessly. Madam Speaker, we must respect all life. I believe that we have a responsibility to those that we will never meet and greet, to say to the world that we disapprove of this senseless taking of life as it relates to those in the constabulary. And I am talking about those who are just sitting in a car and someone comes along and takes a life of a person serving in the line of duty. My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I had great respect for him. I conclude that I am who I am today because of words that my uncle said. My uncle and I were in his police vehicle, and I was asking a lot of questions. And my uncle's words were, ``This boy is asking a lot of questions. I think he is going to be a lawyer.'' I didn't know what a lawyer was, but I respected my uncle's words. And because I had such respect for him at a very young age--I was less than 10 years of age--I concluded that I shall be a lawyer--perhaps not in those words--but I concluded that I would be a lawyer. So all of my life from that point forward was dedicated to becoming a lawyer because my uncle, the deputy sheriff--well-respected--proclaimed that I would be a lawyer. I thank God that he didn't say, ``You know, this boy is asking a lot of questions. I don't think he is going to amount to anything. He doesn't know anything.'' A word is not dead when it is said. I remember when my uncle died, deputy sheriff, well-respected. I didn't make it to his funeral. I was in the sky over Louisiana on a plane trying to get there, and we were forced out of the sky by an act of God. Destined to stay overnight in Lafayette, I missed his funeral, and I missed him. Madam Speaker, I want people to know that we who seek justice for those who have been treated unjustly, we don't do it out of some desire to see justice for one. I do it because I desire to seek justice for all. I know what ``in the line of duty'' means to people, and I know what my uncle meant to me. Madam Speaker, today, I tell my dear friends, I stand here in the House of Representatives proud to be a part of this great country, but with this very simple message: I beg, let's show respect and pray that we will receive respect for those who serve and those who put their lives on the line such that some of them will suffer to have the words ``in the line of duty'' recalled as they make their transition, as their homegoing ceremonies are commemorated. I truly believe that this country needs to reconcile. We need reconciliation. There are just too many things happening now that are signs of this need of reconciliation that we have not had the opportunity to perfect. And I have suggested to the President that he establish a Department of Reconciliation with a Secretary of Reconciliation. Just as we have a Department of Labor and a Secretary of Labor, to deal with labor issues, we need someone to deal with the need for our country to reconcile our differences. I am not justifying anything that has happened because of past occurrences with reference to ``in the line of duty.'' I am merely saying that there are so many of these ugly things happening that we ought to find reason to put in place a means by which we can have a discussion about them and properly educate people about all of the things that can make a difference in our lives as we try to adjust our lives for the things that have happened in the past. The past does impact the present as well as the future, and it is time for us to reconcile, Mr. President. So Madam Speaker, I beg of Mr. President to give consideration to the establishment of a Department of Reconciliation. You would place on our agenda, long after you depart from the Presidency, the continuation of the need to bring this country closer together, to help us to understand each other better, to move forward with a greater desire and love for each other. I pray that we will do this, Mr. President. And finally, I pray that I will never have to attend another in-the- line-of-duty ceremony. These things are related in this sense. There are people who believe that somehow the suffering that others have caused that have been inflicted upon people, somehow they are justified by taking the life of a person they do not know. I hope that we can prevent this from happening ever again. I know that it has happened, but I don't want to see it happen again. And I believe that we need to start this process of reconciliation. It will make a difference. And I pray that we will never again have to go to these ceremonies where we all leave saddened by the loss of someone who was but only doing his or her job. We need to resolve our differences in this country. There is no justification for what is happening. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Madam Speaker. Again, I thank the chairwoman for the time and the opportunity. I would say to all, I recall the debate around the yield spread premium, wherein a loan originator could say to a person, ``Here is a loan, you are lucky to get it for 10 percent'' when the person qualified for a loan at 5 percent. We eliminated the dastardly yield spread premium and the harm that it caused. We have a similar circumstance with the rent-a-bank scheme that steals the American Dream, such that people who qualify for better loans will likely get higher loans because they don't always understand the scheme. So I rise today, and I thank Mr. Garcia for what he has done to bring this bill to fruition. I thank the Chairwoman, and I absolutely support the legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate it. I shall be terse and laconic and pithy and concise. It is time for change to again come to the House of Representatives. I support this legislation, and I beg that my colleagues would do so. It is time for change.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, when I arrived here in Congress in 2005, there was a necessary facility, also known as the men's room, right across diagonally from me outside of this Chamber. There was no such facility for women. In fact, it was the Parliamentarian's office to my left, just outside of this facility. Madam Speaker, it was under the leadership of the Honorable Nancy Pelosi that we now have equal facilities for men and women just off the floor of the House. Things change, but they don't change on their own volition. The arc of the universe, the moral universe, bends because of the hands of women and men. Today, we have an opportunity to again treat women with the same level of dignity and respect who are in the military as we do those who are without the military, and, to a certain extent, the same way we were treating men when I arrived in this Congress. Things change. This is an opportunity to be a part of an historic change. It may seem small to you, but to the people who have to bear the burden of this invidious discrimination, it is not the same.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, it has been a preeminent privilege to serve under Chair Waters' leadership on the Financial Services Committee. I think I can say without question, reservation, hesitation, or equivocation that, under the gentlewoman's leadership, we have seen great change. But I also know this: that under her leadership, there is greater change to come. It is my honor to serve under the gentlewoman's leadership. And still I rise, Madam Speaker, and I rise today to support H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act. And I rise to thank the ranking member for his support of this legislation. He has been steadfast, and he has been true to his word. I am honored to support this legislation, and I think that it is appropriate for me to address, first, the question of whether invidious discrimination exists. Madam Speaker, if you deny that invidious discrimination exists, then you have to deny the existence of the KKK. To deny the existence of invidious discrimination would necessitate a denial of those who were in Charlottesville screaming: ``Blood and soil,'' ``Jews will not replace us.'' I believe the case is self-evident: invidious discrimination exists. Currently, we have a system that allows us to collect the empirical evidence necessary to not only identify the invidious discrimination but also help us to prevent the invidious discrimination. This legislation is absolutely necessary to acquire the empirical intelligence so that we may go forward and prevent invidious discrimination. By acquiring this intelligence, I might add, we will also deter some of the people who have good sense such that they won't commit invidious discrimination because they will be aware of the intelligence acquisition. How do we do this? Here is how it happens: Currently, when you make your application, Madam Speaker, there is a place for you to indicate whether you are a minority person. If I am filling out the application, I would probably indicate that I am a minority person, although I don't like the term. I use it only to communicate. I do not like the term ``minority.'' But for the purpose of communicating today, I would indicate that I am a minority person. The only thing this bill will do, as it relates to acquiring the intelligence, is give us another space so that we can now indicate that, if you so choose, Madam Speaker, you are a member of the LGBTQ- plus community. In filling out this form, if I chose not to indicate I was a minority person, I wouldn't have to. I would just sign it, completing the other aspects of it, and I would be done with it. It only allows for the placement of additional language on the document so that persons who desire to--and it is important to note, Madam Speaker, that you must have the desire; it is with intentionality, and you voluntarily do this--would indicate, if you choose to, that you are a member of the LGBTQ-plus community. I must say, candidly, I really don't see how this can become the debate that it has become. At some point in this country, we have to understand that discriminating against people because of who they are is inappropriate. It is unlawful. I am the son of a segregated South, where I was lawfully discriminated against. I know what it looks like. I know what it smells like. I know what it sounds like. I know what invidious discrimination tastes like. I drank from filthy colored water fountains in my lifetime. I don't wish any of this type of behavior that I had to endure on anyone else, so I rise today in support of this legislation as a continuation of my mission to do all that I can to help others avoid the horrors of invidious discrimination. I am so grateful to Chairwoman Waters for all she has done. She has always been a friend, not only to me, but to those who are among the least, the last, and the lost. And I thank the gentlewoman for all that she has done.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise tonight to continue to make my payments on a debt that I owe. I am the son of the segregated South. I know what invidious discrimination looks like. I know what it sounds like. I know what it tastes like. I know what it smells like. Because I have suffered invidious discrimination, I want no one else to suffer what I have suffered. I rise tonight to pay a debt because I didn't get here by myself, and the people who look like me, we didn't get here by ourselves. Along the way there were people of different stripes who made a difference, such that we could have the opportunities that we have today. So I am proud to say that I am an ally of the LGBTQIA caucus. I am proud to say that I am a member of the congressional LGBTQ-plus Equality Caucus. And I am proud to say that Mr. Cicilline is a person who I have great respect for, a person who is making a difference not only in the lives of people who are a member of the community, the LGBTQIA community, but also persons across the length and breadth of the globe, because when you help some directly, you help all indirectly. I thank Mr. Cicilline for this preeminent privilege to stand tonight and to be a part of making the world a better place for others. I desire, if I may, to continue. I want to make the world know that the caucus that I am a member of, the LGBTQ-plus Equality Caucus, has 170 members. The caucus was formed in the 111th Congress. Today, we have introduced the original LGBTQIA- plus Pride Month resolution. This resolution encourages the celebration of the month of June as LGBTQIA-plus Pride Month. It tracks the accomplishments and the milestones and the fight for LGBTQIA-plus equality. It has 187 cosponsors, minus the 100. It has 87 original cosponsors. This resolution is endorsed by the National Center for Transgender Equality, PFLAG National, the National LGBTQ Task Force, and the Transgender Foundation of America. We introduced the first LGBT Pride Month resolution in 2013. This resolution had 25 cosponsors. We have introduced a Pride Month resolution in every Congress since 2013. In 2020, the LGBTQ Pride Month resolution had 62 cosponsors. This year, the resolution has 87 original cosponsors. Now I would like to just discuss some seminal moments in Pride history. June marks 52 years of Pride celebrations across the country. It was in June of 1970 that the first Pride march took place in New York City to commemorate Stonewall Inn, the site of an act of resistance in June of 1969. In 1977, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected public official in the U.S. In 1980, the Democratic Party became the first major American political party to endorse a gay rights platform. In 2000, Vermont became the first State to recognize civil unions between same-sex partners. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional. In November of 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Justice Court ruled that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying violates the State constitution. In 2008, California voters passed proposition 8, a public referendum ending same-sex marriage in the State. In 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, expanding hate crime laws to include acts motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Between 2009 and 2011, Vermont, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, the District of Columbia, and New York legitimized same-sex marriage. In 2010, President Obama officially repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, allowing gays, bisexuals, and lesbians to serve openly in the military. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down California's proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against sex discrimination laid out in title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to LGBTQ Americans. Houston, Texas, has a history that we are proud of. We remember the uprising at Stonewall because it marked the beginning of a movement to outlaw discrimination and laws that prohibited LGBTQIA persons from having the same rights as other persons in this country. Nearly a decade after the resistance displayed in New York at Stonewall Inn, the gay rights movement for equality made its way to Houston, Texas. Houston's own Stonewall movement occurred in June of 1977, when thousands gathered around city hall in downtown Houston to protest an infamous antigay activist who was performing in Houston, Texas. According to OutSmart magazine, more than 4,000 protesters marched around the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where the event was held. The first Houston Pride parade took place in June of 1978, along Westheimer Road; and more than four decades later, it has become the fourth largest Pride parade in the country. This resolution that we have presented to the House today is one that we will continue to present. We will continue to present it because it is not only the right thing to do, but it is the righteous thing to do. No person in this country should be treated in such a way as to be defined as mistreated simply because of who they are. We have a right to be ourselves, and we should never be put in a position such that it is perceived that being who you are is inappropriate in a country that extolls the virtues of liberty and justice for all, that extolls the virtue of all persons being equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this country, every person ought to be proud to celebrate Pride Month.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we, who are honored to be Members of Congress, are here to pass judgment on the great issues of our time. There is no greater issue of our time than the issue of war and peace. It is about life and death. We should not be allowed to escape our duty, responsibility, and obligation to vote on issues of war and peace. We must repeal this authorization so that Congress can take up its responsibility and vote on the great issues of our time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I applaud the United States Senate for unanimously passing legislation to nationally recognize Juneteenth as a federal holiday. Juneteenth marks the anniversary of General Gordon Granger arriving in Galveston, Texas, and delivering the news of emancipation to enslaved Texans on June 19, 1865. More than two years after President Lincoln's January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and more than two months after the end of the civil war, the enslaved in Texas finally received word of their freedom from General Granger, who was backed by 2,000 Union soldiers. These newly freed persons--the last to receive the news of their emancipation in the Confederate states--started a grassroots celebration in Texas known as `Jubilee Day' to commemorate the life- altering event. Jubilee celebrations spread throughout the South and eventually to the rest of the country and taking on the moniker `Juneteenth,' a portmanteau meaning June 19th. Although official recognition of this day has been slow to come, work by individuals such as the late Al Edwards--former state representative and the father of the Juneteenth holiday in Texas--has led to all but three states recognizing Juneteenth with annual celebratory events. Now, what began as a grassroots movement to commemorate Texas history is set to become our nation's next federal holiday. In honor of the Honorable Al Edwards and every person ever enslaved, I eagerly anticipate the opportunity to vote for this legislation on the House floor, and I thank Senator Edward Markey as well as my colleague and friend Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee for introducing this legislation to ensure Juneteenth is nationally recognized.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his sage recitation. I did listen, and I am grateful that the gentleman has seen the need to be a friend to persons who are clearly in harm's way. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, in the spirit of Shirley Chisholm. I rise unbought and unbossed, a liberated Democrat. And I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of pain in my heart. I am saddened. And I am, quite frankly, very, very disgusted and disappointed. I saw a news story this morning that brought me to tears. I could not believe what I saw and I heard. I would like to share now some passages from a story in The New York Times that relate to what I saw this morning, what I heard this morning. I would ask that persons who are very sensitive to things involving pain and suffering be mindful of what I am about to do and might govern themselves appropriately because this is very painful to hear and very sad to understand that it actually occurred. This story is styled ``Footage Shows Louisiana Troopers Punching and Dragging Man Who Died.'' I was born in Louisiana, in New Orleans. I have friends there. I have some sense of what the State is like, but even this exceeds some of what I know can happen in Louisiana. This article goes on to read: ``Relatives of Ronald Greene,'' no relationship as far as I know, ``were initially told that he had died from injuries he sustained in a crash after he failed to stop for a traffic violation outside Monroe, Louisiana, in May 2019, according to a lawyer for the family.'' May 2019. You can do the math. That was some time ago. Some of us would say it was a long time ago. ``Body-camera footage obtained and published by the Associated Press on Wednesday showed Mr. Greene, 49, screaming, `I'm sorry,' and `I'm scared,' after troopers opened the door to his car and jolted him with a stun gun after a high-speed chase.'' I recall instructions from my mother. Her instructions when I was a young child were to never run from the police. Never run from the police. She was emphatic about it, and she explained why. Never run from the police, she explained to me, her young son, because the police will catch you and when they do, they are going to whip you. She explained to me that the police are of the opinion that if you run, a part of your punishment is a good whipping. This is what my mother explained to me as a child. So, we find today Mr. Greene saying, ``I'm sorry,'' and, ``I'm scared.'' `` `I'm scared,' Mr. Greene screamed, according to the video.'' He went on to say, `` `I'm your brother. I'm scared,' '' pleading, if you will. The ``pleading'' is what I am adding. That is not in the story, but pleading. ``According to the AP, which said it had obtained 46 minutes of video footage from the encounter, one trooper wrestled Mr. Greene to the ground, put him in a choke hold,'' some things bear repeating, ``put him in a choke hold and punched him in the face. Another trooper briefly dragged him by his ankle shackles as he lay on the ground, according to the footage.'' We know about choke holds. We know about knees on necks. We know that people are not always treated with respect. Mind you, Mr. Greene, so far, has not exhibited a weapon. Yes, he was running, in the sense that he was driving away from the police. Yes, he should have stopped by standards that we like to employ. But does running from the police, driving your car away from the police, does this entitle the police to kick, tase multiple times, and drag a person? ``Mr. Greene was jolted again with the stun gun while he was on the ground and handcuffed.'' On the ground, handcuffed, and jolted again with a stun gun. This is what the footage shows, according to this news article. ``The AP reported that the troopers, who were White,'' again, some things bear repeating, ``AP reported that the troopers, who were White, left Mr. Greene, who was Black, facedown and moaning for more than 9 minutes, as they wiped blood from their hands and face.'' Mr. Greene is facedown, pleading, 9 minutes. The officers are wiping blood from their hands and face. `` `I hope this guy ain't got AIDS,' one of the troopers said on the video, adding an expletive.'' He was concerned for himself at a time when a man is bleeding and in need of attention, medical attention, I might add. Officers have a duty to provide medical attention. When we are in combat with enemies, enemies who would destroy us, destroy our country, if we catch an enemy and that enemy is hurt, in need of medical attention, we provide aid and comfort. Mr. Greene was not an enemy to the United States of America. He wasn't an enemy of this country. Mr. Greene wasn't trying to kill these officers. Yes, he resisted. But does resistance afford or grant the officers the legal right to abuse him to the extent that he finds himself on the ground bleeding; they find themselves wiping blood from their hands and their face, and then concluding, ``I hope this guy ain't got AIDS''? There are people who don't want to hear the things that I have to say about invidious discrimination. They don't want to hear it because they don't want to acknowledge that it exists. Not only does it exist, it exists more than we know. But for the body cameras, this wouldn't be in The New York Times. It is in The New York Times because there is now evidence, clear and convincing evidence, that it actually occurred. But there are people who don't want to hear a Member come to the floor of the House of Representatives and call these things to the attention of the world. We call them to the attention of the world, because the world needs to know we have been right for years upon years, decades on decades, in making known these issues that have been ignored. Now the truth is being revealed. George Floyd, the truth was revealed. Ronald Greene, the truth has been revealed. Let's go on. This story indicates that: ``The Louisiana State Police said on Wednesday''--mind you, this is Wednesday in May of 2019--``The Louisiana State Police said on Wednesday that the investigation into Mr. Greene's death `remains under review by Federal and State authorities.''' My dear friends, my dear brothers, and my dear sisters, if an animal--let's say a dog--if they had treated a dog the way they treated Mr. Greene, a human being, the investigation would be over, the punishment would have been assessed, and I would dare say that they would have received punishment much more severe than what I am about to read to you. The article states: ``One of the troopers, who was involved in the encounter . . . was temporarily suspended and is back on the force.'' Some things bear repeating. ``One of the troopers who was involved in the encounter . . . was temporarily suspended and is back on the force.'' This is what the State police said. I am not sure that the humane society would have allowed this to go without some additional repercussions, lawful repercussions, I might add, if an animal, a dog, were treated the way Mr. Greene was treated. Remember, Mr. Greene was pleading: ``I'm your brother. I'm scared.'' Begging, ``I'm sorry,'' he said. Dear friends, Mr. Greene's death was ruled accidental and was attributed to cardiac arrest. How can we allow this to stand? The family commissioned an independent autopsy that found severe injuries to Mr. Greene's head and skull and several wounds to his face. But the officers concluded his death was accidental. This is my commentary now. His death was accidental and was attributed to cardiac arrest. In the world that I live in, this is called a coverup. In the world that I live in, this video is the evidence needed, coupled with the time that has elapsed, to substantiate the coverup. There may be more evidence. There may be more evidence that would be of benefit. But my dear friends, for a human being to be treated as Mr. Greene was treated and then have one person temporarily suspended-- there may be other things that have occurred. This is a news story. All of the facts may not be in. One person suspended, and it reported that his death was ruled accidental, attributed to cardiac arrest. We must pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. What more do we need? We have George Floyd, his death. We have now Mr. Greene. These incidents--as they are called by people who live in polite society-- these incidents continue to occur. What more do we need to pass legislation in the Senate of the United States of America, where we have people who have taken an oath to protect? What do we need to pass the legislation that will ban chokeholds? This man was choked. What do we need to pass legislation so that lawsuits can continue, so that they won't be dismissed on grounds that are archaic? It may not be insane, but it is an inanity. What do we need to end this inanity? What is going on in the Senate, the Senate of the United States of America, land of ``liberty and justice''--I say the Pledge of Allegiance--``for all.'' I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I love my country, but I don't love what is happening in the United States Senate. It is time for this piece of legislation to receive its day. It ought to be voted on, immediately, if not sooner. What is going on in the United States Senate? How can we tolerate this level of inhumanity? What is going on in the United States Senate? At some point, on the infinite continuum that we call time, we are all going to have to account for our time. And on that day of judgment, it won't be based upon how many millionaires did you try to help because you were a Member of Congress and you had the opportunity to pass laws to benefit millionaires and billionaires. That won't be what your judgment is based on. It won't be based on how many full bellies did you try to feed. At some point, we are going to have to account for our actions. At some point, judgment is going to be how did you treat the least, the last, and the lost among us. Judgment is not going to be how did you treat the well-off, the well- heeled, and the well-to-do. They always fare well. The judgment is going to be how did you treat the Greene's of the world, how did you treat the Floyds of the world. Senators, I beg you, do not allow rules that benefit the lawlessness that is taking place to prevent you from doing the righteous thing. You have an opportunity to move on this legislation. I beg that you would do so. I am but one person. I am sure that there are others who would agree with some of what I have said. But I come to the floor to say this, because I want my record to show that when I had a chance to stand up against injustice, I did so. I am saddened by what happened to Mr. Greene, to Mr. Floyd, to Ms. Breonna Taylor, and to many others whose names that you don't know: Joe Campos Torres, thrown in a bayou in Houston, Texas, handcuffed; Billy Keith Joyvies; Randall Alan Webster, chased down the Freeway, shot; Ida Lee Delaney, shot out on the freeway in Houston. There are many names that you don't know. But if you do the research, you will find that in each one of those cases, there were concerns related to the way the police handled them. So I have done what I can do today. But if God gives me the strength, I will be back again and again and again and again. I want my record to show I gave it my best, I tried, and I will continue to try. At this time, I have a colleague who desires time. I am going to yield to him as much time as he may consume of the time that I have left. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise today understanding that William Cullen Bryant was right: ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again.'' Whether you believe that it was just a group of tourists walking through the Capitol or not, you should want this commission. If you believe that it was an insurrection, you should want this commission. You should want this commission because you cannot bury the truth in an earthly grave of lies and not realize the words of William Cullen Bryant, ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Thompson and the ranking member for standing together to make this moment possible. Bipartisanship is achieved when you have good decent people who can stand together for the good of all. God bless you, dear brothers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank Ms. Chu for her diligence and her persistence in getting this done. This is a moment for sober reflection. This is a time for us to understand that there is a lot of pain in the Asian-American community. There are people who are suffering, and it gives us an opportunity now to let them know that they are not alone, to let them know that liberty and justice for all applies to them, to let them know that we will stand against the hate as we stand with them. It is a time for sober reflection.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, the great writer and intellectual Carlyle was right, ``No lie can live forever.'' Kill 300 people? No lie can live forever. Destroy an entire business district? Try to hide it? No lie can live forever. Hundreds hospitalized, families destroyed. No lie can live forever. One hundred years later, truth crushed to Earth has arisen, and no lie can live forever.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, those who tolerate hate perpetuate hate. A brief story: I saw the picture, the film, the depiction of the lady in New York when she was approached by a man who kneed her in her stomach, forced her to the ground, and kicked her with his feet on multiple occasions. That kind of hate we cannot tolerate. He happened to have been a person of color. It must be known that regardless as to who you are, regardless as to your race or your color, Madam Speaker, if you perfect that kind of hate, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law allows. Those who tolerate hate perpetuate hate.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the Civil Rights Act. Well, what do the organizations that protect and promote the Civil Rights Act actually say? More than 220 of them, I might add, say that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is critical to promoting economic security for pregnant workers and their families. They say that women of color--more than two-thirds of Black women, 55 percent of Native American women, and 41 percent of Latina women--are the sole primary breadwinners for their families. They say that they support reasonable accommodations. They say that a woman ought not be fired or be threatened with being fired for simply coming to work bearing a child, having a child. They say that they support this legislation. But the question really is, who are they? They are the Human Rights Campaign. They are the Anti-Defamation League. They are the League of Women Voters of the United States. They are the NAACP. They are the American Civil Liberties Union. They are the AFL-CIO. They are Mary Kay Henry. They are the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. They are the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. They are Rabbi Jonah Pesner. And they are for this legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a practitioner, I rise. Having practiced law, I saw firsthand how predatory debt collection works. I know of the threats to get persons demoted. I know of the threats to cause people to lose their jobs. I know of the many threats to cause people to go to jail if they didn't pay a debt. This is unlawful. It ought not happen, but it does. We know that there is no debtors' prison in this country, but people still threaten people with going to jail if they don't pay debts. Yes, servicemembers ought to be protected. I stand for them. But I also stand with the hardworking Americans who, through no fault of their own, will sometimes find themselves owing debts. This must pass. I support H.R. 2547.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the British statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, is credited with having stated that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This is the reason why, in part, I will be introducing legislation for a slavery remembrance day. Currently, no such day exists in the United States. National days of remembrance provide an effective means to honor those impacted by horrific events. They prevent the tragedy from fading from our memories by educating the generations to come, and they highlight the modern-day implications of such events. My resolution would provide a day for slavery remembrance, and the language of the resolution would commemorate the lives of all enslaved people, while condemning the act and the perpetration as well as perpetuation of slavery in the United States of America and across the world. The resolution would discuss the Middle Passage, the Underground Railroad, and the lives of Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, and John Brown. It would also make the 18 persons who were elected to Congress from the Reconstruction era as honorary cosponsors of the resolution in a posthumous way. I am proud to do this, and I ask that all Members please consider becoming original cosponsors of the resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And today, I rise with love of country at heart. I rise to announce that I will not allow this issue to become so complicated that the American people might be confused because the truth is we will be voting for one thing: whether we are for taxation without representation or whether we are against taxation without representation. It is really that simple. As for me, I will be voting with the patriots. I will be voting with those patriots from 1773 who confronted the government, those patriots who were there at the Boston Harbor, those patriots who were there for the Boston Tea Party. I will be voting against taxation without representation. I believe that this is what the American Constitution and the American way are all about. Since 1773, it has been said, and today, I will respect it with my vote.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise today because I am deeply saddened. I am saddened because today represents the day in the life of a constituent that she will never forget, that her husband will never forget. I rise to call to the attention of the world the words of a constituent. These words were printed in the Houston Chronicle. I am grateful to the Chronicle for publishing this story because this story speaks to a circumstance unlike that with George Floyd. I will say more about that in just a moment. But I rise, grateful to the Chronicle, with the words of a mother. Here are her words: ``Our son was killed before George Floyd, but we are still waiting for answers.'' Their son lost his life 1 year ago today in Houston, Texas, in my congressional district. He lost his life several houses down from his home, the home of his parents. He lost his life while housesitting for a neighbor. He was 35 years of age, well-liked. I spoke to many of his neighbors, many of his friends, many of the people in the neighborhood. I never heard one unkind thing said about him. He was a person who was always there to be of service. He lost his life while housesitting, trying to help a friend, a neighbor. He served in the military. Here is a photo. He served in the military, a graduate of a local high school, Westbury High School. He loved the Dallas Cowboys. He was a typical young person. His name was Joshua Johnson. Joshua's parents, the Bearys, Mr. and Mrs. Beary, are grieving. They have been grieving since he lost his life a year ago. They have been grieving because the circumstances are questionable. But these circumstances, unlike the circumstances that we had with George Floyd, are circumstances where there was no body camera. There was no witness to record what happened. These circumstances occurred early in the morning, perhaps around 6 a.m., 1 year ago. The parents were not present. Mr. Beary took his wife to work. He returned home, and she received a phone call. Here are her words: ``It was April 22, 2020, around 7:30 a.m., when my husband, Richard, who had just dropped me off at work an hour earlier, called me and said the words that changed my life and his forever. He said, `Someone shot and killed Josh.''' They would go as close as they could to the actual scene, which is just a few houses down from where they lived, and they would encounter a peace officer. I like the term ``peace officer'' as opposed to ``police officer.'' Both are good terms, but to me, the term ``peace officer'' carries with it something that I think is important for us to consider, as we consider the great issues of our time. Policing is one of the great issues of our time. A peace officer is always there to make peace, to help us acquire peace, to help us maintain the peace, to do the peaceful thing whenever possible. I know that it is not always possible, but whenever possible. So, they went as close as they could to the scene, and they encountered an officer who was investigating. They wanted to know what happened to their son, which is what any parent would want to know: What happened to my son? It is not an unreasonable question. It is not unusual, by the way, for parents to have some emotional characteristics at the time they are posing questions because they just lost their son. They don't know what happened. This officer proceeded to explain to them that their son approached an undercover officer, that their son approached this officer, who was seated in a vehicle, and when he approached this officer, he had his phone in one hand and a gun in the other hand. There were persons who were with them at the time the officer was explaining this. These persons sought to intercede and said he had a BB gun. The officer acknowledged that it was a BB gun. They were told by this officer that the officer who was seated in the vehicle, the officer who was undercover, around 6 a.m., that he told the son to lower his BB pistol--he didn't say BB pistol, but to lower what he thought was a gun. The story gets murky, but the officer who was undercover said to the son: Lower your pistol. Lower your gun. He said that their son, Josh, did not do so, that he, in fact, raised it, and the officer responded by shooting him--not once, but twice. The parents were obviously moved by what they were hearing. By the way, all of this is recorded. What I am saying to you now was being recorded. I have the recording. They were moved by what was said, and they were wanting more answers. This officer told them that this is how it happened. Maybe not in these exact words, but Ms. Beary quotes him as saying: ``This is how it happened,'' and there is ``no reason to believe it happened any other way.'' Well, let's examine that statement, ``no reason to believe it happened any other way.'' The officer investigating said this without the benefit of a body camera, unlike the George Floyd case where there were multiple cameras, and we saw different angles. No body camera; no camera recording by someone who was a witness standing by; no camera available to the officer who now, within a few hours at most, is giving this rendition of what happened to their son. He said what he said without the benefit of speaking to a medical examiner. The medical examiner had not arrived. He came to his conclusions without the benefit of what would ordinarily be an autopsy that would be performed at a later time. No autopsy had been performed, so he couldn't have come to these conclusions after perusing an autopsy report. He came to these conclusions without speaking to the officer who shot her son. No autopsy report; no ballistics report; no conversation with the medical examiner; no body camera. But he indicated that ``this is how it happened,'' and there is ``no reason to believe it happened any other way.'' No other way? You haven't had a conversation with a medical examiner. You haven't talked to the person who actually did the shooting. You have no body camera. No other way? You have no ballistics report. No other way? That story became the actual story that has been published and republished, and it causes great grief for this family because they believe that there has to be a better investigation, that this officer was too quick to draw these conclusions. In court, we call these things a rush to judgment, a rush to judgment within just a few hours, without having completed an investigation. He didn't do a walkthrough, hadn't done the walkthrough. For those who may not be familiar with walkthroughs, this is where the officer gets with the person involved, the officer who was in the car, and they walk through and point out certain things that may have happened. He couldn't have had the walkthrough because he didn't talk to the officer who did the shooting. The family, desperate for help, finally contacted my office. I was, quite frankly, amazed myself when I heard the recording of this officer who was investigating. By the way, before we go any further, I need to say this: This is not an indictment of all police officers, not an indictment of all peace officers. We are talking about a circumstance that happened in my congressional district. So, they came to me, and I decided that I would, at a very minimum, go out and see what they were trying to call to my attention. I was a judge for a quarter of a century of a lowly justice/small claims court. I was known to go out and look at things, to go to the scene of things that occurred, so I went. Thank God I did. After going out to the actual site, things became even more murky. I was there, getting an understanding as to where the officer was supposed to have been at the time the encounter with their son took place. The son is Joshua, and I am not going to call the name of the officer who did the shooting. At the time the encounter took place and the shooting occurred, it became difficult to comprehend some evidence that was found in a location many feet away, over behind some cars, near a garage, across a street, behind not one, not two, but three cars. It became difficult to understand how this piece of evidence was at this location, difficult to understand because the piece of evidence was a bullet, a bullet that was fired from the shooter's weapon, made its way to this very difficult location, hit the garage, and bounced off onto the pavement. This was found the same day that the investigation was taking place. It is difficult to comprehend how it got there, given the angles involved and the location of the garage. It is difficult to understand. Later on, after talking to more people, we concluded that it would be appropriate to ask the sheriff for a visit. The sheriff was very generous with his time. He did visit with the family, and he brought others with him, another person with him. They had a visit. We talked, and the sheriff gave assurances that there would be a thorough investigation. After having that conversation with the sheriff, something else was discovered. This family had a camera. We didn't know about the camera at the time they heard from the initial officer who was investigating. So, there is a camera that monitors the street that runs past their home. This camera picked up what appears to be the shooting officer, who was undercover, parked on the street. It picked him up as he left the scene. This is important. Their son is shot twice. Apparently, based upon what has been said and what the evidence seems to reveal, he walked away after he was hit twice. He went over to a car, his car, parked some feet away. He made his way into his car, sat on the driver's side, under the steering wheel. Apparently, having done this--this is, without question, he did these things. Apparently, he is shot twice. The officer drives away after shooting him twice. He leaves the scene, and the person shot, to go out to some other location. Now, if this is true--and I say ``apparently'' because you look at the cars and then you have to draw conclusions. But if this is true, what kind of officer--assuming that all of what he said was the case, do you really leave the scene? Do you leave a person who is armed, if you believe the person to be armed? Do you leave this person who you believe to be armed to be out, such that someone else might be harmed? There are a lot of questions to be answered. There a lot of questions to be answered. The family needs to know. I have some of the questions that the family would like to have answers to. I am going to share a few of these questions with you because it is a year later. They have not had any indication that they will receive justice in the near future, perhaps, but not the kind of indication that they are looking for. Here is a question: How could an investigating officer present an accurate assessment of the facts to Mr. and Mrs. Beary, near the scene, within a few hours after Joshua, their son, was killed, before having done the walk-through, without talking to the deputy who did the shooting, without the benefit of a camera recording, before the medical examiner examined the body of their son, before an autopsy report was completed, and, in fact, an autopsy was performed, before a ballistics report was produced? How could he present an accurate assessment? And this assessment has been published and republished many times. Second question: How did the bullet hit this garage of the neighbor across the street with no clear path from where the shooter indicated the shooting took place or where it was indicated by someone that the shooting took place? Third question: Why would the deputy leave the scene immediately or sometime shortly after firing those shots? This is a questionable circumstance. It is not comparable to what happened to George Floyd. And the question that we are going to have to grapple with is: What happens when the cameras are off and no witnesses are available, and you have evidence that seems to contradict the story of the investigating officer, that was given before he had an opportunity to perform a fair and accurate investigation? What happens when you don't have what we have in the George Floyd case? Notwithstanding all that we had in the George Floyd case, I don't know of a single person who thought that there would be a guilty, guilty, guilty; who thought that the officer would be found guilty on all three of the charges. I don't know of a single person. Perhaps you do. But notwithstanding all of the evidence that we saw, all of the testimony that we heard, there were people--I was among them--who literally had great concern for what the verdict would be and how it would be responded to. I had my concerns. I think they were legitimate concerns to have in this case, given our history in the case of questionable shootings, police-civilian encounters, and a person ends up losing his life. I heard the verdict with my colleagues right here on campus in this facility, and I believed it after a moment of disbelief. It wasn't something that you just automatically, axiomatically believe. But it was something that I believed, but I had a moment of disbelief. But I knew that verdict could be a seminal moment in time that will impact the rest of time. I believe that those jurors will be treated very kindly by history. I think that history is going to show that they were people who rose to the occasion. Jurors do this, they can rise to the occasion. These did, and I am grateful to them. I believe that those officers who testified rose to the occasion. They separated themselves from that which is perceived to be egregious, and that is being kind, but they separated themselves from that conduct. History will be kind to them. But there was overwhelming evidence, and we know what happened with overwhelming evidence. This case has not been ruled upon or judged by a grand jury, and, as a result, we don't know what will happen. All we know is that this family is still grieving. It has been a year since their son lost his life--a year today, around 6 a.m.--and they are still waiting for a decision. I have some concerns now about the decision. Hear my concerns. Let us assume that it goes before a grand jury, this case. When I say ``it,'' I mean this case goes before a grand jury. And let's assume that it results in a no bill, the grand jury does not indict. It does not return a true bill, which would be an indictment. Let's assume this is a no bill in this case. What happens before the grand jury stays with the grand jury. This family won't have answers. There was supposed to be a ballistics report. Will they have the opportunity to read the ballistics report? I hope so. But the grand jury works in secrecy. It is shrouded in secrecy. And I am not antithetical to grand juries. But my point is, will this family get answers if there is a no bill? The system has got to change. You cannot leave a family under these circumstances with more questions than answers after the case has made its way through the judicial system. You can't leave them like this. They will suffer the rest of their lives. They have got to know what happened. The system has to change. There has to be a way for these families to know more about what happened when the cameras are off and no witnesses are available. There has to be a way for them to at least know what happens when the case is presented. They are not allowed to be there when the grand jury deliberates. I am not going to quarrel with this. I understand that grand jurors have a right, to some degree, of protection because what they do can bring harm to them. But what I don't understand is why we don't have a system that allows for the evidence to be made available to people who have lost someone near and dear, someone that they love. In Texas, there is another way that would be perceived as novel. It is only in Texas, by the way. Only in Texas. There is something called a court of inquiry. In Texas, if you believe that a crime has been committed, you can take your evidence to a district court judge, and you can ask that judge to review what you have. And if that judge believes that there may have been a crime committed, that judge would go to an administrative judge. We will call this person a presiding judge. And then that judge can require--that second judge--so you have two judges involved--happens to concur. And then witnesses can be called, and we can examine what happened. But this is only in Texas. I am looking at legislation to give us the opportunity at a national level to do something similar to what we can do in Texas, because people need to know. These parents would feel much better and get through the grieving process, something that we all will go through at some point in our lives if we live long enough. It would give them--if they had the transparency, if they could just know what was said, what was the decision really based upon if there is not a true bill, an indictment. They need to know. But they represent many other families who have circumstances where they have lost someone; questionable circumstances, no camera, no witnesses; and in some cases where there are witnesses who are not believed; in some cases where the camera reveals what others would have us not believe when we see it with our own eyes. There are some cases where we have had video, but we are told that we can't believe our eyes. Thank God the jurors in the George Floyd case believed their eyes, believed what they saw, believed those officers who gave testimony. I hope that we will, at some point in our history, reach a time when we won't have a Member of Congress have to engage with family members under these circumstances, but some things have to change before we will get to this time. One of the things that will have to change is a belief that has been called to our attention by some people who have been demeaned and vilified. And the belief is that Black lives matter. This is a powerful movement. Are there some persons who associate with the movement who may have done some things that I don't approve of? Yes, many have. But this is a powerful movement. We have got to have persons who are armed, those who have the power of life and death, believe that Black lives matter. We have got to have them believe that you don't have the right to punish a person after you have arrested the person. Notwithstanding what you heard a former President say, you don't have the right to punish after you have arrested. And you know he said it. He told peace officers--I like peace officer as opposed to police-- when you are arresting a person you don't have to be nice. Madam Speaker, once you have a person within your care, custody, and control, that person's well-being is in your hands. You don't have the power or the right to punish them. You may have the power, but you don't have the right to. You don't punish 9 minutes and 29 seconds, a knee on a neck--cruel and unusual punishment. You don't have the right to do this. You may have the power, but you don't have the right. If Black lives matter, then you wouldn't do it. Not all police officers--not all peace officers--I prefer peace officer to police--not all, but those who do have to be punished, because we have got to let the world know that Black lives matter and that you have got to treat people with the same level of dignity and respect that you want your child to receive and that you want your mother to receive, the same level of dignity and respect because Black lives matter. I will be with the Bearys this weekend. There will be a vigil in Houston, and I will be there with them. My hope is that we will have heard something about their son's demise from the officials who are charged with the responsibility and an obligation to perform a just and fair investigation. My hope is that this will happen and that they will have some closures. Madam Speaker, I want Mr. and Mrs. Beary to know that I am never going to give up on this. Their son's life mattered to me. I never met him, but his life mattered. I will be with them. I will be with them until the end. His life mattered. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all. I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all because the criminal justice system is on trial. It is on trial in the court of world opinion. It is on trial for crimes committed against human beings in this country. Some of the complainants would include Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd. I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all because we have reached a point in our history wherein there is one case now that seems to have reached the pinnacle of the system, such that everyone is waiting to see how this case will eventually address liberty and justice for all. One of the complaints is that in this country we have allowed arresting officers, that we confer enormous power on, literally, the power to execute when necessary. But the question is: Will these arresting officers not only have the power to arrest, but also the power to be judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner? This is the question before the court of world opinion. We have a case that embraces decades, perhaps even centuries of misdeeds. My hope is that we will receive a just ruling. My prayer is that, if there is not a just ruling, we will have peaceful protests. I believe in peaceful protests. I have gone to jail participating in peaceful protests. I have gone to jail with John Lewis participating in peaceful protests. Twice, he and I were jailed together. So I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all, understanding that we have an opportunity now to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow an arresting officer to be judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner. But I also understand, given the history of this country, unfortunately, that things don't always work out as I believe they should. So my hope is that there will be peaceful protests, but I do hope that the protests will take place if there is not a just verdict. There is nothing wrong with peaceful protests in this country. There is nothing wrong with confronting injustice in this country. There is nothing wrong with standing up for the rights of those who are being denied liberty and justice for all in this country. I want to see peaceful protests if the wrong verdict is rendered. And, in my opinion, the verdict that we should have is arresting officers can't be judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner. There are those who would say that I don't have the right to come to these conclusions at this time, and they are wrong. In the court of public opinion, world opinion, many have already come to this same conclusion. I am merely echoing what they have said. As such, I am a messenger, and the message is: Let's pray for a just decision in the court of world opinion.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, whatever employers are doing in the main is not enough. Workplace violence is the third leading cause of job death. Whatever they are doing is not enough. Twenty percent of registered nurses in one survey reported an increase in workplace violence. Whatever they are doing is not enough. It is not unreasonable to ask people to have a plan to protect employees. It is not unreasonable to ask them to enforce that plan. And it is not unreasonable to provide cover for those who report these workplace violence incidents in the form of protection from retaliation from reporting. It is just not enough.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise to call to the attention of our Nation a symbol of national shame. And I rise to give commentary as I read a letter that I intend to send to certain colleagues. This is not a letter that I enjoyed producing, that I enjoyed writing, but it is necessary, in my opinion, to call to the attention of my colleagues a symbol of national shame, the Russell Senate Office Building. This building is right here on the campus in Washington, D.C. It is a building with the name of a person who should not be honored in such a way. It reads--and for our purposes today, I will simply say, ``Dear Colleague.'' It is with love of country above politics that I send this request to remove the name of the racist Democrat--commentary: I will be saying some things about Democrats today because this involves Democrats-- remove the name of the racist Democrat, Richard Russell, from the Senate office building named in his honor and revert to using the building's original name, the Old Senate Office Building until the Senate selects another nominee who will be honored. The letter goes on to say: In 1972, the Old Senate Office was renamed the Russell Senate Office Building, hence for 49 years, the Old Senate Office Building has been a symbol of national shame bearing the name of an unapologetic white supremacist. Richard Brevard Russell, Jr., was a segregationist who worked throughout his career to disenfranchise and dehumanize people of color in our country, especially Black Americans. He participated in his first filibuster of a civil rights bill in 1935. And in 1937, he was a part of the filibuster against antilynching legislation. In his 1936 reelection campaign, Russell committed himself to preserving and ensuring white supremacy in the social and economic, as well as the political life of our Nation. He also blocked the passage of a 1942 bill to eliminate poll taxes, and stated: If progressives want to force social equality and commingling of races in the South, I can tell you now that you are doomed to failure. In 1956, Russell coauthored the ``Southern Manifesto'' with Senator Strom Thurmond in opposition to integration of public schools after the Supreme Court unanimously ordered it in Brown v. The Board of Education. In 1964, during a civil rights movement, he proposed a voluntary relocation program, a racial relocation program to adjust the imbalance of the African-American population between the 11 States of the old Confederacy and the rest of the Union. My dear friends, this causes me to reflect upon the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears, quite similar but not nearly the same as what happened. The Trail of Tears was from 1938 to 1939, when the Cherokee Nation was forced to give up its land east of the Mississippi and to move to an area that we now know as Oklahoma. Thousands died. Thousands. Many others suffered; they cried. It was a trail of tears. I suppose this was then-Senator Russell's contemporary version of what could have been a Trail of Tears for African Americans. What a shame and sinful thing to propose that people simply be relocated because you have the power to do it, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was a thing that would be done with some degree of honor and dignity. It was done because he had the power and he had a racist mentality, Democrat Senator Richard Russell. That same year, Russell and 17 fellow Democrats--all senators--along with one Republican--let me pause for just a moment. Some things will bear repeating. I will repeat that. But I know that there seems to be this unwritten rule that you don't say negative things about Democrats if you are a Democrat. But there is a higher calling, and we all have to speak the truth about injustice and that trumps any of these rules related to politics. You have to put country above politics, and the people within the country should be always placed in a position such that justice will prevail. So I will read again: That same year, Russell and 17 fellow Democratic senators, along with one Republican, led the 60-day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't care what party they were in; it was wrong. When this filibuster failed and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, Russell, a Democrat, led a southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention as an act of rebellion. He was wrong then and it is wrong now. Regrettably, dear friends, our Nation's history is stained with the bigotry of men like Russell. And although racism still dwells in our country, we do not have to honor it, and that is what we are doing with the Russell Senate Office Building. We are honoring bigotry and racism. We are honoring, in a sense, the anti-Semitism and the hate and the bigotry that he espoused and was proud to do so. He never repented. He never atoned. And taxpayer dollars are being used to maintain this facility, the Russell Senate Office Building. Friends, by reverting the name of the Russell Senate Office Building back to the Old Senate Office Building, we are given the opportunity to atone for honoring this bigotry for 49 years, as well as we are given the opportunity to honor someone worthy of having a Senate office building named in their honor. This would be the appropriate thing to do. And by the way, I, in no way, advise that a certain name should be utilized. I simply say remove the name of Russell, and after removing the name of Russell, let it revert to the name that it had, the Old Senate Office Building. And in so doing, the Senate has time to select a new nominee, another person to be honored. No building maintained with taxpayer dollars should bear the name of Richard Brevard Russell, Jr. To this end--and it actually reads ``therefore''--I will introduce a resolution calling on the Senate to remove the shameful name of Richard Brevard Russell, Jr., from the taxpayer- maintained Senate office building bearing his name. And I am going to request serious consideration of this resolution in the 117th Congress. But that is not all that I plan to do. I shall not go into great detail about the rest of what I intend to do, but I will say this: When I go over next to the building, I will go over there to stand in the area where there is a statue of Richard Russell, Senator Richard Russell, a statue. There is a rotunda. He is the prominent figure; there are no other statues in that rotunda. If you traverse the Capitol, you will find many statues but none, in my opinion, honored to the extent that Richard Russell is being honored. He has an area unto himself. I am going to go there, and I am going to point out that this is the statue that we have to move. I am going to talk about it from the statue itself, and I am going to point out some things about the statue, because we can't tolerate this kind of legacy being perpetuated. It is time to end it. It is time to stop glorifying bigotry and hate with taxpayer dollars. How can we insist on renaming military bases that bear the names of racist Confederate generals and others, or military people, and then have an office building that we traverse on a daily basis that we are in and out of that is named after a racist and a bigot? How do we justify this? We have the power--not the House--but the Senate has the power to change this. I will ask that the Senate change it, but I will also go over to the Senate. And I want to let the world see what's going on in that hallowed facility wherein we allow to occur what we desire to change--and what we are changing, in fact, in other facilities. It is time to change it. Madam Speaker, I believe that this change should take place immediately. It has been 49 years. We have had enough time to consider it. Madam Speaker, 49 years under various Presidents; 49 years Democrats in control, Republicans in control. Some would say that we are just realizing how insidious this invidious behavior has been. Well, now that we know, we ought to move posthaste to change that which we could have changed many years ago. I love my country. I have great respect for people who hold public trust. But I do believe that when we hold public trust, it is important for us to point out these kinds of circumstances that demean the reputation of the United States of America. This symbol of national shame puts a stain on the notion that we believe in liberty and justice for all. It puts a stain on the notion that all persons are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It puts a stain on the notion that we would speak to the world about their shortcomings but won't address one that the government has the power to change. It is shameful. This has to change. Now, there are some who would want the change to take place, but they don't want it to appear as though someone has called this change to the attention of people and that they somehow will feel that it was done because it was called to the attention of the public. Friends, when others speak out about injustices against other subsets of society, I have always been there to fight for that change, and I will continue to be there to fight for that change. It doesn't have to originate with me. If it is something that requires a righteous movement to make a positive change, I am going to be a part of that. I am going to continue to support and fight for the rights of persons in all the various subsets of society who have been discriminated against. Just today, I was on the floor to fight for the rights of people who work in certain venues, who are being hurt, harmed, and some even die. That is my calling. That is why I was sent to Congress. I wasn't sent here to go along by trying to get along, not calling to the attention of my constituents and this country the changes that have to be made. This is where I stand. This is where I will not retreat from. This is a position that means something to me and my constituents, and it ought to mean something to every person in this country. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time. I thank the leadership for the time. And I thank the people who have taken the time to hear these words. But there is much more to be said and much more to be done about a symbol of national shame. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bill is really about mothers and daughters who earn about 82 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man earns. It is about mothers and daughters who lose about $1 trillion a year because of the wage gap. For those men who don't have a really good reason to vote for it, it is about the fact that a woman gave birth to every man alive. So for all of the suffering, we ought to vote for this bill, because we are here as a result of some woman suffering for us. At this time, I include in the Record a letter from the National Committee on Pay Equity. National Committee on Pay Equity, April 14, 2021. Re Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) and vote no on harmful amendments. Dear Representative: As the House votes on the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7), the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) strongly urges you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, without amendments that limit its scope or undermine its critical protections. The National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), founded in 1979, is a coalition of women's and civil rights organizations; labor unions; religious, professional, and educational associations, commissions on women, state and local pay equity coalitions and individuals working to eliminate sex- and race-based wage discrimination and to achieve pay equity. These pay gaps can be addressed only if workers have the legal tools necessary to challenge discrimination and employers are provided with effective incentives and technical assistance to comply with the law. The Paycheck Fairness Act is one of these urgently required tools. Despite federal and state equal pay laws, gender pay gaps persist, and earnings lost to these gaps are exacerbating the financial effects of COVID-19, falling particularly heavily on women of color and the families who depend on their income. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been passed three previous times by the House of Representatives, mostly recently in the 116th Congress, offers a much-needed update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new tools to battle pervasive pay gaps and to challenge discrimination. Women are increasingly the primary or co-breadwinner in their families and cannot afford to be shortchanged any longer. Women working full-time, year-round are typically paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, adding up to a loss of more than $400,000 over a lifetime. This wage gap varies by race and is larger for many women of color: Black women working full time, year round typically make only 63 cents, Native American women only 60 cents, and Latinas only 55 cents, for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts. Latinas lose more than $1 million over a 40-year career due to the wage gap. While Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women make 85 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, many AAPI communities experience drastically wider pay gaps. And even when controlling for factors, such as education and experience, pay gaps persist and start early in women's careers and contribute to a wealth gap that follows them throughout their work lives and into retirement. Persistent pay discrimination, often cloaked by employer-imposed pay secrecy policies, is one factor driving these wage gaps. The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it provides robust protection against sex-based pay discrimination. Among other provisions, this comprehensive bill: ends secrecy around pay by barring retaliation against workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages, and requiring employers to report pay data to the EEOC prohibits employers from relying on salary history in determining future pay, so that pay discrimination does not follow women from job to job closes loopholes that have allowed employers to pay women less than men for the same work without any important business justification related to the job ensures women can receive the same robust remedies for sex- based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subjected to discrimination based on race and ethnicity provides much needed training and technical assistance, as well as data collection and research The COVID-19 pandemic and systemic racism have exposed how the work performed primarily by women, and particularly Black and brown women, has long been and continues to be undervalued and underpaid, even as the rest of the country is newly recognizing the essential nature of this work. We cannot build back an economy that works for everyone without ensuring that all women can work with equality, safety, and dignity, starting with pay equity. Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would mark a vitally important step toward ensuring this becomes reality. We urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without harmful amendments that weaken its critical protections. Sincerely, Carolyn York, Secretary-Treasurer, National Committee on Pay Equity.