Al Green

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor the memory of a noble public servant and trailblazer: Harris County Commissioner El Franco Lee. Elected in 1985, after serving in the Texas House of Representatives for five years, Commissioner Lee became the first African American to sit on the Harris County Commissioners Court. He selflessly served Harris County's Precinct 1 for more than a quarter-century with exceptional distinction. Commissioner Lee was not just a holder of public trust but a pioneer and community leader. He used his compassion and experience to boldly advocate for his constituents and the betterment of his community. Commissioner Lee will be specifically remembered for his impassioned advocacy for better healthcare access and educational opportunities throughout the inner city, as well as his support for the Harris County Precinct One Street Olympics Program. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate enough to say that I knew and worked alongside Commissioner Lee. I believe that when history records the legacy of Commissioner Lee, he will be forever remembered for his caring and candid demeanor as he worked to serve his constituents, his county, as well as his country.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize and honor the ``World War II 70th Anniversary and Celebration of Diversity and World Peace Event.'' The ceremony, which took place on November 7, 2015, was a City of Houston Citizenship Month event that was organized by the Southern News Group and International Trade Center. It is estimated that approximately 25,000 people viewed the grand opening ceremony at Minute Maid Park. The event sought to honor our veterans, mark the anniversary of World War II, and celebrate the diversity of Houston. Specifically, it aimed to convey the message that: ``America means freedom like no other country on Earth.'' The ceremony also included the awarding of medals to World War II veterans in attendance, in honor of their courageous service, and the recognition of U.S. and Chinese pilots who fought in China during World War II for the Allies. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the ``WWII 70th Anniversary and Celebration of Diversity and World Peace Event'' wonderfully celebrated the vibrancy and diversity of the Houston community. Moreover, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to all at the International Trade Center and the Southern News Group, under the leadership of its Chairman Wea Lee, for their hard work in producing this important event. I look forward to future enriching events and efforts.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the memory of a civil rights activist and spiritual exemplar of the Houston community: Mrs. Audrey Ann Hoffman Lawson. With remarkable commitment, Mrs. Lawson dedicated her life to helping others, especially the young and the neediest. Mrs. Lawson was born in St. Louis, Missouri on March 20, 1932. Mrs. Lawson met her husband, Reverend Bill Lawson, in St. Louis after they exchanged over 600 letters, wherein she affectionately became known as ``Little Red.'' Married 61 years, Reverend and Mrs. Lawson reared one son and three daughters. They also founded the historic Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church as well as initiated and supported numerous programs to help the young and disadvantaged. Mrs. Lawson served her community well as she promoted the power of faith and prayer. She will most assuredly be remembered for her leadership at the historic Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, helping to establish two charter schools, her support for the Ensemble Theater, and her immeasurable love for children. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lawson will be missed dearly by a host of family and friends. The family includes her husband, four children (Melanie, Cheryl, Eric, and Roxanne) as well as her grandchildren. Mrs. Lawson will be celebrated and memorialized in the Houston community as a faithful Christian lady, wife, mother, and community leader.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter of my Special Order.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I move forward with this Special Order hour, because the AJC has been very close in Houston, Texas, to a leading citizen, the Honorable William Alexander Lawson, I think it appropriate to let it be known that the AJC stands in sympathy with a good many persons with reference to Pastor Lawson's loss of his wife, the Honorable Audrey Lawson. She will be funeralized on Friday at 11 a.m.--that would be central standard time--in Houston, Texas, at the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church. Pastor Lawson has worked very closely with the AJC and many other Jewish organizations. I would dare say that he has been a nexus between various communities and the Jewish community. I am saddened by his loss and want him to know that the AJC as well as my good offices send him our condolences. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are here to present H. Res. 518. H. Res. 518 honors and praises the American Jewish Committee on the occasion of its 109th anniversary. I am proud to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on the campus today here at the Capitol we have visitors from the AJC. We have Richard Foltin, who is the Director of National and Legislative Affairs in AJC's Office of Government and International Affairs, in Washington, D.C. He happens to be accompanied by an intelligent, beautiful lady, who works with the AJC. Her name is Daniela Erazo. They are here, and I am proud to let them know that we are most excited about their being here on the occasion of the introduction of this resolution. This resolution has been cosigned by a good number of Members of Congress. I would like to, because this is very special to us, give their names so that the Record will be clear as to who the cosponsors are. The original cosponsors are: the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida's 27th District; the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri's Fifth District; the Honorable Steve Cohen, Tennessee's Ninth District; the Honorable Alcee Hastings, Florida's 20th District; the Honorable Sander Levin, Minnesota's Ninth District; the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, New York's 10th District; the Honorable Charles Rangel, New York's 13th District; the Honorable David Scott, Georgia's 13th District; the Honorable Frederica Wilson, Florida's 24th District; the Honorable Tom MacArthur, New Jersey's Third District; and, of course, the Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida's 23rd District, whom I mentioned earlier. This resolution is one that acknowledges the mission of the AJC, which is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advocate and advance Jewish rights and Jewish values in the United States and around the world. The AJC is committed to combating racial prejudice, anti-Semitism, and sponsoring and supporting issues related to the State of Israel. The AJC has a rich history. It was founded on November 11, 1906, in New York City, by a group of American Jews who wanted to raise awareness about some of the atrocities that were taking place against Jewish people in Russia as well as in other places. This leadership went on to add as its list of duties, I suppose, doing all that they could to help in the fight against racism here in this country. I am proud to tell you that the local chapter of the AJC in Houston, Texas, currently has as its director, Randy Czarlinsky. He is a dear friend. The president is Marcia Nichols. She is a friend as well. But I am also going to mention a friend who was there in 1989. His name is David Mincberg. David Mincberg and I worked together. I was the president of the Houston branch of the NAACP. At that time, we had an unfortunate circumstance occur in Houston, Texas. We had a city council person make a racial slur. The AJC and the NAACP worked very closely together. David Mincberg was one of the leading citizens to stand up and denounce this racial slur that took place and call for the resignation of the city council person. It had been prognosticated by one of our local persons who was in the community associated with political science. He went on to explain that this person probably could have won. I have not mentioned his name. I see no need to. He probably could have won his office because there still was some support for him-- substantial support, I might add. But because David Mincberg and the AJC stood with the African American community, by and through the NAACP and other organizations, this city council person decided to apologize and to resign from office. This is but one example of how the AJC has made a difference in the lives of people who are not directly associated with the AJC. I think all people of goodwill are by virtue of the fact that the AJC is on a mission to do those things that will enhance the quality of life for people around the world, especially as they suffer from discrimination and other forms of atrocities that would cause them to have a quality of life that is unacceptable. To this end, I would like to just mention some of the varied circumstances that the AJC has been involved with. When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, the AJC organized a delegation to travel to the Gulf to bring relief and aid to the victims. This was quite an effort that the AJC put together. It contributed about $1.9 million in relief funds to help these victims to make sure that they had housing and to make sure that places of worship were rebuilt. I would also add that the AJC, in 2010, received a wonderful honor. Dillard University decided that they would dedicate their new Distance Learning Center in honor of the AJC, as the AJC donated about $200,000 to this university. In 2005, the AJC's efforts with reference to the tsunami relief fund should be acknowledged. This tsunami relief fund consisted of about $900,000 that went to help persons who were the victims of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. This was a major disaster. I am proud to know that the AJC played a role in helping persons to receive not only what we call relief, but actually an understanding that they were not alone, that there were people in distant places who were willing to stand with them to make sure that they received the help that human beings beset by tragedy richly deserve. In 2004, with the Dominican Republic and Haiti when there were floods, the AJC made a contribution. In 2001, there was an earthquake in El Salvador, and the AJC made a donation. In 2000, with the Lebanese refugees in northern Israel, the AJC made a donation to assist them. And in 1999, with the Muslim refugees in Kosovo, the AJC made a financial contribution. The AJC has been there in most of the major disasters around the world to be a hand to those in times of need, as evidenced by the record that I am building. I would also note that the AJC was there in 1954. In 1954, the NAACP was litigating Brown v. Board of Education. The AJC filed an amicus brief in this case supporting the efforts of the NAACP and the other organizations--there were many--but the AJC was one of the leading organizations helping us to fight the discrimination that was taking place in our schools, such that the schools would be open to all, that there would no longer be segregation in schools in the United States of America. As a result of what the AJC and the NAACP were able to accomplish, the rest, of course, is history. Brown v. Board of Education was won by the NAACP, with the aid of other organizations, including the AJC. We now have integrated schools. I would dare say that, without the help of the AJC and donations and helping us with some of the test materials with reference to how people are impacted by segregation--the psychological evaluations and the materials related thereto--without these things, we may not have won that lawsuit. The AJC has been instrumental in helping us with this type of invidious discrimination. In 1965, the AJC presented Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with the American Liberties Medallion for his exceptional advancement of the principles of human liberty. Dr. King, as you know, was a freedom fighter for all. While he was doing this, he had the aid and comfort of the AJC. The AJC was there to help him with marches and with the protest movement, but also there to help him as he went through some of the difficult times. I can remember the Edmund Pettus Bridge, for example. There were members of the AJC who were on-site to march with Dr. King after what we call Bloody Sunday had taken place. The AJC and its members also established the Transatlantic Institute to promote Transatlantic cooperation for global security, Middle East peace, and human rights. This was done in 2004. The AJC is a champion not only of human rights for Israel, but also for Palestinians. The AJC supports a two-state solution. The AJC encourages peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. The AJC believes that a peaceful solution with the parties negotiating it is the best way to have a long and lasting peace in the Middle East. I must tell you that I have been involved with the Houston AJC as they go through some of these difficult issues and talk through them and work through them, and I am honored to support the AJC in its efforts to bring peace to not only Israel and Palestine, but also to the entire Middle East. The AJC is very much concerned about the diaspora on the whole, but more specifically about their friends and neighbors in the Middle East and bringing peace. The AJC, in 2007, joined me and other colleagues, especially Representative Laura Richardson, in a resolution that we had, H. Res. 826, a resolution condemning noose intimidation. In 2006, we had, at that time, some persons who felt it necessary to hang nooses in various places to intimidate and to incite others to do dastardly deeds. The AJC joined with us to denounce this type of behavior. As a result, while I don't say that there are no nooses being placed in places for the purpose of intimidation, I can say that they are not as prevalent as they were back in 2006-2007. I am honored at the AJC was there to help us with this endeavor. In 2008, the AJC visited South Sudan to study how Israel could assist in the preparation for South Sudanese independence. I had the honor of going to Sudan myself. I was not with the AJC at the time, but I did have an opportunity to see some of the needs of the people. They were great, they were many, they were varied, and the AJC was there to assist with the independence movement. The AJC does things that go far beyond what, perhaps, many think it should be doing or has been doing. In 2015, the AJC joined the chorus of civil rights groups in condemning bans on Muslims from entering the United States. This is one of their most recent activities. The AJC believes that religion should be respected and that, because a person happens to be of a given religion, it is no reason to conclude that a person can be banned or should be banned from the United States of America. The AJC respects all religions. The AJC is an entity that established a full-time office in Israel. It did this for the first time such that it would have a means by which it could advocate for peace between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors; so they wanted to make sure that they had an office on the ground in Israel. While it appears to be a Jewish organization--and it is--it still wanted to make sure that its presence was immediately known in the State of Israel. The AJC has long supported comprehensive immigration reform, and they want this type of reform done once the security of the Nation's borders has been put in place. Once the borders are secure, the AJC wants that comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, it would be great if it could all happen at the same time, and we push for this. The AJC is an organization of goodwill, is an organization that has withstood the test of time, and is an organization that is diverse in every aspect of its existence as its membership is very diverse, and it preaches diversity. In Houston, Texas, the AJC has, on many occasions, talked about the rich diversity of Houston, Texas. In fact, on an annual basis, an event is sponsored in Houston, Texas, wherein diversity is celebrated. We talk about this at what is called America's Table. We talk about all of the various ethnicities that are at America's Table, and we talk about how we all came to America's Table. We talk about the greatness of America. We talk about how there is but one race--the human race. We celebrate our rich diversity such that we can appreciate each other. The AJC has made it possible for people who may not have had an opportunity to meet and to greet each other in an informal setting to sit at the table of brotherhood and to get to know each other in such a way as to not only develop a relationship but as to develop a friendship. The AJC is a supporter of relationship building, but, more importantly, of establishing relationships that can lead to friendships. So I am honored today, Mr. Speaker, to present H. Res. 518, a resolution to help us acknowledge the great work of the AJC, not only this year, but in each year to come, such that this House of Representatives will annually record and recognize the accomplishments of the AJC and its members. I mentioned Sander Levin, who is from Michigan. I may have said ``Minnesota'' earlier. I want to correct the Record. He is a dear friend and a great supporter of this resolution, and he is also a person who has been in the fight for human rights. That means human rights as they relate to all people, not just to some people. I am honored to close with a very brief word about the AJC and what I see in the future. I believe that the AJC, given its history, is going to help us write a future that will bring peace to Israel and its neighbors. I believe that the AJC has demonstrated that it not only wants to be of benefit to Israel, but also to its neighbors. I believe that, with its involvement here and in Israel, the AJC is going to make a difference. I think that the AJC, because of its history, will help us through this immigration reform debate. The AJC does a lot of research, and it has a lot of intelligence on how this type of circumstance, with people living in the shadows, can impact the lives of people beyond their physical existence and also beyond their mental existence. I am proud that the AJC is providing this type of intelligence. I believe that the AJC, in the future, will help us with issues related to police community relations. The AJC is always available to help us when we have these turbulent times, when there are circumstances that must be addressed by communities that are grieving. The AJC helps us to bring the communities together so that we can, at some point, come to a conclusion that is beneficial to the community as a whole and to the persons who have been injured or harmed. In the future, I believe, as the AJC moves forward with its various programs, it will help us with the hopes and with the aspirations of people who are suffering in places around the world from various natural disasters. I think they will do even more to help persons who are suffering from natural disasters. They have done an awful lot in every circumstance that is mentionable to date, but I do think that they will do even more. They have a wide reach, and they make sure that they are present, in some way, in order to be of assistance. The AJC has been there. My prediction is that it will be there and that it will make a difference when it is present. I am honored to have received this time, and I do trust that Members who have statements will place them in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and I stand in the well of the House as a proud American. I love my country, Mr. Speaker. Because I love my country, I have tried not to forget those who go to distant places, those who go into harm's way. They do it because they love the country. Many of them do not come back the same way they left, Mr. Speaker. They are the men and women who serve in our military. I never want to forget the sacrifices that they make. Today I want to salute and honor them for the many causes that they have taken up and for the many times that they have left their homes and their loved ones to stand up for liberty and justice for all, to make real the great American ideals, and to provide us the safety and security that we have today. But I also stand here today in the well of the House, Mr. Speaker, to announce my solidarity for justice, my solidarity with the Muslim community for justice, because I understand what it is like to be a part of a community that is treated unjustly. I lived through segregation in the United States of America. I know what it is like to go to the back door. I know what it is like to drink from filthy ``colored'' water fountains. I know what injustice looks like. I have seen its face. I know what it smells like. I have been in waiting rooms where only Blacks could sit. They were for Blacks only because there were other places for others. I don't want to see anything like that, similar to that--anything that is remotely similar--occur to someone else. I am standing here today in solidarity with the Muslim community because of the injustice that is being perpetrated against Islam. I am a Christian. My grandfather was a Christian minister. But I stand here to support Islam today, one of the great religions of the world. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because to demean Islam by adding the word terrorist with it is an injustice to the religion. Islam is a peaceful religion. No religion condones the taking of innocent lives intentionally. Let me repeat this. No religion condones taking the lives of innocent persons intentionally. This is why I am here, because I want to make it clear that Islam does not condone this. We should not be talking about Islamic terrorists. Why not call them what they are: people who commit dastardly deeds. If you do it in the name of a religion, that doesn't make what you do a part of the religion. People ought not be found guilty by their affiliation with a religion. What these people are doing--ISIL, al Qaeda, Daesh, ISIS, any name-- is evil, and we ought to call it such. It is not Islam. We ought not, as a result, decide that we are going to bar all members of the Islamic faith from this country. That would be wrong, Mr. Speaker. To even consider it is something that I find repugnant: barring all people because of their faith. The Islamic faith is not--is not--the motivating factor behind all of this injustice that we see perpetrated by ISIL. They can claim what they want, but the members of the faith have spoken up. In Houston, Texas, we met just recently and discussed this at length. Every Muslim in that room denounced what was being perpetrated and perpetuated by ISIL, by ISIS, by any name--evil. We ought not do this to a great religion. I stand for justice, and I stand for justice for the Islamic faith. I believe that persons who are in harm's way in Syria and in other countries ought to be given an opportunity to escape harm. I believe that the Good Samaritan was right. The Good Samaritan didn't ask: What will happen to me if I help this person who is in harm's way? The Good Samaritan posed the question: What will happen to him if I don't help him? That is the question we have to ask ourselves as it relates to our brothers and sisters. They are our brothers and sisters because there is but one race. That is the human race. One God created all of humanity to live in harmony, to quote Dr. King. But the question we have to ask is: What will happen to them if we don't extend the hand of friendship? The Good Samaritan went so far as to take the person to a place where there was shelter, where the person could receive some attention, and said to the innkeeper, if you will: Extend me a line of credit. If this person needs more than what I can give you today, I will come back and I will take care of my line of credit. We owe it to ourselves, as a great leader of the world, the world leader, to make sure that we extend justice to Islam. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of the persons who were in attendance at the meeting. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 13, 2015. Topic: Meeting with Community Leaders to Discuss Various Issues of Importance that Impact America, our Community, and Future Generations. Hosted by: Congressman Al Green. List of Participants 1. Tahir Javid, President, Pakistan Association of Golden Triangle 2. M.J. Khan, President, Islamic Society of Greater Houston 3. Mehmet Okumus, President, Turkish Community 4. Muhammad Sheikh, President, Houston-Karachi Sister City Association 5. Mian Nazir, President, Pakistan Association of Greater Houston 6. Mustafa Carrol, Executive Directory, CAIR USA 7. Shahnela Nasim, President, South Asian Chamber of Commerce 8. Shah Haleem, Chairman, Bangladesh Association of Greater Houston 9. Khalid Khan, Vice-Chair, Bangladesh Association of Greater Houston 10. Murad Ajani, President, His Highness The Agha Khan Council 11. Jamal Entlique, Vice President, Houston-Abhu Dabhi Sister City Association 12. Matloob Khan, President, Shah Latif Cultural Institute 13. Syed Akhtar, President, Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following vote: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2130. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank President Obama; I thank Mr. Cordray, who is the head of the CFPB; and I thank the ranking member for taking the position of protecting consumers. Mr. Chairman, we live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right. They must also look right. And here is what doesn't look right and, in fact, is not right. It doesn't look right and is not right for a person to go into an auto dealership, agree on a price, and then be sent to a finance department where this indirect lending takes place. It doesn't look right for that person to then be quoted an interest rate and agree to that interest rate, not knowing that the interest rate that the person has agreed to is higher than the one the person qualified for. This is what we are dealing with, consumers not knowing that they are paying more for their interest rates than they have qualified for. We dealt with this with the yield spread premium, same thing, slightly different, in that it dealt with home mortgages, but we outlawed that in Dodd-Frank. The CFPB is now trying its very best to make sure all people are treated fairly and equally when they apply for auto loans. It doesn't look right for this to happen, and studies consistently show that minorities, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, are charged more for these loans than others are charged. The empirical evidence is there for those who wish to see it. It is not enough for things to be right; they must also look right. This bill just doesn't look right, and it doesn't smell right, and it is not right, and we ought not continue this kind of behavior in this country. In a righteous world, we would be debating the type of fraud that is being perpetrated on consumers. Mr. Chairman, I ask that people vote their conscience. But I will tell you that I am not going to support this kind of procedure that makes it entirely possible for invidious discrimination to continue. I came here to fight invidious discrimination. This is a part of that fight. We must not allow this kind of behavior to continue when we have got a CFPB that is willing to stand up for minorities, we have got a President who has appointed this man, and we have got a ranking member who is fighting hard to make sure minorities are treated fairly. To this end, I would say, consumers have no greater friend in the Congress of the United States of America than the Honorable Maxine Waters, who goes to bat every day to make sure that consumers, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sexuality, are treated fairly.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Frank M. Johnson, in making this ruling that allowed Blacks to serve on juries, was taking a giant step forward in that he was bringing Black people into the courthouse and they were now allowed to come right in and go right in and sit up front. Black people haven't always been able to go into the courthouse and sit on the front row. They haven't always been respected when they have been in the courtroom. In my lifetime, I have heard African American lawyers referred to as ``Boy'' in the courtrooms of this country. In my lifetime, I have seen African American lawyers required to wait while White lawyers were being served. In my lifetime, I have seen some things that I am not proud of. But, in my lifetime, I have seen great changes take place, and many of these changes took place because of people like Frank M. Johnson, unsung heroes, people who have not received the kinds of accolades, the kinds of kudos, that they merit for the actions that they took and the bravery that they exhibited. But tonight I want to make sure that at least one person who was an unsung hero gets the notoriety that he deserves. Of course, I am speaking of the Honorable Frank M. Johnson. In 1966, United States v. Alabama, he ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional, the poll tax. At one time, you had to pay a tax to vote. Unfortunately, that time has returned. In my State, the State of Texas, we now have a poll tax. That time has returned. Frank M. Johnson declared it unconstitutional, giving Black people the right to vote without having to pay a fee. Well, in my State, the State of Texas, we find now that, if you want to vote and you don't have a license to carry a gun and you don't have certain other IDs, well, you will have to then acquire an ID to vote. And while the State of Texas will provide at no cost a certain type of ID, these IDs are predicated upon your having proof of birth, a birth certificate. I took the test myself. I went to the polls to vote, and I went to the polls without my voter registration intentionally, I might add, and I voted a provisional ballot. I was given time to go out and acquire the proper identification. I did it knowing that I would bring the proper identification, and I did so. And I voted timely. But I did this because I wanted to see what does one go through to simply get a birth certificate. Well, I applied for my birth certificate. I was born in the State of Louisiana. I applied for it and, to this day, I have not received my birth certificate. This was about a year ago that I applied for it. I still have not received it from the State of Louisiana. I applied for it, paid the fee. Now, why am I saying it is a poll tax? Because in the State of Texas, if you get your birth certificate from the State of Texas, then there is a provision for indigent persons to acquire the certificate and the ID and you can do this without a fee. But if you are from out of state, you have got to pay that fee to that out-of-state agency to get your birth certificate so that you can get it to the State of Texas and you can get your ID. The point is paying for the right to vote is a poll tax. No one should have to pay to vote, no one. Frank M. Johnson outlawed the poll tax in the State of Alabama. I pray that we have some other Frank M. Johnsons on the bench who will eventually outlaw the poll tax in the State of Texas because, to Frank M. Johnson, Black lives mattered. They mattered. They ought to matter to other people who understand that invidious discrimination still exists, that people are finding clever ways to keep people from voting today, just as they did many, many years ago. The struggle for human rights, human dignity, civil rights is not over. There are still challenges before us. There are still people who are in high places who are making it difficult for people to vote. I thank God for the Frank M. Johnsons of the world who are willing to stand for justice and make it possible for people to have the same right to vote as other people have had in this country for many years. I know that there are some who would say: ``Well, you have got the right to vote; you ought to have an ID.'' Well, I don't have a problem with people having an ID. I do have a problem when you have to pay for that ID so that you can vote. Voting is separate, and it is sacred in this country. We ought not require people to have to pay a fee to acquire an ID so that they can vote. So he declared the poll tax unconstitutional in 1966. In 1970, in Smith v. the YMCA of Montgomery, he ordered the desegregation of the Montgomery chapter of the YMCA. The YMCA has not always had its doors open to Blacks, and many of the institutions in this country who did open doors opened only the back door. I know. I have been to the back doors. I know what it is like to go to a bus station and have to go to the back door. I know what it is like to go to a food service establishment and have to go to the back door to get your food. I have been there. I know what it is like to travel across country and to have to pick your places to stop because in certain places it was known that you were not permitted to stop; and in those places where you were permitted to stop, you would have to use back doors a good amount of the time. So I know what discrimination looks like. I have seen the face of discrimination, and I understand how it hurts people. I understand the pain that is inflicted upon people. I am proud that we can now go through front doors because of judges like Frank M. Johnson, who had the courage to order the desegregation of public accommodation facilities in this country. I am so proud that there are unsung heroes who took a stand when others would simply conclude that this is not the right time, the country is not ready. There were many other judges who could have taken the same position that Frank M. Johnson took, but they didn't do so. It takes courage to do the righteous thing. Frank M. Johnson was a righteous person, and he had the courage to do the righteous thing. In the case of the NAACP v. Dothard, which required Alabama to hire one Black State trooper for every White State trooper, which was to be done until parity was achieved, it was the Honorable Frank M. Johnson that ordered this be done. Frank M. Johnson understood the necessity to have the DPS in Alabama demonstrate diversity. He understood that if you have a diverse police department, Department of Public Safety, that you are going to get people there who can help other people be better people. It was by doing this that we got more Blacks into the Department of Public Safety in Alabama and, as a result, across the country later on. He had the courage to do this because he knew that Black lives matter. Now, this is not to say that only a certain color of person is going to make a good peace officer, not true. People of all hues, of all ethnicities, of all races, of all creeds can make good peace officers. But there are some who are not good, and those have to be removed from their positions. You ought not have people who don't respect all people, but especially at this time when we are seeing so many things happen to Black people, that don't understand that Black lives matter. I cannot resist the temptation to avoid speaking about what happened to that young girl in South Carolina. I think the sheriff did the right thing. He has removed that officer from his department. But there is something about that case that I think we need to talk about very briefly, tersely, this: If the camera's eye had not been there, I conclude, I prognosticate, he would not have been fired. He would not have been fired without the camera's eye. The sheriff, himself, said that two adults who were there, who saw what happened--two adults, one a teacher--said they thought the officer's behavior was correct. They didn't have a problem with the officer's behavior. It was the eye of the camera, Mr. Speaker, that made the difference. The camera brings to us what we cannot acquire when we get people with conflicting stories about what happened. We had an opportunity to see for ourselves what happened. This is why we need body cameras. This is why Congressman Cleaver and I have introduced the CAM TIP Act in this Congress, so that people across the length and breadth of this country can be protected who are officers. If they have the body camera on, you have the evidence of what occurred. Citizens are protected. Officers can't have these frivolous charges made real. They will help both officers and citizens. Body cameras make a difference. They are not the panacea; they are not the silver bullet; they won't be the end-all; but they will be a means by which we will have additional evidence of what actually occurred. And many times that evidence is going to be much more potent, much more revealing than what people will say when they have conflicting stories. I believe we ought to do all that we can to help the municipalities, the police departments across the length and breadth of this country acquire these body cameras, because these body cameras will make a difference in the lives of people. In this case in South Carolina, if not but for the eye of the camera, I conclude we would have different results because you had two adults who proclaimed the actions of the officer to be appropriate. It was Frank M. Johnson who declared that there should be parity in the DPS in Alabama. Finally, I want to mention this case. It is the case of a 39-year-old White female, Viola Liuzzo, who came down to Alabama to do what she thought was the righteous thing and help in the civil rights movement. She was murdered by the KKK. And after an informant in the KKK revealed the identities of the culprits, and when they were brought to trial with overwhelming evidence, in the first trial, there was a hung jury. In the second trial, an all-White jury acquitted the officers. In the third trial, before the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, they were all found guilty, but they were not found guilty without the judge requiring the jury to deliberate at length. He may have been one of the first to give what is known as an Allen charge today, requiring the jurors to continue to deliberate notwithstanding their belief that they had exhausted all of their options. He required them to continue to deliberate; and, as a result, these three members of the KKK were found guilty. After having been found guilty, they were each sentenced to 10 years. So I am honored tonight to have brought to the attention of this august body, to the attention of our State of Texas, to the attention of the United States of America the many, many exploits positive of Frank M. Johnson. I pray that this resolution will pass in the Congress of the United States of America for this unsung hero who understood that Black lives matter. Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is up, and I am honored that you were gracious enough not to remove me from the microphone. Thank you for the additional time. God bless you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for allowing us to have this time to discuss H. Con. Res. 84. This recognizes the works of the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, a Federal judge. Not only was he a Federal judge, he was one of the greatest unsung heroes of the civil rights movement, a lawyer par excellence, a great student of jurisprudence, and, I would daresay, he was the hidden hand of justice in the civil rights movement. Before continuing, however, let me just thank some additional persons. It is appropriate that I thank the six original cosponsors of this resolution. Of course, we would mention the Honorable Alcee Hastings of Florida, and we thank him for signing on to this resolution. We also would like to thank the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, the Honorable Gregory Meeks of New York, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., and I especially want to thank the Honorable Terri Sewell of Alabama, because Judge Johnson was from Alabama. She has signed on to this resolution, meaning that she has given her approval. I am grateful to her. She is a great, great Member of this body and has done quite well in representing the people of her district and, indeed, her State and her country. And, finally, the Honorable Frederica Wilson of Florida. All of these Members have signed on to this resolution honoring the Honorable Frank M. Johnson. The Honorable Frank M. Johnson was a unique person in American history, unique in that he was one of those people that made real the great and noble American ideals: liberty and justice for all; government of the people, by the people, for the people. He truly--he truly--made justice more than a word. It meant something to him, and, as a result, people were able to benefit from justice. Justice was more than a word for the Honorable Frank Johnson. He did not have it easy, however. He was appointed to this Federal District Court by the Honorable President Dwight Eisenhower in November of 1955. After being appointed, he immediately had a very difficult case come before him. This is when we learned of the character of Frank M. Johnson. His character was such that he refused to allow himself to be intimidated. Over the course of his life, he had a cross burned on the lawn of his yard. Over the course of his life, and he lived for 80 years, his mother's house was bombed. It was thought that it was his home. It was bombed by the KKK. He was a person who had, as a classmate in law school, Governor George Wallace. He was a person who probably could not have been predicted to be one of the most significant persons in the civil rights movement at the time he was appointed to the bench. There are people who, for whatever reasons, decide that they are going to do the just and honorable thing, and Frank M. Johnson was such a person. While he lived, he had to have 24-hour protection--24-hour protection-- for his very life because there were those who saw him as a threat to the way of life that existed at that time. They wanted to end his life because of his being perceived as a threat to their way of life. What is it about him that caused people to want to burn a cross on his lawn, that caused persons to bomb his mother's house thinking that it was his? What was it about this man that caused people to believe that he was such a huge instrumentality that was moving the South in a direction that they did not want to see it move into? Well, he was one of those persons who actually proved, Mr. Speaker, that Black lives matter. He proved that Black lives were as important as any other lives, that all lives matter, but he proved that Black lives matter by his decisions that he made. I indicated earlier that one of his first decisions, Mr. Speaker, was a difficult one. It was a case that involved the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama. It was a case wherein Rosa Parks, the Alabama female of African ancestry, took a seat on a bus; and after taking that seat, she was required to move because, as others came on the bus who were White, she would have to move, as would any other Black person, and give White persons an opportunity to have seats on the bus. She would either have to move back or, if all of the other seats were filled, she would have to stand. She refused. As a result of that refusal, Mr. Speaker, a civil rights movement was born in Montgomery, Alabama, and a protest movement was led by the Honorable Dr. Martin Luther King. As a result of this protest movement, many people galvanized. They came together, and they decided that they would not ride the buses and that they would transport themselves to and from work. Well, one might think that this boycott was the reason that the bus line was eventually integrated after about a year of protestations. But, Mr. Speaker, the hidden hand of justice was the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, because he, on a three-judge panel, concluded that the Brown decision, which applied to schools, should be applied to public accommodations, should be applied to public transportation. He convinced another judge to do so, and, as a result, they issued an order that desegregated the buses in Montgomery, Alabama. He was the hidden hand of justice. The protest movement was absolutely necessary, but he showed that Black lives mattered when he decided that he was going to stand for justice and that he was going to issue that order integrating the bus lines. Later on, in the case of Gomillion v. Lightfoot, this is a case that invalidated the City of Tuskegee's plan to dilute Black voting strength. At that time, it was not unusual for Black voting strength to be diluted such that Blacks could not get representation. We were not represented in Congress to the extent that we are today. At that time, gerrymandering was almost commonplace to make sure that Blacks did not have the opportunity to represent constituents in city councils, and not only city councils, but in county government, as State Representatives, as State Senators, gerrymandering. Well, it was the Honorable Frank M. Johnson that invalidated that plan that they had and ordered the redrawing of the lines. In the United States v. Alabama, in 1961, literacy tests were required for Blacks, but they weren't required for Whites. Blacks had to take the test, which was impossible to pass, in many cases. How many bubbles are there in a bar of soap, all sorts of ridiculous things, were required of Blacks. But this judge, the hidden hand of justice, the man who believed that Black lives mattered, required Black people be registered to vote to the same extent as the least qualified White person was registered to vote. Allowing Black people to register allowed more Black representation to manifest itself in the years that followed. In the case of Lewis v. Greyhound, 1961, this case involved the Honorable John Lewis, who is now a Member of Congress. It involved protesting at a bus station. It involved being seated at a counter and involved desegregating the bus lines and the bus stations. John Lewis was one of several persons who were arrested, and this violated his civil rights. It was the Honorable Frank M. Johnson that required the desegregation of the bus depots across the length and breadth of the country. By directly doing it in Montgomery, Alabama, it eventually became the law across the land. Again he demonstrated that Black lives mattered to him, and he moved on it. He didn't just believe it. He acted on his beliefs. In the case of Sims v. Frink, in 1962, this had to do with Alabama reapportioning. Alabama had not reapportioned since 1900. The lines had been left as they were because, by leaving them as they were, they could keep certain people from having a right to vote or having their vote really count in the scheme of one man, one vote. It was Frank M. Johnson who required that one man, one vote, principles be utilized, giving Black people a greater voice in voting. In Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, in 1963, this was the first statewide desegregation of schools, and it happened in Alabama. It happened because Frank M. Johnson concluded that Black lives mattered. He ordered the desegregation of these schools, and it was the beginning of something that would spread across this country. He was a part of the avant-garde of the civil rights movement, but he did so with a pen from the bench. As a matter of fact, he did not wear a robe when he was on the bench and he did not have a gavel. He believed that, if you are a just judge and you are going to follow the law, you didn't need the robe and you didn't need the gavel. You just needed to follow the law. And he did so. He did so in the case of Williams v. Wallace. This is a landmark case in that it involved the Honorable Dr. Martin Luther King. As we know now, persons assembled at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They assembled there for the purpose of marching from Selma to Montgomery. When they assembled at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they decided that, in marching from Selma to Montgomery, they would assemble themselves at a church, and they marched from that church to the bridge. If you have not been to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, you should do so because, as you do so, you will see that that bridge has an arch. As you move across the bridge, you can't see from the start of your movement to the bridge what lies on the other side. But on the other side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge were men, members of the constabulary. They were on horses. They had clubs. And these men on horses, with clubs, confronted the marchers, who were peaceful. They were unarmed. They were Black. They were White. They were multi-ethnic in terms of their ethnicity. They were persons of goodwill who only wanted to exercise their freedom of movement to demonstrate, to move from one city to another, protesting the way African Americans were being treated in the South in terms of their voting rights, in terms of their inability to receive the same treatment as others under the law. Well, in doing this, in marching from Selma to Montgomery, when they encountered these officers with clubs, these officers beat them. The Honorable John Lewis was a part of the march. He has said on many occasions that he thought he was going to die. They beat them all the way back to the church where they started--all the way back to the church--blood on their heads, on their bodies, on the ground, on people, as they tried to flee and tried to fend for themselves against these members of the constabulary. The marchers returned later to march again, but this time they had gone to court and they had appeared before the Honorable Frank M. Johnson. He issued an order requiring the constabulary to get out of the way and allow the marchers to move from Selma to Montgomery. Few people are aware that Bloody Sunday was followed by an order from the hidden hand of justice, the Honorable Frank M. Johnson. I would daresay that that order and that movement, that march, were the basis for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It passed shortly thereafter. The President signed it into law. As a result, many people who are in Congress today are here because that march took place and because the Honorable Judge, the hidden hand of justice, Frank M. Johnson, signed an order requiring the constabulary to get out of the way. What is interesting about this order, Mr. Speaker, is that it was issued by his classmate, whom I mentioned earlier, Governor George Wallace. Governor George Wallace and Frank M. Johnson were at constant odds with each other. They were at odds with each other not only as it related to this march, but as it related to the integration of schools. As a matter of fact, there were many people in Alabama who were of goodwill who started to call Frank M. Johnson the real Governor of Alabama because he stood toe to toe with Governor Wallace and, in so doing, made real what the Governor had the opportunity to do, but refused to do. The Honorable Frank M. Johnson, the hidden hand of justice in Alabama and the United States of America. In White v. Cook, 1966, he ruled that Blacks should be allowed to and must serve on juries in Alabama. Black people have not always had the opportunity to serve, even when the law said they had the right to serve. As a result of not having the right to serve by virtue of the way people interpreted the law, they were denied service on juries. It was the Honorable Frank M. Johnson that permitted this to happen by his ruling. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left? I would like to make sure that I properly cover certain materials.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member for her outstanding work and efforts in this area. The gentlewoman has truly been a champion for people--the very little people who some people have styled we are talking about today. Mr. Speaker, the best way, without question, to get the SEC to act would be to allow the DOL to act. If the DOL is allowed to promulgate its rules, I guarantee you the SEC will move with an additional amount of deliberate speed. Currently, the DOL is simply attempting to cause people who act as financial advisers to have fidelity to their clients above their own personal interests. What is so unusual about the concept is the person who is working for you having fidelity that benefits you as opposed to the person who is working for you. Right now, as the laws exist, a person acting as a financial adviser can become a financial predatory adviser. Not all are. I am not accusing the industry of anything. I am just making a point about what can happen. When this happens, the person who is to give you advice-- for a fee, I might add--can sell you a product for a higher fee and that has a higher risk as opposed to a similar product with a lower fee and that carries a lower risk. The higher fee is the temptation that will cause predatory financial advisers to manifest themselves and take actions against the best interests of the clients, who are paying them to represent them and benefit them. We ought not allow this kind of action to be sanctioned by the Congress of the United States of America. What the President is attempting to do by and through the DOL is to simply say: If you are going to represent your client, you are going to put your interest beneath the client's interest. You will subordinate your interest to your client's interest. You will not allow yourself to yield to the temptation to take a higher amount of money for yourself and put your client at a greater amount of risk. That is all this rule is about. Let's allow the rule to come into existence. If we want to debate it thereafter and amend it, we can. But let's not prevent it from ever manifesting itself by causing some to believe that the SEC will do what the DOL will not, because the evidence is not there to support the notion that we are going to get faster results from the SEC. Finally, this: in a righteous world, we would be calling some of this activity fraud.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. There is a better way to do this. It is called regular order through the committee process, bring it to the floor, and make amendments. However, when that doesn't prevail, the rules allow for what we are doing today, which is exceedingly important. I would say this: the Ex-Im Bank does not take deposits; it makes deposits, and it makes deposits that help us with our deficit. The numbers have been called to our attention: in 2013, about $1 billion; in 2014, $675 million. But the Ex-Im Bank has done something more important than all of these things that have been called to our attention for the most part. I think one of the most significant things that it has done is it has caused us to do something that we couldn't do for ourselves, and that is create the bipartisanship necessary to span the chasm of partisanship that has manifested itself in this House for too long.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, words cannot explain the singular honor it is to stand in the well of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today on a mission of mercy. I believe a brief vignette can best explain what a mission of mercy is as I apply it to the circumstances for which I rise. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I served for more than a quarter of a century as a judge of a small claims justice court. I can remember an occasion when a mother testified on behalf of her son. Her appeal to me was along these lines. She said: Judge, I am not asking you for justice. I know he was wrong. But he is my son. I know he was wrong. I am not asking for justice. I am asking you for mercy. You have within your power to do justice or you can grant mercy, and I beg that you grant mercy to my son. That was her hue and cry. So, Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I rise in support of H.R. 563, sponsored by the Honorable Janice Hahn. I rise in support of this legislation, which is the Honoring Our WWII Merchant Mariners Act of 2015. This bill would establish the Merchant Marine Equity Compensation Fund. It would accord each person who served between certain dates-- December 7, 1941, through December 31, 1946--a sum of $25,000. Why should they receive the $25,000? Well, Mr. Speaker, when they served in World War II, they were not accorded the benefits other members of the various Armed Forces were. In fact, it took litigation to bring them under the purview of benefits that the other members of the Armed Forces have received and are now receiving. It was in 1988 that they finally, after litigation, received these benefits, but the benefits were not applied retroactively. As a result of them not being applied retroactively, some of them didn't receive GI Bill benefits. They didn't receive home loans. Many of them, still alive, can be compensated if we grant mercy. I know that there are those who would say that they already received their just compensation as a result of the litigation and as a result of being brought within the purview of the laws that allow them to receive certain benefits, but they didn't get them retroactively. I believe, Mr. Speaker, they served honorably. As a matter of fact, approximately 9,500 of them died in service. They served their country. They bled the same blood as others when they were attacked and assaulted and when they lost limbs and their lives. They are Americans, Mr. Speaker. And I believe we should show some mercy to these Americans. We ought to accord them the opportunity to have these benefits because they were willing to risk their lives so that we could have the quality of life that we have today. So I make this hue and cry and appeal. I base it upon mercy, not justice. The arguments can be made as to whether just compensation has been accorded; but I believe that, if we show mercy, we will do the right thing for people who have done the right thing for their country.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I missed the following votes: H.R. 2835--Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill. H.R. 2786--Cross Border Rail Security Act of 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill. Personal Explanation

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following votes: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this motion. H. Res. 380, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this resolution. H.R. 675, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill. Young (IA) Amendment to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment. Smith (MO) Amendment to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment. Johnson (GA) Amendment to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this amendment. Capps Amendment to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this amendment. Cicilline Amendment #1 to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this amendment. Cicilline/ Jackson Lee Amendment #2 to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this amendment. Nadler Amendment to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this amendment. Pocan/Moore Amendment to H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this amendment. Motion to Recommit H.R. 427. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion. H.R 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this bill. Personal Explanation

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following votes: S. 1482--Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill; H.R. 1656--Secret Service Improvements Act of 2015, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill; and H.R. 2770--Keeping our Travelers Safe and Secure Act, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand in the well of the United States House of Representatives today to call to the attention of the Nation the death of Ms. Sandra Bland, something that has been widely published. Videos have been shown. People can draw their own conclusions. But I stand here today because I want to announce that I join the many requesting that the Justice Department impose a thorough investigation--a thorough investigation. Mr. Speaker, there are some who contend that the Justice Department should not look into this death. I differ. The district attorney, himself, in Waller County--this is where she died--the district attorney, himself, is looking into this and has said the death will be treated as a murder investigation. A person who is stopped for a minor traffic violation should not end up dead. I think we should all agree that the basic premise is that, if you are stopped for a minor traffic violation, even if you are taken into custody, you should not be found dead in your jail cell. It is said that she died from self-inflicted asphyxiation, a very polite way to say that she committed suicide. Under these questionable circumstances, the district attorney investigated. It is said that the FBI is looking into it. It is said that local constabulary will look into it in the State of Texas. Why not have the Justice Department look into it? This is what the Justice Department is for, to look into these questionable circumstances of which too many have occurred as of late and, quite frankly, over a substantial period of time in our country. So this is a questionable case, and I believe this is a case ripe for the Justice Department to investigate. I want to let the family know--and by the way, I don't know them. I didn't know Ms. Bland. I have no association with them. This is not about her ethnicity, and it is not about her gender. But I want the family to know that I am in sympathy with them, and I feel a certain amount of pain. I cannot feel their pain, but I feel a certain amount of pain because I believe that, if I had a daughter and if my daughter were arrested for a minor traffic violation or as a result of an initial stop for a minor traffic violation and my daughter was found dead in a jail cell some time thereafter with an allegation of suicide, I would want that case investigated, and I believe most people of goodwill would want to see an investigation. So, Mr. Speaker, I am addressing those who contend that there should be no Justice Department investigation. I have great sympathy for this family--I want you to know that--and I believe there ought to be such an investigation. If this case isn't ripe for a Justice Department investigation, I am not sure that we can conjure up in our minds a case that is more ripe under these circumstances. Finally this, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to ponder the question: Have we accorded the constabulary the right to do wrong such that wrongdoing can be justified because it has been codified in the law that you have the right to do certain things? I think we have to ponder this question because what happened in this case is highly questionable and highly suspect. I say this as a student of jurisprudence, a member of the bar, and a former judge of a court that held probable cause hearings. I have seen my share. But I know that in this case, the Justice Department should investigate. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to pray for this family and pray for justice to be done.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to office, I had the preeminent privilege of meeting with a President of the United States of America. It was one of the most rewarding and gratifying meetings that I have had. At that meeting, we talked about many things. One of the things that I walked away from the meeting with was a sense and spirit of bipartisanship and how important it was to be able to work with people across lines. I am honored to tell you that that President was George Bush 41. I understand that he has suffered an injury. I want him, his family, and all to know that I will keep them in my prayers as they move forward. He recently celebrated a birthday, and I wish him many, many more birthdays. God bless you, President Bush, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member very much. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to stand on the floor with the gentlewoman. Her reputation for supporting the needs of the homeless across the length and breadth of our country is widely known and greatly appreciated and, quite frankly, celebrated. She has been there for the homeless, she has spoken up in committee, and she has passed legislation to assist. So it does not surprise me that she would be supportive of this legislation. While it does not surprise me, I still must say that I am greatly appreciative for her support because her support makes a difference in legislation moving forward from our committee. I am also honored to thank the chair of the committee, Mr. Hensarling, who, without question, reservation, or hesitation, immediately concluded that this legislation should have an opportunity to be voted upon. He has been a supporter of the legislation in the past, and I thank him for his current support. Mr. Luetkemeyer has been supportive of the legislation, and I thank him for his willingness to allow it to come to the floor as quickly as it has. Sometimes it can take a little longer than we would like in getting legislation to the floor, but the gentleman immediately responded, and this legislation has made its way to the floor. I also would like to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire, who spoke very eloquently about the needs of veterans. It means a lot to me to know that we have the breadth of support in the House of Representatives that we have. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is almost sinful for us in the richest country in the world to pass veterans who are living in the streets of life, holding signs indicating that they are homeless and that they need help. I believe that the richest country in the world can afford to provide for those who return home and are homeless. I think that, when a person signs up to serve in the military, you do not know where that assignment will take you. It could very well mean that you will go to some distant place or it could mean that you will stay right here within the continental United States. But when you sign up, you sign up to go wherever you are told and to do whatever is required, and a good many of those who sign up and go and do what is required don't always return home the same way they left. As a result, we see not only veterans on the streets asking for help, but you see veterans who are sometimes without all of their body parts. It is especially painful when you see a person who has served the country and who may be in a wheelchair now who is asking for assistance on a street corner. I am proud to thank the Obama administration for the work that has been done to eradicate homelessness among our veterans. In Houston, Texas, we had a meeting with the HUD Secretary and others. At that meeting, our mayor announced that we were ending homelessness in Houston, Texas, in the sense that a person who needs help could find help if one is a veteran in Houston, Texas. That means a lot to me to know that my hometown city is now moving forward and is helping those who are living in the streets of life. This piece of legislation, H.R. 251, makes permanent what is already taking place. There is a person who is there to look out for veterans in HUD, but we want to make sure that that person is there permanently. That is what this legislation does. You have heard about the reports that will have to be submitted. It is exceedingly important that we know how many people are homeless in the veterans population, and it is exceedingly important to know what it costs to house and to take care of them. These are the kinds of things that the report will reveal to all who wish to know. It is also important for us to understand that this is not an effort that we can end, because we are making progress. Progress is important, but to continue the progress and to completely eradicate this homelessness, we have to have people who are there, acting as sentinels, as watchmen, for those who have served us well. That is what this person will do who will be stationed in HUD. For further edification about the situation in terms of homelessness among the veterans population, let me share the statistical information with you: In January of 2014, the demographics indicated that, on any given night, as was indicated, about 50,000 veterans--49,933--were homeless. Let's talk about the people themselves and not allow them to become numbers. Here is what the statistical information further reveals: 12 percent of the homeless adult population are veterans. It reveals that 20 percent of the male homeless population are veterans. It reveals that 51 percent of individual homeless veterans had disabilities, 51 percent who need our help, 51 percent who will benefit from having a person whose job it is to monitor and to make sure that they are taken care of. Further, it would reveal that 70 percent have substance abuse problems, which is something that we really don't like to talk about. We know that it exists, and we know that something can be done about it, but you need someone who is there as a sentinel, as a watchman, to make sure that these needs are taken care of. Many of them developed their substance abuse problems while in the military, while serving the country. That is unfortunate, but it is a fact. What we want to do is to make sure that we take care of all of them. I am so honored to say to you that this bill has received great bipartisan support in the past, overwhelmingly so, I might add. I also want to just thank my colleagues by reminding us of Ruth Smeltzer's words: Some measure their lives by days and years, others by heartthrobs, passions, and tears; but the surest measure under the God's Sun is what for others in your lifetime have you done. I want to thank all who are going to do what they can to help eliminate homelessness among the veterans population and those who will support this piece of legislation. Hopefully, we will get it passed in the Senate such that we won't next term find ourselves supporting this same legislation. I thank the ranking member again so much for her many years of service and for her support for this legislation as well as for the many years of support that she has accorded those who have lived in the streets of life. God bless her, and God bless our country.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I am honored to be with the team of Kelly and Payne tonight. You do outstanding work, and you also provide an opportunity for other Members to have an opportunity to call to the attention of our constituents some of the concerns that we have to address in Congress. I will always be grateful for the wonderful work that you do in Congress. I am also very grateful and thankful to the many persons who worked to bring down the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina. It was not easy. There are many who said they never thought they would see it happen, but it did, and it happened because of a willingness to forgive and an understanding that we had an opportunity to do something meaningful for a good many people across the length and breadth of this country who saw the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of segregation, a symbol of racism and bigotry, a symbol of slavery. Not all did, but it was painful for a good many who did see it this way, many who suffered the indignation and humiliation of segregation, who suffered knowing that their bloodline had suffered slavery. So I am here tonight to thank those who worked so hard to get this done. It was not easy, and I want to thank you for what you did. But I also know that there are a good many people now who would like to see us go back to normal. They are ready to get back to the normal things that we have in this great country of ours, the richest country in the world. For them, normal is a very pleasant thing. Normal means new homes. Normal means greater opportunities. But let's talk about normal for some others in this country because normal is not always the same for everyone. Normal for the month of June 2015 unemployment: normal for Whites was 4.6 percent, that is the unemployment rate. That is normal for Whites. Normal for Latinos was 6.6 percent, and normal for Blacks was 9.5 percent. Now, I have already heard the arguments about how President Obama ought to resolve this; this is all his fault. Not so, my friends. If you look back through the vista of time, you will find that unemployment for African Americans is usually about twice the unemployment rate for White Americans. This is not something new to President Obama. This is not something that started in 2008 when he was elected or when he was sworn in in 2009. This is not something that is new to us, those of us who know and see the pain and suffering that results from a lack of employment. We understand that the flag coming down was a great moment for us symbolically. It was symbolism. Now, the substance is what we ultimately have to deal with, and the substance is the normal life that people lead under conditions that are abnormal for many others in this country. Let's look at normal as it relates to lending for businesses. Minority businessowners in 2012--this is the latest information that I have from the Federal Reserve--paid interest rates that were 32 percent higher than what Whites paid--32 percent higher. That is normal. Some people don't want to go back to this normal state of affairs. They see the flag coming down as an indication that we need to move on in other substantive areas. Lending, mortgage lending is an important area. Normal for African Americans meant that in 2013 only 4.8 percent of loans made to buy homes were made to Blacks, when Blacks comprise 13.2 percent of the total population. Normal for Latinos meant that in 2013 only 7.3 percent of the loans made to buy homes were made to Latinos, Hispanics, when they make up 17.15 percent of the total population. That is normal. Normal in 2013 meant the conventional mortgage loan denial rate was, and this is according to CNN, 10.4 percent for Whites, 13.3 percent for Asians, 21.9 percent for Hispanics, and 27.6 percent for African Americans. There are a good many people who don't live normal lives in this normal climate that we want to get back to--we, in a generic sense. I, not the personal pronoun for me, I don't want to get back to this. I want to see us move on with substantive change. I appreciate what was done in bringing down the flag. I celebrate its coming down, but it is time for us to initiate greater action in areas where we can integrate the money. I am an integrationist. I think we ought to integrate every aspect of American society, including the money. Let's talk about normal. Normal means that Black applicants are 2.1 times more likely to be denied loans by mortgage lenders than non- Hispanic Whites. That is normal. For Hispanics, it means that they are 1.7 times more likely to be denied loans. That is normal. For Asians, 1.2 times more likely. So I am saying to us that we have got to create a new normal. It is time for us, those of us who sit on committees of jurisdiction, to use our influence on these committees of jurisdiction to bring about the substantive change that lowering the flag and placing it in its place of honor, proper place where it should be, lowering that Confederate flag. That means that we must do that, but do it in such a way that we acknowledge that there is more work to be done, and we can do it on our committees of jurisdiction. So, given that I serve on the Committee on Financial Services, I will be calling to the attention of the committee the need to investigate the mortgage lending culture in banks. We need to understand why it is that African Americans and Latinos who are equally as qualified as Whites can go into a bank and not get a loan when a White can. We have got to find out why. I know that there are many people who are uncomfortable with the language of Black and White and Brown, but that is the language we have to use to communicate clearly a message of what is taking place. So on my committee, I am going to push for an investigation of banks. We need to know why banks consistently do this. Not all banks, but we need to know why those who do it are doing it. The way you do this is to test, to send people out who are equally qualified of different ethnicities and acquire the empirical evidence. In every instance--maybe with a few exceptions, but in every instance, in a general sense, we find that Blacks and Browns who are equally as qualified as Whites do not receive their loans. I encourage all of my colleagues to use your committees of jurisdiction to create a new state of normalcy for those who have been suffering continuously.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are seminal moments in time. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a seminal moment in time that will live in infamy. The crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge was a seminal moment in time that will live in history. It was a turning point in the civil rights/human rights movement. There are seminal moments in time. The House of Representatives confronts a seminal moment in time. Will we allow the healing to continue or will we try to roll back the clock? There are seminal moments in time. If we take this vote--and I hope that we will not, and there is an indication that we may not--the taking of the vote, in and of itself, can be a seminal moment in time. A vote to legitimize the Confederate flag--the battle flag--would be a seminal moment in time for the United States House of Representatives--a flag that represents slavery, a flag that represents division. We have come together in this country under a flag that represents unity, one that stands for liberty and justice for all, the flag of the United States of America. This is not that flag. We confront seminal moments in time. In South Carolina, the South Carolina Senate and House of Representatives stood tall when confronting a seminal moment in time, and the Confederate battle flag will be removed. I was so proud to hear a relative, a descendant, of Jefferson Davis take to the floor of the House of Representatives in South Carolina and proclaim that the flag must come down. Seminal moments in time. We have our opportunity to do that which is right, to do what Dr. King talked about when he said that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We can bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice or we can turn back the clock, understanding that this is a symbol that causes a lot of pain for a lot of people. This symbol would have prevented my having the opportunity to stand here if it had prevailed. I call upon all people of goodwill to please do the righteous thing, not just the right thing--do the righteous thing. How can you possibly vote for this after you saw the relatives of the nine who were killed stand in court before a judge and before the person who was the assailant--the person who actually killed people-- and say, ``I forgive you''? We have forgiven those who have fought to enslave us. We have forgiven. I forgive you. How could you possibly now decide that you will legitimize this symbol of hatred, of slavery, of a bygone era of a time when people were not even proclaimed to be human beings in the minds of many? So this is a great opportunity for this House of Representatives to answer the clarion call of justice and to do as Dr. King indicated, to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice. But it is also something else. It is an opportunity to see where we are. There will be a moment in time beyond this time when someone will look back upon these moments and he will look to see where we stood. Where did you stand when you had the chance to stand for righteousness? Where were you when you had an opportunity to vote to recognize justice as opposed to the injustice associated with this symbol? C.A. Tindley was right. So I will leave you with these words: Harder yet may be the fight; right may often yield to might. Wickedness awhile may seem to reign; Satan's cause may seem to gain. There is a God that rules above with the hand of power and a heart of love. When we are right, He will help us fight. I stand against this symbol. I stand for the American flag. I stand for justice.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership for allowing this time on the floor to take up H. Res. 329. H. Res. 329 encourages the celebration of the month of June as LGBTQ Pride Month. I bring this to the floor, Mr. Speaker, because I have had some experiences in life that have caused me to understand why it is important that we do this. Someone might ask, Mr. Speaker: Why would you, Al Green--a person who is not gay, a person who is considered straight--bring a resolution to the floor, a resolution to celebrate and recognize some of the most notable events in the movement of the LGBTQ community? Let me explain why. I am a son of the South. More specifically, I am a son of the segregated South. I grew up at a time when my friends and neighbors denied me rights that the Constitution of the United States of America accorded me. I was forced to go through backdoors. I was forced to drink from colored water fountains. I was forced to ride at the back of the bus. I was a son of the segregated South, and as a son of the segregated South, I learned early in life what invidious discrimination was like. I learned what it smelled like because I had to go to filthy toilet facilities. I learned what it looked like because I saw the Klan burn crosses. I learned what it sounded like because I was called names that we no longer use in polite society. I am a son of the segregated South, and I know what discrimination looks like, feels like, smells like; I know what it hurts like. I know of the people who lost their lives in the effort to try to bring about justice and equality for all. Medgar Evers lost his life, and Myrlie Evers still suffers to this day because she lost her husband in a worthy cause, in a cause for justice. I know what it is like, and I know that, notwithstanding my circumstance as a straight guy, I didn't get here by myself. There were people who lived and died so that I could have the blessings that I have. Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney died. Schwerner and Goodman were not Black. John Shillady died in Austin, Texas, fighting for the rights of Black people. John Shillady was not Black. Of the people who formed the NAACP in an effort to stop lynchings, which were almost commonplace, a good many of them were not Black. I have been the beneficiary of the efforts of people who do not look like me, of people who had blessings such that they could have gone on with their lives. There was no reason other than they wanted ``justice for all'' for them to take up my cause. I believe that, when you are blessed, there is a reason for it. You are blessed so that you may be a blessing to others. You have such that you may help those who have less or who have not. Hence, I find myself standing on the floor tonight of the Congress of the United States of America, proud to sponsor a resolution to encourage the celebration of the month of June as LGBTQ Pride Month. This resolution celebrates and recognizes some of the most notable events of the LGBTQ movement. What I would like to do is explain what this resolution actually does, H. Res. 329. H. Res. 329 celebrates the accomplishments of Houston mayor Annise Parker, the first lesbian elected as mayor of Houston, Texas. I am proud that it does because not only was she elected mayor of Houston, Texas, before she was mayor, she served as the city's controller for 6 years; and before serving in this capacity, she served on city council for 6 years. She has earned the right to be recognized, and I am proud to have her recognized in H. Res. 329. It celebrates the hard work that the transgender community has done to spread awareness about tolerance and inclusion and encouraging the community to keep on working toward broader inclusion. We live in a society that has within its Pledge of Allegiance the words ``liberty and justice for all.'' I salute the flag of the United States of America, and I am proud to do so because I am a proud American. Liberty and justice for all, that means that we have to encourage liberty and justice for those who are in the transgender community and encourage them to keep on fighting for liberty and justice. This resolution recognizes the protesters who stood for human rights and dignity at Stonewall Inn on June 28, 1968, as some of the pioneers of the movement. It celebrates the gay rights organizations in major cities in the aftermath of the Stonewall uprising. After Stonewall, there was an uprising in a very positive way that took place. People realized that there was something they could do and should do to make sure that justice and equality were more than words for those who are members of the LGBTQ community. This resolution highlights the importance of the American Psychiatric Association removing homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in December of 1973. There is a recognition in the medical community that we should not have and that we must undo what has been done by labeling people as mentally ill because they were being the persons that God created them to be. We have a saying in my community that God didn't create any junk, and people who are homosexuals are not junk; they are not persons with a mental illness; they are people who deserve the dignity and respect of all human beings and the dignity and respect that we accord other human beings, and I stand here tonight as a friend of the community to make it known that there are people who are willing to stand alone and fight for the rights of others, notwithstanding any consequences that may be put upon them. This resolution recognizes Elaine Noble as the first LGBT candidate elected to a State legislature in 1974 and Barney Frank as the first Representative to come out as an openly gay Member of Congress in 1987. I had the preeminent privilege of knowing the Honorable Barney Frank. I served on the Committee on Financial Services when he was the chairperson of that committee. He was a person committed to human rights for all, to human dignity for all. I am proud to stand here tonight and say that he has become an honorary member of the persons who are sponsoring this resolution. By the way, there are many persons in Congress who are sponsoring this resolution, and I want to thank all of them for signing on to it. The Honorable Barney Frank is no longer in Congress. That is why he is listed as an honorary sponsor or cosponsor of the resolution. This resolution highlights the importance of the Civil Service Commission eliminating the ban on hiring homosexuals in most Federal jobs in 1975. It seems unimaginable and unthinkable that we had to have a civil rights commission to eliminate the ban on hiring persons because of their sexual preference, because of their sexual orientation. It just seems unimaginable, but it had to happen, and it did. The resolution celebrates Harvey Milk making national news when he was sworn in as an openly gay member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1978. I remember when it happened. It was really big news in this country. Quite frankly, it took courage for him to do this, and the kind of courage that he showed, that he exemplified, has merited his being mentioned in this resolution, H. Res. 329. It praises the thousands of activists who participated in the National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights to demand equal civil rights in 1979 and the National March on Washington to demand that President Reagan address the AIDS crisis in 1987. There were some people who, because they thought that the disease impacted a certain segment of society, did not readily respond with the hand of help that was available. I am grateful that President Reagan did take up this cause to help with the fight against AIDS. AIDS can impact anyone in our society, and I am proud that our government has spent money on this disease to help eliminate it, but we haven't spent enough, and we haven't done enough. I think we can do more, and we should do more. The resolution highlights the importance of the 1980 Democratic National Convention, where Democrats took a stance in support of gay rights. I am proud of my party. I happen to be a Democrat, but this is not a partisan effort, and the Democratic Party took that stance at a time when it wasn't popular to take the stance. It has become popular now, to a certain extent and to a certain degree, to support gay rights and the rights of gay people, but in 1980, it was not nearly as popular as it is today, and the party took the step forward and in so doing brought a lot of others along with us. The resolution highlights the importance of the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans in May of 1996, which found a Colorado constitutional amendment preventing the enactment of protection for gays and lesbians unconstitutional. It is important that we challenge laws that prevent people from having equality of opportunity from receiving the same access to all that society has to offer as other people, and I am honored that the Colorado amendment preventing the enactment of protections for gays and lesbians was found unconstitutional. It celebrates Vermont becoming the first State to legally recognize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples in 2000; and, my, have we come a long ways since 2000. We have come a long way because a good many people in this country now understand that the laws ought to apply equally to all, that the 14th Amendment is not for some, it is for all. The judges who interpret these laws, who are indicating that these laws should apply appropriately to the LGBTQ community, these judges are not all gay judges. These are judges who are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and they are doing it because they know that it is the right thing to do. The Supreme Court will be taking up the case of gay marriage--in fact, is taking it up and will make a ruling sometime in the very near future. My hope is that the Supreme Court will honor the 14th Amendment and will allow the Constitution of the United States to apply to the members of the LGBTQ community to the same extent that it applies to people in other communities. The law should be blind to who you are; it ought to give you justice because you happen to be a person that is a subject of the Constitution. It ought not peek to see if you are of a different hue or of a different sexual orientation. It ought to weigh equally all people and mete out justice to all the same. This resolution recognizes the importance of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was signed into law on October 28, 2009, by President Obama, as it expanded the Federal hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or disability. People ought not be assaulted because of who they are. What this does is it recognizes that, if you assault a police officer because you know that person is a police officer, then the crime that you will be charged with is enhanced, the punishment is enhanced. You will be punished more severely because you have assaulted a peace officer. This is a law in the State of Texas. Well, if you assault a person because of who that person happens to be and because you don't happen to like that person because of the person's gender, because of the person's ethnicity, color, there ought to be a special punishment for you because you have gone out of your way to hurt somebody that you don't know in a good many circumstances and you want to do it simply because you don't like the way the person looks or you don't like the person's perceived sexual orientation. The law has been changed, and it punishes you if you decide that you are going to commit this type of crime. This resolution celebrates 2012 as the first year in which all 50 States had at least one LGBTQ elected official. All 50 States have now at least one person who is a part of the LGBTQ community holding public trust. People have come to understand that it is not the color of skin, it is not sexual orientation; it is the character within a person that determines whether or not a person ought to hold public trust, whether or not a person ought to be respected appropriately. It is the character, not the way the person is perceived in terms of color or sexual orientation. This resolution celebrates Senator Tammy Baldwin being sworn in as the first openly gay United States Senator in January of 2013, and she has served her country well and merits this sort of recognition. The resolution highlights the importance of the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, which found that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, found it unconstitutional and determined that the Federal Government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purpose of determining Federal benefits and protections. This is the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the same Supreme Court with conservative and liberal Justices on it. We don't have to agree with everything the Supreme Court does, but I thank God I live in a country where we respect the decisions. We can differ with them. Even the Justices themselves differ about various opinions, but they respect the rulings of the Court. This Supreme Court has made such a ruling as it relates to the Defense of Marriage Act. This resolution celebrates the 37 States and the District of Columbia where it is now legal for same-sex couples to get married. Literally, more than half of the States in the United States of America now permit same-sex couples to get married--more than half of the States. This means that this country is moving toward, without a ruling from the Supreme Court, the notion that same-sex couples should be allowed to not only love each other, but to marry each other, to have the same benefits that heterosexual couples have when they marry. Marriage is a great institution. I celebrate the institution of marriage. But the law, under the 14th Amendment, seems to indicate that we cannot prevent people who are of the same sex and who love each other from having the same opportunities that benefit from the institution of marriage that other people who are heterosexual have the opportunity of benefiting from. So the States that have decided that they would do this should be recognized. By the way, many of these States recognize same-sex marriage because of judges in those States who have made rulings, because of legislatures in those States who have legislated, and because of people in those States who have voted. There are 37 States. The States include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut. They are all States that recognize same-sex marriage. Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, and Idaho are States that recognize same-sex marriage. Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Minnesota all recognize same-sex marriage. Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Ohio all recognize same-sex marriage. Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are all States in the United States of America that recognize same-sex marriage. So, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to present the resolution. And I am honored to do so because I know the importance of having people who were not of African ancestry who supported causes that made it possible for me to be here. I have a debt that I owe. I hope that tonight I have made a down payment on the retirement of that debt. Because somebody suffered so that I could have the opportunity to stand in the Congress of the United States of America and make this floor speech. No one could have--or would have--predicted at my birth that I would have the opportunity to be a Member of the Congress of the United States of America. For me to be here, somebody had to find out what a 90-pound German Shepherd bites like; somebody had to found out what a high-pressure water hose stings like; somebody had to find out what going to jail feels like; somebody had to find out what losing someone that you love dearly to a cause hurts like. I am not here because I am so smart. I am here because there are people who were willing to make great sacrifices so that I could have the opportunities that I have. And because I have them, I have a debt that I owe. And I am here tonight to say that I am proud to stand with the LGBTQ community to help bring about the kind of justice for this community that I have enjoyed. Now let me be perspicuously clear about one thing. I am not saying that we have reached the panacea as it relates to the African American community. There is still great work to be done as evidenced by what happened in Charleston, South Carolina. There is still work to be done and still heavy lifting to do. But I am also very proud of some things that happened there. I happened to be in a position to be at the bond hearing that took place, and as I listened, I could not believe my ears when I heard a mother say, ``You took my son''--took her hero, ``but I forgive you. I forgive you.'' Time and time again, persons said, ``I forgive you.'' I had tears well in my eyes because it takes a special person to say ``I forgive you'' so close to the event that is being forgiven or that the forgiveness addresses. It takes a special person. And I want to compliment the families of the persons who lost their lives in church. My God, in church, lost their lives in church. I want to commend those families for having what Dr. Martin Luther King called the strength to love. The strength to love. He wrote the book, ``Strength to Love.'' It is a collection of his sermons. And he makes it known to us in that book that it is not easy to love your enemy. It is not easy to forgive those who would persecute you. But he also makes it known in the book ``Strength to Love'' that that is what love is all about: loving those who would do ugly things to you, who would be spiteful, who would be evil. I think that the family members in Charleston who have shown the strength to love are a supreme, superb, sterling example to the rest of this country of what we must do if we are to continue to live together such that we will have a future that will be void of the kind of behavior--the ugly, dastardly deed, if you will--that took place in that church. Dr. King reminded us also that we have a duty--an obligation, if you will--to learn to live together as brothers and sisters. We must learn to live together as brothers and sisters. Because if we don't learn to live together as brothers and sisters, we will perish together as fools. I thank the people of South Carolina for exhibiting the ultimate in the strength to love, and I thank God that I have been blessed. I pray that God will continue to give me the strength to be a blessing to others. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I believe that a prayer has been answered. On May 15, I took to this very podium and prayed for the people of Nepal. The prayer was that we would accord them temporary protected status if they were living in the United States. I am proud to say that Homeland Security has now issued a mandate for a 180-day registration period, 18-month temporary protected status. I am grateful to Congressman Crowley and Congresswoman Meng for the letter that they sent to Homeland Security making this request that I was proud to sign on to. I thank the President of the United States for allowing this to happen. And, Mr. Speaker, I thank God that the people of Nepal will have an opportunity to stay in this country and not go back to the devastation that they have suffered in Nepal as a result of the earthquakes that took place there. God bless you, Mr. Speaker, and God bless the United States of America.