Al Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. And still I rise to pay tribute to the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, the first lady of Texas politics. Yes, she has given new meaning to the name first lady, as the gentlewoman from Texas was the first Black woman ever elected to public office from Dallas. She was the first woman in Texas history to chair a major Texas House committee, the Labor Committee. Yes, she was the first African-American woman to hold the position of regional director for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. She was the first registered nurse elected to the United States Congress. She was the first Black person from Dallas to serve in Congress. Yes, she was a first. She was the first woman to chair the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mr. Speaker. She was a history-making, glass-ceiling-breaking first lady who blazed huge trails in the sands of time, such that those who may traverse later will know that, where she was the first, she will not be the last.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Still I rise, Mr. Speaker, always proud to have this preeminent privilege of standing here in the House of Representatives, honored to have the opportunity to serve the people of the Ninth Congressional District who elected me, but also the people of this country, this entire country, because when they elected me, they elected me to become a United States Representative. As such, when I vote, I am voting for them, but I am also voting for the country. Today I rise to be grateful and to express my gratitude and my appreciation to the people of the Ninth Congressional District for allowing me this opportunity, this singular opportunity of serving in the Congress of the United States of America. I have been blessed. I thank the people who happen to live in Brazoria County for allowing me to serve them. It has been an honor, and it continues to be my honor. I, in no way, am indicating that I am about to leave the Congress. I think that this is an opportunity to express my gratitude. I plan to be here next year and until the people of the Ninth Congressional District decide otherwise. I thank the people who live in Brazoria County. I thank the people who live in Fort Bend County--these counties adjoin each other--and Harris County. I didn't get here because I was so smart. I am here because there were people who thought that I might make a difference in their lives, and I have tried my best to do so, so I thank them for affording me this opportunity. I thank my staff. Members of Congress get things done only when they have a good staff. I have an excellent staff, and I thank them for what they do to make it possible for me to do things that I ordinarily would not be able to do. I had a friend, Mickey Leland, who served in this Congress, and he reminded me on many occasions that a great person will always rise to the occasion, but the greater people make the occasion, so I thank these occasion makers, the people who make it possible for me to come here and stand and speak in the House of Representatives in this Capitol Building. I thank my chief of staff here in Washington, D.C., who does an outstanding job. I won't go through his credentials in the entirety, but he is a lawyer, Scott Bell. I thank Scott for the fine job he has done to lead the D.C. team. That team consists of Aaron, who is my legislative director; Raphael, who is a senior in the office; Jalaina, who is a legislative assistant in the office; Madison, who is my office administrator; and then there are other persons who are coming on board. I believe that Izzah will be on board with me. I have extended an offer to her. We will see if she accepts. My D.C. team has done an outstanding job. I am very proud of the job that all of the members of this team have afforded the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Texas. However, I do want to mention one standout, and that is Claudia. Claudia and I happened to bump into each other when she was working in another capacity here on the Hill. I take great pride in selecting people who don't apply for the job, people that I just happen to bump into along life's way. Such was the case with Claudia. I just bumped into her. We had some casual conversation, and something said to me, this is the person who can represent you when people first enter your office. I thank Claudia very much for the job that she does. Jalaina and I met when I was at a speaking engagement. She didn't apply for the job. I spoke to her for some small length of time, found out that she was looking for a job on the Hill. She applied, and Jalaina now works in the office. I mentioned her earlier. She is a legislative assistant in the office. I am proud of this D.C. team, but in Houston I have a team that has been with me for a very long time, and I am proud of them, as well. I am proud of Rachael Rodriguez, who came to me from labor. She is a labor-oriented person, as am I. I am a dues-checkoff member of a local labor union, 1550 AFSCME. As such, I am proud to say that Rachael Rodriguez has done an outstanding job leading the Houston team. She is more than capable, competent, and qualified. She has a great personality. She is the kind of person who respects others with her smiles. Rachael Rodriguez. Then, of course, there is Crystal Webster. Crystal is the deputy district director, and she does a little bit of everything. In that office we all take pride in getting the job done. Everybody will pitch in to do whatever has to be done. Crystal Webster has done an outstanding job. I am grateful that she has been with me for many years. The persons that I have just spoken of, Crystal and Rachael, have both been with me for more than a decade. Of course, I am honored to have in that office Clarence Holliday. We call him Doc. He has done outstanding work in the outreach area, also as a caseworker. He is just a fine man, former NAACP president out in Fort Bend County. He does outstanding work. I am proud to have him. I am also proud to have Catherine. Catherine is polyglot. She speaks four different languages; quite well, I might add. She connects me to communities that but for her I wouldn't connect with. These people are making a difference in the lives of the people in the Ninth Congressional District. I also am honored to have with me Sam, Sam Merchant. Sam Merchant is a person of Indian heritage; not Native American, Indian heritage. He has been with me for a number of years as an outreach person. I regret to say to you that Sam will be leaving the office. He has served us well. He is moving on to a sunset of retirement. I greatly appreciate the work that Sam has done for the people of the Ninth Congressional District. Of course, we have Robertine, Robertine Jefferson. Her father was my pastor. He passed away some time ago. I never intended to hire Robertine. I just happened to be at an event and found out that she was interested in work, and she came on board with me. She helps us with our events. She is an event coordinator; par excellence, I might add. She does an outstanding job. I could not but for her do the many different things that we do in the district. Of course, there is Teque'lia. Teque'lia is the coms director in the office. She came on board not so very long ago and has been very talented. She picks up on things very quickly, and she produces a great work product, so I am proud to claim Teque'lia as a member of the team in Houston, Texas. There are other persons who are not on the team by virtue of working in the office. I want to make sure that I acknowledge them as well because they are in and out of the office, so thank you. Of course, there is Colbe who works in the office, Colbe is a receptionist out front. She drives when necessary, does a little bit of everything, as well. I am proud to have this team of workers in the Houston office, all of whom serve us well. Today, I will do two additional things, and I will depart. The first thing I would like to do is to thank the people that I work with here, people that I disagree with, people that I agree with. I think this is a time to put aside differences, as I heard Mr. Hoyer so eloquently express earlier in a presentation; put aside differences and just be grateful, just be grateful that you have the opportunity to serve and be grateful for the people that you serve with regardless of their political persuasions. Just be grateful. So I am grateful to all of the people that I serve with here, and I thank them for the work that we do together. In closing with this work, I am going to say a prayer for all of us, if I may, after which I will present someone else who will take the microphone and continue for the rest of the time that remains. Today, this is my prayer that I have written. I say this prayer before I consume any food. It is accidental if I consume food and I don't say this prayer because I am grateful to have the gift of life. I tell people that I am better than I deserve because I have been blessed to have the most unique gift in all of the universe, the gift of life. I don't know why I have it. I didn't earn it, so I have to be grateful for it. I try to use it in the most efficacious and the most beneficial way possible. I make mistakes. I am not a perfect person. I am a sinner, but I do try my best to treat people right. I ask for forgiveness; and I do ask for forgiveness more often than I probably should, but I do ask. This is my prayer, and I don't ask anybody to join me in my prayer, you do whatever you would ordinarily do. This is my prayer for my country and for the people that I serve with: Most gracious Creator, we know You by many names, but we also know that by any name, You are the Creator of all that was, is, and ever shall be; and I, as one of Your creations, want to take the time to now thank You, and I do so on behalf of the many others who may believe as I do. I thank You for Your love, Your grace, and the gift of life. I thank You for Your mercy and Your forgiveness throughout life. I thank You for Your angels to protect life. I thank You for Your creation to sustain life: Your air, the breath of life; Your water, the elixir of life; Your star that we know as Sun, the light and warmth of life; Your terra firma that we call Earth, the foundation and home of life. I today ask that You would recognize our weaknesses, our strengths, and give us the opportunity to serve You and Your creation so that it may continue as You would will it. I ask all of these things in the name of the Creator of all of creation, and I thank You. At this time, I am honored to introduce someone I have the utmost respect for. Elected from Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, he is one of Maryland's finest and a Georgetown University lawyer. He served as majority leader twice, from 2007 to 2011 and then again from 2019 to 2023. He is a person who has made a difference in my life and, in so doing, has made a difference in the lives of the people of the Ninth Congressional District, which I represent. I am so honored to have this opportunity to yield to the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a lawyer, a former State senator, and still a Member of Congress. I respect and love my dear brother. God bless you. Merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the former majority leader for the outstanding presentation. I think it is an appropriate way to bring this to closure today. May God continue to bless him and keep him. Mr. Speaker, as I shake Mr. Hoyer's hand as he passes me by, I am blessed to know that sometimes fortuitous circumstances can benefit you. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to mention the newest staff member on my team, Eric Goodwine. Eric does an outstanding job for us in Houston. He not only assists me in the office, but he also is the principal person that gets me from point A to point B. Eric does an outstanding job of ensuring that things are arranged when I arrive at various venues, and I am proud to have him on the team. Eric, thank you again. Please forgive me for not mentioning you initially. All of this was from memory so charge it to being 25 three times and now working on my fourth 25th birthday, but there is a God that rules above and a fortuitous circumstance has made a difference. Mr. Speaker, may God bless this House, and may God bless the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise to oppose antisemitism as well as all forms of hate on college campuses and wherever else it may exist. Today I address the Congress to associate myself with the comments made during debate on H. Res. 927 by the Honorable Jamie Raskin and the Honorable Kathy Manning. Both of these esteemed leaders highlight the nuance necessary when discussing issues of campus speech and antisemitism. Representative Raskin's and Representative Manning's remarks are insightful, and I, generally speaking, endorse their sentiments as sufficient explanations for my vote against the resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and still I rise. I rise today, as always, when I address persons in this most sacred place in my heart. I rise as a proud American. I am proud to say that I am an American. I am proud to say that I am American because my foreparents made it what it is. Its greatness can be traced back to 240 years of free labor, free sacrifice, and I am proud. I wear this tie indicating that I am proud. I salute the flag. I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I sing the national anthem. I am proud to be an American, and why wouldn't I be proud, given that my foreparents made it great. The greatness of America resides today on the economic foundations laid by persons of African ancestry. They are the economic foundational mothers and fathers of this country. Now, there are some who say to me, literally: How can you be proud, Al Green, when your foreparents were put into chains, when they were beaten, when women were raped, when they were born into slavery and lived their lives as slaves? How can you be proud? I can be proud because I have the power to forgive, the power to forgive for all of these transgressions. God has given me this power. I would hope that others could acquire the power to forgive. The power to forgive is the power that will allow you to go on to do other things. God did not give me, however, the power to forget. Forgive and forget is not a sensible statement of where the heart and mind should be, in my opinion. It is forgive and remember. Forgive all the transgressions, but remember that they occurred. This is why we can say ``never again'' as it relates to certain transgressions. So, I forgive, and I love the country, but I don't forget. Today, I want to talk about my foreparents. This is a depiction of when they may have arrived, on August 20, 1619. I want to talk about them, and I want to talk about the racism in America today. As we discuss racism in America today, we have to first identify the reasons why Africans were enslaved, the reasons why America enslaved Africans, to be more specific. Remember, I am the guy who is forgiving. I am the guy who loves the country, sings the national anthem, but he doesn't forget. Why did America enslave Africans? Here is why: To be a permanent--I think 240 years of enslavement is a pretty good representation of the fact that there was an intentionality that it be permanent--to be a permanent, identifiable--``identifiable,'' easily recognized among the population; ``permanent,'' 240 years of enslavement; ``identifiable,'' the complexion of skin as a methodology by which one could be immediately identified and put in his proper place or her proper place, their proper place. Permanent, identifiable, powerless. There was never the desire to have persons of African ancestry become powerful in this country. It was not there. I am talking about at the genesis of this on August 20, 1619, when they were first introduced into the Colonies. There was slavery in the country prior to this, but we are talking about when it was introduced into the Colonies. Africans were brought here to be a permanent, identifiable, powerless--no power. The courts in this country actually recognized the fact that we were powerless. In Dred Scott, the Chief Justice indicated that persons of African ancestry had no rights that a White person had to respect. It was not said in those exact words, but that is the exact meaning. They had no rights. Permanent, identifiable, powerless, subservient. They were brought here to be servants--not just servants in the sense of people who were to do the bidding of others but to do so with a degree and a demeanor of servility. They had to be servile--servile. Africans were brought here to be a permanent, identifiable, powerless, subservient caste--not class; there is a distinction. Class has to do with a socioeconomic identification. Caste has to do with a hereditary identification, meaning if you were born into this caste, this group, you were to be a slave. You were enslaved by birth. By definition, at birth, you were enslaved. You were permanently enslaved. You were identifiably enslaved. You were powerless as a slave. You were subservient as a slave and forever a slave as long as you lived. These are the reasons why America enslaved Africans to be a permanent, identifiable, powerless, subservient caste of people. To this day, much of this still exists. To this day, there are still people who treat persons of African ancestry as though they are still powerless and should be subservient and belong to this caste. When Dr. King went to India on his pilgrimage, he was introduced at a certain venue. When he was introduced, it was said to him that he was part of a caste. Initially, he didn't really, in my opinion, know exactly how to respond to this because he had not been told that he was a part of a caste. After giving some thought to it, he realized that, to a certain extent, there was this caste system. To this day, there is still evidence of people who believe that we should be powerless. Let's examine that. Obviously, we are still identifiable, but that we should still be powerless. We still have problems accessing the capital that allows one to succeed in society. We have evidence, empirical evidence, indicating, evidencing, the fact that persons of African ancestry, who are imminently qualified, can apply for a loan and they will pay higher points for that loan, they will receive less sometimes than what they need, and they will pay a higher interest rate than an Anglo who is less qualified. Empirical evidence. I sit on the Financial Services Committee. We have looked into these things. The empirical evidence exists. Still a desire, but powerless. Now, some people will say, are you saying that there is a conspiracy? I don't think anybody had a grand meeting and decided we will just continue this caste system by making sure they remain powerless in society. I don't think that happened. I think it has been inculcated into the culture. The 240 years of slavery, thereafter followed with Black codes, convict leasing, Jim Crow laws, thereafter followed with lawful and legal segregation. There was lawful and legal segregation until 1954, the Brown case. It hasn't been that long ago. In my lifetime, I suffered lawful, legal segregation. Thank God I have the power to forgive. Powerless, intentionality, powerless, in the culture. It is not going to be eradicated overnight. One court decision will not eliminate 240 years of slavery plus an additional great number of years of lawful segregation. It doesn't eliminate it. Many of the people who suffer from this affliction, they don't know it in the sense that they purposefully do these things, but they happen. There was 240 years of slavery, thereafter followed with lawful segregation, and now we still suffer as powerless people. I am going to say more about powerless, but I want to just remind persons that we still are born Black in America, still have the identifiable complexion. There are still people who expect us to be subservient, to be more respectful than others. I have seen it myself wherein an Anglo person can say to a police officer that he or she or they happen to think is doing something inappropriate: ``Who do you think you are? Give me your badge number. I am going to report you.'' The officer accepts it. If an African American says: ``Who are you? Who do you think you are?'' It is unacceptable. There is a belief that you cannot challenge the system to the same extent as Anglos, all emanating from the permanent, identifiable, powerless, subservient caste. Now, let's give a supreme, superb example of being powerless. I think this example will speak in ways that many of us have not given consideration to. I regret to have to bring this example to the attention of the House of Representatives, to the attention of the country, to the attention of the Senate, but here is the example. This building is the Russell Senate Office Building. This building is a symbol of national shame, the Russell Senate Office Building. Taxpayer dollars built it. Taxpayer dollars maintain it. Every taxpayer in this country has a stake in the Russell Senate Office Building, and it is a symbol of national shame. I am talking about racism in America now, how we learn to tolerate it. Remember this: Those who tolerate racism perpetuate racism. Let's talk about the Russell Senate Office Building, named in honor of a self-proclaimed white supremacist. This is brother Richard Russell, Senator. I refer to every man as my brother. If not my brother, according to the notable anthropologist, paleontologist, L.S.B. Leakey, we are probably cousins. We are probably related in some way. This is Mr. Richard Russell. Mr. Richard Russell is prominently displayed in this building. When you enter this building, you enter into a rotunda. This is where Mr. Richard Russell is prominently displayed in the Russell Senate Office Building. You will note at the top, we have styled this, we have captioned it, ``self-proclaimed white supremacist.'' This is Mr. Richard Russell, self-proclaimed white supremacist. This building is named in honor of Mr. Richard Russell, this man, the self-proclaimed white supremacist. He stands there today in the rotunda of the Richard Russell Office Building. Now, why would I make an issue of this for you in talking about racism and enslavement? Well, here is why. Powerless. Remember, powerless. This is the building. Powerless. We, the people of African ancestry, are powerless to remove this man's statue and to remove his name from a building we support. We are powerless. We can't get it done. The Senate knows that Richard Russell was a bigot and a racist. They probably see him more as a racist than as a bigot, but he was the person who fought antilynching legislation. He is the person who fought civil rights legislation. He is the person who coauthored the ``Southern Manifesto,'' and he is the person who stands in the rotunda all to himself in the Russell Senate Office Building. Yes, we have asked that his name be removed from the building and that his statue be removed. Just as the Senate has removed names from military bases, the Congress has, the House and Senate, the Senate can remove that name of Richard Russell. This is Richard Russell standing in his place of grandeur. There is more to be said about this. I would now like you to see a different view of the Russell statue. Your perch can sometimes influence what you see. I have shown you Mr. Russell up close. Now let's step back and take a look. Here is Mr. Russell. He is standing here. By the way, I respect and I say ``Mr. Russell.'' There are people who would demean me for saying ``Mr. Russell.'' He was a former United States Senator. He was a bigot and a racist, but I still give him respect Here is Mr. Russell. Now, let's put this here for just a moment. There is Mr. Russell. He is here. I hope the camera can pick him up. Here is what you cannot identify that I have to identify for you. Above Mr. Russell, in the Russell Senate Office Building, above Mr. Russell, in these various spaces along this area in the Russell Senate Office Building, are news outlets, major news outlets. CNN is there. MSNBC is there. Major news outlets occupy the space above Mr. Richard Russell. Who can deny that they are aware that they are sharing space with a self-proclaimed white supremacist? Have they no shame? CNN, have you no shame? You fight against hate, and you house yourself above Richard Russell. Have you no shame, MSNBC? Have you no shame? The man's name shouldn't be on the building. His statue shouldn't be on the building, and you ought not be housed above it. The Richard Russell Office Building, with Senator Russell in all of his glory, above his head, notable news sources reporting the news, not reporting that Richard Russell is right beneath them, the racist. Remember now, those who tolerate racism perpetuate racism. All of these news sources I just mentioned--FOX is there, too. All of them, they are there. If one of them that I have called is not there, let me know. I don't go over there. I haven't been over there. I am a one- person protest. I don't go in the building. I respect myself too much to go there. I have dignity. I have respect for myself. I am a sinner, but I am not that much of a sinner. Those who tolerate this perpetuate it. Those who tolerate this statue being there perpetuate it. I am saying it. CNN is perpetuating racism. MSNBC, you are perpetuating racism. FOX, you are perpetuating racism. I am saying it. I know that I am powerless to do anything to you about it. You can stay there as long as you desire, never report it, and it becomes a nonissue. You can stay there, and the world will remain as it is. There will just be one Member of Congress who came to the floor of the House of Representatives and had the courage to call you out. I know you won't get any airtime on CNN or MSNBC or FOX. You can't challenge the news media and tell them where they are wrong and expect them to allow you to be heard. It doesn't work that way in this country and probably in very few countries in the world. You can't do it. I understand that. I understand that I am powerless, but I also understand that I can take a stand. I also understand that I can point out to people that yes, you can challenge power. Yes, you can be that person who speaks truth to power. Yes, you can do it. Here is what is even more important than to speaking truth to power; that is speaking truth about power. You see, to speak truth to power, you simply say: Power, we have a problem, and we need to solve it. When you speak truth about power, you say: Power, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, we have a problem, and you are part of it. They are part of the problem. There are others up there with them, but they are part of the problem. Richard Russell, a self-proclaimed white supremacist, in a rotunda all to himself. I know of no other rotunda that has a single person in it--if there may be one. There you are housing yourselves above him. If I am wrong, let me know I am wrong and I will come back to this very podium and I will extend an apology. I will do it. When you are wrong, that is what you do. I will come back and I will extend an apology. I ask you, CNN, I ask you, MSNBC, I ask you, FOX, tell me I am wrong that you are not reporting from above Richard Russell. I am talking about racism in America. I am talking about those who tolerate it and perpetuate it. I am now going to talk about solutions. There are many solutions. Please don't take this as all inclusive, but this is a necessary solution. A necessary solution to, as a matter of necessity, deal with how this has been inculcated into society such that these prominent news sources would tolerate this. There are some things that have to be done. They could be very beneficial in getting it done. If they are tolerating this, I don't know to what extent we can count on them. Here is what we have to do. One of the things we have to do is acknowledge the conscience agenda. Let me remove Mr. Russell for a moment. He still maintains his place of honor in the Senate, but not here while I am talking. Now, we have to acknowledge this conscience agenda. Conscience agenda, our moral imperative. Here is what we have to do. We have to acknowledge slavery and the horrors of it, but also set aside a day. By the way, I am not asking for a holiday with people being paid and off from work. I don't want that. I don't think that we should have that for something as important as this. I don't want it to become something where people are going to have a mattress sale and talk about how you can get a great discount. Slavery Remembrance Day discount, come on in and get your mattress. I don't want that. I want people to understand that August 20, annually, ought to be Slavery Remembrance Day. I thank God that at least one prominent person has acknowledged it, and there are others that I will mention briefly. Perhaps I will reverse the order and do it this way. Mr. Steny Hoyer helped me to get legislation through the House recognizing Slavery Remembrance Day. I thank Mr. Hoyer and I will never let history write him out. I thank him for what he did. Slavery Remembrance Day is important. We have Juneteenth. Yes, Juneteenth is about celebrating freedom, when General Gordon Granger came into Galveston, Texas, and read ``General Order No. 3.'' That is worthy of celebrating; this is about commemoration, not celebration. This is about commemorating those lives that suffered for some 240 years to make America great. There were 240 years of suffering. They were born into it, into a caste system. They were born into it. Babies were slaves. Enslaved people is a more appropriate way to say it. Babies were enslaved human beings that grew up to become enslaved adolescents. They went on to become enslaved adults and thereafter died as enslaved human beings. Lives devoted to making America great. No emolument has been accorded them. No recompense has been accorded them. No consideration other than they had the necessities to remain alive so that they could continue to be enslaved persons who could produce a work product. We should honor this day. I am proud of Senator Elizabeth Warren who has helped to get this done, and she is working on the Senate to get the resolution through the Senate. The same Senate, by the way, that won't remove Richard Russell's name from the Russell Senate Office Building. That is the same Senate that won't remove his statue from the rotunda that he happens to enjoy all to himself. We have to have Slavery Remembrance Day. We should honor these economic foundational mothers and fathers on whose sacrifice America has become the great Nation that it is. They built the Capitol. Yes, these folks, their hands helped to construct the very Capitol that we have here. They helped to construct the White House. They built the roads and the bridges. They planted the seeds and harvested the crops to feed the Nation. Yet, they are not properly recognized. In fact, this Congress did something that demeaned them. Here is what the Congress did in 1956. The Congress of the United States of America, the country I love, land of the free and home of the brave, the Congress of the United States of America awarded Congressional Gold Medals to the enslavers. They awarded Congressional Gold Medals to Confederate soldiers. They awarded nothing to the people whose hands helped build the Capitol. Nothing to them. But awarded the enslavers, the persons who fought to maintain slavery. Remember, we had to go to war. Thank God for Abraham Lincoln. We had to go to war to deal with slavery. People died. What a tragedy it was. But that is what it took to eliminate slavery in this country. We gave a Congressional Gold Medal to the Confederates, and nothing to the persons who were enslaved. Well, we can remedy that. Remember now, I am talking about things we need to do to change the mindset that we have. We need, and I think this Congress should, award a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslaved. That seems so easy to comprehend, but yet so hard for this Congress to do. They just need to acknowledge that these folks who suffered for 240 years, they ought to be acknowledged for what they did too. They ought to be acknowledged for what they did here, for what they did with the White House, and for what they did for this country--a Congressional Gold Medal for the enslaved. There is a resolution pending for such a thing to be done. Remember, powerless. Powerless. We are shown to be powerless when something as simple as this can't be done. Something as simple as having a Slavery Remembrance Day where the Congress, meaning the House and the Senate and the President, acknowledges it. We have a Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. We have a 9/11 Remembrance. We have a Holocaust Remembrance Day, meaning the President, the House, and the Senate recognizes Holocaust Remembrance Day. We don't have such a thing for the people who are the economic foundational mothers and fathers of this country. No slavery remembrance. Don't have it. That is because we are still powerless. We have some power. Yes, we are Senators and we are in Congress and we have a President and there is a Vice President, but we are still shown that we cannot demand justice and get justice. There are people who would say: You are not asking for it properly. You have to be subservient. Be servile and maybe you can get it then. We can't demand it and get it. I demand it. We ought to have Slavery Remembrance Day acknowledged by the House, the Senate, and the President, as well as a Congressional Gold Medal accorded the enslaved. I have talked about it; we need to remove Richard Russell's name from the Russell Senate Office Building. I won't go into any great details in explaining that, I have gone through it clearly. There is legislation for atonement that is pending, and I won't go through that. I do want to go to the last item on my agenda, which is number five. Mr. Speaker, so I may govern myself accordingly, can you please tell me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk now about the thing that I think will help not only with slavery remembrance, but also will help us with other issues that have not been resolved. That is the establishment of a department of reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, we have not reconciled. We have not. There are chasms that we cannot see but that we can experience. We need to span the chasms that divide us. To do so, we need to have a methodology by which it can be accomplished. To have that methodology, we have to have a means in place. This would be the means by which the methodology could be enforced and put into motion so that we can get reconciliation. Reconciliation. There ought to be in this country what we could not do after the war because President Johnson was more interested in the antebellum aspect of the war. He would have gone back if he could have, but he could only go so far. He did limit forward movement, so we didn't get reconciliation. We need a department of reconciliation with a secretary of reconciliation. A person that wakes up every morning with the mission of helping us to reconcile the differences in a very positive way, I might add--the differences that separate us, the chasms that we failed to span over the centuries. Remember, slavery lasted for more than two centuries, it wasn't a 20- year event. That is why some of the aspects of the powerlessness are still inculcated into our society. We need this department of reconciliation with a secretary and under secretaries of reconciliation to deal with all of the invidious discrimination that has not been resolved. There are issues related to other persons that have not been resolved. One example would be the indigenous Americans. They are the first Americans. Their issues have not been resolved. These are the folk who suffered the Trail of Tears. These are the folk who suffered wars against them, and they were made the villains. They were defending their land, and they are the villains. We need to resolve this. The department of reconciliation would help us do this. It won't be done in a month, a week, a year or 2, or a decade. It is going to take time. Nevertheless, it is not going to be done without some structure. It is not going to be done with just the passage of time. It won't happen. Dr. King reminded us that it is not the passage of time that makes change--these are not his exact words--but rather what you do with time as it passes. What do you do with the time? If you don't make good use of it, then the change won't take place. So, we need this department of reconciliation; we need a secretary of reconciliation; we need under secretaries of reconciliation; and we need a budget. I have proposed that the budget for this department be indexed and tied to, if you will, indexed and tied to the Defense Department's budget. Why the Defense Department's budget? It is because we will always fund the Defense Department. I think that we should have a budget that is indexed and tied to it. The money would not come out of the Defense Department's budget. There would be money that would be the equivalent of some percentage, say 10 percent, of what is in the Defense Department for the department of reconciliation so that we can at some point, at some point, span the chasms that divide, separate, and prevent us from having the level of unity within our country that we richly deserve given the great documents, the great founding documents, of the country, that all persons are created equal, endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These certain documents include the pledge of liberty and justice for all. We need to do these things. I am committed to Slavery Remembrance Day. I am committed. I stand alone sometimes with this commitment. It is an idea that I brought to this Congress, and I am going to stay with it. Yes, I am the progenitor, the progenitor, of Slavery Remembrance Day. I am going to stay with it. I am not letting it go. The Congressional Gold Medal for the enslaved, I will not let it go. Removing Mr. Russell's name, I will not let it go. Establishing a department of reconciliation, I won't let it go. The question is: Will others find it within their hearts and their spirits to take a similar stance? I pray that they will. I close with this, Mr. Speaker: We persons of African ancestry have suffered, our ancestors have and are still suffering, from the indignation and humiliation associated with slavery and segregation. We are still suffering from it. We are still suffering from racism. There are people who would say: Forget the racism. I am not going to forget it, just like I would not want my Jewish brothers and sisters to forget the Holocaust. Don't forget the Holocaust, and I won't forget slavery. We are still suffering, and we are suffering because of what I indicated initially. Why were we brought to this country? When I say ``we,'' I am talking about my foreparents. Why were they brought to this country? They were brought here to be: permanent, remember, 240 years of slavery is evidence of it, centuries; identifiable, they wanted people of color because they could spot them easily; powerless, no power, not recognized, the law recognizes no rights for you as they relate to persons who are Anglo; subservient, always servile, always humble, always ready to serve, pleading with the master, ``Give me something that I may do for you, master''; and caste, the difference between caste and class, remember, class is a socioeconomic condition. Caste is usually hereditary. You are born into it, you live it, and you die. We are still suffering from this original reason that enslaved persons were brought to this country. Nevertheless, I believe that we can bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice for African Americans and all other persons who suffer from invidious discrimination. I believe it. I believe we can achieve it. I just know that we have to work hard to get it done. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time. I am proud to have stood here, and I proudly move forward with the conscience agenda that I have called to the attention of our country. God bless you, Mr. Speaker, and God bless the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, proud to be an American. Why shouldn't I? My foreparents suffered 240-plus years of slavery to make it great. I am proud to stand in the House of Representatives today as a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid. Today, as a liberated Democrat, I will address two issues. Both relate to votes that I have taken. The first issue that I will address deals with affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. The second issue that I will address will deal with my having voted ``present'' in the case of the expulsion of Mr. Santos. With reference to the state of Palestine's right to exist, I am proud to tell you that on Tuesday of this week, we took a vote. Mr. Speaker, that vote on Tuesday of this week related to the State of Israel's right to exist. I believe that Israel has a right to exist. I believe in and support Israel's right to exist. I support Israel. I have done so since I have been in this Congress. Since I have been here, we have voted on more than $50 billion in support to Israel. You will find that I have voted for all the help to Israel. I have spoken on the floor in support of Israel, and I think that my record is very clear on where I stand when it comes to the State of Israel and its right to exist. I voted for the resolution. It was reaffirming Israel's right to exist. I voted for it. I, in voting for it, realized that it did not have something that I thought we ought to have, and that is a statement indicating that Palestine has a right to exist. Palestine has been there, the inhabitants. In 1948, when the U.N. decided that it would, by way of resolution, recognize two states in the area, the area referred to was Palestine. I believe that Palestine, with Palestinians, has a right to exist, as well. Today, I will file the resolution that I shall read. This resolution is one that affirms the state of Palestine's right to exist. Now, I understand that Palestine is not a state currently, and I address that in the resolution. This is not calling for an immediate styling or having Palestine become a state. That is not what the resolution is about. It is recognizing the right to become a state. In this Congress, we have said that there should be a solution to the concerns related to Israel and Palestine, and it is a two-state solution that we have talked about. The President of the United States has said that there should be a two-state solution. I believe that there should be a two-state solution. If there is going to be a two-state solution, and if we are going to fund Palestine and Israel as we have--we have sent many dollars in humanitarian aid to Palestine--and if we are going to continue to do this, and if I am going to continue to vote for these funds, I want Congress to be on record saying that there ought to be a State of Israel and that we can have a state for Palestinians, as well. I shall file the resolution, and I shall file it immediately after I finish this statement about Palestine as well as about my vote of ``present'' on Mr. Santos for his expulsion. First, let's talk about Palestine. Here is a resolution. It reads: Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. In the House of Representatives, Mr. Green of Texas submitted the following resolution, which was referred to a proper committee. The resolution itself reads: Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. Whereas, this resolution may be cited as the original resolution affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist; Whereas, the people, the Palestinian people, are inhabitants of the land of Palestine; Whereas, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. I may have said 1948 earlier. This corrects my earlier statement. Whereas, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement recognizing Israel as an independent state; and Whereas, on November 28, 2023, the House of Representatives agreed to H. Res. 888 reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist by a vote of 412 ``yeas,'' 1 ``nay,'' and 1 ``present.'' I voted for the resolution. I believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe that the House of Representatives should be on record indicating that Israel has a right to exist. Continuing: Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time--important words, ``and at a future time''--to become a nation- state. Some things bear repeating: Resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become a nation-state. If we believe in a two-state solution, then we want to have this resolution approved by the House of Representatives. We believe that Israel has a right to exist as a nation-state. We say we want a two- state solution. This but only codifies what we say. The President of the United States has said there should be a two- state solution. You can't have a two-state solution without at some point recognizing the fact that Palestine has to be one of the two states. Again: Resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become a nation-state. That was number one. Number two: Recognizes the two-state solution as the only solution that will secure a lasting peace in the region. Number three: Rejects calls for Palestine's destruction. Just as we reject calls to have Israel destroyed, we should reject calls to have Palestine destroyed or the notion of a Palestinian state to become a nonexistent notion. I believe this resolution is going to make a difference. I am going to file this resolution. I believe that the resolution ought to go to the proper committee. I will ask the chairperson of the proper committee to bring the resolution to a vote within the committee or to process it out of the committee. I will leave it to the chair and the ranking member to make the decisions as to how this will work. I want it to come to the floor for a vote. I would like to see it have the opportunity to come to the floor for a vote with the same level of expediency that the resolution supporting Israel's right to exist had in coming to the floor to a vote. There was expediency exerted. There was expediency that allowed that resolution to get to the floor not within months, not within weeks, but within days. I ask that this resolution receive the same level of respect. We have to respect Israel's right to exist, and we have to respect Palestine's right to exist. Both have the right to exist. The resolution makes it possible for the Congress to go on record. I also believe this. Aside from filing the resolution, I believe that there are three things that have to happen for Palestine to become a state. The first thing that has to happen is there has to be a recognition that Palestine is a state, obviously, but by the House of Representatives, that it should become a state by the House of Representatives. Number one, Palestine has to become a state, and the House of Representatives has to recognize this right for Palestine to become a state. Number two, I think that the Israelis should recognize Palestine's right to become a state, but I don't think that we have to allow them to determine whether Palestine should become a state. I think that Palestinians have the right to have statehood without having the Israelis determine that they should become a state. Number three, just as in 1948 when President Truman recognized Israel as a state without the consent of the Palestinians, I believe that a President of the United States can recognize Palestine as a state without the consent of Israel. I don't think Israel has to give its consent for Palestine to become a state. Just as we recognized Israel without Palestinians giving their consent, we can do the same thing for Palestine without Israel giving its consent. I believe that Palestine has a right to become a state, and I don't believe that Israel has the right to veto the Palestinian's right to become a state. I will file this resolution, which will put the House on record. If the House goes on record, I will continue my efforts to push for a two- state solution as a resolution to the concerns between the Palestinians and the Israelis. On the Matter of the Expulsion of George Santos

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, now, to my second point, the issue related to Mr. Santos. I voted ``present'' today. Let's look at what the vote count was. The vote count was 311 ``yeas,'' 114 ``nays,'' 2 ``present,'' and 8 persons not voting. I am proud of my vote. I am proud to say that I voted ``present.'' It is not unusual for me to stand alone. I know that it takes a certain type of courage to stand alone. I pray that I will continue to have that type of courage because I believe that the House has made a mistake today in going on record and expelling Mr. Santos from Congress. I believe it was a mistake because I believe that the process itself will now lend itself to whatever 290 persons believe to be a reason to expel a person, that becomes a reason for a person to be expelled. Whatever 290 persons can agree on, you can now expel a person. I don't think that that process is a fair and just process. Let me continue by saying this. Yes, the House had every right to do what it did. Yes, constitutionally, the House had the right to do what it did. Constitutionally, it did, yes. Yes. So it is not about whether I differ with the Constitution or differ with whether the House had a right to do this. I believe that we have the right to do things, but I believe also that there are better ways to do things, and there are some ways that we should not do things. Prior to today, it has been said many times, that five persons have been expelled--two for having committed crimes and three for having been associated with the Confederacy and its rebellion against the Union, the United States. I think that what we have done today opens ourselves up to having persons expelled for things that a good many people are not going to agree with. Let me explain. To expel a person without a bifurcated system, in my opinion, is a mistake. Impeachment has a bifurcated system. The House indicts by way of impeaching, and then after impeaching, the Senate has the trial to convict or not. Impeachment itself is not bifurcated, the process to remove the President from office is bifurcated. Impeachment is one part of that process. That is the function of the House. The process then provides that if you want to continue and remove, you have to get the consent of the Senate. That is the bifurcated process to remove a President from office. I think we ought to have a bifurcated process--notwithstanding our right not to. I think we ought to have a bifurcated process to remove a person from Congress. There is only one way for a person to get to the Congress of the United States of America, unlike the Senate, where you can get appointed. With the Congress, you have to be voted in by the people. That is why this is the people's House. This House belongs to the people of the United States of America, and membership herein belongs to the people of the United States of America. In the infinite wisdom of those who were the codifiers and the writers of the Constitution, they have given us the authority to remove people. We can do it. I just happen to disagree with the way we are doing it. By doing it this way, without having the actual House of Representatives give some deference to the judicial system, we no longer have another party in the process. We, in fact, now have become the investigators, the judges, the jury, and the prosecutors. We have every right to do that. I don't quarrel with anyone who would say to me, as a retort, well, we have the right to do it. We have every right to do it. The question is: should we do this? I don't think so. I think it was a mistake. I think that at some point in the future we are going to see the error of our ways. This decision is going to haunt us. You cannot appeal a decision of the House of Representatives, which is why we ought to have the judicial system involved. If a person commits a crime, it is brought to our attention, there is a conviction, it comes from the judiciary, and we then act on that conviction. We have now a second party involved in the process such that that party can deliberate and make a decision without the House of Representatives having influenced that decision. I think that is a fair way to remove people from the House of Representatives. I don't think that we should do it with the House being the investigators, the judge, the jury, and the prosecutor. I believe that justice itself would be better served if we used the system that we have been using. Utilizing the system that we have put into place today I think is going to create some serious concerns for us in the future. What can we do? We can impose sanctions. We can remove persons from their committee assignments. We can publish our findings. We can allow the citizens-- which every 2 years they have the opportunity to determine who will serve them--allow them to have the vote and let them determine whether or not they want a person--that I might deem unfit to serve--give them the opportunity to do so. I think that a bifurcated system works better than the system that we have now installed in the House of Representatives. I believe, given the history of my country that I love--again, I love it because my foreparents suffered for 240 years as enslaved persons. We built it. We made it great with the economic foundation of mothers and fathers. Yes, I love my country. I also understand that my country is not always fair to people of color. It hasn't been. To this day there are times when it still is not. I think people of color are going to regret having cast that vote because we are the most vulnerable--we are the most vulnerable in this country. Let me say this: we are among the most vulnerable because I recognize that there are other persons who are vulnerable, as well. We are among the most vulnerable in this country. Among the most vulnerable. There are others who are vulnerable, as well. I don't want to disrespect the truth. I know that we suffer because I understand how we got here and why we were brought here. We were brought here to be permanent--240 years of slavery is evidence of the desire to have permanency. We were brought here to be permanent subservient--with no power. Subservient. Having the mindset of a person who wants to serve and wants to please. A permanent subservient. Powerless. There was a desire that we never have the power that we have today. I am grateful for the way the country has metamorphosed to this point. I am sorry it took so long. I regret that there was ever an institution of slavery. A permanent, subservient, powerless cast of people. I would also add this: identifiable. Identifiable, permanent, subservient, powerless cast of people. Identifiable. There is your evidence. Identifiable. Subservient--240 years, plus, of slavery. A powerless, subservient cast. Born into slavery. Died as a slave. That 240 years has not been erased. No, we don't have slavery in the country today, but we still have some minds that have not metamorphosed into the future. We have some people who still disrespect people of African ancestry. They disrespect people of African ancestry as evidenced by certain things they do or choose not to do. Disrespect. Disrespect because they will respect people who rebelled against the country, who fought to maintain slavery, who were in the Confederacy, they respect them. In 1956, this Congress gave them a Congressional Gold Medal, the enslavers, the Confederate soldiers. To this day, the Congress doesn't have the respect that it should have for the enslaved. No Congressional Gold Medal for the enslaved. The Congressional Gold Medal is for the enslavers. The Russell Senate Office Building is Disrespectful to People of Color

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, persons of color suffer greatly in this country. Disrespect. Disrespect because right across the street there is a building, the Russell Senate Office Building, that disrespects people of color. Richard Russell was a self-proclaimed white supremacist. He was a Senator who fought the Voting Rights Act and voting rights in general. He was a Senator who was a coauthor of the Southern Manifesto. He was a racist and a bigot. His name is on the building. We have been asking now for a long time that his name be removed from the building. We find that the Senate, in its wisdom, has not done so. That is disrespecting people of color. Yes, we are among the most disrespected in this country. There is evidence and the Senate could remove Russell's name from that building tomorrow if they wanted to. It is not a question of whether there is a way, it is a question of whether they have the will. I marvel at how Senators' offices are in a building named after a racist and a bigot. I don't go into the Russell Senate Office Building. I respect myself enough to stay out of the Russell Senate Office Building. Those Senators, they decide the timeline. Until they decide that it should be removed, it won't be removed. It will be removed. When it is removed, I am going to acknowledge it and be grateful for it. I will tell them that it took too long. It is just taking too long. Why? They claim they can't remove a racist's name from a building paid for by taxpayer dollars because they can't agree on a new name. We have solved that problem. Simply call it what it was before it became the Russell Senate Office Building, and that was the Old Senate Office Building. Let it become the Old Senate Office Building. Then take as much time as you like to conclude that it should have some worthy person's name. I have no name to offer. I only want that you do justice by Black people the same way you do justice by other people. The same way you make an issue of an injustice against others. Make the same about television time available to criticize the Richard Russell Office Building and the name being on it. It is a symbol of national shame. Why is it that CNN, MSNBC, FOX, all of them, why have they not made a big to-do of it? One of the reasons may be because they report the news from the Russell Senate Office Building. Yes, they are all located right there near the rotunda where Richard Russell has a statue in his honor. The Richard Russell Office Building is a symbol of national shame, and the news outlets ought to be ashamed of themselves to tolerate it and then participate in it--to participate in the perpetuation of the maintenance of the name on the building. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Yes, people of color are among the most disrespected. Yes, we are. That is why I am concerned about this vote that we have taken today. It is because we are among the most disrespected that I am not sure our transgressions are going to be judged the same as the transgression of a person of a different hue. I believe that a person of a different hue can get a better decision than a person of color in this country. We see it all the time in the courts of the country. I was a judge of a small claims court for one-quarter of a century. I was a litigator. I saw the injustices as they took place that I could do nothing about. This is an injustice that is in its infancy. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I warn you that you are going to see the injustice take place. You will see it. Maybe what I am saying today will help to prevent it. I doubt it. I doubt it. There are some Members that I am very much concerned about now that this vote has been taken. I am very much concerned about them because there are people here who would want to remove them from office if they could without having committed a crime because of positions that they have taken, policy positions. That would be an injustice. So, I am proud of my vote. I voted the way I voted for reasons that I have called to your attention, Mr. Speaker, but a review does not hurt. One, Mr. Speaker, the only way you get here is if the people elect you. You can't be appointed to the House of Representatives. It is the people's House. The people send us, and the people ought to remove us unless we have committed a crime and been adjudicated as such by a proper court. Two, the decisions are not appealable. There is no appeal from our decision. Three, the process itself is not bifurcated any longer when it comes to removal from the House of Representatives. Prior to today, it was bifurcated, and the judicial system would have the opportunity to judge a person and determine whether the person was guilty of a crime. Finding such, that could then be used by the House of Representatives to expel the person. We have taken the judicial system completely out of the process. We have become judge, jury, prosecutors, and investigators. The truth is, whatever 290 of us can agree on, then that is a reason to expel a person. If 290 of us can agree on a reason, then that is it. Given the way we have entrenched ourselves now into teams, I don't favor the consequences that I can foresee. We have allowed ourselves now to become, unfortunately, a House of Representatives where this discord is no longer just a difference of opinion about policy. It has become a means by which we can come to the floor to remove a person from office, a person who was sent here by people who voted. I am much afraid for what we are going to have to regret because of what we will do as time progresses. So, I shall now move to the well of the House and file my resolution affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. I have read it to you, Mr. Speaker. Some Members may be tuning in late, so I will read it again. This is the resolution. I voted for Israel's right to exist on Tuesday of this week. I think we ought to vote similarly for Palestine to have a right to exist, as well. It reads: Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. Whereas, this resolution may be cited as the Original Resolution Affirming the State of Palestine's Right to Exist; Whereas, Palestinian people are inhabitants of the land of Palestine; Whereas, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states; Whereas, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement recognizing Israel as an independent state. Mr. Speaker, I support Israel as an independent state. That is not here. I support Israel as an independent state. This is a sidebar comment. I have supported it. I will continue to support it. I supported Israel by voting for more than $50 billion in funds, but I did it because I thought we were moving toward a two-state solution. I did it because I thought a two-state solution was the will and the desire of the House of Representatives. I have reached a point now where I have to know. That is what I thought. Passage of the resolution will give me the certainty I need. The absence of the passage of the resolution will cause me to have a great deal of consternation about how I am going to approach votes in the future. To continue: Whereas, on November 28, 2023, the House of Representatives agreed to H. Res. 888, reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist--I voted for it, and I would vote for it again and again and again if given the opportunity--by a vote of 412 ``yeas,'' 1 ``nay,'' and 1 ``present.'' Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives, one, affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become a state. Mr. Speaker, I accentuated at a future time because I am making it clear to those who would make the argument that this is about saying that Palestine should become a state today. That is not what I am saying. ``At a future time''--I don't know when in the future, but I do believe that we ought to have that as our goal since we have stated that we want a two-state solution. Number two, recognizes the two-state solution as the only solution that will secure a lasting peace in the region. Mr. Speaker, I believe this. There are some people who want a one- state solution. They mouth ``two state,'' but in their hearts, they want one state. I am not one of them. What I say is what I mean. Those Members who say they want a two-state solution and really want a one-state solution, well, this is not for them. This is for people who want a two-state solution. Number three, rejects calls for Palestine's destruction. Mr. Speaker, there will be people who will say that nobody is calling for Palestine's destruction. They are wrong. I was on C-SPAN just this week, and there was a caller who called in and who literally, by virtue of the way he presented his argument, wanted to see the destruction of Palestine, the destruction of Palestine. I am not for that. I am not for that. I am not for what is happening with the destruction of Palestine currently. For us to conclude that it is okay to destroy Palestine is an absurdity. How could we possibly approve of the destruction that we see and the lives that are being taken? How could we approve of that? I don't approve of it. If others can approve of it, the killing of babies, I don't approve of it. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but you have to do it in a just fashion. To perform, if you will, an unjust act in the name of justice is still an injustice. You cannot clean it up by saying it is a just act. Your actions themselves speak for you. Killing babies is not a just act, especially when you have declared war on Hamas and you end up killing Palestinian babies. It was wrong to kill Israeli babies. What Hamas did was dastardly. The way they did it, it is impossible to even imagine a human being doing it, but you can't complain about killing innocent Israeli babies and then decide: Well, it is okay. The Palestinian babies are just collateral damage. They just happened to be in the wrong place. What is wrong with us? I will not support the killing of these Palestinian babies. I will not support the destruction of Gaza. I pray that this country will come to its senses. How long can this go on? Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to have this opportunity. I don't know how much longer I will have it. There are a lot of people who don't like what I say who have the power to change rules. As you have seen today, Mr. Speaker, they can change the rules. So, I never know when I will be giving my last speech from this podium, but as long as I have the opportunity to give a speech, I am going to speak truth to power, but more than that, I am going to speak truth about power. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise supportive of the general sense of this resolution, affirming the position of the United States that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran poses an unacceptable threat to international peace. The evidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency and our own national assessments have consistently indicated that Iran's nuclear aspirations are of grave concern. However, while supporting some of the goals of this resolution, I believe that it is imperative to make clear that my commitment to ``using all means necessary'' and allowing the ``freedom of action'' referenced in this resolution does not alter the constitutional responsibility and power of Congress alone to declare war. Further, as it relates to me, the resolution does not translate to a carte blanche for actions that violate long-standing principles of international law. Lastly, my vote for the resolution is not a vote to authorize the executive branch to take any military action. No nation or entity should conclude that my vote for the resolution evidences my support of any actions in which they may engage. In advancing this resolution, let us not only signal our unwavering commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran, but also our steadfast dedication to upholding the rules of constitutional and international law. These principles, which regulate behavior between nations during peace and war, are the bedrock of global diplomacy and security. It is in this adherence to law that our strength and a peaceful future truly lies.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, cognizant of the urgency of the situation in the Middle East and the spirit in which this resolution has been put forth. As we conscientiously denounce the horrific crimes against humanity committed by Hamas, let us remember our ultimate goal of peace, the need for diplomacy, as well as our commitment to a two-state solution. I regret that the vision of peace between Israel and Palestine by way of a two-state solution is not referenced in the resolution. I sincerely believe that this non-inclusion risks conveying an incomplete representation of our nation's long-standing position on this pressing matter at a critical time in our history. The situation in Israel and Palestine is highly sensitive, and our response should denounce the violation of human rights, while supporting Israeli and Palestinian victims. Omitting such judicious principled concepts from our resolution could inadvertently give the erroneous impression that we have abandoned the Palestinians as well as the two-state solution to peace. I called these issues to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee in a letter delivered to the committee on October 12, 2023. To this end and because I had no hand in drafting the resolution, I propose that we amend the resolution under consideration to include the following: ``Whereas the U.S. House of Representatives desires lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.'', ``Whereas the two-state solution has and continues to be the best path to lasting peace.'', ``Whereas we mourn the deaths and suffering of babies as well as innocent Palestinian and Israeli people of all ages.'', ``Whereas our support for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian babies and innocent civilian Palestinian people is a necessity.'', and ``Resolved that the House of Representatives desires a two-state solution that leads to peace between Israel and Palestine.'' The resolution without these principle points will lead me, as a matter of conscience, to not vote ``yea.'' I realize that on this vote I may stand alone. However, on votes of conscience I believe it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. As we witness the calls for war, let us remember our moral imperative to stand for peace at the genesis of war. Doing so will make clear our unwavering commitment to not only Israel's defense but also to the ultimate vision of peace that we all wish to see materialize in the region.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat in the spirit of Shirley Chisholm, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid--unafraid to say that the Senate of the United States of America cares more about what they wear to work than the building they work in. There was a recent kerfuffle about the dress code in the Senate. As a result, some 40 Senators--in fact, about 46--signed a letter addressing this newly installed dress code. I won't read it in its entirety because time doesn't permit, but here is what it says in one paragraph: ``Allowing casual clothing on the Senate floor disrespects the institution we serve and the American families we represent.'' No disrespect, Senators, but I believe allowing Richard Russell's name to stay on the Russell Senate Office Building disrespects the people you serve and disrespects this country. The Richard Russell Senate Office Building is a symbol of racism. It is a symbol of disrespect for the American people, and it certainly disrespects people of African ancestry because Richard Russell was a racist and a bigot. Richard Russell was the coauthor of the ``Southern Manifesto.'' Richard Russell fought antilynching legislation. Richard Russell's name should not be on a building paid for with taxpayer dollars. It is time for you to take the same amount of time that you took to reform your dress code and reform the name that is on the Richard Russell Senate Office Building. It is easy to do. Just let it revert back to the name it had before it became the Russell Senate Office Building. Let it become the Old Senate Office Building. If you need more time, take ad infinitum and decide the name that you most prefer. I have no name to recommend. I only recommend that you take Russell's name off. It took less than 2 weeks to revert back to the old dress code. It has been more than 50 years that Richard Russell's name has been on this building. Have you no shame, Senators? Do you not respect the people of African ancestry who go in and out of this building? I refuse to enter the Richard Russell Senate Office Building. I am a one-person protest. I refuse to disrespect myself by entering a building named after a bigot and racist who authored the ``Southern Manifesto'' and fought antilynching legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose amendment 51 to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024, which would prohibit funds in this legislation from being used to aid the country of Pakistan. This amendment is misguided and counterproductive. I traveled to Pakistan in September 2022 to assess in person the devastating flooding caused by record monsoon rains and melted glaciers in the region. More than 1,000 individuals had lost their lives to the flooding at that point, and approximately one third of Pakistan remained underwater. Pakistan produces less than one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is at greater risk of ecological catastrophes from climate change. The World Bank estimated that the economic costs of the damage totaled over $30 billion. Therefore, the international community should assist Pakistan in recovering from this natural disaster that was massive in scale. I am grateful for the relief funds that the U.S. has provided Pakistan, and I firmly oppose what amounts to a blanket prohibition on further relief, as this would include much needed humanitarian relief. Blocking these funds will not only hurt Pakistan and prolong its recovery from the 2022 floods, but also give China the opportunity to provide much needed aid where American global leadership is lacking. We cannot abandon Pakistan in this time of crisis, and I urge My colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) as cosponsor of H.R. 68.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise today at this moment to call attention to a news story reported by CNN. I have a news article that has been printed, and the style of the article reads: ``Seattle police officer under investigation as footage shows him saying woman's life had `limited value' after she was fatally hit by police car.'' Madam Speaker, this lack of empathy and sympathy, this is what I would call, as has been called by others, shockingly insensitive commentary. It is something that cannot go unnoticed. I do believe that there must be a thorough investigation. For those who have not had an opportunity to see what I am calling to your attention, it is available to you on the internet. This officer made a comment that concerns me, and I believe it would concern many others. One of the comments made is the person is ``. . . a regular person.'' A regular person. I believe that all people merit the same amount of respect. I don't know what a regular person is, but in this dialogue with another person, he is known to have said, ``Yeah, just write a check,'' and then he laughs. Then he goes on to make the comment that I called to your attention earlier, ``she had limited value.'' Limited value. To the family, I do not know them, I extend my deepest sympathies, and I assure you that I stand with you when you have a demand for a thorough investigation, as is the case with India, the country of origin for this young lady who was killed by a police officer who was responding to a call. I hope that this will not quietly go away. Her life meant something, and we ought to make sure that we do all that we can to thoroughly investigate and make sure that justice prevails. Now, Madam Speaker, I will make my additional comments from another podium. Madam Speaker, and still I rise, proud to be an American, proud to have this opportunity to serve in the Congress of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, today I rise to call to the attention of the Congress and to the attention of the Nation that we have a problem related to Black lives. Black lives still matter, and there is a reason for saying this that will become more apparent as I give my commentary. I will start with this article that was printed in USA Today on September 4. This article, the title of which is, 2022 Hate Crimes Up 10 Percent Over Prior Year, reads in part: Study shows new record for 10 largest cities. In another article from USA Today, it reads in one place: ``Last year, as has been the case every year since the count began''--some things bear repeating. ``Last year, as has been the case every year since the count began, most hate crime victims were Black, according to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University San Bernardino, which collects and analyzes official State and municipal hate crime data sets.'' Since the genesis of collection of this data, per this article, most hate crime victims have been Black. I will explain why, but first another article. This one is styled, ``Police fatally shot a pregnant Black woman in Ohio. The calls for accountability are growing.'' This is in Vox, dated September 8, 2023. This article talks about an organization named Mapping Police Violence, and there is the following language: ``Mapping Police Violence, a group that collects data on police shootings, found though Black Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the population, they comprised at least 20 percent of the people killed by law enforcement so far in 2023.'' This is not old news. This is contemporary. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the population, but at least 20 percent of the people killed by law enforcement so far in 2023. This relates to Black people. I will explain why in just a moment. This article goes on to say, ``Per The Washington Post tracker of fatal police shootings, the number of these killings has risen in the last few years.'' It goes on to say, ``Because of incomplete policing data, the race of all police's victims isn't known. But from what data is available, it's clear police also continue to shoot and use force against Black people at disproportionate rates.'' I am paraphrasing slightly. ``The Post's data shows Black people are roughly twice as likely as White people to be the victim of a fatal police shooting, while Mapping Police Violence--``that is the organization I mentioned earlier--``which tracks police killings by any means, found Black people are nearly three times more likely to be killed. Part of this disparity stems from the fact Black people are more likely to be profiled by police''--then it goes on--``for instance, Black Americans are 20 percent more likely to get stopped for traffic stops than White people.'' Now we get to something meaningful and substantive. This article in Vox says, ``There are a number of factors behind police violence and racial disparities''--``There are a number of factors behind police violence and racial disparities, including deep-seated systemic racism. . . .'' Remember, this is from Vox, an article dated September 8, 2023. This is from Vox. ``There are a number of factors behind police violence and racial disparities, including deep-seated systemic racism that dates back to how `slave patrols' were used to police enslaved people who attempted to escape. . . .'' Madam Speaker, this takes us back to why Black people were brought to this country. Some say the initial introduction into the Colonies was on August 20, 1619. August 20, 1619. There is a depiction that I would like to show. This represents the persons who were of African ancestry brought to this country on August 20, 1619, aboard this ship, the White Lion, and they were traded for goods. The Colonies took the people of African ancestry, and they, in turn, accorded the persons who were aboard the White Lion goods. People traded for goods. August 20, 1619. Now, this, my friends, was the genesis of something that continued for more than 240 years. 240 years. Why did this continue for more than 240 years? Remember, I will be getting back to what I said about the police and the killings and the hate crimes against Black people. Why would this continue for more than 240 years? Because during that period of time, a decision was made to have in this country an identifiable, subservient, obsequious class of people, a class of people who would be identifiable. Black people are identifiable. They were to be subservient, enslaved for more than 240 years. However, it wasn't to end. It was to continue. For 240 years, people were enslaved because there was a desire for an identifiable, subservient, obsequious class of people. There was to be an upper class, and it existed; a middle class, and it existed; a lower class, that is what they called it at the time; and beneath that class, this subservient, obsequious class of people. They were to be submissive and obedient. They were to address the master's son, who might be 5 years of age, to the same extent that they would address the master. They were to be obedient, and if they were not obedient, the master could take whatever actions desirable to chastise, and that is being polite. Whatever actions desirable to do whatever it was believed necessary to force them to comply and be subservient and obsequious. More than 240 years. Babies were born into slavery. They were enslaved. Babies. Slavery was not just hard work, which is what a good many people think of it as, just hard work, that is all. No. The truth has to be told, and those who would deny the truth being told, Governor DeSantis, those who would deny it will be judged harshly by posterity. You will not find yourself within the annals and the halls of those who are considered great and noble people. History is going to judge you harshly. However, it was more than hard work. They didn't get any benefits. There were no benefits associated with being enslaved. So let me tell you for just a moment what it was, as I make my case. It was kidnapping, yes, but it was more than kidnapping. People were kidnapped from their homes, their homeland. By the way, many of them were traded into slavery by their own people; own people meaning from the same continent, same country. They were traded into slavery, so many were kidnapped. It was more than kidnapping; it was lynching. Once they traversed the ocean, those who were able to survive the harsh voyage, being shackled together, stacked on top of each other, it was cruel and inhumane what they did, it dehumanized from the very moment they were taken into captivity. It was more than kidnapping. It was more than the brutality of having to suffer this transatlantic journey. It was lynching, because if you got out of line, you were lynched--or could be, not all were, but you could be lynched. Meaning, literally taken out, a rope thrown over some branch of a tree, some limb or branch, some part of it, other means of doing it as well, noose tied around your neck, and there you were to hang until you died. Thereafter, you would stay so that others could see the consequences of not being subservient and obsequious. It was more than kidnapping and the brutal transatlantic slave trip and the lynching that took place, it was also castration. Many men, enslaved human beings, who were not subservient and obsequious were literally castrated. Remember, these persons were the property of another human being. Property at that time under the laws that existed, not ever in the eyes of God, property of another human being. Courts declared that these enslaved persons had no rights that a White person had to respect. It was more than the slave trade: crossing the Atlantic, being kidnapped, lynched, castrated. It was also rape. It wasn't just rape--and there is no way to say ``just rape''--but it wasn't rape where a person decides, I am going to show you who is in charge. It was also done to destroy the manhood of the woman's significant other because it could be done in his presence to dehumanize him, to make him understand that he had to be subservient and obsequious. It was all of these and more. It was also the separation of families at the auction block, literally. Children could be sold and go to one master, mother goes to another, father could conceivably go to another. It was the dehumanization of human beings. By definition that is what dehumanization is. They were dehumanized. They had to be reduced to something less than a human being so that the rest of society could say, well, it is okay, these are not human beings. We would not treat a human being this way. They were something less than human beings, and they were to be subservient and obsequious. This, Madam Speaker, is what I agree has been called one of the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity. Crimes against humanity which continued for more than 240 years. Not only did it continue for 240 years, it then metamorphosed into convict leasing for almost another 100 years. Convict leasing wherein there were Black codes and if you violated one these Black codes, you could be arrested. If you were arrested, you could be incarcerated. Then after incarceration, you could be leased to someone who could work you possibly for the rest of your life, so you were back into slavery by another name. There was also lawful segregation. With this lawful segregation came the notion--it didn't go away--that the persons who were segregated had to be obedient. They had to be subservient and obsequious. There was still the belief--that didn't end with the ending of slavery. It was the passage of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery in this country. Of course, we had the Emancipation Proclamation. I understand this, but it was the 13th Amendment that lawfully said: You can't do this. The ending of slavery did not end the mentality that had been inculcated in society. Remember, society now had been corrupted with this mentality, and this was passed on through the generations that these people who were brought here to be this permanent subservient, obsequious class--some would say underclass--it didn't end with them being extricated from slavery by way of the 13th Amendment. It was still within society. It had been baked into society. Even to this day it still resides in society, to a certain extent. Not to the same extent, but to a certain extent, but it was in my lifetime. Racism and invidious discrimination, which is what slavery and then the leasing of persons metamorphosed into. It then evolved and metamorphosed into something that we call invidious discrimination. Racism didn't go away with the passage of the 13th Amendment. White supremacy didn't go away. To have this subservient class, this inferior class, you have to have a superior class. It didn't go away. In fact, in my lifetime, I live to see racism so inculcated in society that preachers literally preached it, teachers taught it, police officers policed it, judges adjudicated it. In my lifetime, it was pervasive in such a way as to be visible. It is less visible now but it still exists. This notion that Black people should be subservient and obsequious still exists. It exists to the extent that Black men cannot talk to police officers the same way White men can. I know. They cannot. This is why parents have this, what they call ``talk'' with their children, if they have Black sons. Black women can't treat them the same as White women, but I am focusing on Black men for this moment. Black men are taught early--I was taught, and if you talk to any professional, they will tell you that they teach their boys more so than their girls, but the girls are taught as well--that when an officer stops you, you give him all of the deference that you can because they understand the consequences of being what the officer might perceive as disrespectful. Many of these officers, many of them, not all of them--this is not to indict the entire police department, which is what my critics will say--which is not true. My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I have great respect and reverence for the police, but I don't have it for those who are the dastards who brutalize people without justification, just decide that you are going to teach people a lesson. This class of people, the obsequious, subservient class, from time to time we assume that we have arrived, and on a dark night, we will make comments to a police officer. Well, those comments can cost us our lives. I know that people would say to them: Give me your badge number. I am going to report you. Black men can't do that. There is still a belief that we have to be respectful at all times and show some degree of subserviency. There is still this desire that we be obsequious. This explains George Floyd. Those officers who held George Floyd down, they wanted to punish him. They wanted to teach him a lesson. It wasn't just about arresting him. You don't have to put your knee on a person's neck for this length of time to arrest him. They wanted to teach him a lesson. They wanted him to understand that he was to be subservient and obsequious. As bad as that was, and it was bad because it cost him his life, they not only wanted him to understand, they wanted all of those onlookers to understand as well. Just as when they would lynch a Black man, they wanted all of the other enslaved people to understand. Just as when they would castrate, they wanted all of the other men to understand, to understand that you had to be obedient, that you had to be subservient, that you had to be obsequious. If you failed to abide by this unwritten protocol of life in this country, then these are the consequences; what happened to George Floyd and what happened to many of those who were enslaved. They wanted to put fear into the minds of those who were the onlookers and cause them to cower and to understand that they did not occupy a space such that they could speak up and stand up for themselves. Madam Speaker, I believe that this is why for 240-plus years we had persons enslaved, but to this day they have not been respected. They have been disrespected. The proof is readily available. We in this country revere the enslavers and revile the enslaved. We revere the Confederate soldiers who fought to keep them enslaved, and we reviled the people that were being enslaved. We have not given these persons whose lives were sacrificed for some 240-plus years the opportunity to be respected as they must and should be. They must be respected. They were the persons who planted the seeds, harvested the crops, fed the country, built the roads, built the bridges, built this very facility that I have the honor of standing in, and helped to construct the White House and many other prominent facilities. They are the economic foundational mothers and fathers of this country. They gave the United States of America a 240-year head start with free labor. You had to feed them, of course, and you had to clothe them, of course, to the limited extent that they were, but it gave this country 240 years of free labor that we all stand on. We all stand on the foundation, the economic foundation, that was built upon the sacrifice of millions of lives. Some estimate more than 10 million lives were sacrificed to make America great. To this day, we still have some of the remnants of this behavior that lasted for some 240 years, and this is why we, to this day, are seeing those persons disrespected. They are still being disrespected. They are not being honored, and the ability to honor them resides right here in this House because, in 1956, the Congress of the United States of America honored the Confederate soldiers with a Congressional Gold Medal. This is the highest honor that the House of Representatives can accord. The Senate also followed suit, and the President signed the legislation honoring Confederate soldiers. These were the enslavers. We have revered them, yet we still revile those who were enslaved for 240 years. It also can explain why this building is a symbol of national shame. This is the Russell Senate Office Building. For edification purposes, that means that this building is where Senators have space. The Russell Senate Office Building is a symbol of national shame. This building is paid for with taxpayer dollars. Why is it a symbol of national shame? Because Richard Russell was a racist and a bigot. Senator Richard Russell was a racist and a bigot. Senator Richard Russell fought antilynching legislation, the legislation that would stop people from lynching. Lynching is a crime. It is to stop people from just deciding that you are going to take the law into your own hands as though there was no law that you had to abide by. Richard Russell fought civil rights legislation, opposed it. Richard Russell was a coauthor of the Southern Manifesto. Richard Russell was a bigot and a racist, yet we have a Senate office building honoring Richard Russell. That is why the building is a symbol of national shame, and the Senators ought to be ashamed to allow this to continue. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, a Senate office building paid for with taxpayer dollars named after a person who was a racist. Why? Here is what some have said: We don't change the name until we can acquire another name, and we can't agree on another name. That, my friend, is a facade. That is just a way of avoiding having to deal with the reality of the facts that make this a symbol of national shame. It is a poor excuse. The Senators ought to be ashamed. They ought to be ashamed to even say this because here is what they can do, and I have a resolution asking them to do this. They can let the building revert back to the name that it had before it was the Russell Senate Office Building, and that name was the Old Senate Office Building. Let it revert back to this name and then take all the time you need, ad infinitum, to select another name. I have no name to recommend. I have not suggested that it be named to honor any person, and I am not going to. I want Richard Russell's name off because I don't think that we should demean the people of color, the Black people, who have to go into this building by having his name on the building. I don't go into the Russell office building unless I am going to protest Richard Russell. I will go there for protestation. In fact, I have written letters telling people who have invited me to speak in that building that I will not. I am not going into the Russell Senate Office Building. I will be more than honored to go in when that name changes, and it will change. It will change, but why is it still there? I have explained to you the fact that there are people who say we can't agree on a name, but I am going to give you another reason why. It is still there because Black people don't have to be respected the same way White people have to be respected. It is true. They don't have to be. There are no consequences for those Senators. I assure you that if this building had a name that was insulting to White people, the name would change. I can think of some names that if those names were on this building, they would come off immediately, if not sooner. Again, Black people don't have to be respected. This is what is inculcated within the minds of many, not all, but many people in this country. They don't have to be respected to the same extent as White people. That is a belief that exists in this country. This is why a woman in the park, Central Park, I believe it was, could make the allegation that a person of African ancestry was accosting her when it wasn't true, but in her mind, she knew that she could fall back on that. That was something that would trigger police action. Black people are not respected to the same extent, and we know it. We feel it. We are not respected to the same extent. The Senators know there are no consequences. Why remove the name? What are Black people going to do? What can Al Green do other than come to the floor and denounce this with facts? What can he do other than this? No consequences. We are not going to lose an election because we are working in a building that is named after a racist. There are no consequences because Black people are not respected to the same extent as White people. There is a belief still inculcated in this society that Black people ought to be subservient and obsequious. All people don't believe this, not all people, but a good many do, and a good many of them wear badges and carry guns, and a good many of them have raised their right hands and been sworn to uphold the Constitution and serve in the Senate of the United States of America. The Russell Senate Office Building is a symbol of national shame. This is why we have a request for the Congressional Gold Medal for African Americans who were enslaved. I believe that if a Congress in 1956 can accord a Congressional Gold Medal to the Confederate soldiers who were the enslavers, surely we can do it for the enslaved. Surely, we can, but they don't have to. What are the consequences of doing the righteous thing, not the right thing, the righteous thing? What are the consequences? I would hope that there are no consequences for doing the righteous thing, but for not doing the righteous thing, there are no consequences. There are no consequences for deciding that there will not be a Congressional Gold Medal given to people who were enslaved for 240 years, who were the economic foundational mothers and fathers of this country whose lives were sacrificed to make America great. There are no consequences. We don't have to do it. Not much would be said about it, but there is this conscience agenda that I put forth. On this agenda, the conscience agenda, there is the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal. There is inculcating the date August 20 annually as slavery remembrance day. There is the removal of the name ``Richard Russell'' from the Russell Senate Office Building. There is also something else: the enacting of the Securities and Exchange Atonement Act. This legislation would require the insurance companies that insured people who were enslaved, insured them so that the master, the owner, could receive some compensation when or if the enslaved person died for certain reasons, to atone. They have admitted that they have done it through their predecessor institutions as well as the banks. I was the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for Financial Services. The big banks came before us. There was an acknowledgment indicating that they knew of their predecessor institutions being engaged in the process of helping persons to buy and sell enslaved people, people who had been dehumanized. They did it, and I asked them the question: Do you think you have done enough to atone? The answer was, no, they didn't think they had, but they haven't given us reason to believe that they will. Therefore, this legislation will help them to move toward atonement. There is more than this. There is a need for a department of reconciliation to deal with the transgressions our Nation has engaged in over the centuries--a department of reconciliation not just for the enslaved but a department of reconciliation to deal with the many other transgressions. We hold ourselves out to be the bearers of the torch of liberty. We hold ourselves out to be people who pledge allegiance and want liberty and justice for all to a flag that symbolizes our desire for liberty and justice for all. We hold ourselves out to be the people who believe that all persons were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We can't do this with the credibility that should be a natural corollary of holding ourselves out as such without having reconciliation. Reconciliation has to come to America. I love my country. I salute the flag. I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I sing the national anthem. So I am not a person who hates this country. By the way, I should love it. My ancestors are the ones who made it great. They are the ones whose lives were sacrificed so that America could be great. Yes, I love what they have done. I love other people in the country, too. My religion requires that I love everybody. It doesn't require me to like everybody. So I love them. This department of reconciliation would help us to achieve what we claim we represent. This department of reconciliation would have a secretary of reconciliation just as the Department of Labor has a Secretary of Labor and the Commerce Department has a Secretary of Commerce. This person would report to the President just as these other Secretaries report to the President. This person would have a budget--this department would--just as other departments have a budget. I have suggested that it be linked to the Defense Department's budget, to some portion of it, so that it would always be funded. The money would not come from the Defense Department, but a percentage that would relate to what the Defense Department's budget is because the Defense Department is always going to be funded, notwithstanding current circumstances where we have difficulties arriving at agreements. We are going to fund the Defense Department, make no mistake about it, so this department would be funded. It would deal with all forms of invidious discrimination. It can deal with the Trail of Tears. It can deal with what happened to the indigenous Americans, the aboriginal Americans, the persons who were here before Columbus, the persons who were here at the genesis of human beings being here. They were treated brutally. The only reason they exist in this country now is because they were strong enough to survive the attempts to impose genocide. They survived it. There has been no atonement for this, no proper atonement. No proper atonement. The list goes on and on. All of these, the persons who were interned, American citizens interned. There has to be atonement. America owes it to itself to atone for these transgressions. That is what this conscience agenda is about, our moral imperative. Our moral imperative. The conscience is that thing within you that says this is the right thing to do. The moral imperative is the thing that says this is the thing I must do. So we have the conscience agenda, our moral imperative to do the righteous thing; to inculcate August 20 as Slavery Remembrance Day. In Houston, Texas, we had a Slavery Remembrance Day event. I had the opportunity to present legislation and talk about it, and we had over 1,000 people to attend. This month, I was at Georgetown University where a slavery remembrance event took place. The students there were the sponsors. They did an outstanding job. We have had slavery remembrance events in other places, and there are now calls from additional institutions to have slavery remembrance events. I look forward to inculcating August 20 as the annual day for remembrance of those who were enslaved. This conscience agenda calls for the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal, calls for the removal of Richard Russell's name from the Russell Senate Office Building, calls for the enacting of the Securities and Exchange Atonement Act, and, of course, the establishment of the department of reconciliation. All those things are doable. All these things I hope to see done in my lifetime, but if not, I believe they can be done. I believe that one lifetime may not be enough, but I do believe that in somebody's lifetime we have to have the genesis of all of this. To be the progenitor of it is in no way insulting to me. I close now with what I have on my letterhead. After I sign my name right under my name on my letterhead we type in ``Congressman Al Green, Ninth Congressional District of Texas.'' Then right under that you will see the words ``scion''--scion is a way of saying descended, but it has nobility associated with it--``scion of the enslaved people whose lives were sacrificed to make America great.'' And still I rise, to quote Maya Angelou: Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of--I will paraphrase and say--the enslaved. And still I rise. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I rise today for a very special occasion. It is special to me because I have the opportunity today to acknowledge the friendship that I have had for some 15 years with a member of this august body but not as a Member of Congress. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to pay honor and homage to a great and noble American, a person who has made a difference in my life. This great and noble American works here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I can tell you that she has done her job well. While she is a comely, courtly, stately lady, she is a person who is well respected. She is well respected because her job as Assistant Sergeant at Arms requires her to sometimes approach us when we are out of order. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am a recidivist, a repeat offender. On more than one occasion, she has had to bring me to order. I remember the first time when I was on my phone, and she came over to me and kindly asked that I put my phone away. There was a second time, and she kindly came over to me and said, ``You know better,'' and I did. I always respected her, and I believe all the Members respect her for one principal reason, that reason being, Mr. Speaker, of all the people in Washington, D.C., there are very few who come to work and do not associate themselves closely with one party or another. Now, I don't know what her political affiliation is, but I think I speak for a good many people. Let's just say I speak for myself and everybody who agrees with me. A good many people believe that she could be a member of either party because of the way she has treated her job. She has been exceedingly fair at all times. I believe that she truly deserves the position that she has as the first African-American woman to be the Assistant Sergeant at Arms, and that makes her also the only. She has done her job well. My prognostication is this: While she may be the first, because of the way she has conducted herself, she will not be the last. I would add this, as I come to my close, Mr. Speaker: There are times when you feel good about what you are doing, yet you are saddened because you know that something is about to happen that will, at some point, cause you to lose contact with a friend. I see her on a daily basis when I am here. Knowing that she is leaving does sadden me, but knowing that she has set a record for others to follow makes my heart warm. I would say to her, you truly have come a long way from the watermelon patch, the tobacco fields, and Broadway, North Carolina. You have come a long way. No one could have prognosticated at your birth that you would sit in that seat and hold this position, but you are a God-fearing person, and you have said to me that you believe that it was destiny. I am proud that you have fulfilled your destiny here, but there are still greater things for you to do. I want to keep in touch with you, and I want to be a part of them to the extent that I can. I want you to know that we appreciate the great job that you have done. You have served your country well. You have earned the title the Honorable Joyce Hamlett, the first but not the last African American to hold the position of Assistant Sergeant at Arms. God bless you, and thank you. I have a few special gifts that I will present to you, and I look forward to continuing to serve you in other ways.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud Member of the Congress of the United States of America, always honored to have this preeminent privilege of standing here in the House of Representatives in this Chamber, proud to do so, proud to be an American. I am one of the persons who likes to stand and sing the national anthem, stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. However, that is not what makes America great, having Al Green stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the national anthem. The thing that makes America great is that we, Members of Congress, and other persons of good will, will defend the right of those who choose not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, who stand not to sing the national anthem, nor do they choose to stand when the national anthem is being played. That is the greatness of America, that we can tolerate each other when we have differences. Tonight, I am proud to be here, Mr. Speaker, proud to stand here and have this privilege. No one could have predicted at my birth that I would be here to give this message tonight. This is a special message that has to do with something happening in my congressional district. I have in my hand a copy of an article from the Houston Chronicle. The person who is the writer for this particular article is Juhi Varma, a very good writer, I must add. Juhi writes, and this is the style of the caption, the title, if you will: ``Missouri City to change street named after KKK leader as fight against Confederate themes continues.'' I thank Ms. Varma for writing this article because she captures the very essence of what happened. I would like to give just a brief recitation, if I may, on some of what I know about this circumstance. Some years ago, I discovered that we had an area in my congressional district in a city known as Missouri City, Texas, an area in Vicksburg Village of Shiloh, a subdivision with some 200 homes or more, a subdivision with more than a thousand people, a subdivision that had streets with Confederate names. In 2021, 2022, somewhere thereabouts, this came to my attention. A subdivision in this day and time with Confederate street names. Someone would say that is not a big deal. Maybe not, but let's explore it. There was a Confederate Drive, Confederate Court, Confederate South Drive, and then among the many others, Bull Run Court, Stonewall Court, Pickett Place. Among them there was also a Bedford Forrest Drive and a Bedford Forrest Court. For edification purposes, Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. First Grand Wizard. For further information, the KKK, for those who may not know--my suspicion is that most who will hear this will know, but the KKK was an organization devoted to suppressing the rights of African Americans. Devoted. Some might say they did a pretty good job over the years of suppressing the rights of African Americans. We have these streets with the names that I have articulated and some others, but we have these streets. I took it upon myself to engage with the mayor and council about changing the names. This is when I discovered that to change the names you had to have at least 90 percent of the residents to sign off on it, 90 percent. Well, 90 percent is a good number, but it is not a good number if you are trying to get the name of a street changed, I found, because it was most difficult to get it done. I went out personally and talked to people about getting the names changed, and it was very difficult, to say the very least. I won't say it was impossible, but we didn't get any names changed at the 90 percent level. We got a new mayor and council, a mayor and council with persons who were a little bit more sensitive to the issue. There was a Councilmember Boney, a councilmember who is a historian, lay historian, and who understood what these names meant, a councilmember who decided that he was going to do something about this. I am proud to say that Councilmember Jeff Boney was able to lower the threshold from 90 percent to 70 percent. At the 70 percent threshold, we were able to get some names changed. We had a couple living in the neighborhood, the Gilbos, they were out front in getting names changed. Let's just reflect for a moment before I continue with the Gilbos and others in the neighborhood on this. One of the chief proponents of leaving the names as they were was a person of African ancestry. I personally talked to this person, tried to convince the person that it would be appropriate to get names that would be more inclusive, as Ms. Varma has mentioned in her article. The person said to me: The people shouldn't have bought the land. They knew what the name was when they bought it, and they shouldn't have bought homes in that neighborhood. I choose not to live in a neighborhood that has streets with Confederate names. I choose not to live in a city that has streets with Confederate names. I choose not to live in a country that has streets with Confederate names. That is why I am doing what I can to change these names. I don't think we ought to have a street, especially one with people of color--I would imagine all people of good will would agree that we ought not have a street named after the first Grand Wizard of the KKK, but everybody is entitled to their opinion. We worked through the process with Councilmember Boney, who took the lead to lower the threshold so that we could change some names. Confederate Drive under his leadership, and with the aid and assistance of the residents, especially the Gilbos, Rhonda and Beau, the Confederate Drive street was changed to Prosperity Drive. That is where they live now. They didn't want to live on Confederate Drive. Confederate Court was changed to Prosperity Court, Confederate South Drive to Prosperity South Drive. I thought that after the name changed from Confederate to Prosperity, I thought after that name change, we would have little difficulty changing the name from Bedford Forrest Court and Bedford Forrest Drive to some other names. I thought that there would be little challenge to these two with a 70 percent threshold. I thought that people would gladly change the names. Regardless of their station in life, it just seemed to me that in the United States of America, liberty and justice for all, an inclusive country, the country I love, where I say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the national anthem, I just thought that it would be relatively simple to move on these streets with this name. How wrong I was. How wrong I was. After much work, time, energy, and effort, the name Nathan Bedford Forrest--actually Bedford Forrest, Nathan wasn't there--was not removed. Thank God for Councilmember Boney. He went back to the council, and the council had to lower the threshold to 60 percent. It was only after we lowered the threshold--I say ``we,'' it was the city council and the mayor in Missouri City, Texas. The mayor's name is Elackatt. By the way, he is of Indian ancestry, born in India, mayor in Missouri City, Texas. It is a wonderful thing to know that we can have, appreciate, and celebrate this level of diversity. With that mayor and council, it was lowered to 60 percent. As a result, the Pearsons, Rodney and Angie, don't have to live on a street now that bears the name Bedford Forrest. That name will change on August 7 of this year. It will become Liberty Way. Liberty Way Drive is the street that they will live on and there is a Liberty Way Court. But it will become Liberty Way. Inclusive speaks to something associated with the founding principle of this country, liberty, justice for all in the Pledge of Allegiance. That is a wonderful thing to see occurring. Perhaps we will get to Bull Run Court, Stonewall Court, and some others, Pickett Place, Confederate General Pickett, or maybe we can get to these in the near future. But I am proud of what has been done, and I commend Councilmember Boney. I commend the Pearsons. I commend all of the persons who were associated with these endeavors, the Gilbos, for what they have done to bring a sense of justice to the people who live in this neighborhood. There is something more sinister that has taken place that I want to call to your attention with reference to this, and the best way to explain it is to tell you about my flight that I took in from Houston to Washington, D.C. I fly over 100 times a year. On this occasion, a couple of weeks ago, I saw a movie while I was on the plane. It was a movie that was heart-wrenching for me, a movie about a young man who was born to a father who was a wealthy plantation owner and a mother who was a slave. The name of the movie is Chevalier. I won't spoil it for you. I am going to go right to the gravamen of my message, the heart of this. The essence of it is this: He was talking to his mother and they were talking about how evil had caused some physical harm. I won't spoil the movie for you because I think that it is worthy of seeing. But they were talking about how evil had caused this harm, physical harm. His mother said to him, she reminded him, yes, of the physical harm, but it is really the evil that has impacted our minds that she called to his attention; how evil had caused people to accept things that were unacceptable to other people, unacceptable to the masses, but evil can teach you to accept things. There were people who accepted the notion that this was all right, to live on a street named after the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Evil can do this. It can convince you that what others would not accept and what you would not accept for them you will accept for yourself. This gets back to the person that I told you of African ancestry who was one of the chief proponents of maintaining the names, convinced that it was okay for people of African ancestry to live on a street named after the first Grand Wizard of the KKK, but was not convinced, I assure you, that he or would have anyone live on a street that had a name associated with the Third Reich. I wouldn't live to on a street with a name associated with the Third Reich. I would dare say that there are few people in Congress--there may be one, but I can't imagine there being one who would tolerate it. Yet, people who will tolerate living on a street, who happen to be of African ancestry, will tolerate living on a street named after a Grand Wizard of the KKK would not tolerate living on a street or having anyone else live on a street named after someone associated with the Third Reich. This is the essence of what this mother was conveying to her son about the evils and how they can impact the mind. Evil can have a sinister impact on the mind. Unfortunately, in this country, the country I love, for too long we have allowed ourselves to be disrespected, our ancestors to be disrespected. We have allowed the enslavers to be revered and the enslaved to be reviled. Our minds have been corrupted to the extent that we find it acceptable to send our children to a Lee high school named after a Confederate general but would not dare send our children to a high school named after someone associated with the Third Reich. I wouldn't have a child go to one. Our minds have been corrupted. We tolerate living in a country where we preach liberty and justice for all, a country founded, to a certain extent, on the principle of persons having inalienable rights--I think the way it is stated in the Constitution is unalienable--but inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we, many people of color, accept what we would not accept for others under other circumstances. I marvel at how we have arrived in the year 2023 and we have a building on the campus, on this campus, named after a person who was a white supremacist, a person who fought against anti-lynching laws, a person who fought integration, a person who was a segregationist, and we have a building named after this person and we, people of color, tolerate it. I am a one-person protest. I do not go in the building unless I am going there to protest; and, of course, I am talking about the Russell Office Building. Richard Russell is the person of whom I speak, the person who was one of the coauthors of the Southern Manifesto. Richard Russell, the Senate has a building named after Richard Russell. I have here what we refer to as the Conscience Agenda. The third item on this agenda is to remove Richard Russell's name. Taxpayer dollars, my dollars, taxpayer dollars ought not be on the name of a building that would honor a bigot and a racist, Richard Russell. Here is the amazing thing about this, other than the fact that we have persons of African ancestry who will accept it, who could do something about it, but accept it. Here is the amazing thing. The United States Senate changed the names on military bases, changed the names of Confederate generals, removed them. In concert with the House and the signature of the President, we did it. We changed the names. The same Senate that has changed the names on these military bases named after and in honor of Confederate generals, that same Senate will not take Richard Russell's name off of the Russell Senate Office Building. Same Senate. It shows a lack of respect. The Senate ought to be ashamed. The building itself is a symbol of shame. I marvel at how this has been so accepted that it is commonplace. People just walk in and out of the building like it is any other building. The Richard Russell Office Building. The same Senate that took the names off of these Confederate bases, names on military bases named after Confederate soldiers, usually generals, the same Senate has not removed this name. Now, the question becomes why. Here is what I have been told. I have been told that the Senate can't agree on another name; this is why the Senate will not remove the name that is offensive to me and many of my friends and relatives. They said they can't agree on a name. But I have a solution. Let it revert to the name that it had before it became Richard Russell. Let it revert to the Old Senate Office Building, and then choose any name you want. Take as much time as you need, but you can change the name. I beg the Senate, and I demand of the Senate that you do not just the right thing but do the righteous thing and remove Richard Russell's name from this office building, just as you have done it for military bases around the country. This would be the honorable thing to do. Members of the Senate, you dishonor the flag when you do this, liberty and justice for all. You dishonor the anthem. Stand up for justice. Stand up for people of color who are offended by this name. I am grateful for the time. I want the persons who make it possible for me to have the time to know that I appreciate them. I also want people to know that I love my country, and I love it enough to want to see the best of it and remove the notion that we can tolerate this level of injustice being perpetrated on a daily basis by people who have the power to change it almost overnight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Madam Speaker. I rise today with a heavy heart, and I say this because of the topic that I will share with persons based on a personal experience that I had. I often say I rise in the spirit of Maya Angelou. I rise with the notion that I bring the gifts our ancestors gave on the dream and the hope of the slave. That doesn't apply to me personally, but generally speaking it applies to people of my ethnicity, my race. I rise today with this heavy heart because of something that has haunted me since I saw it some many weeks ago, something that haunted me to the extent that I returned to my office after having seen it and called it to the attention of my staff. I have had a good deal of consternation in terms of how to respond and react to what I saw, so permit me to share this vignette with you and a bit of commentary thereafter. While visiting a local facility, a store in the area--I will not announce the name of the business. I can if I have to, but I choose not to today. While I was there for business purposes, I saw children come in. These children, I am going to guesstimate, 5 to 10. They came in the main entrance, they proceeded to move over to my left, their right, as they came in, and they had bags. They went up and down each aisle in the store collecting things. They proceeded to do this all the way through the store, traversing the entirety of the store. When they arrived at the very last aisle in the store, they walked out. There was a peace officer, or what appeared to be a peace officer, an officer in uniform, standing there as they passed. They did not go to the cashier, the cash register, the person, the clerk who was collecting funds for items that were being purchased. They did not go there. They didn't go over to the self-check area. They merely walked out of the store with bags of goods that they collected while in the store. Now, let me pause for a moment and say something that is important. I will come back to the story, the vignette. There are things that happen that cause me to pray that the person who did this was not a person of color. When I hear of these dastardly deeds, there is something within me that says, God, I hope that is not a person of color. I don't want to have it be any person. I don't want to see dastardly deeds done. Because of the history of people of African ancestry in the country and how there was a time when there was a constant drumbeat to style them as persons who were doing dastardly deeds, I relate, and I just don't want to see that done. I always pray that it is not a person of color. I don't want it to be any person at all. In this case, I happened to witness it, and I have to tell you, these were all children of color. Now, an Anglo person saying this would probably be called a racist by somebody. I want you to know that I saw this, I am saying this, and I believe that they were children of African ancestry. They walked out of that store--continuing with the vignette--and they did it slowly. They casually strolled through the door, not having paid for the goods that they collected as they walked up and down each aisle in that store. My mother would call that theft. The constabulary would call that theft. I call that theft. I saw the crime committed. I went over to the officer myself, and I spoke to the officer: Did you see that? The officer responded truthfully. He said he did. I made an inquiry as to why the officer did not act. The officer was very candid. He explained to me that there had been an encounter wherein an officer or someone did act, and that person was harmed, the person who tried to stop this behavior, and that they had been told that this was not something that they would make an attempt to prohibit or prevent. I was shocked. I have heard about these things. I have seen things on television where large groups of people run into stores and take things, smash and grab and leave. It is different when you actually see it yourself. The story doesn't end here. After what I saw, I moved over to pay for what I had. Then two other children came in. This time there was a child that may have been 9 or 10 years old, maybe 12. It is hard to guess. There was another child that was probably about a foot or more higher than my walking cane, probably, in my opinion, 6 or 7 years old. This child had a bag and collected things. In my opinion, I would say a baby, a child. When this child reached the exit near the officer--and I am standing there and saw it--this child looked at the officer, and the officer looked at the child. I thought for a moment that the officer would react. This child turned to that officer and stared. He just stared at the officer. As we would say in my neck of the woods, he stared the officer down--a baby. Then he walked out the door with goods that he had not paid for. Friends, it doesn't matter your color. At some point, we have to take a stand. This cannot be tolerated. Does anybody really think that these children are going to stop after that one incident? Does anybody really believe that they won't do things at some point in the future that will exceed petty theft? I am only speculating, but my guess is that this can be the genesis of bad things to come. It has to be dealt with. We cannot allow people to take things that belong to other people with impunity. It doesn't matter their age. As a matter of fact, the younger the age gives me more concern than perhaps the older because this is a point where children should be taught how to respect others and the property of others. Now we allow them to, with impunity, commit crimes. I am calling this to our attention because I know what happens when people get hurt in the process of taking things. I know what happens. I know that there is going to be an allegation made if an officer should hurt somebody in the process. I am not saying that officers should, but at some point, we have to stop it. You don't stop it by allowing it to continue. People cannot assume that they can just walk out of the store with the goods and not pay for them, especially children. I have heard many stories about how, ``My son is a good boy.'' I was a judge in a small claims court before I came to Congress, and I have heard the stories about how, ``My son is a good boy. He was with bad company.'' Well, that may be true, but good company or bad company, we have to teach our children to respect the property of others and to respect others. I am bringing this to our attention because I have been told that this facility, this business place, may have to close its doors. That is a reason to call it to our attention. I am bringing it to our attention because I don't want to see anybody get hurt. That is a good reason to call it to our attention. I am bringing it to our attention more so because I believe we have a moral imperative to help the generations that are to follow to understand how it is that they had the opportunity to walk into the front door of that establishment. It hasn't been that long ago, within my lifetime, that I had to go to the back door if they allowed me in at all--not that business, but a similar business. In my lifetime, I have had to go to the back door to get things that I ordered from within a business. They have to understand that people have suffered so that they have these opportunities and privileges. There is equality under the law for them so that they are not treated as second-class citizens and prevented from going into business places, that they are not searched before they go into a business place, that they are not followed up and down the aisles of business places. I have been followed in places when I was much younger simply because of who I was. They have to understand that Rosa Parks didn't go to jail so that they could steal from other people with impunity. Dr. King didn't have the March on Washington for this. We have to get them to understand how it is that they have these opportunities, and we are failing to do it. We are failing to do it as long as there is one child who does what I saw. It doesn't take 10, just 1. Every child is important, and we have to reach them all or at least make every effort that we can. We have a moral imperative to do this. They have to understand this history. They have to understand that their foreparents suffered and their lives were sacrificed so that America could be the great country it is and so that there would be a 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and 15th Amendment to end slavery, have the right to vote, and equality under the law. They have to understand. If we are not going to do it in schools, we will have to do it in homes. I would prefer to see it done everywhere, to be quite honest, so that everybody understands the history and importance of knowing who you are and how it is that you have acquired this place in society that you currently hold. We are not there yet. There is still more work to be done. We have Slavery Remembrance Day coming up on August 20. There will be other things associated with our history that we will do. We cannot allow our young generation--the youngest among us who can comprehend--to live a life without understanding the importance of knowing who they are. I am going to ask persons to please become a committee of one. If you know of a child who is doing this, take it upon yourself to talk to that family or to that child. I know that strange things and odd things happen and people get hurt. If you know the family, do what we had done when I was a much younger child. If you committed an offense, everybody told your mother about it. Nobody would watch a child commit a crime and not go home and call around and find out whose child it was and make sure that it was reported. We cannot do this and know that it is happening and simply go on about our business. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I normally would be speaking about another topic. This was something that has haunted me since I saw it, and as a result, I had to say what I have said. I know that somebody has been offended. I am sorry if I did offend you, but this cannot go unnoticed and cannot go without a call for change. Let's make sure that we alert the schools to let them know what is happening. We have to talk to the people in the schools. We have to talk to the teachers to get to the parents, the PTAs. I am going to do as much as I can. I will be a committee of one, and I ask that you become a committee of one. Before I close, there are persons of other ethnicities and races who do this, as well, and we don't want them doing it. They, too, have a history that they ought to understand. If they truly understood it, they wouldn't engage in this kind of behavior. Let's not allow this to happen to any child. Let's become the responsible adults who will claim all children as children in need of adult supervision at all times. Let's make a difference in the lives of these children. And still I rise in the spirit of Maya Angelou, ``Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of the slave.'' Recognizing Slavery Remembrance Day

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am proud to announce that we are going to have our Slavery Remembrance Day event in Houston, Texas, on Saturday, August 19. I am proud to announce it because the Honorable Bishop William Barber will be the speaker. Last year, President Biden recognized this event and, in so doing, issued a press release. I say he recognized the event. He actually recognized Slavery Remembrance Day. He remembered the enslaved by way of a press release. We had this event and had more than a thousand people show up. We are telling folks as best we can that there is limited seating and only 1,000 will be allowed into the venue to hear this great message and to hear us explain the history of Africans in the United States of America, the significant role that they have played in the development of the country, and the role that they have played in helping this country become the economic powerhouse that it is today. These are the foundational mothers and fathers. These are the persons of whom we will speak, persons of African ancestry who made great sacrifices and whose lives were sacrificed so that America could rest on the economic foundation where it resides. Madam Speaker, I am proud of this event for a multiplicity of reasons. One, we will have an opportunity to expose the history that many people are not aware of. Two, we will have an opportunity to tell people that they should not allow themselves to revere the enslaver and revile the enslaved. It is important for people to understand that concept. We have to change the mindset. Most importantly, we will do this because those lives, in the millions, that were sacrificed over some 240-plus years must be commemorated. We have a moral imperative to do this. This should be on everyone's conscience agenda: a moral imperative to commemorate the lives that were sacrificed to make America great. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 344.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. Still I rise. Borrowing the words of Maya Angelou, ``Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of the slave,'' and still I rise. I rise as a scion of the enslaved Africans who were sacrificed to make America great, sacrificed for some 200-plus years, 240-plus years, to make America great. I rise because I understand that as a scion and as a descendant, I have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to those enslaved people. I think my colleague, John Lewis, put it best, to just have a responsibility to ``get in good trouble.'' ``Good trouble'' was his term. I added the verbiage. We have this duty and responsibility to get into good trouble, to do that which is appropriate to honor the enslaved people who are the foundational mothers and fathers, the economic foundational mothers and fathers, of this country. The foundation upon which this economy resides to this day was put in place with sacrificed lives, millions of sacrificed lives, millions, literally, over centuries, literally, to make America the great country it is. Unfortunately, America--the country I love, the country where I sing the national anthem, salute the flag, and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I stand for the national anthem. The country I love has not shown respect for the people who gave it its economic foundation. As a matter of fact, we have shown disrespect for them, disrespect. They have not been honored. They have been pushed aside and left behind. As a matter of fact, there has been an effort to cause people to literally be ashamed of talking about these foundational mothers and fathers. We revere the enslavers, and we revile the enslaved who were sacrificed, whose lives were sacrificed, many of whom were born into slavery, lived their lives as slaves, and died as slaves. We don't honor them appropriately. Some of that is changing because of what the Honorable John Lewis called to our attention about good trouble. Some of that is changing because, last year, this Congress passed legislation for Slavery Remembrance Day. We did so on July 27 of last year. Mr. Speaker, Slavery Remembrance Day was a historic and monumental accomplishment for Congress, but you didn't read about it in the newspapers. You didn't see it on television. You didn't hear anything about it on radio. It wasn't celebrated on social media. This country does not respect the enslaved people, the country I love, the country where I salute the flag, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and stand for the national anthem. None of that was broadcast because there is a desire among many to have those who are the scions, the descendants, forget slavery, to forgive and forget. It is obvious that the scions have forgiven. Yes, we forgive, but God gave us memory for a reason. We don't forget. We don't forget Pearl Harbor, and we have a Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. We don't forget 9/11, and we have a 9/11 Remembrance Day. We are not going to forget and should never forget the Holocaust, and we have a Holocaust Remembrance Day. We don't forgive and forget. We should forgive and remember. Forgive and remember is what we do for 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7. That is what we do for the Holocaust. We remember, and we should. I stand here a scion, a proud person who commemorates Slavery Remembrance Day. It is not a day for celebration. It is a day for commemoration. As we are approaching the next Slavery Remembrance Day, I thought it would be appropriate to do several things. The first is to acknowledge Mr. Steny Hoyer. Mr. Steny Hoyer gave me his word, and he kept his word. He gave me his word. He indicated that we would pass Slavery Remembrance Day legislation in this House, and we did. We did it, as I indicated, on July 27, 2022. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Hoyer for what he committed to do, for what he followed through on, and, in fact, what he did. So, I thank Mr. Hoyer. I will forever appreciate him for this and many other things that he did as the majority leader. I respect greatly the many things that he has done, but I don't respect any of them more than what he did to help us inculcate Slavery Remembrance Day into the national fiber and fabric of this country. I greatly appreciate it, and I will be thanking the gentleman not only today but also in Houston, Texas, on August 19, when we will have our second annual Slavery Remembrance Day event. The second event will be on August 19 in Houston, Texas. Our speaker will be the Honorable Bishop Barber, who is well known for his oratory and his intellect. He is a preacher par excellence, a pulpiteer par excellence, and a person who, without question, is making a difference in the lives of poor people. He is engaged in a campaign to help poor people. It is August 19 in Houston, Texas. It will be open to the public, I might add, the first 1,000 people. Last year, we had 1,000 people in attendance. We expect to have 1,000 people this year. We expect to continue with the Slavery Remembrance Day event not only in Houston but across the length and breadth of this country. There are other scions who understand that they are bringing the gifts our ancestors gave, that they are the dream and hope of the slaves. Some of them will pick this up, and they, too, will have Slavery Remembrance Day events. The actual day for Slavery Remembrance Day to have the most commemoration is going to be August 20 because it was on August 20, 1619, that the ship White Lion docked at a place called Point Comfort near what we now call Norfolk, Virginia. When the White Lion docked, it had 20 or so--I am not sure of the exact number--persons of African ancestry who were traded for goods. They became the first Africans to become enslaved in the Colonies. I understand that there are other circumstances that predate August 20, 1619, but this happened with the Colonies, and it was the Colonies that, in a sense--they probably don't like to say it, but it is true-- popularized slavery. They popularized it, legitimized it, made it comfortable, made it acceptable, made it part of the vernacular, and made it a part of everyday life. It was the American Colonies that gave us slavery as an institution in this country for hundreds of years. On August 20, we will be commemorating Slavery Remembrance Day. We have this breakfast and ceremony on the 19th, but on the 20th, we will take it to houses of worship. In these places of worship, we will have commemoration ceremonies. Last year, we were at Bishop Dixon's Community of Faith Church, to be called the cathedral now, the Cathedral of Faith in Houston, Texas. We will have another commemoration ceremony there. We will have commemoration ceremonies in other churches. We want to have them across the length and breadth of the country. We will get there. It is not going to be easy, but we will do it. This is what you do, Mr. Speaker. This is, for many people, trouble, but it is the kind of good trouble that John Lewis called to our attention. It is good trouble. I remember how he and I were in good trouble together. We were arrested multiple times together, and we literally were in jail together. I respect and will always allow his spirit to manifest itself such that it can be a guiding light and force in the lives of people and hopefully will continue to be one in my life, the desire to be in good trouble. I have followed through on this good trouble mission, and I have had the opportunity to make good trouble in honor of the Honorable John Lewis as it relates to voting rights. This is a part of the process of honoring the enslaved people, as a matter of fact, this good trouble. Honoring them by getting in good trouble to advance the rights of all people, which would include them--voting rights, for example--is an act of good trouble not just for my contemporaries and for the people who will benefit from it now but to show that we respect that the ancestors suffered and never had the right to vote. They suffered, so someone such as an Al Green who makes it to Congress, they would expect that he would try to make a difference and get and acquire the rights for others that they never had. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to tell you that I was before the Supreme Court a few years back. I was before the Supreme Court, and I have the proof of it here. This is the citation that I received on August 9, 2021. August is a significant month, you see, Mr. Speaker, in my life. We were arrested there, and I made a commitment after we were arrested--not put in jail; it wasn't that type of arrest. This time, when I was arrested, they placed this band on us, and this was something to indicate that we have been arrested and had to post bail. I paid a fine, and I did not go to a place of incarceration. My commitment was to wear this band. This is the same band that was placed on me on August 9, 2021. It is the same band. I committed to myself to wear this until we passed the Voting Rights Act here in Congress, and I have had many tell me that I may be wearing it a long time. I have been wearing it now for some years, you see, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think that I can wear it too long because the right to vote has been denied to people for too long. As a scion of the enslaved people who never had the right to vote, this is the least I can do to show the world that I am serious to the extent that one can do so with a wristband, a wristband that symbolizes a commitment to justice for all in the form of voting rights being protected for all. I want to assure people that we will continue with this conscience agenda. This Slavery Remembrance Day is but one aspect of the conscience agenda. The conscience agenda, which is to my left, is one that we are going to promote, and it is a part of the legislative agenda here in Congress. That legislative agenda will be talked about on August 19 in Houston, Texas, when we have 1,000 or more people in attendance at this event, the Slavery Remembrance Day breakfast. We are going to talk about the legislative agenda. The legislative agenda includes expanding Slavery Remembrance Day. We will expand it across the length and breadth of the country, as I articulated a little bit earlier. The legislative agenda will include awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslaved. We have in 1956, here in this Congress, accorded a Congressional Gold Medal; 1956, a Congressional Gold Medal, to Confederate soldiers. Confederate soldiers, for edification purposes, are the people who fought to maintain slavery. The Congress of the United States awarded a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslavers but not to the enslaved, not to the people who are the foundational mothers and fathers of this country, the people who suffered and who were sacrificed, their lives sacrificed so that we would have this opportunity to stand in the well of the House and say America is a great country. It is. But it is great for a reason. The reason is sacrificed lives, millions of them. If we in this Congress can accord a Congressional Gold Medal to Confederate soldiers, surely we can accord a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslaved people whose lives were sacrificed to lay the economic foundation upon which this Nation resides today. A Congressional Gold Medal is a part of the conscience agenda. You will note we have that at the top of this display; conscience agenda. This is our moral imperative. This is our moral imperative, this conscious agenda; our moral imperative. That means it is something that we have to do because it is not only the right thing to do; this is the righteous thing to do. This is a righteous movement. This is righteous legislation. This is not your typical legislation. This is legislation that addresses a similar moment in time that changed the rest of time in this country, and that moment in time was August 20, 1619. It changed the history of this country forever in an unpleasant way for a good many people, I might add, people of color. This is a part of it, awarding a Congressional Gold Medal. We have legislation that we have filed in the House of Representatives to accord a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslaved people. The next piece of legislation on the conscience agenda, that inner thing within us all that says this is the right thing to do, that we should respond to. This is the response. This is the response from a scion of the African people who were enslaved and sacrificed to make America great. The next item on the agenda for those who may not be aware--many are; the message is getting out--is the removal of Richard Russell's name from the Russell Senate Office Building. Pardon me while I pick up my poster on this issue. This is a poster that displays, depicts the Russell Senate Office Building; a building paid for with tax dollars. Not only is it paid for with tax dollars, it is maintained as the same with tax dollars, the Russell Senate Office Building. Richard Russell was a bigot. I am speaking truth. Richard Russell was a racist, a White supremacist. Richard Russell was one of the authors of the Southern Manifesto. Richard Russell fought antilynching legislation. Richard Russell fought civil rights legislation. Richard Russell has earned a place in infamy, and his name should not be associated with the Russell Senate Office Building. It should not. His name should be immediately removed from the building. The building itself is a symbol of national shame. I don't go in the Richard Russell Office Building. I am a one-person protest. I don't go. I respect myself enough not to go into this building. I guarantee you; if this building were symbolic of some other things associated with Anglo Americans, they wouldn't go in it. They respect themselves enough not to disrespect themselves by going into a building that was antithetical to their best interests, that had the name of some person who was antithetical to their best interests. That is what they do. I am not doing anything that my Anglo-American friends wouldn't do if the shoe were on the other foot, to borrow a phrase. Unfortunately, the Senate has not found it within its wisdom to change the name. I have heard that the reason the name has not been changed is because they can't agree on another name. There have been efforts to try to do it, but they couldn't agree on a name. I have a solution. There is a way to resolve this question of the name change. We resolve it by doing this: Let it revert to the name that it had prior to becoming the Russell Senate Office Building. That name was the Old Senate Office Building. Let it revert to the Old Senate Office Building; take such time as needed to select the new name. I have no name that I am recommending. I am not doing this to give it a name. I am doing this to have this name removed. I am doing this because this is good trouble. This is the kind of trouble that the ancestors expect a scion to engage in. This is the good trouble, the kind of trouble that John Lewis engaged in when he crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday. This is good trouble. I don't mind getting into good trouble. It is good trouble to say that the Senate ought to be ashamed for allowing this to persist, knowing that it is an affront to African Americans. They know it, but we are not that important. Our vote is, but we are not that important. They don't have to respond to us immediately. Take their time. It is a very difficult circumstance to negotiate when people who are not directly impacted by something that is an affront to others, when they have the authority to set the timeline, when they can determine when it is best to do that which is going to benefit people who are finding a circumstance unpleasant and unacceptable. They don't have to rush. It doesn't impact them; many of them. It does impact one or two who are there, in the sense that they are descendants. I am a proud descendant. I am not ashamed to say that the Senate ought to be ashamed for what it is doing in allowing this to continue. It just seems like in this country where we get exposure for everything that is under the Sun, that this would get the kind of attention it merits. The press knows, they do, but they are not taking any action. Sometimes the press can be there to maintain the status quo. I have no idea as to why, but that is what is happening as a result of the inaction. The status quo is being maintained, and we need not kid ourselves. If this received the media attention that it richly deserves and will not receive, apparently, this would change. It would. The name would come off of the building. The Senate has shame on its face for allowing this to persist. The conscience agenda. Another aspect of this agenda is the enacting of the securities and exchange atonement. Let me explain. I was afforded the preeminent privilege of being the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the full committee of Financial Services, and as such, we held hearings. We held a hearing, and we had some of the top banks in this country present. We made inquiries about their association with slavery by and through their predecessor institutions. Well, confessions were made. Predecessor institutions are big banks. Before they became as big as they are now, they engaged with slavery. Banks were lending money so that people could buy human beings and shackle and chain them into slavery. Banks would repossess their property. They were chattel by definition at the time, human beings as chattel. These are the foundational mothers and fathers of this country in chains. They were repossessed. If the person who received the loan to purchase the slaves didn't make his payments timely, the slaves were repossessed, just as you would repossess an automobile or a car, some piece of property, an inanimate object. They were repossessed. These are the captains of industry. These are the people who make millions of dollars a year. The question was posed to them: Have you done enough to atone? Not in those exact words. They all gave an indication that they could do more. Then the question was asked, well, can you give us a plan for doing that something more? Not one had a plan or was prepared to say they would even present a plan. The insurance companies, big insurance companies got their start, some of them, dealing in slavery. That wasn't the only thing, but it was a part of their portfolio at the time. These big companies insured the slaves. When a slave died, then there was a payment of funds, just as you would insure a cow and some other animal; human beings treated with less respect than you would give a cow, in many cases. The enslaved people, the foundational mothers and fathers, the economic foundational mothers and fathers who laid the foundation such that I can stand here and say America is a great country; great because of their lives that were sacrificed. I say it sincerely. America is a great country. But we have to add: because of the ancestors who were enslaved for centuries so that America could have the free labor to help it become the economic powerhouse it is today. We need to have a means by which we can find out just to what extent all of these companies, major companies, engaged in some way with slavery, and there should be atonement. We didn't demand that they atone in some specific way. The specificities we allowed them to negotiate within themselves, but so far, we have not had any action that I am aware of. To do something along the lines of just a few handouts here and a few handouts there, and receiving applause while you are getting your millions and millions of dollars as a salary, that is not enough. That is not enough. I can call some names of people who think that they have done great things while receiving those big salaries and done very little to atone for what their predecessor institutions have done. ``Securities and Exchange Commission''--securities and exchange atonement, more appropriately stated. Finally, on this agenda, which we will talk about on August 19 in Houston, Texas, with 1,000 people assembled, we will talk about all of these and one additional--this is the good trouble that you get into when you are a scion and you respect yourself--establishing the department of reconciliation, establishing the department of reconciliation. It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that we have not atoned. We have not. Not only is atonement less than appreciated, but we are finding now that, in my opinion, we are backsliding in the House of Representatives--backsliding, moving back, moving backward in the House of Representatives. We are very close in this House to having racism legitimized as a talking point or the verbiage associated with racism legitimized as a talking point. Case in point, yesterday, a Member of the House of Representatives came to this floor and uttered what I consider a racial slur on the floor of the House. There was an appeal to take down the words, to have them stricken, right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We are becoming more comfortable in this country with racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, nativism, sexism, all of these invidious ``isms.'' We are becoming more comfortable with them. There are people who are very comfortable with them who are Members of the Congress of the United States of America. We had a President who was very comfortable with these invidious phobias and ``isms.'' That, my friends, laid the foundation for much of what we are seeing and suffering to this very day. The behavior of the person at the top will set the tone and tenor for persons up and down the line. We are suffering because of the behavior of someone that we elected to public office. We in this country are moving in the wrong direction when it comes to the progress that we should be making in terms of relationship building and living together in harmony. A lot of the legislation in the NDAA evidences exactly what I am saying. By the way, I voted against it. This department of reconciliation is needed. It is needed because, for too long, we have ignored the chasm between the races in this country, and there is a chasm. We have ignored it. Rather than span the chasm, build a bridge such that we can all enjoy liberty and justice for all, we ignored it. We have somehow hoped that it would just go away, that if we could just let time pass, it would go away. However, the passage of time in and of itself does not cause pain, hurt, and sorrow to evaporate. It is what you do with the time, and we have not used our time wisely, as evidenced by the fact that we had all this celebration of those who were the enslavers and literally ignoring those who were enslaved--vilified the enslaved. We need a department of reconciliation. This department would be--something just came to mind. Let's pause on the department of reconciliation and what it would be because I have another thought. I really think that I need to amend the agenda. In honor of the Honorable John Lewis, I need to call this the ``good trouble'' because for a lot of people, this is trouble, see? They can't stomach what we have here, the good trouble conscience agenda. I am going to do that, the good trouble conscience agenda, because I understand the trouble that this creates in the lives of people who want to forget and go on. However, they don't do that when it comes to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or the Holocaust. We have to remember those things, and we should. But when it comes to slavery, let's just forget that. Let's not talk about it. Forgive and forget, Al, but remember the others. Just forgive and forget the people who made America the great country it is, the foundational mothers and fathers. As I was saying, back to our regularly scheduled program, establishing a department of reconciliation, here is what this department would do, what it would allow us to do: To have a secretary of reconciliation, just as we have a Secretary of Commerce, just as we have a Secretary of Education, just as we have a Secretary of Labor, a secretary whose job it would be to wake up every morning with conciliation, reconciliation, on his or her mind. That secretary would have undersecretaries, just as we have Undersecretaries in the Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, undersecretaries who would have various aspects of reconciliation to deal with. Reconciliation would be broader than the enslaved people. Reconciliation would also include others with whom we have not reconciled. We need to reconcile. We have not reconciled. It is bigger than the enslaved people, the foundational mothers and fathers, the economic foundational mothers and fathers who have made America great. It is bigger than this. There are others. This is what the department of reconciliation would be charged with helping us resolve. It is not going to be resolved over a year or two or the term of one President. It is not going to be resolved in a few years, one decade. It is not. It is going to take time. Just as we are committed to labor issues with a Department and a Secretary who report directly to the President, we could be committed to reconciliation with a department and a secretary that reports directly to the President. The Department of Labor is not going anywhere. Labor issues are going to be available to be addressed, and this department will address these issues. The same with education and commerce. We have these departments. When we have specific needs, we develop specific solutions. The needs of labor are addressed through the Department of Labor. The need to reconciliate should be addressed through a department of reconciliation. We need a department of reconciliation to address the needs of this country so that we can live together in harmony and better understand each other. An example of something that we need to better understand: In this country, Fort Bragg existed for many years. Bragg was the name of a Confederate officer--a Confederate officer, Bragg. We changed it to Fort Liberty. I thought that was something that we should celebrate and appreciate, but now there is a movement afoot. At least one person who is running for President has connoted that, should he become President, the name will revert back to Fort Bragg. This is what we are experiencing across the length and breadth of the country, a rolling back. Remember, I said that we are moving in the wrong direction. We are experiencing a rolling back of gains that were fought for, won, and earned, many of them with the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of people. There is a good possibility that if a certain person becomes President, the name of Fort Bragg will be reinstated on what we now call Fort Liberty. We are moving in the wrong direction, but we are going to persist with the conscience agenda. We are going to give people the opportunity to do the righteous thing. It would be within them to make a decision as to whether the righteous thing is the appropriate thing to do. There is nothing about this agenda that is not right. Slavery Remembrance Day--we have Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, 9/11 remembrance, Holocaust remembrance. Nothing in the world like the Holocaust, a horrific event. Slavery remembrance, nothing in the world like it. Slavery was a horrific event, a crime against humanity, in fact. That is a righteous agenda item, a good trouble agenda item. A Congressional Gold Medal is righteous. If we can do it for Confederate soldiers in 1956, we can do it for the enslaved people today if we chose to. That is a part of our righteous agenda. Removing Richard Russell's name--a person who fought civil rights, fought antilynching laws, coauthored the ``Southern Manifesto''--that is a righteous thing to do. Not just the right thing, Senate, who ought to be ashamed, who won't do the righteous thing. That is the righteous thing to do. Senate leadership who won't do the righteous thing. Enacting the securities and exchange atonement. We need to know about the affiliation association of these megacorporations with the institution of slavery, and there needs to be some atonement. The universe is constructed such that atonement is a part of the process of making wrong right, righting wrongs. We need atonement. Of course, to do all of this, much of it, all of this could be issues taken up under a department of reconciliation. As I indicated earlier, and still I rise, I am truly a scion of the enslaved people who were sacrificed to make America great. I am a good troublemaker in the spirit of John Lewis and many others. I want to be a good troublemaker. I will continue to be a good troublemaker. And still I rise, bringing the gifts my ancestors gave. I am the dream--to paraphrase Maya Angelou, I am the dream and the hope of the slave. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the time and the opportunity to share some of my thoughts and views about crucial issues, to share them not only with my colleagues here in Congress but also with the people of our great country. And still I rise today to talk about Juneteenth. I believe Juneteenth is a very special time in the history of our country, and I would like to say a few words about Juneteenth. I would also like to talk about Slavery Remembrance Day. For those of you who are tuning in, please know that I will speak about Juneteenth, and I will speak about Slavery Remembrance Day, but I will also speak about a day that occurred before Juneteenth. As you know, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Prior to signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862. April 16, 1862, is the day it was signed. This is an important piece of legislation because the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act impacted Washington, D.C. The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act would accord compensation for slaves who were freed--human beings held in bondage, human beings who had been kidnapped, likely, or they may have been born into slavery. Some people were born into slavery and lived their entire lives as slaves and died as slaves. These human beings, the genesis of which was persons who were kidnapped from the Continent of Africa, for our purposes today, as we talk about slavery here in the United States, these human beings were kidnapped, brought to this country, sold, forced to work, and forced to be separated from their families. Children were sold at the auction block. They went to one plantation, and their mother and father went to another. This is what slavery was about: kidnapping, rape, murder. These are true words, words that we don't like to hear because, in this country, we have reviled the enslaved and revered the enslavers. Let's go back to the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862, which impacted Washington, D.C., as I indicated. This act was to free slaves. It would free them. It brought with it compensation. A reasonable and prudent person would believe that the compensation would be accorded the slave, the person who had been working at the mercy of a person known as a master. Slaves had masters. This act, one would assume, would compensate the slave upon the slave being freed. That was not so, my dear friends--not so. The District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 compensated the master. The person who owned the slave received compensation for allowing a person to have the liberty that God has accorded all of his children. Some have been denied the liberty, but it was a birthright for every person ever born, the right to be free. This act of trying as best as he could--President Lincoln--to free slaves accorded persons who owned them approximately $300. Before the $300 was presented, as it were, there was a slave owner who came and actually appraised slaves. They were considered chattels, property. They were appraised, and owners received this compensation, sort of like compensating the kidnapper who kidnaps a person, compensating this person for the act of kidnapping. Release the person you kidnapped, and you can receive compensation. It is like the bank robber bringing the ill-gotten gains back to the bank and being rewarded for bringing the ill-gotten gains back after having robbed the bank. It was similar to this, only more horrific, of course, because we are talking about human beings. We have this situation where persons who were enslaved in Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital, enslaved right here in Washington, D.C., when they were released, they received the opportunity to fend for themselves. They were released to the winds and the rains and the weather and the elements. They were not given any compensation for their labor, for the crime against humanity. Slavery was one of the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity--committed for centuries, I might add. It is a crime against humanity that has never been properly addressed. Even to this day, people don't want to hear this message. There are people who literally cannot tolerate hearing the message because they have been indoctrinated to believe that the enslaved people somehow were wrong and that the enslavers were heroes. Well, this didn't work so well, emancipation for consideration to be accorded the enslavers. It didn't work so well. Hence, we find that President Lincoln did, in fact, issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued to free these enslaved persons who were a part of the States that left the Union. They were said to have been given their freedom, but that didn't work too well for the people who were enslaved because in States like Texas, the enslavers didn't really honor the Emancipation Proclamation. There are some who say, well, they didn't know. Well, they did, but in Texas they chose not to honor it. Some more than 2 years and a half later, General Gordon Granger came to Galveston, Texas, to inform the people of Texas that the persons that were being held--and this was after the end of the Civil War, I might add--the persons that were being held, to inform them that they had been liberated, and to tell the holders, the masters, the enslavers, that these human beings had to be released. General Gordon Granger was an intelligent man. He did not come by himself. He had the good sense to know that the people of Texas were not likely to find his words with favor; that they were not likely to see and look upon what he was about to do with favor. General Gordon Granger, understanding that Texans spoke a specific kind of language and, as a result of understanding Texas-speak, General Gordon Granger concluded that he would bring some translators with him, persons who would be understood by Texans. Well, I say persons; they weren't really persons, but these were instrumentalities, if you will, that Texans would understand. So he brought with him the Colts. He brought with him the Smith & Wessons, and the Winchesters. They spoke a language that Texans understood. But before General Gordon Granger arrived, a wonderful thing occurred. It is said about a week before he arrived, they sent in the 25th Corps. The 25th Corps consisted of about 1,000 or more persons, and it was the 25th Corps that came in and ran the rebels out of Galveston, chased them to the border of the country, the boundaries, chased them all the way to Mexico. It was the 25th Corps that paved the way for General Gordon Granger to come into Texas and to issue his General Order No. 3. But here is what history doesn't say enough about. The 25th Corps consisted of Black men. Somehow we don't choose to celebrate these Black men who actually were the liberators, who came in before General Gordon Granger, came into Texas, fought fiercely to liberate the Black people in Texas. General Gordon Granger appeared with his General Order No. 3, accompanied by a lot of firepower, about 2,000 military personnel with him and, as a result, slaves in Texas were free to work for their masters. Imagine that. The person that has held you in slavery now becomes your boss--your employer, is the way it was stated--but your boss, your employer. Your slave master is now your employer. Well, that didn't work well for the enslaved persons. This was followed with a series of laws that caused Black people to have to serve time and become slaves by another name; convict leasing is what it was called because we had these Black codes, these laws, that would require persons to work. If you didn't work you could be arrested, and then you could be leased to a plantation owner. In Houston, Texas, just outside actually, in Sugarland, there is a grave with about 95 common bodies having been buried in it, called the Sugarland 95. These persons served as slaves under a different title. But the point is, we had the Emancipation Proclamation. We had the enforcement of it by virtue of General Gordon Granger coming into Galveston, Texas. Then we had other circumstances that were unpleasant for people of color. All of these things are things that we should take note of. I think we should actually celebrate the persons who came in in the 25th. I plan to introduce a resolution. I plan to introduce a resolution to honor these persons, the 25th Corps. I plan to introduce legislation so that they can be properly honored. Now, I know that there are people who hear me say these things and sometimes they decide that, well, I think I will do it first. Well, go ahead. I will still have the original. It is something that we ought to do to celebrate Juneteenth, but also to commemorate the lives of the persons that suffered under slavery, commemorate them and celebrate them, on Juneteenth. Quite frankly, I believe we ought to do that, and I am going to do it. I have supported Juneteenth. I have supported Al Edwards who is the father of Juneteenth. Al Edwards, a State representative out of Houston, the father of Juneteenth. He was the person who, as a freshman State representative in Texas, managed to get the impossible done, the impossible. We are talking about Texas now. He managed to get Texans in the State legislature, that would be the House and the Senate, and the Governor to sign a law causing Juneteenth to become a holiday in the State of Texas. It is a miracle. Al Edwards, Juneteenth. He managed to get it to become the first in the entire country, the first State in the entire country to recognize Juneteenth, June 19, as a holiday. Al Edwards, the father of Juneteenth. Unfortunately, not a lot has been said about Al being the father of Juneteenth, but I will be filing a resolution in this House honoring him as the father of Juneteenth. We ought to do these things. We ought to tell the truth. This is history. And obviously, a person who is the very first to file a piece of legislation that becomes law, that eventually permeates and becomes the law in other States, and now, in the United States--but it was Al Edwards. He is the father of Juneteenth. So I will be filing that resolution as well; and other legislation. I seem to have become the person whose mission in life is to right these wrongs, and I plan to do it with my colleagues, many of whom will support what we are trying to do. I thank them, all of them who sign on to these pieces of legislation. So we have Juneteenth to celebrate the lives of those who were freed, and we commemorate the day and those who didn't get the opportunity to be liberated because, you see, liberating those who were still alive is a wonderful thing to do. But we still really and truly must commemorate the lives of those who were not alive on June 19, 1865. Their lives have to be remembered and respected. In this country, we have days of remembrance. We have a day of remembrance for 9/11, a day of remembrance for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Holocaust Remembrance Day, and this House, just last year, passed a remembrance day for slavery, Slavery Remembrance Day. It was done by this House of Representatives. I must tell you, Mr. Steny Hoyer--Mr. Steny Hoyer, I will never forget, nor will I let others forget the role that he played. It was Mr. Hoyer that assisted me, or perhaps I ended up assisting him. It was my legislation, but legislation that Mr. Hoyer helped get through this House. He took, as it were, the proverbial bull by the horns, and he helped this Congressperson pass this legislation. So Mr. Hoyer, wherever you are, I thank you and want you to know that at some point we would like to honor you for what you did to make real Slavery Remembrance Day in the House of Representatives. The bill did not pass the Senate, but Ms. Warren, the Senator, Senator Warren, had legislation in the Senate to honor the enslaved people. It was to commemorate their lives, as well. So Slavery Remembrance Day passed the House, and on August 20 of last year, we actually celebrated, commemorated--excuse me--because Slavery Remembrance Day deals with solemnity and commemoration, not celebration. We celebrate on Juneteenth and commemorate. But Slavery Remembrance Day is for commemoration, not celebration, because we want to commemorate the lives that were lost to slavery, the lives of people who were born into slavery, lived their lives as slaves, many of them, and died as slaves. I heard somebody repeat that just recently. It is a wonderful thing to hear people repeat that. One of my colleagues did, and I appreciated hearing that being repeated. But Slavery Remembrance Day is about solemnity, and there is a ceremony that we had reminding us that we must always remember. This ceremony requires that a person talk about the various things that occurred and at some point would say, we must, and those who were in attendance would say, always remember, because we must always remember. Slavery Remembrance Day, August 20 of last year, the first. We had over 1,000 people show up on short notice. We plan to have it again in Houston, Texas, and in other places, as well. Slavery Remembrance Day, a day for us to commemorate the lives of those who were enslaved in this country for centuries, I might add, centuries. It wasn't just some short period of time. I think many people assume that slavery occurred for maybe a few months or a few years, perhaps a decade, maybe several decades. But no, my dear friends, it was centuries. Centuries that our country, the country that I love, the country where I say the Pledge of Allegiance, the country where I sing the national anthem, it was in this country, my country that we enslaved people for centuries. But it is also in this country, my country, where we decline, to this day, to respect the people who were enslaved. We respect the enslavers. We have named schools after the enslavers; there are Lee High Schools across the country. We respect the enslavers. We name military bases after them; Bragg, Braxton Bragg. We name bases after them, schools after them, but not the enslaved. Somehow there seems to be this belief that the enslaved persons must have been wrong in some way. What was their wrong? What did they do to cause this country to demean them to this day? I stand here in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America to say that this country has got to respect the lives of those that were sacrificed so that it could have the riches that it has today. The economic foundation that we stand on today was put in place by enslaved people. They were the economic foundational mothers and fathers of this country and they ought to be at least respected. At minimum they should be respected. They ought to be respected to the same extent that we have respected the enslavers. This is the second item on the conscience agenda. In 1956, the Congress of the United States of America, honored Confederate soldiers with a Congressional Gold Medal. A Congressional Gold Medal for the enslavers. A Congressional Gold Medal for the persons who fought to keep persons in bondage and disrespect for the enslaved. No dignity was accorded the enslaved. As a matter of fact, in Texas, there was a movement afoot to rename slavery, to style it as involuntary relocation. Theft of human beings, kidnapping, rape, murder--involuntary relocation. Let's just sanitize it rather than show a person the dignity and respect that they have earned by virtue of the suffering and the pain that we inflicted upon them so that this country could become the great Nation that it is. How sad it is to know that Members of this House refuse to this day to show them the dignity and respect that human beings deserve after having been enslaved for centuries. The House is a symbol of national shame just as the Richard Russell Office Building is, by the way. I will say more about that, perhaps, in a moment or two, but we are a symbol of national shame. If anybody thinks that I am going to cease to say this, you are entirely wrong because it is the truth. We ought to do for the enslaved persons what we did for the Confederate soldiers in 1956. We ought to accord a Congressional Gold Medal to them. We should, but we won't. We have the power to do it. We did it for the Confederate soldiers, but we lack something else that we don't have to do it--the integrity. It takes integrity to do this. Don't have the integrity to do it. By the way, this circumstance is not something that is unknown to Members because I have circulated the request for the Dear Colleague, the request for persons to sign on and help us acquire the signatures necessary to accord the enslaved persons who built the country, planted the seeds, harvested the crops, fed the Nation, the enslaved persons, accord them a Congressional Gold Medal. My colleagues are aware so it is nothing new that I am saying, but it takes integrity. It takes being a person of good will to do this. I am sad to say that we cannot get 290 persons of good will. All they have to do is sign a piece of paper and we can then move forward with the process to present a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslaved people. Sign your name. That is all. That is not going to happen. It hasn't happened so far. I don't mean to sound pessimistic; I am just realistic. It is not happening. I hope that there will be a change in the hearts of Members so that we can do this. I pray for a change in the hearts. It hasn't happened so far. It takes a person with integrity, a person of good will, a person who understands the wrong that has to be corrected, that has to be righted, and we can do it. I am going to ask my colleagues to do, again, for the enslaved persons what we did in 1956 for the enslavers. We have shown that we revere the enslavers and revile the enslaved. We don't consider them heroes. I was at the Museum of the Bible just recently with a dear friend here, a name I need not and shall not mention, but we went to the Museum of the Bible located just a stone's throw if you got a really strong arm, but near here. It is about a mile or two away at most. There in the Museum of the Bible on the wall, they had this huge painting of what we will call liberators, and there was a word ``liberators'' under the painting. They showed the liberators. One of the liberators was Abraham Lincoln. I think Abraham Lincoln qualifies as a liberator, but here is something that will offend a lot of my colleagues to know that one of the liberators at the Museum of the Bible was John Brown. You see, we have been taught in this country that John Brown was a murderer. John Brown was a liberator. People were enslaved. John Brown sought and fought to liberate people from slavery. He was a liberator. We revere the enslavers, who murdered, killed, kidnapped, and raped. We revere them. We pay tribute to them, but to the persons who were the victims of the kidnapping, murder, rape, we revile them and anybody that tried to help them. John Brown was a liberator. This is over at the Museum of the Bible. I beg that people would go over there, dear brothers and sisters. We are one race and that is the human race. We are all related. I love you, but you have got to be told the truth. Go to the museum and see for yourself. Nat Turner was a liberator. Go over and view this for yourselves. Nat Turner's name was not among those. I don't want to mislead you, but he was a liberator, as well. The point is, we have a duty, a responsibility, an obligation to ourselves, Members, to do justice, to demonstrate that, yes, we have come a long way and we are going to go the rest of the way. Yes, we have a Juneteenth. We need a slaver remembrance day that has been acknowledged by the Senate, signed into law by the President. This House has already taken one step. We need that, but we also need to accord dignity and respect to the enslaved people. One way of doing it is with the Congressional Gold Medal to them just as we have done it for the enslavers. I am of the opinion that we can do it, but it hasn't happened and I have indicated to you that it probably won't. However, I am going to keep hope alive. I will be back to remind us again and again and again. I don't know that the reminder is sufficient. I am going to use prayer, and we will find out if we have 290 people in this House who have the courage and the heart to just sign their names so that we can do for the enslaved what we did for the enslavers. Dear friends, I love the words of Maya Angelou. She indicates in these words--I might not quote her exactly, but she indicates: ``. . . bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of the slave.'' ``. . . the dream and the hope of the slave.'' I stand here in the Congress of the United States of America knowing that somebody some centuries ago prayed for a day when they would receive the dignity and respect God accords all human beings as a birthright. Dignity and respect of liberty and justice for all as we have placed in our Pledge of Allegiance. Dignity and respect, that is all. That is all we are indicating we should have, dignity and respect. Now, as I bring this to a close, dignity and respect would also require that the name Richard Russell--Richard Russell, dear friends, was a man who fought antilynching legislation, fought civil rights legislation, coauthored the Southern Manifesto. Richard Russell was a self-proclaimed white supremacist. Richard Russell said this is a White man's country. By the way, there are some Richard Russells alive today. He wasn't the last Richard Russell, but this Richard Russell said this is a White man's country and he wanted to keep it that way. Now, this Richard Russell has his name on a building, the Senate Russell Office Building. Richard Russell, the white racist, his name is on a building. Is it asking too much to remove Richard Russell's name from the building? We haven't named any buildings John Brown or Nat Turner. By the way, I am not asking that this building be named John Brown or Nat Turner, but we haven't done it. No taxpayer dollars go toward a building being named John Brown, but we have a building named in honor of Richard Russell, a white supremacist. I don't think tax dollars ought to support a building that honors a white supremacist. The Senate is a place of shame. The building is a symbol of national shame. Senators can change this. Senators can change this almost overnight. All they have to do is remove his name. The Senate has the power and the authority to take Richard Russell's name off of the Russell Senate Office Building. They haven't done it. Some tell me that if they did it, we would have to have another name and we can't agree on a name, so they keep the name of the bigot on the building because we don't have another name. By the way, I haven't said name it Martin Luther King. I haven't said name it Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman. I haven't said name it John Brown, Nat Turner. Here is what I have said. I have said to remove his name and let the name become what it was before it was the Russell Senate Office Building. It was called the Old Senate Office Building. Revert back to the Old Senate Office Building and take as much time as you like to develop a process, if you like, and then a name, a name that is suitable for the building. The excuse of ``we can't take it off because we can't agree on a name,'' that is shameful. Every Senator over there ought to be ashamed. I don't go into the Russell Senate Office Building. I am a one-person protest. I am not going to demean myself. I have enough respect and dignity for myself not to go into a building named in honor of a racist and bigot. I am not going to do it. Those who do it, it is their choice. If you don't have to, you are disrespecting yourself. I have written a letter to various organizations when I was invited to come and speak over in the building for various reasons. I have written a letter, and I am sending it to all the human rights and civil rights organizations, letting them know that I am a one-person protest and that I won't be going into the Russell Senate Office Building, except to protest. There is an exception. I will go in to protest. I will be going in to protest, so I am giving everybody fair notice. There will be protestation at the Russell Senate Office Building. I won't say when, but I will be going to protest. I am hopeful that we can take the name of Richard Russell off the Senate office building paid for in tax dollars. It is easy to do but difficult if you don't have the courage, if you don't have the integrity, and if you don't have the heart to do what is right. Here is what I suspect will happen at some point. At some point, my brothers and sisters in the Senate will find a way to do this and ignore the fact that I have been standing in this House appealing to them to do it. You see, people are written out of history who make these kinds of demands. They are written out of history because it can never be said that a person of African ancestry had the courage to do this and then it was done. That would mean, then, that there are other things that people of color might have the courage to do and to get done in a similar fashion. They will find a clever way to get it done. The name will change, and we will just go on as though none of this ever happened. I just pray that the record will show that someone came to this well and stood for justice. Just as we like to record the history of all the things that people do, let it be known that at least one person came here and asked that we take that name off of that building. It will happen. It is just a matter of time. At some point, there will be people who are going to coalesce around this, and the Senate will have to do it. It is shameful that they haven't done it, but they will have to do it. Maybe not while I am here, but at some point, this Congress is going to award a Congressional Gold Medal to those persons who suffered slavery. Congress will do it, but they have to find a way to do it so that it doesn't look like they were forced to do it, that they were forced by a person, a Black man who had the courage to come and stand in the well and say this is something that we must do. They can't let it seem as though this person did this, so they will find a way to do these things, and it will be as though none of this ever happened. Do you know what? The good news is that it will happen. Maybe not in time for me to see it, but it will happen. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that I love my country. In spite of the way my country has behaved, I still love it. It is sort of like a mother or father loving children. Sometimes children don't behave properly, but you don't cease to love them. You want to correct them. I come here to correct my country and help us to do the right thing. Actually, more important than that, Mr. Speaker, is to do the righteous thing. I love my country, and I pray that my country will do the righteous thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.