[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] H.R. 40 AND THE PATH TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 19, 2019 __________ Serial No. 116-27 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 41-178 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virginia Vice-Chair KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida JOE NEGUSE, Colorado LUCY McBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director ---------- SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, ERIC SWALWELL, California Ranking Member MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania JIM JORDAN, Ohio SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas BEN CLINE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota James Park, Chief Counsel Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- JUNE 19, 2019 OPENING STATEMENTS Page The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 1 The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 4 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary...................................................... 7 The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 8 WITNESSES Cory Booker, United States Senator Oral Testimony............................................... 21 Prepared Testimony........................................... 24 Ta-Nehisi Coates, Distinguished Writer in Residence, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute of New York University Oral Testimony............................................... 28 Prepared Testimony........................................... 31 Danny Glover, Actor and Activist Oral Testimony............................................... 35 Prepared Testimony........................................... 37 Katrina Browne, Documentarian, Traces of the Trade Oral Testimony............................................... 40 Prepared Testimony........................................... 42 Coleman Hughes, Writer, Quilette Oral Testimony............................................... 49 Prepared Testimony........................................... 51 Burgess Owens, Speaker and Writer Oral Testimony............................................... 53 Prepared Testimony........................................... 55 The Right Reverend Eugene Taylor Sutton, Episcopal Bishop of Maryland Oral Testimony............................................... 58 Prepared Testimony........................................... 60 Dr. Julianne Malveaux, Economist and Political Commentator Oral Testimony............................................... 75 Prepared Testimony........................................... 78 Professor Eric J. Miller, Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University Oral Testimony............................................... 81 Prepared Testimony........................................... 83 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Item for the record submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Committee on the Judiciary................................ 11 Item for the record submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary.................... 16 Item for the record submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 119 APPENDIX Items for the record submitted by The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................................................ 141 H.R. 40 AND THE PATH TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019 House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Cohen, Nadler, Raskin, Jackson Lee, Swalwell, Scanlon, Dean, Garcia, Escobar, Johnson, Gohmert, Jordan, Reschenthaler, and Cline. Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton, Director, Policy, Planning, and Member Services; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Charlie Gayle, Oversight Counsel; James Park, Chief Counsel; Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member; Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel; and Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member. Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to order. I thank the officers for their help in clearing-- getting the door shut and getting folks in. Thank you so much. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. I welcome everyone to today's hearing on H.R. 40 and the path to restorative justice. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today is Juneteenth, a day that the commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas and more generally throughout the former confederacy on June 19, 1865. The news of the Emancipation Proclamation did not reach Texas for 2 years. And so it was not until 1865 that all enslaved people knew they were free, despite President Lincoln's emancipation announcement. Slavery was a crime against humanity, one which whose impacts we as a society continue to grapple with today. This year also marks the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves being brought to America. Slavery was our Nation's original sin. Our Constitution protected it, embodying it in various compromises that gave disproportionate power to slave States. For example, the three- fifths clause counted a slave as three-fifths of a person for population counts. Of course, they weren't considered persons but property. But that, in turn, gave disproportionate representation to slave States in the House of Representatives. The Constitution also created the Electoral College, a system of electing the President of the United States that gave slave States another avenue to exercise disproportionate influence over national affairs. It is only fitting, then, that we should hold a hearing today on H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. My colleague, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who is in another hearing right--no, she is here with us. Thank you--a member of the subcommittee is the current lead sponsor of this legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor with her along with full committee chair Jerry Nadler, also a long time cosponsor of this bill. But the greatest credit for H.R. 40 belongs to two individuals. First and foremost, Mr. John Conyers. Mr. Conyers is a former colleague, a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a great American, and a great leader, one of my mentors, one of the reasons that I have introduced this resolution with him since 2007. He introduced it first 30 years ago. The he reintroduced it every Congress thereafter until his retirement. The second individual most responsible for H.R. 40 is, sadly, but in reality, John Wilkes Booth. His assassination of President Abraham Lincoln led to Andrew Johnson becoming President. And President Johnson effectively rescinded the promise made by General William T. Sherman to former slaves that they would each be guaranteed 40 acres of land to make a living as a free person. A promise sometimes colloquially referred to as 40 acres and a mule. President Lincoln would have carried that out and had plans to do it. But because of that dastardly day and deed of April 12, 1865, it didn't occur. It was April 14, maybe. Anyway, H.R. 40 would create a commission to study the history of slavery in America, the role of the Federal and State governments in supporting slavery and racial discrimination. Other forms of discrimination against the descendants of slaves and the lingering consequences of slavery and Jim Crow on African Americans. The commission would also make recommendations as to appropriate ways to educate the American public about its findings and appropriate remedies in light of its findings. An honest reckoning with the Federal Government's role in protecting the institution of slavery has been a leading priority in my congressional career. In 2007, my freshman year, less than 2 months into that term, introduced H. Res. 194, an apology by the House of Representatives for its role in perpetuating both slavery and its noxious offspring, Jim Crow. The House ultimately passed this resolution by voice vote. And I, once again, thank Chairman Conyers for getting it a vote and getting it to the American people. As I noted in my resolution then, it was not just slavery itself that was wrong but also, quote, ``the visceral racism against persons of African descent upon which,'' unquote, American slavery depended, a racism that went on to become entrenched in the Nation's social fabric, an evil that we must continue to confront today. Can we get that door closed? Thank you, sir. My resolution emphasized that, while slavery was our Nation's original sin, the underlying sin of anti-Black racism did not end with the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. And Congress' inaction and acquiescence in the face of such racism was a big reason why. Racism became only further entrenched after slavery's end as reflected in societal attitudes and in Jim Crow laws, a system of State racial segregation laws that created separate and unequal societies for Whites and African Americans, one that was enforced through both official means and through lynchings, violence, intimidation, and disenfranchisement. And not until 100 years after the end of slavery did Congress, under pressure from Dr. Martin Luther King, John Lewis, and other great civil rights leaders in the civil rights movement finally carry out its duty to end Jim Crow by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that still exists to some extent; and other core civil rights statutes that are fulfilling the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection for all. Today, our Nation continues to struggle with the legacy of the anti-Black racism that undergirded slavery and Jim Crow. We see this in statistics that paint a bleak picture. According to the Census Bureau, 21.2 percent of African Americans lived in poverty in 2017 compared to 8.7 percent of non-Hispanic Whites who live in poverty. That is over two times as many. The Census Bureau also reported in 2015 that the net worth of African American households was only about $13,000, which was less than 10 percent, less than 10 percent of the nearly $140,000 net worth of non-Hispanic White households. Limited access to wealth, building resources and opportunities have led to this dark disparity. For instance, African Americans continue to face discrimination in the workplace. They have limited access to educational opportunities. According to the National Education Association, the high school education rate, graduation rate for African Americans was 67 percent compared to the nationwide average of 81 percent. African Americans also continue to face racial segregation in housing and discrimination in the availability of quality healthcare service and most other major facets of life. Enacting H.R. 40 would be an important step in finding effective long-term solutions to these problems once they can trace their origins to our Nation's shameful history of slavery and anti-Black racism. As the distinguished professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School once noted, the concept of reparations does not necessarily mean payments to individuals but rather a focus on the poorest of the poor, including efforts, quote, ``to address comprehensively the problems of those who have not substantially benefited from integration or affirmative action,'' unquote. I hope our hearing today can lead to fruitful conversations with the aim of achieving that goal. I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony. It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for his opening statement. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start today by saying I maintain the utmost respect for my colleagues on the other side, and I know their beliefs on this issue are sincerely held. I want to thank all our witnesses for being here today, for your good-faith testimony, and your scholarship. We have all read through it in detail and made many notes. I will use my brief time here to just focus on an overview of what H.R. 40 is and why we are here. What we are going to discuss here today centers upon a regrettable and shameful portion of American history. Slavery in America and elsewhere was a horrific injustice, the perpetuation of which was antithetically opposed to the founding ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including its Bill of Rights. Of course, the evil institution of slavery was legally abolished over 150 years ago on December 6, 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment following the end of the tragic Civil War. The bill today, H.R. 40, would, quote, establish a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans. There are serious questions about this from all sides of the political spectrum, and they are honest and sincere questions that we want to address. But putting aside the injustice of monetary reparations from current taxpayers for the sins of a small subset of Americans from many generations ago--let me finish--the fair distribution of reparations would be nearly impossible once one considers the complexity of the American struggle to abolish slavery. Just consider this. Okay? There are tens of millions of today's non-African Americans who are descended from people who arrived in the country, of course, after slavery ended, and, therefore, they can't be held responsible for its legacy. More tens of millions are descended from people in both the North and South who didn't own slaves or who were descended from White people who fought in the Civil War on the Union side. Indeed, only a small percentage of the total American population were slave owners. For the aforementioned reasons and many others, such an approach has been widely unpopular, at least in our recent history. In the 1970s, civil rights organizations openly rejected the idea of reparations, which the NAACP's assistant director himself called, quote, ``an illogical diversionary and paltry way out for guilt-ridden Whites,'' unquote. Bayard Rustin, who organized the 1963 march on Washington and was one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s closest advisers described the concept as, quote, ``a ridiculous idea,'' unquote. Barack Obama opposed reparations when he ran for President in 2008, and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did as well 8 years later. In addition to all this, here in the Judiciary Committee, we have an obligation to acknowledge that any monetary reparations that might be recommended by the commission created by H.R. 40 would almost certainly be unconstitutional on their face. The reason for that--listen. Wait a minute. The reason for that is a legal question. See, the legal question is the Federal Government can't constitutionally provide compensation today to a specific racial group because other members of that group, maybe several generations ago, were discriminated against and treated inhumanely. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, they would refer to that as an unconstitutional racial preference. See, the holding of the 1995 case, Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. is that racial set-asides and other entitlements are only constitutionally permissible to remedy the present effects of the government's own widespread and recent discrimination. And the Federal Government is not allowed to provide race-based remedies that are, quote, ageless in their reaching of the pass and timeless in their ability to affect the future, unquote. Now, listen. I get it. I have read the scholarship. I know that some proponents of this legislation believe that the very discussion of reparations itself would be cathartic for our Nation. But we have to ask: If discussions can result in justice today, they certainly probably won't provide consensus. Instead, many people of good conscious believe they will distract from the many persistent causes of current racial disparities. They certainly exist. The despicable racism of America's past is part of that, as Mr. Coates, for example, has documented in a very compelling way. But so are other social and culture dynamics, which are themselves often negatively influenced by well-intended government policies. Let us be clear today: Racism violates the most fundamental principles of our great Nation, and it breaks the heart of our just and loving God. The central idea of America, what has been called as our foundational creed, is that we boldly declare the self-evident truths that all men created equal and that we are thus endowed by our creator with the same inalienable rights. Because each of us is made in the image of God, every single person has inestimable dignity and value. And our value is not related in any way to the color of our skin, what neighborhood we live in, our intelligence, or our abilities. Our value is inherent because it is given to us by our Creator. Many of my colleagues in this committee may not be aware that, in addition to our four children still at home, my wife, Kelly, and I actually have a much older son who happens to be African American. We took custody of Michael and made him part of our family 22 years ago when we were just newlyweds and Michael was just 14 and out on the streets and nowhere to go and on a very dangerous path. Michael is grown now. He has his own young family. He turns 36 years old next week. And he is a loving dad to four precious children of his own. God has been good to us, and he is a success story. I mention that today for one reason: I personally know the challenge that he has faced early in his life. I have walked with him through discrimination that he has had to endure over the years and the hurdles he sometimes faced. I know all this because I was with him. I asked Michael this weekend what he thinks about the idea of reparations. In a very thoughtful way, he explained his opposition. And it reminded me of something that Harvard history professor Stephan Thernstrom has previously testified in this very committee. And he said this quote as I am wrapping: Finally, I would urge the members of this subcommittee and the House of Representatives as a whole to ponder carefully the message that will be conveyed by the passage of this bill, H.R. 40. When you are behind in a foot race, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., said in 1963, the only way to get ahead is to run faster than the man in front of you. So, when your White roommate says he is tired and goes to sleep, you stay up and burn the midnight oil. Dr. King's words reflect and important tradition of self-reliance, I am still quoting, that has had eloquent advocates in the African American community. Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B DuBois, and many others. All of them were saying in their in their different ways that African Americans were not powerless to better their lives until America owned up to its historical sins and offered them a generous financial settlement. The point is as important today as ever. That is what he wrote to this committee the last time--or one of the last times this was debated. Those great leaders encourage people to take control of and responsibility for their own lives because that gives every human being a greater sense of meaning, purpose, and satisfaction. And I know everybody in this room probably agrees with that idea, that principle. The premise of H.R. 40 and similar legislation, however willing they may be, risks communicating the opposite message. Would it propagate a world view that says external forces from a century and a half ago are directing the fate of Black Americans today? I mean, it is an honest question some people ask. I think people who wholeheartedly agree that our Nation is still in the process of healing from its reprehensible sins of the past can ask that question. There is no doubt that prejudice exists in our society, just as it has in every society since the fall of man in the garden. It exists in many communities and between many different races and types of people, sadly. And it is not reserved to just one race or class or ethnicity against another. We all know that. All of it is despicable. And every single instance of it is un-American. The honest question we have today, and that is what we are here to discuss, is, what do we do about it? All of us are here to listen to the thoughtful discussion today. I hope we will do it respectfully and with civility. We approach it in good faith. I promise you, every Member of Congress does. And I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. Thank you again. I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And I want to apologize. I might have--we are not supposed to, in the audience, respond or speak out or applaud or cheer. And I am probably wrong for having encouraged and allowed what I think was a proper reference for Mr. Conyers. But if you'd not allow my error to be compounded, try to keep cool. And I'd now like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Nadler. Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing. This year, we mark the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved Africans arriving at the colony of Jamestown, Virginia. Today's hearing on H.R. 40 and the path to restorative justice gives us the opportunity to reflect on the shameful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow in this country and to examine how we can best move forward as a Nation. For nearly three decades, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers of Michigan, introduced H.R. 40, which would establish a commission to study reparations proposals for African Americans. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, has taken up sponsorship of this legislation. And I am pleased to be a cosponsor as I was a cosponsor for many years when it was sponsored by Mr. Conyers. H.R. 40 is intended to begin an national conversation about how to confront the brutal mistreatment of African Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the enduring structure of racism that remains endemic to our society today. Even long after slavery was abolished, segregation and subjugation of African Americans was a defining part of this Nation's policies that shaped its values and its institutions. Today, we live with racial disparities in access to education, healthcare, housing, insurance, employment, and other social goods that are directly attributable to the damaging legacy of slavery and government-sponsored racial discrimination in the century following slavery's end. It is important to recognize that H.R. 40 makes no conclusion about how to properly atone for and to make recompense for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and their lingering consequences. Instead, it sets forth a process by which a diverse group of experts and stakeholders can study the complex issues involved and make recommendations to us. Most serious reparations models that have been proposed to date have focused on restorative community-based programs of employment, healthcare, housing, and education initiatives-- righting wrongs that cannot be fixed with checks alone. This moment of national reckoning comes at a time when our Nation must find constructive ways to confront a rising tide of racial and ethnic division. In April, this committee held a hearing on hate crimes and the rise of White nationalism in order to begin framing a Federal response. Hate crimes, white supremacy, the legacy of slavery, the legacy of Jim Crow all hold back our country's longstanding efforts to carry out what the Preamble to our Constitution says it is designed to do: to form a more perfect union. Reparations in the context of H.R. 40 are ultimately about respect and reconciliation and the hope that one day all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. I hope that the commission established by H.R. 40 can help us better comprehended our own history and bring us closer to racial understanding and advancement and justice. Today's hearing gives the subcommittee an important opportunity to hear from witnesses directly involved in shaping the discourse on healing our society and creating a path to restorative justice. I am pleased that we have such a distinguished panel of witnesses whose testimony will assist us greatly in understanding the scope of our inquiry. The discussion of reparations is a journey in which the road traveled may be almost as important as the exact destination. I am pleased that the subcommittee is beginning this process today, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I would like to ask for unanimous consent that Representative Karen Bass be allowed to sit on the dais. She is a member of the committee but not the subcommittee. Without objection. Welcome, Ms. Bass. Mr. Green was just here, from Houston. I think he is coming back. And now I'd like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas for an opening statement, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And thank you to Chairman Nadler for an identity of H.R. 40 as a legitimate legislative action that should receive the full hearing of this committee, should, in fact, have a markup, go to the floor of the House, go to the United States Senate, and be signed by the President of the United States of America. This is an action of legislative commitment, and this is not a symbolic action, though I am gratified that we are having this hearing on Juneteenth. And for those of us who understand Juneteenth, 2 years after the proclamation--Emancipation Proclamation--there were those Africans who did not have freedom until 1865. So let me begin and indicate to my friends who have expressed a variety of assessments of H.R. 40 and say that America is a place it welcomes the diversity of thought. We even welcome the diversity of thought among the multicolored chocolate people that are African Americans, descendants of African slaves. Let me be very clear. It is only this group--even though they attempted to enslave Native Americans, it is only this group that can singularly--singularly--claim to have been slaves under the auspices, the institution, and leadership of the United States Government. And so H.R. 40 is in fact--is, in fact--the response of the United States of America long overdue. Slavery is original sin. Slavery has never received an apology. This commission will be compromised of members selected by the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, the leader, and, of course, those who have been entrenched in this process. I spoke to John Conyers yesterday. I am honored to have been given the opportunity to lead this bill. John Conyers said to move on and to lead on and for us to take this forward. Thank you, Congressman John Conyers, for all that you have done. So let me share with you just a sense of what we face. Let me, first of all, say the number of Africans who died in Middle Passage, over 2 million. Number of enslaved who died during slavery first, second, and third generation, over 2.5 million. The transatlantic slave trade was the largest movement of people in history. Between 10 and 15 million Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic between 1500 and 1900. At least 2 million Africans, 10 to 15 percent, died in the infamous Middle Passage, as I said. Another 15 to 30 percent died during the march to or confinement along the coast. Altogether, for every hundred slaves who reached the New World, another 40 died in Africa or during the Middle Passage. Who has a history like that? Reparations and the idea of this commission should be welcomed by all Americans for we are not asking one American to give one payment. What we are saying is the only way that slavery ended was a governmental action of the 13th Amendment, governmental action, and Reconstruction failed after 12 years because it was imploded by governmental people. And after Reconstruction, a reign of terror that had never been seen, the hanging fruit, the lynching, the oppression of voting, the tearing away of land, and the amazing concept of the continuing de jure and de facto impact of slavery today. One million African Americans are incarcerated. That is a continuing impact. The Black employment rate is 6.6 percent, in spite of what has been said currently, more than double the national unemployment rate. Thirty-one percent of Black children live in poverty compared to 11 percent of White children. The national average is 18 percent, which suggests the percentage of Black children living in poverty is more than 150 percent. Even in spite of the glorious overcoming of the talent that is part of our community, the scraping together of making sure our children received education, the putting together something out of nothing, we still have been impacted. And only 57 percent of Black students have access to full range of math and science classes today. Black children were vaccinated at rates lower than White children. Educational mobility has been limited. Black children represent 19 percent of the Nation's preschool population, yet 47 percent of those receiving more than one-out-of-school suspension. Black students are 2.3 times as likely to receive a referral to law enforcement. And we know the criminal justice system. So I conclude by these words: Black people in America are the descendants of Africans kidnapped and transported to the United States with the explicit complicity of the U.S. Government and every arm of the United States lawmaking and law enforcement infrastructure. The dehumanizing and atrocities of slavery were not isolated occurrences but mandated by Federal laws that were codified and enshrined in the Constitution. The role of the Federal Government in supporting the institution of slavery and subsequent discrimination directed against Blacks is an injustice that must be formally acknowledged and addressed. I am not here in anger or anguish. I am not in any way seeking to encourage hostilities. There are diverse opinions in this room, and I understand it, appreciate it, respect it, admire it, and love it. I am a product of my history. I am clearly a child that has walked this path. No, I did not pick cotton. But I will say that those who picked cotton created the very basic wealth of this Nation, for cotton was king. There was no other product. And so I ask my fellow colleagues that this is simply a constructive discussion that will lead to the practical responses. And if I might, Mr. Chairman, put this article in the record from The New York Times dated June 17th: Downtown Boom, Kansas City, Missouri, and just a few blocks away, devastation in the Black community. Two cities mostly in every--I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohen. Without objection. [The information follows:] MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Jackson Lee. Two cities. I also ask unanimous consent to put a statement of support from John Legend. Mr. Cohen. Without objection. Ms. Jackson Lee. Two cities, Mr. Chairman. And so let me just conclude by saying I hope that we come in peace. I know that we will hear from Senator Booker. I thank him, and I thank a number of others who have done this, including the heads of states, scholars, and activists in the Caribbean of playing a leading role in the global reparation movement. Many have been inspired by their work. I am delighted to see that professor Sir Hilary Beckles, vice chancellor of the University of West Indies and chairman of CARICOM Reparations Commission, has traveled all the way from Jamaica to be here. Thank you. I am particularly glad that we are coming together as brothers and sisters and passing out accolades. I want to certainly acknowledge NCOBRA for its steadfast leadership on this issue over the years and playing an instrumental in garnering sponsors of H.R. 40. We are also delighted that several members of the National African American Reparations Commission are present and want to thank them for working closely with the dean, Congressman John Conyers, in reforming H.R. 40 into a bill to study reparations. I am delighted to have reintroduced it with its modification and carry it forward to its next level. Thank you, Dr. Ron Daniels. We thank you for your leadership. Look forward to working with you and the National African American Reparations Commission as we educate the Nation on the importance of enacting H.R. 40. And I'd like to thank Reverend Al Sharpton, National Action Networks convention, because he asked 15 Presidential candidates what their position was, and we now have raised this to a national level. I just simply ask, why not, and why not now? If not all of us, then who? God bless us as we pursue the final justice for those who lived in slavery for 250 years in the United States of America. Please support H.R. 40 to its passage and signature by the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your generosity and kindness. I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Lee. I would also like to ask that H. Res. 194, which was an apology for slavery that the House passed in the 110th Congress, a resolution apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African Americans, be introduced for the record. Without objection, it should be done. Thank you. [The information follows:] MR. COHEN FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohen. And I would---- Yes, ma'am. Ms. Jackson Lee. I just want to--you did acknowledge Ms. Bass. I just want to indicate that Ms. Bass is the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and we are delighted that she is here in many roles. But we thank her for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Cohen. H. Res. 194 was intended to start this dialogue and have a national dialogue. Unfortunately, the Senate did pass an apology, but Mr. Brownback included a sentence that said it would have no effect upon reparations. Despite Mr. Hilary Shelton and Wade Henderson's insistence that they should still pass together and we could have a dialogue, we passed different resolutions. But the Senate did pass an apology as well, and I think it was the 111th Congress. And that was because of the good work of Senator Tom Harkin. I would like to introduce into the record the testimony from William Darity, Jr., a professor of public policy on African American studies and economics at Duke University. Without objection, so done. And now I would like to come to the first panel. And we would like to welcome as our--to the first panel Senator Cory Booker. Senator Booker, your written statement will be entered into the record. I would ask you to summarize your statement to 5 minutes. Senator Booker represents the State of New Jersey in the United States Senate. October 16, 2013, he won a special election, and on November 4, 2014, he was reelected to a full 6-year term. He sits on the Senate Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Small Business, and Entrepreneurship, and the Environment and the Public Works Committees. He is the sponsor of S. 1083, the Senate companion to H.R. 40. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School and his undergraduate degree from Stanford University where they also play football. He was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University earning an honor's degree in history. Senator Booker, welcome. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF THE HON. CORY BOOKER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator Booker. Thank you very much. Chairman Nadler, chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Collins, and Ranking Member Johnson. I am glad that my written testimony will be put into the record. I just want to say that I am sitting before you, on many days that I come down to Washington, brokenhearted, and very angry. I live in a Black and Brown inner city community below the poverty line. I have lived and worked in communities like this all my adult life. And yesterday, hundreds of yards from where I live, there were seven Black men shot. And this is an everyday occurrence in America. I have the privilege of having leaders in my community who, over the decades, have given me strength. One of them was a woman that lived on the 5th floor of the projects, our tenant president, in some buildings in which I lived, whose son was murdered as well in our community. And she taught me that hope is the active conviction, that despair won't have the last word. But on a day like this, when I come back to Washington, D.C., seven people shot in my community, I wonder if other Senators had people shot like that in their neighborhood, whether that wouldn't be a lead national story. But I see the lives of low-income folks, lives of Black and Brown, folks. When people are shot and killed, the world seems to keep going on. And so I wonder about having the last word. What happens when the last would is no words, when it is silence? And I feel a sense of anger where we are in the United States of America where we have not had direct conversations about a lot of the root causes of the inequities and the pain and the hurt manifested in economic disparities, manifested in health disparities manifested in a criminal justice system that is, indeed, a form of new Jim Crow. And so we as a Nation have not yet truly acknowledged and grappled with racism and white supremacy that has tainted this country's founding and continues to persist in those deep racial disparities and equalities today. This is a very important hearing. It is historic. It is urgent. I look at communities like mine, and you could literally see how communities were designed to be segregated, designed based upon enforcing institutional racism and inequities. We know that racialized violence and terrorism has persisted from Reconstruction well into the 1950s, as my friend Bryan Stevenson's National Memorial for Peace and Justice shows. We have seen bombings of churches. We have seen massacres at places as recently as the Emanuel AME Church just 4 years ago. The stain of slavery was not just inked in bloodshed but in the overt state-sponsored policies that fueled white supremacy and racism and have disadvantaged African Americans economically for generations. Many of the bedrock policies, in fact, that ushered generations of Americans into the middle class were designed to exclude African Americans from the GI Bill to Social Security, intentionally designed to exclude Blacks as was school segregation, redlining, neighborhoods like the one in which I live which were, by design, walled off and disinvested in. And while these policies of the past, their damage and their reality has endured across generations and have created and led to so much of the racial wealth gaps in our country. Right now, we see cities like Boston, where the average White family has somewhere around $240,000 in wealth and the average Black family has about $8 in wealth. Health outcomes also vary wildly by race. Nationally, Black women are nearly four times as likely to die from pregnancy complications as White women, and in so many other areas. Our criminal justice system as well. No difference between Blacks and Whites for using drugs or selling drugs, but African Americans are about four times more likely to be arrested. These injustices do not just cause injustice for African Americans. It enforces a deep injustice in our Nation as a whole. It is a cancer on the soul of our country and hurts the whole body politic, making us all less wealthy, making us all less just, making us all fall far short from being who we say we are when we swear an oath that this will be a Nation of liberty and justice for all. I believe this is an urgent moment. And this bill, which I am now leading on the Senate side, is the beginning of an important process, not just to examine and study this history that has not been addressed, the silence that persists, but also to find practical ideas to address the enduring injustices in our Nation. The characterizations of such an effort that I hear from others is wrong and undermines our collective purpose and common ground. This idea that it is just about writing a check from one American to another falls far short of the importance of this conversation and what I believe we will truly talk about. I say that I am brokenhearted and angry right now. Decades of living in a community where you see how deeply unfair this Nation is still to so many people who struggle, who work hard, who do everything right but still find themselves disproportionately with lead in their water, superfunds in their neighborhood, schools that don't serve their genius, healthcare disparities that still affect their body and their well-being. We as a Nation must address this persistent inequalities, or we will never fully achieve the strength and the possibility. Hope is the active conviction that despair will not have the last word. I believe right now today we have a historic opportunity to break the silence, to speak to the ugly past, and talk constructively about how we will move this Nation forward. As the old African saying says, if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. It is about time we find the common ground and the common purpose to deal with the ugly past and make sure that generations ahead do not have to continue to mark disparities but can truly talk about a Nation whereas our ancestors spoke from the good book where justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Senator Booker follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much, Senator Booker. I appreciate your testimony. Very heartfelt and well received. I also want to just reiterate that Congressman Al Green was here, and he is a great champion. Now, I would like to call upon our second panel and thank Senator Booker for his sponsorship and his statement and wonderful words. Thank you, sir. The second panel, if they'd come forward. I guess we need chairs. There we go. The chair crowd is here. Good. Okay. Enough with the pictures. And if the Hope Hicks hearing--well, that is neither here nor there. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating in today's hearing. Your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and I ask you to summarize your testimony 5 minutes. There is a lighting system. Green means you are on. Blue means you have got--yellow means you have got a minute left, and red, you are over, cut, finished. Before proceeding, I remind each witness that your written and oral statements made to the subcommittee in connection with this hearing are subject to penalties of perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, which may result in the imposition of a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years. Our first witness is Ta-Nehisi Coates. If I mispronounced it, I am sorry. Chris Hayes didn't teach me well when we first met. Mr. Coates is an author and distinguished writer in residence at New York University Carter Journalism Institute, a position he has held since 2017. He has held a variety of academic positions since 2010. Additionally, from 2008 to 2018, he was a national correspondent for The Atlantic where he wrote an extensive piece in June 2014 on the case for reparations. I believe he also addressed Rhodes College on that subject sometime in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of three books, numerous articles and blog posts. Mr. Coates, thank you for being here, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF TA-NEHISI COATES, DISTINGUISHED WRITER IN RESIDENCE, ARTHUR L. CARTER JOURNALISM INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY; DANNY GLOVER, ACTOR AND ACTIVIST; KATRINA BROWNE, DOCUMENTARIAN, TRACES OF THE TRADE; COLEMAN HUGHES, WRITER, QUILETTE; BURGESS OWENS, SPEAKER AND WRITER; THE RIGHT REVEREND EUGENE TAYLOR SUTTON, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF MARYLAND; JULIANNE MALVEAUX, ECONOMIST AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR; AND ERIC J. MILLER, PROFESSOR, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY STATEMENT OF TA-NEHISI COATES Mr. Coates. Yesterday, when asked about reparations, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell offered a familiar reply: America should not be held liable for something that happened 150 years ago since none of us currently alive are responsible. This rebuttal proffers a strange theory of governance, that American accounts are somehow bound by the lifetime of its generations. But well into this century, the United States was still paying our pensions to the heirs of Civil War soldiers. We honor treaties that date back some 200 years, despite no one being alive who signed those treaties. Many of us would love to be taxed for things we are solely and individually responsible for. But we are American citizens and thus bound to a collective enterprise that extends beyond our individual and personal reach. It would seem ridiculous to dispute invocations of the Founders or the Greatest Generation on the basis of a lack of membership in either group. We recognize our lineage as a generational trust, as inheritance. And the real dilemma posed by reparations is just that: a dilemma of inheritance. It is impossible to imagine America without the inheritance of slavery. As historian Ed Baptist has written, enslavement, quote, shaped every crucial aspect of the economy and politics of America so that by 1836, more than 600 million, or almost half of the economic activity in the United States, derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by a million- odd slaves. By the time the enslaved were emancipated, they compromised the largest single asset in America: 3 billion in 1860 dollars, more than all the other assets in the country combined. The method of cultivating this asset was neither gentle cajoling nor persuasion but torture, rape, and child trafficking. Enslavement reigned for 250 years on these shores. When it ended, this country could have extended its hollowed principles, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to all regardless of color. But America had other principles in mind. And so, for a century after the Civil War, Black people were subjected to a relentless campaign of terror, a campaign that extended well into the lifetime of Majority Leader McConnell. It is tempting to divorce this modern campaign of terror, of plunder from enslavement. But the logic of enslavement, of white supremacy, respects no such borders. And the god of bondage was lustful and begat many heirs: coup d'etats and convict leasing, vagrancy laws and debt peonage, redlining and racist GI Bills, poll taxes and state-sponsored terrorism. Regret that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing, and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of Black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they would love a word with the majority leader. What they know, what this committee must know, is that while emancipation dead-bolted the door against the bandits of America, Jim Crow wedged the windows wide open. And that is the thing about Senator McConnell's something. It was 150 years ago, and it was right now. The typical Black family in this country has \1/10\th the wealth of the typical White family. Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of White women. And there is, of course, the shame of this land of the free boasting the largest prison population on the planet of which the decedents of the enslaved make up the largest share. The matter of reparations is one of making amends and direct redress. But it is also a question of as citizenship. In H.R. 40, this body has a chance to both make good on its 2009 apology for enslavement and reject fair-weather patriotism; to say that a Nation is both its credits and its debits, that if Thomas Jefferson matters, so does Sally Hemings; that if D-Day matters, so does Black Wall Street; that if Valley Forge matters, so does Fort Pillow. Because the question really is not whether we will be tied to the somethings of our past but whether we are courageous enough to be tied to the whole of them. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Coates follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Coates. Next witness is Mr. Danny Donny Glover, an actor, a producer, and an activist for various causes. He is currently goodwill ambassador for UNICEF, chairman of the board of TransAfrica Forum, an African American lobbying organization for Africa and the Caribbean, and a friend of Harry Belafonte. You are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DANNY GLOVER Mr. Glover. Thank you, Mr. Coates. It is not often that you hear the words of a young man and they enliven your emotional memory, your historic memory, as he just did at this moment. Thank you so much. I am deeply honored to be here today offering my testimony at this historic meeting about the reckoning of a crime against humanity that is foundational to the development of democracy and material well-being in this country. A national reparations policy is a moral, democratic, and economic imperative. I sit here as the great grandson of a former slave, Mary Brown, who was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. I had the fortune of meeting her as a small child. I also sit here as the grandson of Reese Mae Hunley and Rufus Mack Hunley. My maternal grandparents were both born before Plessy v. Ferguson, a Supreme Court decision in 1896. And for a significant portion of their lives, they were sharecroppers and tenant farmers in rural Georgia until they were able to save enough money to purchase a small farm. They were subsistence farmers. Despite much progress over the centuries, this hearing is yet another important step in the long and heroic struggle of African Americans to secure reparations for the damages inflicted by enslavement and post-Emancipation and racial exclusionary policies. Many of the organizations who are present today at this hearing are amongst the historical contributors to the present national discourse, congressional deliberations, and Democratic Party Presidential campaign policy discussions about reparations. We are also indebted to the work of Congressman John Conyers for shepherding this legislation. The adoption of H.R. 40 can be a signature legislative achievement, especially within the context of the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descendant. We should also note that Common Market Nations and the Caribbean community, CARICOM, Reparations Commission, chaired by Professor sir Hilary Beckles, who is here with us today, has exercised a leadership role from which we as a Nation can benefit. Our sustained direct effective policy actions in full collaboration with African Americans and progressive citizens allies is the ultimate proof of the sincerity of our national commitment to repair the damages of the legally and often religiously sanctioned inhumanity of slavery, segregation, and current structural racism that limit full democratic participation and material advancement of African Americans and of our country's progress as a beacon of justice and equality. So I call on all of the elected public officials in Congress to demonstrate your commitment and action today and stand forth with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and cosign H.R. 40. In closing, with insightful and still--I close--excuse me-- with the insightful and still relevant words of Dr. Martin Luther king, Jr., in 1968. And I quote: Why is the issue of equality still so far from solution in America, a Nation which professes itself to be democratic, inventive, hospitable to new ideas, rich, productive, and ultimately powerful. Justice for Black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory, nor will a few token changes quell all the tempestuous yearnings of millions of disadvantaged Black people. White America must recognize that justice for Black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Glover follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Katrina Browne is our next witness. She is a freelance speaker, educator, and facilitator. She produced and directed the documentary film ``Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North,'' which she made in response to her discovery that her Rhode Island ancestors were the largest slave-trading family in United States history. She also currently serves as a consultant for the Episcopal Church's initiatives on racial healing, justice, and reconciliation, authoring a 10-session race dialogue series for congregational use. And I must parenthetically say that, when we were doing our apology, the Episcopal Church beat us to it. They were leaders on that effort. She has an M.A. in theology from the Pacific School of Religion where she wrote a thesis on film and civic dialogue. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KATRINA BROWNE Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Cohen and Ranking Member Johnson and Representative Jackson Lee for the opportunity to speak this morning. I grew up in Philadelphia, six blocks from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. I am a deep-seated patriot. So it was devastating to learn from my grandmother at age 28 that our ancestors had been slave traders and to discover that the DeWolfs were, in fact, the largest slave-trading family in United States history, bringing over 12,000 Africans to the Americas in chains. That these were my Rhode Island ancestors and that Rhode Island turns out be to the State that sent more ships to Africa than any other required me to reorganize my brain. The amnesia in my family matched the larger amnesia of the North. The self-serving myths of being always on the right side of history. I could no longer carry a sense of moral superiority relative to White southerners nor a sense of innocence vis-a-vis the Black claims--vis-a-vis Black claims on the White conscience. I decided to initiate a family journey to retrace the triangle trade. Nine relatives joined me, two of which are here today. And the documentary ``Traces of the Trade'' is the result, the subtitle being ``A Story from the Deep North.'' What we learned, how we stumbled, how we grew during that journey led me to become a passionate believer in the importance of reckoning with the history and legacy of slavery, a believer in personal and family reckonings, institutional ones, and larger national reckoning, and, with that, in the need for repair or reparative action, which can and should take many, many forms. I express wholehearted support for H.R. 40, and I have met countless people of all backgrounds who believe in this form of national effort as well. I know there are many who strenuously object to the premise that we need this reckoning. The pushback I hear most often is that is your problem given your ancestors, but it has nothing to do with me. It is understandable that people distance themselves. I will focus on two reasons. One, most of us learned a distorted history of slavery in school. So, as White Americans, most of us don't realize our connection to it. Second, there is a natural instinct to avoid that which can bring feelings of shame about our people, about the country that we love. To address the first issue, here is a quick rundown of historical facts I had not been taught: that the North was deeply implicated; that slavery was legal in Northern States for over 200 years; that northerners up and down the economic spectrum made their livings and businesses tied to slave trade and slavery; that Northern mills processed cotton harvested by enslaved people. The Midwest and the West were implicated. They grew food to feed the South where land was devoted to cash crops like cotton harvested by the enslaved. Consumers throughout the country were implicated in their everyday purchases of clothing, coffee, sugar, rice, tobacco. People who immigrated from Europe after slavery were implicated. I have Irish, French, and German immigrant ancestors who came to the United States in the 19th century, worked in factories, struggled. But they were given access to the American Dream. Why were waves of immigrants flocking here? Because it was the land of opportunity. Why was the economy booming? Why were there jobs? Because it had been built largely on unpaid labor. Once here, European immigrants got to systematically leapfrog over Black families with devastating consequences up to the present day. So slavery built the Nation. It turned-- turning us into an economic powerhouse due mostly to, I must say, good folk who participated in mundane ways and looked the other way. Now for the second big reason for pushback against this bill: the emotions that it stirs up. And I would speak directly to my fellow White Americans on this. First, fear not, though it is counterintuitive, I have seen over and over again the liberating power of facing this painful past. Second, White people tend to imagine that Black people are angry at us. But in my experience, Black Americans don't blame us for the deeds of bygone ancestors but are rightfully angry that we don't just drop the defensiveness or the self-absorbed guilt and sign up to work with them shoulder to shoulder to tackle the legacies that are still with us. Third, when we let go of defensiveness or guilt, we can get to a healthy and shared grief which opens the door to sober, sacred, respectful, creative, collective conversation about how to make things right. There are scores of organizations that are already able to attest to this, the power of this work. They know, I know that the process that a commission would help the country embark upon could be a transformative, positive, and life-giving thing for the country as a whole, a beautiful thing. It is good for the soul of a person, a people, and of a nation to set things right. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Browne follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Brown. And I would note that the Capitol was built with slave labor. And because of the work of Representatives Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Zach Wamp, the new Visitors Center is named Emancipation Hall in recognition. Mr. Coleman Hughes is a columnist for Quilette and has worked as a freelance opinion writer since January 2018. He has had pieces published in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the City Journal, and The Spectator. He is studying philosophy at Columbia University. And we appreciate your attendance, and you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. STATEMENT OF COLEMAN HUGHES Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the committee. It is an honor to testify on a topic as important as this one. Nothing I am about to say is meant to minimize the horror and brutality of slavery and Jim Crow. Racism is a bloody stain on this country's history, and I consider our failure to pay reparations directly to freed slaves after the Civil War to be one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated by the U.S. Government. But I worry that our desire to fix the past compromises our ability to fix the present. Think about what we are doing today. We are spending our time debating a bill that mentions slavery 25 times but incarceration only once in an era with no Black slaves but nearly a million Black prisoners; a bill that doesn't mention homicide once at a time when the Center for Disease Control reports homicide as the number one cause of death for young Black men. I am not saying that acknowledging history doesn't matter. It does. I am saying there is a difference between acknowledging history and allowing history to distract us from the problems we face today. In 2008, the House of Representatives formally apologized for slavery and Jim Crow. In 2009, the Senate did the same. Black people don't need another apology. We need safer neighborhoods and better schools. We need a less punitive criminal justice system. We need affordable healthcare. And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery. Nearly everyone close to me--nearly everyone close to me told me not to testify today. They told me that even though I have only ever voted for Democrats, I would be perceived as a Republican and, therefore, hated by half the country. Others told me they that, by distancing myself from Republicans, I would end up angering the other half of the country. And the sad truth is that they were both right. That is how suspicious we have become of one another. That is how divided we are as a Nation. If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing Black people today. We would insult many Black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors. And we would turn the relationship between Black Americans and White Americans from a coalition into a transaction, from a union between citizens into a lawsuit between plaintiffs and defendants. What we should do is pay reparations to Black Americans who actually grew up under Jim Crow and were directly harmed by second class citizenship, people like my grandparents. But paying reparations to all descendants of slaves is a mistake. Take me for example. I was born three decades after the end of Jim Crow into a privileged household in the suburbs. I attend an Ivy League school. Yet I am also descended from slaves who worked on Thomas Jefferson's Monticello Plantation. So reparations for slavery would allocate Federal resources to me but not to an American with the wrong ancestry even if person is living paycheck to paycheck and working multiple jobs to support a family. You might call that justice. I call it justice for the dead at the price of justice for the living. I understand that reparations are about what people are owed regardless of how well they are doing. I understand that. But the people who are owed for slavery are no longer here, and we are not entitled to collect on their debts. Reparations by definition are only given to victims. So the moment you give me reparations, you have made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you made one-third of Black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent. And Black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner. The question is not what America owes me by virtue of my ancestry. The question is what all Americans owe each other by virtue of being citizens of the same Nation. And the obligation of citizenship is not transactional. It is not contingent on ancestry. It never expires, and it can't be paid off. For all these reasons, bill H.R. 40 is a moral and political mistake. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Hughes follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Chill, chill, chill, chill. He was presumptive, but he still has a right to speak. Mr. Burgess Owens is recognized. Every witness and everybody here should be treated with respect. And please do so. Mr. Burgess Owens is an author and a retired professional football player for the New York Giants and the Oakland Raiders. He is the author of a number of books, including the 2016 book ``Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men Into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps,'' which offers a history and analysis of the Black experience in the United States. He attended the University of Miami, home of the Ibis, blow Hurricane, blow. Mr. Owens, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF BURGESS OWENS Mr. Owens. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I am going to take a different tack from beginning. We are at this point, this is not about Black and White, rich or poor, blue collar, White collar. We are fighting for the heart and soul of our Nation. We have a very, very special country that started with Judeo-Christian values that allowed every single generation become better than the last. And that has not ended. It has not stopped until now. We are telling our kids a little bit something different, that they don't have the opportunities that we had. I want to talk about some ideologies. When I talk about them, I am not taking about people. People change. I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race. So I talk with the ideologies, ideologies don't change; people do. We are fighting for the heart and soul of our Nation against socialism and Marxism and the evil that it has brought to us and the stealing of our history. Karl Marx said it best, the father of socialism, an atheist, anti-Semite and a blatant racist, yet we teach his philosophy in our school systems today. He said the first battleground is the rewriting of our history. You steal our history, you steal our pride in our past, appreciation for our present and a vision for our future. And every single urban city in our country is now experiencing that loss. Real quick history because these are things we are not taught. I am blessed to be a great-great-grandfather of Silas Burgess. He came here in the belly of a slave ship, sold in Charleston, South Carolina, with his mother to the Burgess plantation, an evil, evil man that drove my great-great-great grandmother either into leaving her family, her kids, or committing suicide. I don't know. She disappeared. But Silas at the age of 8 was blessed to be surrounded by men who believed in freedom, even though they were shackled, they escaped. They went the southern route of the underground railroad, facilitated by White and Mexican Americans. And made his way south to Texas, end up being a successful entrepreneur, owned 102 acres of land paid off in 2 years. Started the first Black church, the first Black elementary school, pillar of his community, 18 kids, Christian, Republican. His first son was Alpha Omega, proud American, an example of what happens when any race, any culture is given hope, opportunity, and freedom. It didn't end there, by the way. The history of our Black country, of our Black America has been stolen from us for decades, almost over a century. Booker T. Washington 1882, began Tuskegee University. By 1905 it was producing more self- made Black millionaires than Harvard, Yale, and Princeton combined. The '40s, '50s, and '60s, it was a Black community that led our country in the growth of the middle class, led our country in terms of the men committed to marriage--over 70 percent; now it is 30 percent--led our country in terms of community business ownership 40 percent; now it is 3.8 percent. Men matriculating college. We now have more--a higher percentage of men incarcerated than in college. By the way, my degree is biology. I learned a long time ago that slavery is not a gene in the DNA helix. It is our actions. It is our attitude. It is our belief. I do not believe in reparations because what reparations does, it points to a certain race, a certain color, and it points to them as evil and points the other race, my race, as one that--it not only becomes racist, but they are also beggars. I do believe in restitution. Let's point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40 percent of our Black babies, 20 million of them. The State of California, 75 percent of our Black boys cannot pass standard reading and writing tests, a Democratic State. So yes let's play restoration--let's play restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race, and those who, after we learn our history, decide to stay there, they should pay also; they are complicit. And every White American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of your White skin, you should need to pony up also. That way we can get past this reparations and realize that this country has given us greatness. Look at this panel. It doesn't matter how we think. It doesn't matter our color. We have become successful in this country like no other because of this great opportunity to live the American Dream. Let's not steal that from our kids by telling them they can't do it. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Owens follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Our next witness will be the Right Reverend Eugene Taylor Sutton. He is Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, a position held since 2008, previously served as canon pastor of the Washington National Cathedral and director of the Cathedral Center for Prayer and Pilgrimage. Bishop Sutton has been a leader of retreats and conferences on nonviolence, reconciliation in the environment, and has taught at New Brunswick at Vanderbilt University Divinity School. He is a graduate of Hope College. He earned his master of divinity degree at Western Theological Seminary, completed his Anglican studies at the University of the South School of Theology. Reverend Sutton, you are recognized. STATEMENT OF THE RIGHT REVEREND EUGENE TAYLOR SUTTON Rev. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today as a bishop of the Episcopal Church, representing for many a perspective of the faith community in favor of the proposed legislation on reparations. I might say right at the outset the debate we are having here this morning and the witness of my colleagues here points to the need to establish a commission. This debate needs to happen. And we need to entertain proposals for how we redress the evils of our past. If we don't address those problems in an open and fair way, then we are continuing to be lost as a Nation. By the way, in terms of politics, some of my friends are for Democrats; some of my friends are for Republicans. And as a religious leader, I am for my friends. I want to say that, last month, the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland that I lead, 110 congregations across most of the State of Maryland, voted unanimously for the affirmation of reparations of our diocese, knowing that so many of the resources of our diocese was gained from uncompensated labor of enslaved persons. One hundred percent, not a single negative vote from a diocese that is over 90 percent White, encompassing people from western Maryland, who have their own history of injustices, coal miners and others, southern Maryland, suburbs, and city people. How and why did that happen? If it could happen in that diocese, I am convinced it can happen in America. It happened because when the subject with the issue of reparations are fairly and fully explained, Americans want to do the right thing. That issue of reparations is mired in emotion. It is often mischaracterized and certainly largely misunderstood. It wells up an emotional response in people to the word, but when you break it down on what it is actually to do, we find that many of those emotions dissipate. Why is there a need for it? Let me tell you a story of a friend of mine. She and her husband--she was a pastor of a congregation. A long time ago, she told this story of, when their child was young, there was a young girl, a young teenager in the congregation who knew they had a need for babysitting, and she said, ``I will sit for your son tonight.'' And then she volunteered again. And then my friend and her husband started calling on her more and more, ``Would you do this? Would you do this?'' Never was the issue of money brought up. They knew she volunteered at first, but she the teenager wanted to do this for that more powerful person in that church. That went on for years. After a while, my friend and her husband thought this was unfair; this actually was an injustice toward her. They wrote her a letter then now in college, and they said, ``We believe, we have come to know that we--that this was an injustice. We are sorry. We want to make amends.'' The young woman wrote back, ``Thank you.'' And then they worked out a way that she could be compensated for her years of work. Their relationship was reconciled. They could look each other in the eye in a way that they could not before because that wall of injustice of that past got in the way of their current relationship. That is what reparations is. And that is what our Nation has failed to do for the last 120 years. Reparations quite simply means to repair that which has been broken. It is not just about monetary compensation. An act of reparation is an attempt to make whole again, to restore, to over atonement, to make an amends, to reconcile for a wrong or an injury. It is not the transfer of money from White people to Black people. It is what this generation, our generation, will do to repair the broken pieces of the racial mess that we have all inherited. As an African American who is a descendant of slaves who were never compensated, I can honestly say to all White people: We have forgiven you. We forgave this country a long time ago, and we continue to forgive every day, but we are not reconciled. To reconcile means to put back together again that which has been broken. After the hard-fought abolition of slavery, there was a fateful denial in our Nation of reparations for freed African American people. Even though, in many instances, White plantation owners received reparations in the form of compensation for the losses they incurred from the Civil War and the end of slavery. This Nation is not--we know about reparations. It is just that it has never been done for those who deserved it the most. Finally, I am a Christian. That means I hold to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as my guideposts and to the teachings of Jesus. The Bible mandates that leaders are to be held accountable for the fair and equal treatment of every inhabitant in the land. All of us have been taught to love everyone, regardless of their race and human condition. However, we must come to acknowledge that there can be no love without justice, and there can no justice without some form of repairing an injustice. I hear from many of my White friends, White brothers and sisters, this question: What do Black people want? Haven't we done enough? What do they want? I want to turn the question around. What do you want? What kind of America do you want to live in? If you are happy with the state of race relations now, don't do anything on this issue. But if you want a reconciled nation, let's get this commission and let's entertain those proposals. [The statement of Rev. Sutton follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, Reverend. Before I recognize our next witness, I want to recognize a Member of Congress who is here, Representative Fredericka Wilson from Florida. And we appreciate your attendance. Our next witness is Dr. Julian Malveaux. Dr. Malveaux is a labor economist, noted author and frequent media commentator. She wrote a weekly column for more than a decade that appeared in newspapers across the country, including the LA Times, the Charlotte Observer, The New Orleans Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, and The San Francisco Examiner, hosted television and radio programs, and appeared widely as a commentator on networks, including CNN, BET, PBS, NBC, ABC, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, C-SPAN, our favorite station, and others. She also serve as a 15th president of Bennett College for Women, America's oldest Historically Black Women's College, received her Ph.D. in economics from MIT, and her bachelor's and master's degrees from Boston College. Thank you for coming, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JULIANNE MALVEAUX Ms. Malveaux. Chairman Cohen, thank you so very much for this opportunity. I also want to thank my sister friend, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and my twin sister over there, Congresswoman Karen Bass--people frequently comment on our resemblance--and, of course, Congressman Nadler for your work and your leadership, and Dr. Ron Daniels, who was here it has been mentioned his leadership of NAARC, the National African American Reparations Commission, on which I serve. I am delighted to be here because this hearing is not on time; it is like overtime. It is more than time for us to deal with the injustices that African American people, not only have experienced in history, but continue to experience. I am an economist. So economics is a study of who gets what, when, where, and why? It is a study of the way the factors of production are paid, the elements, our land, labor, capital, and the secret sauce: Some people call it entrepreneurial ability; some call it creativity. Land gets rent. Labor gets wages. Capital gets interest. And the secret sauce gets profits. But the work of predatory capitalism is to figure out how to extract more from the factors of production toward capital and away from people. And we have seen that in the past three decades with our own economy, but more importantly, enslavement was about the Devil's work of predatory capitalism. Indeed, enslaved people got no wages, and we represented capital for other people. And so after enslavement--first of all, enslavement was the foundation on which our country was built. So anybody who says, ``Well, I didn't have any slaves,'' no, you didn't have to have any. What you had to do was experience them, enjoy the fact that they were here, enjoy the fact that their labor made it possible for there to be a Wall Street, a bond market, and all of that. But, beyond that, I want to speak specifically to section 3(b)3 of the legislation. That is the part that talks about the Federal and State laws that discriminate against formerly enslaved Africans and the descendants who are deemed United States citizens. From Robert Higgs, in a book called ``Computation and Coercion: Blacks and the American Economy, 1865 to 1914,'' he shows that, in 1880, the ratio of Black to White was 1 Black dollar for 36 White dollars; 1890, 1 to 26; 1900, 1 to 23; 1910, 1 to 16; today 1 to 20. In other words, we are almost worse off in 2019 than we were in 1910 because of evil because basically there have been deliberate attempts to marginalize African American people, especially those who were formerly enslaved, because of the interest of predatory capitalism and because it is expedient to maintain the status quo of having free Black labor and to prevent wealth accumulation. Despite the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments Black people were treated as other and perniciously and viciously excluded from the possibilities of economic advancement. The Emergency Land Fund documented the reduction of Black land ownership between 1910 and 1969 from 60 million acres to 6 million acres. How and why? Land grabs, tax schemes, faulty deeds, and downright force. My own family in Moss Point, Mississippi, experiencing expropriation of land through a moving fence, like the fence moved one night. We used to have land, and we didn't have the land. Years later, after a couple of cousins were lynched, they changed the name of the land to Hawkins Lane. So they named it after us, but we didn't get it back. Joseph Brooks in 1978 estimated that Black folks were losing 6,000 acres of land per week, and we saw what happened with the Agricultural Department. The post-enslavement case for reparations can be made by examining racially hostile policy and government complicity to white supremacy. You all have an article that I wrote for the ACLU that talks about several cases, Memphis; Wilmington, North Carolina; Tulsa, Oklahoma. But these were the tip of the iceberg. The this happened everywhere. The journalists Ida B. Wells said that lynching was the first example of white supremacy because it was a tool of terrorism. It dampened the ability of African American people to participate in the vibrant entrepreneurship of the late 19th and early 20th century with a chilling message that our economic success could be punished by the rope. The economic damage to Black people post-Reconstruction can be summarized in three ways: Number one, we were denied the ability to participate in our Nation's economic growth. The Homestead Act of 1862 did not include formerly enslaved people. More than 10 percent of the continental U.S. land was distributed to recent immigrants from Europe, but not Black folks. So the 40 acres and a mule was given to somebody else, not us. These folks were able, not only to get land, but then to get grants from the Federal Government to develop their land. Meanwhile, African American people were denied the right to these wealth transfers. Secondly, we were denied the right to accumulate. The attacks of the paper that I mentioned talks about how our accumulation was essentially stymied by lynching. The first lynching that Ida B. Wells examined was one when a Black man had the nerve, the utter nerve, to open up a grocery store near a White man's store. So the White man had the brother lynched, had three people lynched because of economic envy. Listen to those words: economic envy. This is how Black people have been suppressed in their ability to accumulate. Tulsa, Oklahoma; Wilmington, North Carolina, long stories that I don't have any time to talk about. I want you all to look at the paper I submit and to think about the many ways that Black people who tried to participate, tried to encourage, tried to be American, simply tried to be economic actors, was suppressed because they have the nerve to think it worked. So, my brothers over here who say their American Dream, it is some people's American nightmare, let's just be clear. Number three, public policy hostility, the public policy hostility to Black people: GI Bill, legislation, truncated opportunities for African American veterans, Federal Housing Administration, reinforced redlining and segregation as an official policy of the Federal Government. People talk about racists as if they are individuals. Yes, sir, but the fact they are not individuals; they are individuals who are buttressed by the Federal Government and legislation. So let me simply say H.R. 40 is important, NAARC has developed a 10 point plan, but more importantly, as you, my brothers and sisters on this Congress, go forward, may there be a racial justice audit of any new legislation that has economic implications. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Malveaux follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Our final witness is Professor Eric Miller, professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He has held a number of law teaching positions since 2003, where he has written a number of academic pieces on reparations, among other topics. He testified in December of 2007 before this subcommittee on the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade in America. Professor Miller received his bachelor of law with first class honors from the University of Edinburgh in U.K., and his master of law degree is from Harvard Law School, and he has held a number of fellowships. Professor Miller, welcome back. You are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ERIC J. MILLER Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored by the committee's invitation to testify at this very important hearing on H.R. 40 and the path to restorative justice. I will speak to my experience as an academic studying the issue of reparations and as a lawyer representing the victims of the Tulsa massacre of 1921 in a reparations lawsuit against the State of Oklahoma and the city of Tulsa. In the short time available, I want to make the following points: Local, State, and Federal governments were active perpetrators of race- targeted discrimination against and domination of African Americans during slavery and Jim Crow and beyond. These governmental institutions engaged in the massive social, political, economic, and cultural destruction of African American communities. Many of the perpetrators and victims of race-targeted state action are readily identifiable through a thorough investigation of existing historical records currently in the hands of public and private institutions. The race-based disparities brought about by Federal, State, and local government discrimination remain baked into our governmental institutions, as well as the persistently segregated private social ordering those institutions brought about. Reparations addresses the ways in which these institutions entrance race-based discrimination and domination throughout American social, cultural, economic, and political institutions. The committee should consider specific legal remedies to remove the time-limited bars against litigation, which is among the major impediments preventing identifiable victims of extraordinary race-targeted state action to sue State and Federal Governments for financial damages. There have been multiple reparation-style lawsuits brought since the Supreme Court decided City of Richmond v. Croson which have survived constitutional challenge. But reparations must also include rebuilding the social, political, economic, and cultural infrastructure of the communities destroyed by the state because, without cultural and political reparations, race-neutral programs of economic uplift will preserve the relative social and political disadvantage, domination, and disempowerment of African Americans across this Nation. The urgent need for the H.R. 40 commission on reparations as a path to restorative justice for the victims of state- sponsored racial injustice became clear to me in 2003. That is when I joined the Reparations Coordinating Committee, a group of lawyers led by Charles Ogletree and Adjoa Aiyetoro. Our legal team filed suit representing more than 125 still living survivors of the Tulsa, Oklahoma, race massacre of 1921. Now some historical context is in order here. On May 30th, 1921, some African Americans mobilized to stop lynching in Tulsa, Oklahoma. One lynching had an effect on a whole community because, in response, White citizens deputized by the police and aided by the State National Guard burned down the 35 city blocks of Greenwood, a thriving African American residential and business district in Tulsa. Up to 300 African Americans died in the massacre in the ensuing fire. Overnight, 5,000 African Americans became homeless; 3,000 terrorized people fled the city. The rest were rounded up and held under guard for days at the local baseball park and fairground. The Red Cross had to mobilize to provide tents for those who remained. The city of Tulsa and the State of Oklahoma moved quickly to suppress news of a massacre. Survivors were terrorized into silence. All mention of it was excised from official accounts of Oklahoma history. The details of the massacre only became public in 2003 after the State of Oklahoma formed an H.R. 40 style commission, including historians, lawyers, and activists, to report on the massacre. The commission's painstaking research through the historical record discovered much previously unavailable material. The commission apportioned detailed financial damages and proposed that reparations be paid to survivors and descendants. When the State refused to make good on these recommendations, we filed a lawsuit trying to complete the process begun by the commission. The only impediment to our success, the court acknowledged, was a rule requiring the survivors to file any lawsuit within 2 years of injury. These statutes of limitations are the major impediment to many reparations lawsuits. The Tulsa experience demonstrates the harms of slavery and segregation scar our communities to this day. The city and State dismantled economically, politically, and culturally a specific community: African Americans in Tulsa. Subsequent generations of Greenwood residents have labored under the social and disempowerment whilst trying to rebuild their community. The Tulsa experience is emblematic of many African American communities around this country. So whilst a monetary payment would count as a beginning, economic justice is not enough without racial justice to repair the specific race-based wrongs of the Tulsa massacre and its aftermath. To quote Harvard law professor and reparations activist Charles Ogletree, ``reparations are more than an exercise in education, remembrance, and apology; reparations demand the political, social and economic power and equality for African Americans that has been stifled and suppressed in America since its inception.'' Accordingly, I urge Congress to pass H.R. 40 as a first vital step on the path to acknowledging and accounting for the history of race-targeted discrimination and wrongdoing that has marked too much of this Nation's history. [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Professor Miller. We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule of questions. And I will begin now by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Ta-Nehisi Coates, in your article, ``The Case for Reparations,'' you state: 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow, 60 years of separate but equal, 35 years of racist housing policies. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. Why should the Federal Government bear responsibility for economic and social damages to the descendants of the enslaved? Mr. Coates. I thank you, Chairman Cohen. I think the most obvious reasoning is because the Federal Government is complicit in it. The article that you spoke about--this period of white supremacy that you referenced in the headline, it is so broad that, if I tried to cover it in one article, it would have been impossible. So I focused on a very specific thing, and that is the period of Jim Crow and housing segregation and redlining, specifically in the city of Chicago. The Federal Government should pay because the Federal Government was deeply complicit in housing segregation and redlining and in the plunder of Black homeowners in Chicago. It would not have existed if the FHA had not had a policy of not ensuring loans for Black people living in Chicago. It would not have existed if not for the redlining maps which were written and created by this government of every major city in the country, which effectively relegated Black people, whether they had a down payment or not, outside of a class of people who could benefit from a movement which basically created our modern middle class. And so I don't know how it would be possible to exempt the Federal Government from such a process. And, furthermore, I just have to make this point over and over: Many of the people who were victimized by housing segregation and by redlining are very much alive today. So this is not strictly about the past. This is identifiable victims, as Dr. Miller--as Professor Miller--said, who were there and who are ready to be part of the process. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Reverend Sutton, let me ask you, you heard Mr. Hughes' testimony and said he didn't want reparations. Do you believe-- and this would be a study of reparations--H.R. 40 draws no conclusions; it would be a study--do you believe that there should be exclusions for wealthy folks who have been successful and maybe emphasize deeds and works and actions that help the people who have not achieved as much and lift them up? Rev. Sutton. I believe that one of the reasons why it was so widely accepted in my--I believe one of the reasons why the vote for reparations was so widely accepted in my diocese is because we separated it from Black descendants of slaves getting checks. We are talking about funding initiatives, programs, addressing issues, such as mass incarceration. And when that is explained to people that that is a reparation, that is repairing something that can be traced to slavery, then that is the case. Personally, I am not looking for a check from the Federal Government or from my church or anything. I am concerned about those who have been left behind, the masses of African American descendants of slaves who are mired in hopelessness and despair in communities of crime, violence, poverty, and racism. And so I think if we can at least have a civil good conversation on the concept of reparations, then talk about money because the moment you start talking about money, the idea, especially among many White persons--``I am going to give a check to Black persons? What about me?''--the moment you begin with money, then the resistance goes up. Let's talk about the concept. Finally, in relation to your question, we have a problem in this Nation of being able to talk civilly about race. And when I am talking for reparations, I am talking about those who are left behind, but I am actually talking to my White brothers and sisters. You need this more than we do. You need this for your soul. You need this to be able to look Black persons in the eye and say, ``I acknowledge the mistake, and I want to be part of the solution to repair that damage.'' Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend Sutton. As Reverend Sutton speaks to the soul, Dr. Malveaux, you speak to the economics. And if some of this efforts to remediate the past, as Dr. Ogletree has spoken about, a massive influx of moneys for health, education, and job training, if some of that went into areas where there are large concentrations of descendants of slaves who have not succeeded for a myriad of reasons and if some of that went to White folks who were there who also are living in bad conditions, would that be a problem do you think, Dr. Malveaux, or would that just be helping everybody that is in a miasma? Ms. Malveaux. Chairman Cohen, it is really interesting that right this minute, as we are having this hearing, Reverend William Barber is having a hearing on poverty. So this is a great day for economic justice issues. Poverty is a problem in our Nation. But you can't fix poverty nor can you fix inequality unless you deal with racism. And dealing with racism is about dealing with reparations. I am with the Reverend here--I don't care about a personal check made out to Julianne Malveaux or anybody else. How about we fully fund our Historically Black Colleges and Universities? How about--once upon a time, Brother Chairman, we had more than 100 Black-owned banks; now we have 23. How come? Again, the Devil is busy. Pernicious legislation that basically caused people to lose banks, changing in reserve requirements, and things like that, gentrification. While you have empty swaths of land all over other Nation, why not deal with that? So I respect your question about areas, but I think that really does speak to our dis-ease, our uneasiness in talking straight up, upfront about race. Race is our Nation's second original sin. The first was what we did to Native people. Racism enslavement was our original sin, and we have got to deal with reparations by dealing exactly with that. If we want to have an American Marshall Plan that deals with all poor people--Reverend Barber says there are 140 million poor people, 43 percent of our Nation--let's deal with that. But let's not forget that race is central to anything we do around economic justice. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Doctor. My time has expired. And I recognize the ranking member Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank you to all of you for your time and your heartfelt sentiments. And we know they are sincere. Mr. Hughes, I want to thank you for your honesty and your humility and your courage, sir. I know this isn't easy today. Here is a big question that hangs over all of this and that all of us need to I guess address. Look, many people believe, on all sides of the political spectrum, that racial inequality that we see today is not entirely attributable to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. It is a factor, but it is not entirely attributable. Can you elaborate on what some of the other causative factors may be? Mr. Hughes. Well, the first thing I would say is that blaming slavery and Jim Crow for the entirety of racial disparity--obviously, it is clearly a factor--but blaming it for the entirety of the problems we see today facing Black people is actually a way of not taking responsibility for policy decisions that were made just in the last 50 years. Our prisons did not balloon until the 1980s. Unemployment for Black and White youths were virtually identical until the late 1950s, the early 1960s. So, perversely, by blaming slavery and Jim Crow for everything, we actually fail to take responsibility for policy decisions that were made on both sides of the aisle in very recent history. Secondly, I would say that there is a naive assumption that, wherever there is a statistical gap in outcomes between two groups, that that gap must be attributable to some kind of discrimination, whether that is overt or whether that is structural in systemic. That assumption is not true. Okay. Just, I will give one example, but I could give dozens. According to 2015 Census figures, there is a 21 cents on the dollar gap, 21 cents on the dollar gap in household income between White Americans of Russian descent and White Americans of French descent. Right? Disparity is the norm, not the exception. So the question is not why two groups would have different outcomes, whether it is for wealth, income, or incarceration. The question is why we would expect any two groups with different histories, different geographical patterns, different patterns of migration, different cultures to nevertheless get exactly the same outcomes. Mr. Johnson. Thank you for that. Mr. Owens, thank you as well. And I was moved by your testimony about the fact that we are fighting for the heart of our Nation. I think everybody in this room as part of the American family understands that we see it different ways. Here is a question, in your opinion, is there a formula that allowed the African American community to achieve the measures of success during the '40, '50s, and '60s that is missing today? Mr. Owens. There is. And I am going to point to Booker T. Washington to tell you what that formula is. First, I want to set up a few things, square a few things away. I had been talking about restitution a little bit ago, and I have so much respect for the Black men and women who built that great Wall Street out of Tulsa. Not only did they have--they had 60 millionaires. They had international business. Within 12 hours, it was destroyed by air by Democratic KKK. A lot of White--they were White people, yes, but they were part of a certain party. Forty acres and a mule, that was actually implemented. But when the Democratic President Andrew Johnson took over, they took that land back. They took away their guns, and then they took away their land. KKK, inside of the Democratic Party by the way, they lynched 4,700 people; 1,500 of them were White Republicans. So, yes, we have a lot of evil going on, but let's not broadbrush this guys. There is a certain ideology that certain people that belong to a certain area, a certain niche, we need to hold them accountable. And so let's do that, and I think we are in good shape. Booker T. Washington had four foundations: It was head, heart, hands, and home. In that process, head is education; heart is compassion and service; hands are industry entrepreneurship; home is family. The reason why my race were kicking butt--the history is not being told--they were beating--they were so busy, they weren't looking at finding somebody to blame for where they were. They were busy beating out these racists. That is what my parents did. At the end of the day, they held on to those principles for decades until the socialists and Marxists got into our community and they stopped educating our kids. I said something earlier, and there has not been aghast--75 percent--2017, the Department of Education study, 75 percent of Black boys in the State of California cannot pass reading and writing tests. And you wonder where they are going to go from here? They are not going to learn anything about our country. They are not going to read about our God. They are not going to hear anything about what we the people have done together. They are going to turn on BET and hear how bad they have been treated. They are going to hear how bad our country is, how bad White people are. They are going to be taught how to disrespect our women, and they are going to be put in jail. And then we are going to sit around and talk about why is this being done. Let's put a commission together: Why is this happening with so many of our kids not being educated in every single urban American city in our country? That is what our problem is. As we ho-hum and we blame people from years ago, we have yet to put together a commission. How about this one: 82 percent of Black teen males across our country in the last 8 years, unemployed, soon becoming unemployable; 92 percent in our liberal city of Chicago, where we are killing each other right and left, and there is not one commission, not one peep about this misery that is going on in our country. I have something I put in my book. I am going to read this real quickly: Evil is the person who is stealing the hopes and dreams and future of an individual. Pure evil is the target of a race of millions and using human misery as political strategy to steal their hopes, dreams, and future. We are dealing with pure evil, to have my race dealing with the evil, the misery that we have been dealing with, and no one says a word, other than: Let's look back and see what has happened for 200 years ago. Let's deal with today, and I think we will be in good shape. Mr. Johnson. Thank you for that. I am out of time. I yield back. Mr. Raskin [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you very much. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is recognized for 5 minutes. Chairman Nadler. I thank you. I am going to ask one question and then yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass. Mr. Coates, Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell on Tuesday said that he does not support reparations for descendants of slaves saying, quote: I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea. We have tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a Civil War, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We elected an African American President. There is an unconscionable denial and lack of knowledge in this Nation about the true nature of facts and current consequences of the transatlantic slave trade and the enslavement of African American people upon which American democracy, prosperity, and White privilege are founded. Mr. Coates, based on your monumental essay in The Atlantic Magazine, ``The Case for Black Reparations,'' can you please describe briefly some of the continuing impacts and vestiges of the enslavement era on living African Americans today? Mr. Coates. First of all, one of the things I tried to make clear in my testimony is that we perceive the era of enslavement, the era of Jim Crow, and in fact, I would actually even add the era of mass incarceration as separate things that are somehow not tied to each other. The greatest damage that enslavement did, besides the economic damage, besides the normalization of torture, of rape, besides the normalization of treating people as though they are things, is the institution in the American mind that Black people are necessarily inferior. In 1865, when Black people were emancipated, that belief did not magically dissipate. It proceeded for 100 years afterwards. It proceeded, as I said in my testimony, well into the lifetime of many panel members, Chairman--sorry, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and many of the people in this audience. So it is not a matter of the past. These things are linked. It has been said, I think, or alluded to repeatedly throughout this conversation that somehow wealthy African Americans are immune to these effects. But in addition to the wealth gap that is cited, one thing that folks should keep in mind is that quote/unquote ``wealthy African Americans'' are not the equivalent of quote/unquote ``White Americans'' in this country. The average African American family in this country making $100,000, you know, decent money actually lives in the same kind of neighborhood that the average White family making $35,000 a year lives in. That is totally tied to the legacy of enslavement and Jim Crow and the input and the idea in the mind that White people and Black people are somehow deserving of different things. If I injure you, the injury persists even after I actually commit the act. If I stabbed you, you may suffer complications long after that initial actual stabbing. If I shoot you, you may suffer complications long after that initial shooting. That is the case with African Americans. There are people well within the living memory of this country that are still suffering from the after-effects of that. Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much. I yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass. Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and all of the witnesses that are here today and Representative Jackson Lee, for doing this legislation. And, you know, this is just such an important moment in our history. But I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes talking about how we have viewed this issue and why we are even having this hearing today. It is so important because I believe that, in this country, we have never been able to come to grips with our history. We either don't know our history, or we deny it. When we talk about the 250 years of enslavement, we call it a sin. We call it a mistake. We say that it was a subset of Americans, not the entire Nation. We say it was inconsistent with the values of our Nation's founding, that it was something it that happened long ago, and why can't we get past it? Why can't we move on? Why do you keep bringing it up? Slavery might have ended in the mid-1800s, but apartheid and terrorism lasted for 100 years after that. We passed a bill on lynching last week. Why did we even have to do that? There was a man that was executed 2 weeks ago for a lynching that took place in Texas. There are many murders that have happened that people are still wondering whether or not they were lynching. We have to say that, in our country, we pride ourselves with our development, but we refuse to acknowledge that the reason we have the development that we do is because the first 200 years of our history was done with free labor. The South enslaved African Americans, but the North's economy flourished by that. And I believe that our economist explained in detail of that. So our fundamental problem is our ignorance of history or our refusal to admit it. Everyone understands the pain caused by people who deny the Holocaust. Deep pain is caused by this, and deep pain is caused by our country that cannot acknowledge what has happened here. I want to say that it should be obvious, but the entire Congressional Black Caucus supports this legislation. We have problems denying--we think that racism sometimes it is trivialized as behavior, as ideas, and that we are all equally racist because we refuse to accept the fact that racism is ingrained in our institutions. We say that there must have been something that 12 year old did to have gotten shot. We say that there must have been a reason that that police officer pulled that gun on that pregnant woman last week with her two babies. We don't see the connection between this because we refuse to admit it. H.R. 40 calls for the establishment of a commission. It does not call for checks. We trivialize reparations by saying that these are just African Americans that want to be paid. I think Mr. Coates goes into details about reparations meaning much more than that. And then, frankly, when I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we need to be encouraged to work harder, to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, that we can actually achieve, that that is the only thing that is the problem, and then to talk about the Democratic Party, I think maybe people don't remember who Fannie Lou Hamer was? Black folks fought the Democratic Party. Nobody acts as though the Democratic Party was not a racist party until there was a movement that fought for justice. I am glad that we are having this hearing today. I thank my colleagues for doing it. I look forward to this legislation moving to the floor. And, once again, I just want to emphasize, at what point, can we in this country have a conversation about race? We will never get past it until we can have the conversation, and the conversation begins with the commission. Thank you. Mr. Cohen [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman Bass. And I would now like to recognize---- Mr. Glover. Excuse me, let me have a word, please. Because I wear several hats and certainly most people consider me the one hat and know me from the hat I wear as an artist and an activist and an artist. But I worked for the city government for 6 and a half years in 1971 in the Model Cities Program in San Francisco, California. I was at the mayor's office and Joseph Alioto. For 6 and a half years, I worked both in the Mission and in the African American community at that particular point in time. And most of that was the realization of what we were--the programs about the Great Society, the programs that came about. And I have seen--I saw those programs get eviscerated. Those programs in the sense designed to bring great opportunities and great hope lasted only a short period of time. So I certainly understand that because I have lived in the same community my entire life in San Francisco. My mother, a migrant, someone who met my father and came to San Francisco after World War II. They became--they had descent jobs. They worked for the post office in 1948. They were able to raise a family on that income as well. They were able to eventually buy a house in the same neighborhood that I live in right now. Also, they were part of that generation who were the first beneficiaries of the upcoming and ongoing civil rights movement. I have watched that city and worked in that city. And I am just talking about the city of San Francisco, this liberal city that has this great tradition around labor and everything else. We talk about Harry Bridges and what he did and longshoremen and bringing African Americans into longshoremen. And then I watched the evisceration of the cities and people's lives because of crack cocaine and mass incarceration as well right in my neighborhood, right in my family. So those are the kind of long-term impacts that we don't realize that happened. Those children who were the descendants, not only slaves but descendants of the those, the generation who had the opportunities after World War II, those children did not have the same opportunities. And now those children are abandoned as adults in that city, in that great city. So I think we have to kind of look at this, as people said often, that this is just a study of look at racism and all of its manifestation and can't--in terms of gentrification as well. I was in the Fillmore area in 1966 going to Western District Community Organization meetings, where people were desperate to find different ways in which they were not being removed from their communities. These are real issues that happened. They are longstanding issues that go back and find themselves resonating in slavery and going further--all the material that we have, all the books that we have now, all the studies that have been done has outlined that. We have to begin to say--to tell ourselves the truth. James Baldwin, the great writer, once said, if cannot tell ourselves the truth about the past, we become trapped in it. And that is what we are. We are trapped in it. This country is trapped in the truth--not telling the truth. And we got to find, we got to start--that is the leverage right there. Begin to we talk about any of it. We talk about education, Bob Moses has talked about math literacy is important. And most children, particularly children of color, aren't prepared for math literacy. We have to talk about education and preparing our children for 21st century citizenship. And that is what it is. And this is what this is talking about. If we raise the boat of those people who have been most disadvantaged historically, we raise--we create a better country here. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Ms. Malveaux. Chairman Cohen, may I---- Mr. Cohen. No. We can't. We are not going to get out of order. I gave--no, ma'am. I gave Mr. Glover great respect. But the panel and the way we operate is we go from member to member, and they can ask questions. And if somebody--the next person wants to ask you, they can ask you. Representative Cline, you are recognized for your 5 minutes. Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for being here. Mr. Coates, I followed your career with interest. Mr. Glover, I am a big fan. And I want to thank the witnesses for their remarks. Mr. Hughes, I wanted to ask if there was anything that was said previously that you would like to respond to. Mr. Hughes. Yeah, I would like to address myself to the comments made on the subject of us not knowing our history, of us not having told the truth about slavery and Jim Crow. It strikes me that this is not exactly true. Mr. Glover mentioned all of the studies and books that have been written on the subject. I would argue, in fact, that in the 10,000 year history of slavery on every continent, there is not a single example of slavery that has been more studied than slavery in America from the 17th century to the 19th century. So it is actually not true that we have not told the truth, that we don't know our history. Moreover, in the past 50 years, if we are talking about what scholars in America--in the American social sciences have directed their attention towards, it is hard to find a subject on which more books have been written that has been more studied than racial inequality. Thank you. Mr. Cline. Thank you for that. Mr. Owens, I followed your career with interest as well. Can you speak to, specifically your career in the NFL--and also, you spoke of your family--what was the greatest legacy or lessons from your family that brought you to the opinions that you hold now? Mr. Owens. The greatest legacy from my dad who served in of war, World War II, came home. Could not do his postgraduate down in Texas because of Jim Crow laws. So he put out a lot of letters. Ran across of a box when he passed away of hundreds of rejection letters. He used that as motivation because he eventually got to Ohio State where he got his Ph.D. and went on to become a very successful entrepreneur, college professor, researcher, and someone who was very proud of our race. He reached back to his very last days to the young people giving him hope that this country, they can succeed and if they really wanted to. And if they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, worked harder than the next guy--that is not a racist deal, guys. That is the American way. We work harder than the next guy. The greatest legacy from him was my belief that I would do everything I could to make sure he was proud that I held his name. The greatest thing from my mom--from my dad is I never ever even thought about disrespecting Mom. We have come to a point where we allow our young men to disrespect women. I think there is no consequences. We are not going to develop men if we allow our boys to call our women baby mamas and everything else in the book and not pull them aside and tell them it is wrong. It is about policies, guys. It is not about 200 years ago. We have kids in the State of California that--there is against anti-choice, by the way. These kids are stuck in these failing schools because we have a party that is against them moving on to someplace else. We have a Davis-Bacon Act, 1932, put in place specifically to help to stop Blacks from competing against White unions, still in place today. You wonder why we have so high unemployment, why our business ownership has gone from 40 percent down to 33.8 percent. By the way, a higher minimum wage is not as good as it sounds. It keeps our young people out of work. It keeps them-- they are too expensive to hire even to get started if you have high minimum wage. Now, the unions benefit from that, by the way. And open borders hurts our race, period. Period. It is commonsense. If you have non-Americans coming in while working for lower wages, we get hurt first. We got to understand this. And let's get this thing right, guys. It is about our people, my race. We are just as good as anyone else out there given the right opportunity and not told that we can't. But us raising our kids and telling them that, because of their skin color, they are already against every opportunities out there, it is stealing their dreams. We can't afford to do that. So my parents' generation, the Greatest Generation in the history of mankind, told us to dream big and wipe out those other guys that are working harder and showing them they are wrong, and we did that. Mr. Cline. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Raskin is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am looking for some points of---- Mr. Cohen. Excuse me, Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. I saw Mrs. Lawrence here earlier, and then she disappeared, and she is back. And I want to recognize the distinguished--I am sorry. Mrs. Lawrence was here, and she is gone. She was sitting there. And Mrs. Beatty is here now. So, Mrs. Lawrence, thank you. Representative Raskin, you are on. Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both sides seem to agree this is something that should have been done long ago. I think I heard Mr. Hughes say that, and I think, Mr. Coates, you said that. There was an effort after the Civil War in Reconstruction organized around a field command I think President Lincoln issued to redistribute 40 acres and a mule, and it never happened. And it was interrupted. And then we had a period of a decade of active national investment in Reconstruction in the South that was undone by white supremacy. And so we were never able to follow through on the political, economic, and social promise of Reconstruction. So, given this history and the distance between now and slavery and then the continuing injuries of racism with Jim Crow and with the sharecropper system and the criminalization of the African American population after the Civil War, what-- Mr. Coates, let me ask you. What are the differences in approach that have to be taken now given the distance of time that has lapsed than if it had been done completely right after the Civil War and Reconstruction had been allowed to run its course for a period of several decades before the so-called redemption took place? Mr. Coates. Sure. If I could just address the notion of slavery having been well-studied and understood. I think my fellow panel member is quite correct that, at this moment in history, it is certainly true that the system of enslavement in America has probably been the most studied in America. That is not particularly surprising given the extensive and revolutionary and wide system of universities we have in this country, which is also probably unprecedented and also probably a new development also. But I think, even given that, it is worth noting the lack of penetration that those studies have had into the American mindset. I don't know if it is still here, but relatively recently, there was a statue garden here in the Capitol that I believe had statues of General Lee and Alexander Stephens. And one has to ask, if, in the Capitol, people understood the history of this country, why there would be statues honoring people who led a revolution or destroy it? One would have to ask, if that history were well understood why, and for instance, the State of Mississippi there still was a flag flying dedicated to people who tried to destroy this country? Why only a couple of years ago we saw the murder of Heather Heyer, and that was precipitated by a movement to erect a new group of statues and remove the statue of General Lee? And so, while it has been well studied, I don't know that Americans quite understand it. At this very point, you can get at least a plurality of White Americans who will tell you that the Civil War was about States' rights with no conversation about States' rights to do what. In terms of the differences in approach today, what I would say is that is why we need H.R. 40. That is exactly what we are here to discuss in the first place. I am very skeptical of the notion that one person should stand up and speak for our 40 million African Americans, that one person should stand up and speak for all the generations that came before me. I think the proper thing to do is, A, for this body to convene a committee and convene a discussion to study exactly what the damage was and what potential remedy might be offered and also to convene conversations around the country. Just attendant to that, I also would like to say there has been a lot of, shall we say, shade throwing on the notion of cutting checks. I just want to say, you know, in the spirit of openness, in the spirit of actual study, I don't think we should necessarily rule out cutting checks. There are people who deserve checks. And I think that actually should be part of the study. We aren't ruling out any solution. I don't think we should rule out that one either. Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for your emphasis on what H.R. 40 will do. It will set up a commission to study all of the different dimensions and ramifications of reparations and what it means, because I think one of the productive aspects of this conversation has been that we have learned that it is not just about cutting checks although it is not to the exclusion of that. But it is about rethinking our relationship to this whole history, which has been so injurious to so many of our people. Let me focus on the question of the congressional role because I am moved by the fact that it is Congress that is taking this up seriously. As we said before, enslaved Americans helped to build the Capitol where Congress meets. Enslaved Americans helped to build the White House where the President sleeps. And there was a slave market across the street where the Supreme Court stands today. And, of course, that was the Supreme Court that gave America the Dred Scott decision in 1857, and the Supreme Court that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, and recently gave us Shelby County v. Holder and Shaw v. Reno in the undoing of the modern civil rights movement, the modern Reconstruction. But my question here is, why is it that Congress should be the one to act? You would think that we would rely on the Supreme Court for justice in the country. But people are coming to Congress to act. And, you know, perhaps, Reverend Sutton, let me come to you about that. By the way--and I do have to identify the fact that we have two great Marylanders here today. One is Mr. Coates and one is Reverend Sutton, and we are very proud of both you. So, Reverend Sutton. Rev. Sutton. First off, let me say that I am a bit dismayed and appalled that my brother panelist here, when we are talking about reparations goes to family and all--of course, we are all hardworking, and, of course, we are for families. I just don't want the impression to be that if those are for reparations don't know about the role of family. Mr. Raskin. While we are on that point, let me just ask you---- Rev. Sutton. Okay. And why Congress. Because you are leaders and legislation helped to get us into this mess, legislation has a role. The church has a role. Our educational systems have a role. And maybe even the Supreme Court and hopefully the President. But your role is to redress some of what your predecessors did in this Congress. And so I think you are the only body that can call for this commission that desperately needs to happen. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Reverend. And thank you, Mr. Raskin. I would now like to recognize Mr. Gohmert from Texas for 5 minutes. Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. And I appreciate the witnesses being here. And, Mr. Glover, any time I see your name listed as being in a movie, I normally say that is one I will enjoy and appreciate your body of work throughout your career. You have provided a great deal of enjoyment, even in the dramas, so thank you for that. I had a colleague mention an execution in Texas. And that was--the incident arose down in Jasper where three White men drug a Black man to death. Now, I have supported the death penalty. I was a judge who was--assessed the death penalty. And I wouldn't have a problem with a law that said, in a situation like that, the victim's family can choose the manner and means of carrying out the death penalty. But we don't have that law. That case was also heralded as the poster case for needing hate crime legislation when, actually, under the hate crime legislation that was so heralded in the past, there is no death penalty. The only way these guys got the death penalty finally after 21 years--the most culpable guy finally was executed here recently; he should have been. The death penalty I hear constantly being referred to as being racist. I know, in my own court, the statistics will show that I had three individuals charged and tried for capital murder. Two were White; one was Black. Based on the jury findings, I assessed the two White men to be put to death, and the Black gentleman was sentenced to life for his murder. The hate crime laws had nothing to do with actually carrying out the executions in the appropriate case as they were in Jasper. I also heard a colleague talking about it is critical to know our history. And I have some screenshots here from the Democratic Party's history that says our history. And I ask unanimous consent to submit that for the record. And it is interesting--and also, this Wall Street Journal article, ``The Democrats' Missing History.'' Mr. Cohen. Without objection, it will be entered. MR. GOHMERT FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD ======================================================================= Mr. Gohmert for the record: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ SB121856786326834083. Mr. Gohmert. I'd ask unanimous consent on both of those, so thank you, Mr. Chair. There is no reference in the history of the Democratic Party platform supporting slavery. There were six of those from 1840 to 1860. No reference to Democratic Presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800, 1861. There is no reference to the number of Democratic platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20 from 1868 to 1948. No reference to Jim Crow laws nor is there reference to the role the Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 50-year part of the DNC's missing years. Also, there is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, what came in the House from Democrats, or that 80 percent of the nay votes in the Senate came from Democrats. There is certainly no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate Leader Robert Byrd from West Virginia; former Klan member of Tennessee, Senator Al Gore, Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore. And last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Alabama, public safety commissioner, Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and firehoses on civil rights protesters was, in fact, a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan. So it is important that we know our history and we not punish people today for the sins of their predecessors in the Democratic Party. Voice. You lie. Mr. Gohmert. I just stated all facts. And, again, we have people who are denying history. That is not helpful to our discussion. But, Mr. Owens, I would ask you, understanding that today's claim that the Republicans are the party of racism, what do you think your great, great--your great-grandfather Silas would have said to someone who claims the Republicans are the party of racism? Mr. Owens. Well, my great-great-grandfather lived through that period, and he wouldn't have said that because, at that time, all Blacks were Republicans because that was the party that gave them freedom. Mr. Gohmert. Let me just ask: Have you suffered for taking these conservative positions? Mr. Owens. Well, I guess what it comes down to is--I don't think I have suffered at all. I am thankful for growing up in an age where--I was the fourth--of the fourth Black American to be given a scholarship at the University of Miami. I was one of the first Blacks to integrate in the schools. So I understood exactly what racism looked like and how it felt. But my mom said one thing very--I remember specifically that I was kind of going through this phase. She said, ``Burgie, make sure you don't let somebody else's problem become yours.'' In other words, ``Burgess, don't let a racist let you become one.'' The other thing is that my dad taught us very simply to be a leader. If it was right, do it. If it is wrong, don't. I love my country. I love my race. I love my family. And that becomes all the other stuff of being accepted or liked. It makes no difference to me. We are at a very, very important point in our country today where Black Americans are waking up. And I know that a lot might not agree what I am saying. That is okay. Just listen. And with time, let it simmer a little bit. Look around and see where our misery is being done today. Our misery is in the urban communities throughout our country where our kids have no hope, no jobs, no family, no dad, and no one to tell them they can make it. If we understand that and we take responsibility that every single generation has done in our past to make sure the next generation feels better about their opportunities then less, we are failing them big time if we don't change our narrative. These kids can do it. We just have to believe in them, give them opportunities, and tell them man up, woman up, it is okay if things get wrong. Things go sideways for every person that lives or God wouldn't be a fair God. When you go sideways, stand up, man up, woman up, and let's get back on the track and get after your dreams and get this thing done with. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Mr. Gohmert. I appreciate---- Mr. Cohen. The time is up for Mr. Gohmert, and we are going to move on and---- Mr. Gohmert. I thank all of you for being here today. Mr. Cohen. First, I would like to recognize Congressman Plaskett who is with us today. I would also like to have another reminder to the crowd: The next person that screams out may be asked to be removed. We have got to have order. So keep it together. Representative Swalwell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee, for your leadership on this. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 40. And I have listened to some of my colleagues, Mr. Glover, tell you how much they like your movies. And I have to say: We didn't come here to talk about your movies. We came here to talk about your activism. I like your activism. I also like your movies. But I want to give you a chance because I haven't heard the other side other than tell you--that they like your movies, that they want to hear what you have to say on this important issue. The Senate majority leader has said that no one living is responsible, and there is no way to compensate for this. And he is suggesting that there is no way to pay for it. And I guess I would ask you, Mr. Glover, would you agree that if a Black college graduate is paying on average about $10,000 more in student loan debt, we are paying for it? Would you agree that if the Black population is disproportionately incarcerated to any other population, that we are paying for it? And would you believe and agree that if the healthcare costs for a Black family are extraordinarily higher than for a White family, that we are actually already paying for it? Mr. Glover. Statistics would suggest that. But I think there is such--a discussion that we seem to miss the point on and often as we talk about the different issues that we deal with in this country and their intersectionalism, their interconnectedness, the issue, whether we are talking historically or we talk about how those things manifest themselves in our policy, what we do today in a sense. And I think a part of what we don't do today is to evoke the kind of spirit that was so essential in this country's formation, in this country--in the moments--and when there were radical changes in this country. We often talk about the right for organized labor to organize, the impact that they had on the African American community and to begin at some point in the 20th century, past the end of World War II, the benefits that were accrued at that particular point. And those people who struggled for that, whether it is Eugene Debs who struggled against--or whether it is Emma Goldman or whether it is W.E.B. DuBois and all the list of activists and men and women who brought about the kind of-- who raise the bar with respect to, I think, our sense of revolutionary purpose in that sense. And what I think, with the incredible wealth that this country has and the resources this country has and the capacity to do what it had once done, when I came into the world, there were opportunities that were different than previous generations. There were more schools that were built instead of prisons. There were more opportunities that were--for employment and new opportunities for employment. Mr. Swalwell. So we are going backwards. Mr. Glover. There was more infrastructure development. And all those things played a role in our own ability, in our own-- my own enhancement, personally, and collectively as well. And so I think when we talk about them--when I went to college, certainly, I didn't have the debt responsibility that students have now. And certainly there are ways in which we can mediate that. Certainly, there have been arguments about whether college should be free, whether we should build more colleges, et cetera, et cetera, and provide different opportunities. But we also have the transformation of a society that was an industrial society, industrial workforce, and now that depends directly on different forms of intelligence and certain technology. And that is a place where those who are most vulnerable across the board have not been--they have not been-- how you say, they have not benefited from those new technologies. Mr. Swalwell. So---- Mr. Glover. And so what I am saying--so the picture that I am painting is a much larger picture, you know, within the dangers that we have, relative global warming and climate change and all the other issues here now. We can say right now the health condition of African Americans is pretty desperate in places. They live in toxic situations. We can talk about environmental racism that we haven't talked about, and maybe that would be a part of H.R.--the study that we talk about currently about H.R. 40. So there are various things. So to begin to kind of like codify this in a way in which I find makes sense, I think the broader look at this study would also reveal some other things about what can happen and what the possibility is. It seems as if we--if Dr. King said the imagination is the incredible vehicle for us, Albert Einstein said our imagination is more important than knowledge itself, then certainly the capacity that we have in terms of imagining a better future for--certainly for African American children and African Americans, the descendants of slaves, would we also would imagine a better opportunity for this country as well. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman, can I just say to your--I wanted to put this on the record. I was not in the House when your resolution came up for a vote. But I would have voted to support it. I am sorry that it is something our government was responsible for. And Mitch McConnell may be right that no one alive is responsible for what happened then, but everyone alive is responsible to do something now. Thank you. Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield to my ranking member, my colleague from Louisiana. Mr. Johnson. I thank my colleague. I wanted to pitch it back to Mr. Hughes for a moment. In spite of your relative young age, you have had some valuable experience publicly discussing sensitive issues of race and culture. And I just wonder what advice you would give to young people who are thinking about this. As Mr. Owens said, everybody ought to let that marinate a little bit. As they begin to think about it, it has been suggested this morning that ignorance of our history is a big part of this, that we--everybody across the country--I mean, large numbers, we suffer from that. What is the response and what advice do you give to young people? Mr. Hughes. Well, I would urge people to observe the distinction between understanding history and responding to history. You can understand history, and it can still be the case that you have a range of possible responses in front of you. So addressing myself to Mr. Coates' comments before, if I understand them, the idea is, if we really understood our history, then we wouldn't keep Confederate statues up, for example. Therefore, the fact that they are still up implies that we don't really understand it in our bones. And that, I think, highlights a distinction between how I think about this issue and how other people on the panel think about it. For example, there was a poll in The Washington Post last year which found that 30 percent of Black Virginians wanted the Confederate statues to stay up. Now, I don't think they wanted that because they hated themselves. I don't think they wanted that because they didn't understand their own history. Perhaps they were people who just didn't like seeing their communities change. There are many people like that. And I respect that, even though I myself would be fine to see those statues come down. So the point here is that our response, whether or not you agree with it, is not itself evidence that we don't understand our history. And we can have two separate conversations. One is, what happened in this country? What was done to Black people? What harm was incurred? And the second conversation is, what do we do about that? And that second conversation is--the answer to that second conversation is not self-evident from the answer to the first. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. I see Mr. Owens making notes over there. I know you have a lot to contribute on this subject. You do a lot with young people. What would you add to that? Mr. Owens. I would, first of all, say we live in the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of mankind, a place that every person who comes here that applies themselves to the rules, to the standards in which we all can succeed, treat people right, be honest, dream big, dream above your obstacles, and get back up when you fall down, then they can make it. History is there for us to find out and to gauge ourselves how far we have come. Fifty years ago, guys I was fighting on the football field as being one of four Black athletes are some of my best friends on Facebook today because we have all grown up. We have all understood that the message of our fathers was incorrect. And we are doing our very best to make sure we be the better people as we move forward. This country, every generation works to find its better self. As long we don't reach back and define ourselves by the worst of ourselves. And that is what too many people are doing today. We have Americans in this country, and we will call them elitists, that live the American Dream, put their kids in the best colleges ever, drive every place you can think of, not having any issues, are going to have a great retirement, and then tell the rest of our race they can't do it. Why? Because the White man won't let them. I personally think that is an insult to my parents, my grandparents. I did not grow up around White people until I was 16 years old. And I was so proud to be in that community I grew up in in Tallahassee, Florida, because we were kicking butt. We were leading our kids. They were teaching us how to be proud Americans. Last point, I went to the University of Miami to study biology. By the time I was in my junior year, I decided I didn't want to do biology anymore. You know why I stayed with it? Because when I was leaving high school, there was a White guy who said I couldn't do it. And my parents taught me: If they say you can't, you do it. I lived in the library to prove that guy wrong. That is the way our race was, and that is the way our race needs to be again. What we can achieve, nothing about what has happened to us in the past. What strangers did to other strangers 200 years ago has nothing to do with us, because that is not in our DNA. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Hughes, I have got 15 seconds. Let me give you one more question. You can answer it, I hope. You wrote an article a while back entitled ``Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap.'' And you talked about specifically the city of Boston. And there was a disparity within the Black community. And you pointed out that Black Bostonians of American ancestry had a median household wealth of $8 in that but Caribbean ancestry had $12,000 of wealth, talks to the disparity. I just wondered if you would comment on the implications of that. Mr. Hughes. Well, this just goes back to the point I made before about disparities even within races being normal. So, if you go to--if you look at Census figures for White Americans and break it down, instead of talking about, quote/unquote, White people into White people of French ancestry, Russian ancestry, Swedish ancestry, you will find all kinds of disparities that, by definition, cannot be caused by some kind of systemic discrimination. Likewise, with, quote/unquote, Black Americans, it is a very diverse group. Something like 10 percent of Black people in this country are immigrants from places like Jamaica, Haiti, Nigeria, Ghana, and if you look at each individual group, you will find various disparities in wealth, in income, in crime rates, that, by definition, can't be explained by either race or racism. So my point in citing that disparity is to upset the notion that if society were fair, evidence of that would be equal outcomes between all groups because there are so many differences historically in groups themselves geographically just in terms of median age, right? The average Black person in this country is 10 years younger than the average White person. So, when you are comparing Blacks to Whites, that is just one of the many ways in which you are not actually comparing apples to apples. So my point in citing that was just to upset that lazy assumption that we make about socioeconomic and other outcomes. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I next recognize Ms. Scanlon for 5 minutes. Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Before coming to Congress just last November, I was a public interest attorney, and so my work focused on access to justice, access to the ballot, and access to a good public education. And all three forms of access, as we have been discussing here today, are too often denied to people of color and poor people. And, unfortunately, as we have discussed, there is a disproportionate representation of people of color among poor people in this country. So I wanted to ask some questions to talk about the relationship between the structural legacy of slavery and racism and a couple of the issues that are top of mind in my district. So one of them--and thank you for mentioning it, Mr. Glover--is environmental justice. The city of Chester is it my district. It is a majority African American population, and it is surrounded by heavily polluting industries. Just Sunday night, CNN's ``United Shades of America'' featured the incinerators there. One in four children, African American children, in my district have asthma largely as a result of these environmental factors. So we have got this environmental justice issue we are dealing with. We have got schools issues. Pennsylvania has one of the most wildly inequitable public school funding systems. And if you go to the schools in Philadelphia and some of the other majority African American school districts, you see schools that are over 100 years old. And, literally, visiting them, there is asbestos and lead paint dripping into the water fountains that the children have to use. And then a third issue, which we have also touched on, is our policing and criminal justice issues where African American folks are locked up at, what, five times the rate of White people. So how does the reparations conversation help us drive forward those issues? How can I link it for folks in my district to the issues they are facing daily? And if I could ask Revered Sutton and then Mr. Coates to maybe address that. Rev. Sutton. Thank you. Those issues are linked. We have to make a distinction between personal responsibility and social responsibility. I go into the high schools in Baltimore as well. And we even sponsor programs to convince high schoolers: You can do this. You can succeed. You can make it. That is personal responsibility. But when you go in the schools and you see the conditions, you see the quality of the teaching and all that, you know that they don't have the same shot as those who live 10 miles away or 5 miles away in their school systems. And so one of the roles of the Congress is to make sure that there is a corporate responsibility that we all have for all of our citizens. We can all celebrate the tremendous strides that have been made in racial attitudes in this country. We are proud of the accomplishments of many African American individuals. I am proud of my accomplishments. I have worked very hard, and my brothers and sisters. But for the millions of descendants of slaves who are trapped in this pernicious cycle of hopelessness, poverty, and rage due to their real experience of inequities, segregation, inferior schools, redlining and the like, the widespread assumption that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps is a lie. It is a falsehood. And that is one of the things that this legislation wants to address. Thank you. Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Mr. Coates. Mr. Coates. I think, frankly--and this is going to get repetitive--it comes back to the weight of history. I heard it said just earlier, for instance, that the matters which face us today have nothing to do with strangers from 200 years ago. That is not the attitude we take toward George Washington. That is not the attitude we take toward Abraham Lincoln. We take that attitude to history that we are ashamed of. We don't take that attitude toward history that we are proud of. Again, as I said earlier, answering another question, one the great weights of 250 years of enslavement in this country, which is longer than the 150 years of freedom that African Americans have enjoyed, is the codification of the idea of inferiority among Black people and not just in the culture but in the very laws themselves. And even after those laws are repealed, as well they should, the idea still remains, and it is passed on. And so, for instance, it was just said by one of my fellow committee members that there was a difference between the incomes of Caribbean Black immigrants and native Blacks. This is true. It is also quite understandable. People who come to America to pursue opportunity generally tend to do better than the masses of a whole group that have been here. This is true of all immigrants. So this is not particularly surprising. But what happens when you look at that second generation? What happens when you look at that third generation of Caribbean Blacks? In fact, unlike all other groups, they quickly become African American Blacks in terms of their other statistics. Why is that? It is the weight of history. It is the implicit idea that is codified in our laws, in our criminal justice system, in the very places that we live to this very day. There is no way to get out of this. There is no way of escaping this without a direct confrontation, without H.R. 40, the very reason we are here. Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Before I go to my--I would like to recognize Mr. Wade Henderson who is here. He was the president of the leadership conference on human and civil rights and a great hero for many years. Thank you for your attendance and your years of work. Mr. Hilary Shelton was here earlier, and they kind of were a team. He was the NAACP. And he left. Ms. Dean, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for having this hearing. As troubling as this topic is, I can't tell you how glad that we are here today. I can't tell you how glad that this conversation is taking place. So I thank my colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for her extraordinary tenacious leadership on this legislation. We are here to acknowledge the terrible wrong in history, to recognize the continuation of those injuries, and that is one area I want to examine quickly, if I can, and to discover a remedy to these atrocities. Some measure of healing for this country. So if I could take a look in the time that I am allotted two things. Mr. Coates, I wanted to ask you about the ongoing predatory practices. I happen to also be a member of the Financial Services Committee, and so we have examined some of the practices, for example, by Wells Fargo in predatory subprime lending in the African American community. Because too often we hear that this is a thing of the past. This is not something that has happened today. There is not an ongoing problem. You are dealing with something that is past. It is not past. The discrimination, the atrocities continue. So if you could help me with the predatory practices. And then I wanted to try to lift it a little after that, because I loved what you said, Right Reverend, that it is important for our White brothers and sisters. We need this as much if not more for healing of our soul, healing of the soul of the country. And, Ms. Browne, you talked about the liberating power of having this conversation and taking a look at all of this. So, if we could talk about ongoing predatory practices and discrimination, and then maybe take it to the other side. Mr. Coates. Sure. As I was saying earlier, it is like any other injury. There is the primary effect of the injury, and then there is secondary and tertiary effects of that injury. African Americans have a history of segregation in this country. What that means is not merely living separately from Whites. It means living separately from Whites for the explicit purposes of denying certain benefits and certain funding and certain resources to Black people. In the case of the housing history in the 20th century, what that meant was that, for long periods of time, while this country was making access--making available to middle class and working class White families low interest loans, the possibility of home ownership, which had not been available in the previous preceding decades, Black people were completely cut out of that process. But still, there was that dream of buying a home. And so what that big gap left was for predatory lending to come in, illegitimate lending, that did not enjoy the imprimatur or the backing of the FHA to come into Black neighborhoods and make loans under conditions that were, to say the least, onerous. In some cases, Black folks didn't even actually own the homes. This practice of--sure. Ms. Dean. Contract lending. Mr. Coates. Contract lending, yes. Ms. Dean. Could you give us a quick definition of that? Mr. Coates. The basic idea of contract lending, because I don't have access to the normal routes of banking to buy a home. And so a contract lender comes in and pretends to actually sell me the home and gives me all the responsibilities of the homeowner, the upkeep, the upkeep, the maintenance, the taxes, et cetera, but actually holds onto the deed. It is a high-tech, what do you call it, rent-as-you-buy, buy-rent option. Ms. Dean. And the other practice that Wells Fargo participated in in a huge way in the early 2000s, 2005, as quoted by a former Wells Fargo loan officer, they went into Black communities, particularly through their churches, and pushed subprime lending mortgages on those folks who would have qualified likely for regular mortgages. And she said: We went right after them. She is a former member of Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo mortgage had an emerging market unit and specifically targeted Black churches because it figured church leaders had a lot of influence, and we could convince congregants to take subprime loans. That is recent. That is ongoing kinds of stuff. That is egregious. So anybody who says this is a thing of the past just isn't paying attention. Mr. Coates. Congressman, just really quick. The reason why I just keep insisting on history is the very fact that that group of people was vulnerable in the first place is because of redlining and Jim Crow. They never would have been in that position if not for history. Ms. Dean. And I apologize. But, Ms. Browne, if you don't mind, I am from Pennsylvania, so--suburban Philadelphia. If you could, talk about that notion of liberation as a result of looking at your own history. Can you tell us what that felt like and why we should argue that for us, and paint that picture? Ms. Browne. Thank you so much. There is so many layers to it. The part--what hasn't been mentioned today is the fact that race is a fiction. So slavery--the very concept of race and of one race being superior to another was invented to justify slavery. And it was also deployed in order to have White working class, like indentured servants back in the Virginia in the colonial era, identify with this notion of whiteness and with wealthier Whites rather than identify with enslaved Africans and native people with whom they had common cause. And so there is a lot of layers to this history that I think for a lot of the White Americans who feel like this is just an accusation and this is just yet another case of calling their people historically racist or calling them racist today. In my experience, the African American community is much more sophisticated about understanding that some of these dynamics, for example, with the GI Bill and whatnot, it is mundane complicity of White folks who are benefiting from a system and looking the other way. They are not necessarily getting up in the morning and saying, ``I want to be racist.'' And there is an understanding of that amongst those of us who are in the field doing this work. So they are just, again, coming back to the learning of the history, it is liberatory to get beyond even the very concept of race. Ms. Dean. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am over. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Dean. Sylvia, you are on. Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this forward. And, of course, to my colleague from Houston, that we have worked for many years on so many social justice issues at home. It is just great to stand with you again in this time here on such a very important national topic. I am a cosponsor, and I pledge to you that I will work shoulder and shoulder with you to make sure we get this done. And to all the people in the audience, thank you for being here. I know it has been a long hearing. But I think it is going to be--thank you for being here. And I know you have been waiting, but I think the waiting will be worth it when we get to the end of the tunnel. So thank you all for being here. And, Bishop, I wanted to start with you because it really did warm my heart that you have some scripture notes here and that you mentioned Jesus. You know, I have a very deeply firm held religious belief that we really are all created equal and that we really are all children of God. And I want you to just pretend that instead of speaking to us right now that you are speaking to the average American, who may not have read everything that we have, who may not have been as attuned to this hearing, but is kind of wondering what this is really all about. Because as much as you say and others have said, that this isn't about a check. The bottom line is that when some people start talking about reparations, they think that it is just about that. So my question to you is, what would Jesus do about reparations? Rev. Sutton. Well, when it comes to those questions, I like to rely on people. I am in sales, not management. So I am not going to---- Ms. Garcia. Very nice. It is a good start. Rev. Sutton. But the--I want to be clear: It is not just about a check. Ms. Garcia. Correct. Rev. Sutton. When I think of--I think about some African American women who are languishing in nursing homes with no money, no wealth. No, let's cut a check. I think about some others where a check would be very good. So I just wanted to be clear about this. But it is not essentially about money. It is about being good. There has been talk here about our Nation being a great Nation or to make it great again or the greatest Nation of all. I am more concerned about this Nation being good. Let's be good. Let's do a good thing. And if we can be good enough, then let history and let people around the world say: The United States is great, not because you can make a lot of money there, not because you can enrich yourself, not because of the size of your military or your armaments. They are great because they are good. And so I am here today to witness to being good about this, that there is some unfinished business in this Nation. Lastly, about the souls. In 1903, W.E.B. DuBois wrote the famous book, ``The Souls of Black Folk.'' I would like to see another book written, ``The Souls of White Folk.'' The Souls of White Folk in this Nation right now. What does it do to your soul to know that some of the benefit you get from your White skin and your background is not accrued to everybody? What does that do to your soul? And so this is a soulful act I think that we are talking about today. Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Rev. Sutton. And it is really going to take all of us. I said earlier that we have forgiven you. And that what I mean is we are here. We are in America. We want America to be good and great. Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of Africa said once: Without forgiveness, there is no future. We have to forgive one another, but that doesn't mean we stop there. We have work to do. And this let's for reconciliation. I wonder if my sister here---- Ms. Garcia. Well, actually, I had a question for Mr. Coates. But you had to go really quickly. I had one question for Mr. Coates. If you wanted to add something really quick, I am running out of time. Ms. Malveaux. I am the economist on the panel, so it is a little bit frustrating that economic questions are being directed to noneconomists who I think I have some things that I would like to be able to say about some of this. But thank you, my brother, for giving me--for passing the mike. I really do appreciate it. The questions about predatory lending really need--that your sister Congresswoman raised really need to be dealt with, because it is not just--that is something that is happening---- Ms. Garcia. If you are going to talk about predatory lending, could you also add--because what I was going to ask him, you could probably answer also, this whole history of the exclusion of Blacks from some of the early programs like Social Security and the GI Bill and others because it all is about economic security. So, if you could blend your answer, that would be great, because then I would use my time to get both questions in. Ms. Malveaux. Sure. I mean, we can go back and look at the minimum wage, which excluded farm workers in the South which were predominantly Black people, excluded domestic workers who were Black women. And so these folks were excluded not only from the minimum wage but also from the Social Security system. And so your comment about Black women in nursing homes is very pointed given all of that. I mean, we have to look at this--the hearts and minds questions--I am an economist, so I leave that to the reverend. But what I want--but my thing is: Let's look at the economic underpinnings of the inequality that exists in this country, the wealth gap that exists in this country, and the differences that it makes. Sister Congresswoman, when you talked about predatory lending, a third of the people who had predatory loans qualified for regular loans, a third of them. However, they did not get them because of the way that slavery, racism, basically segregated people. So, while it is lovely to sing Kumbaya, which I don't do very often, I think it is even better to talk about what is going on economically and the differences that exists because of the wealth gap. When a Black woman, man is arrested, absent wealth, they lay up in the jail for I don't know how many days because they don't have the home, the mortgage, to get the bail. And cash bail is discriminatory. And so we could just go down the list and talk about the very many ways that racism affects equality of the folks' lives. And with all due respect to these Kumbaya brothers over here who--you know, I am proud of my family too. I mean, we good Black people too. I have a Ph.D. I have two MBAs in my family. But I am not going to give you my family history. But--you know, but it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant when you are dealing with structure. I want you all Congress people to deal with issues of economic structure. Have an economic structure that has generated an inequality that makes it difficult for people to live their lives. When a ZIP Code determines what kind of school that you go to, when ZIP Code determines what kind of food you can eat, these are the vestiges of enslavement that a lot of people don't want to deal with. Forgive my--you know, I am kind of over the top. But I usually am. Those in the audience who know me know, you know, tick tick boom. But the fact is that I am gratified, Sheila, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, for these hearings. But I am also frustrated for the tone that some of this has taken because it takes us away from the economic underpinnings what needs to go on here. Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Mr. Jordan is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Johnson. I thank my colleague. This has really been a thoughtful discussion. I know we are nearing the end of it. We have more to go. Thanks, everybody, for their patience. I just want to touch on something that Reverend Sutton said a moment ago about America being good. It is good. It is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. There is a reason for that. G.K. Chesterton was a famous British philosopher. He famously said America is the only Nation in the world that is founded upon a creed. And he said it is listed with almost theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. And what is the creed? We are the first people in the history of the world that openly acknowledged, boldly declared that we are created in the image of God. And, therefore, every single person has inalienable human rights. There is a self-evident truth, the Founder said. We are trying to live up to that promise. As you all know, Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said that was a promissory note to future generations, and we are trying to get there. The honest question that we are trying to get to, is the payment, okay, which would be part of this, by many people's estimation, is that part of that attaining the ultimate goal? And it is a thoughtful question. It is a serious one. And I don't think that you should disparage the motives of anybody who is asking these piercing questions. And we are going to, and we are. You are all part of the dialogue. And I am grateful that it has largely been a civil discussion today, and I really appreciate your contributions. Let me go back to Mr. Owens. In a 2018 interview, you noted that--you said, quote: It was the Black community that led our country in terms of the growth of the middle class. Between 40 and 50 percent of Black Americans became part of the middle class. The Black community also led the country in terms of the commitment of men to marriage at over 70 percent, unquote. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on what you attribute that to. Mr. Owens. Head, heart, home, hands. We were a race that believed in God. Very committed to the Christian faith. Because we did, our men believed in being the men of their household to provide for their kids and their wife, and they took that commitment very seriously. They took pride in being producers. The idea of me being a beggar was not an option. When I failed after coming out of the NFL--7 years after coming out of the NFL, totally humbling. But for a brief few months I was willing to be a chimney sweep. I was willing to be a security guard. That was what we were taught. Do whatever it takes to provide for your family. It doesn't matter. Be proud of it. I am proud of it now. I would never want to go there again. But at the end of day, that is what we were taught. We have now--we are turning out my race into one that is feeling that they are entitled to somebody else's property. We are now asking for something, reparation, that will get to funding, for something we never experienced ourselves in our lives, are not owed, because we have a chance, every single day, to make a choice. I can choose today to be more successful or less. And it has nothing to do with my ancestors or my great-great- grandfather Silas other than the fact I am so proud that he showed me, through his example, how to overcome obstacles. So we need to get back to the pride that we had during the '40s, '50s, and the '60s as a race when we are competing against the White race, when we were segregated, when our money stayed within our community and our leadership stayed in our community. We weren't trying to get after somebody else's race to give them our business. We need to recognize that within our kids is our future. I personally believe this. Right now, we have over 60,000 of our youth that is incarcerated every single year. These kids, most of them, 85 percent, don't have fathers. We are able to get those kids back, give them the hope that this country give them a great opportunity that they can go out and build businesses or move their future on, they will bring us back to the abyss. And I believe those kids, the ones that we give hope again, will bring our country back from the the abyss. We need to give the right message first. Mr. Johnson. Very well said. Mr. Hughes, I know there is lot that has been said here. And I know you have thoughts on a lot of these topics. I would yield back to you for 55 seconds here, pitch it to you. What would you like to add to the conversation? Mr. Hughes. Oh, yeah, a lot has been said. I am not sure there is any no one specific thing at this moment I want to respond to. Mr. Johnson. That is great. I respect that. Listen, we are probably out of time for--or out of questions on this side. But, again, on behalf of everybody here, I think I speak for all my colleagues, we really appreciate your interest, your involvement, your patience today. It has been a long hearing. But I think we have had a thoughtful discussion. I think it is important for the country for us to do this, so I am grateful, and I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Ms. Escobar of Texas is next, 5 minutes. Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to just say how proud I am and fortunate I feel to be in the room with all of you, to be able to have this very important discussion, and to participate in this historic hearing. I also just want to quickly acknowledge and thank my sister Congresswoman, the Congresswoman, the gentlelady from Texas. Thank you, Sheila, for your incredible work and your passion and the dignity and strength that you bring to this discussion. And as my colleague from California Ms. Bass mentioned, this is a difficult conversation to have but one that is so long overdue. Dr. Malveaux, I so appreciate your economic perspective, and I want to ask you a couple of questions rooted in that economic background that you have so that you can help the country understand the significance of why we have to have this conversation. So, first, I would like to ask you to respond to critics of this bill who claim that the U.S. has already paid reparations to African Americans through affirmative action. How would you respond to that? Ms. Malveaux. Thank you so much, Sister Congresswoman, for the question. Let me say that affirmative action--the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action actually were White women. And there is a significant research that shows that. Because White women were better poised to take advantage of the benefits that affirmative action. You had disadvantage and discrimination. The African-American community had disadvantage plus discrimination. White women simply had discrimination. So, when you go back and look at the data, you will not find that African Americans significantly benefited from affirmative action. It was a lot of talk and not a lot of action. So, when people talk about we have already paid reparations--I have heard people talk about the fact that White people died in the Civil War fighting on the side of the North. Well, the North was also a beneficiary of enslavement, quite frankly. My sister here who talked about her family has lifted that up. So, no, the reparations have not been paid. And the fact is that we are not as again--some folks may want checks. But what we are really talking about is closing that wealth gap and making people whole. Ms. Escobar. Thank you. And to that point about the wealth gap, you have remarked and pointed out that the income gap was actually shrinking until government played a role. The income gap for formerly enslaved individuals. Ms. Malveaux. The wealth gap. The wealth gap was shrinking until Jim Crow laws and profligate racism intruded in the ways that people were able to live their lives. The Tommy Moss story that I told a little bit of, the guy who opened the grocery store, Ida B. Wells' goddaughter's dad, opened a grocery store. He dared, he dared to compete with White people. And because he dared to compete with White people, he basically lost his life. Tulsa, Oklahoma, when the Governor of the Oklahoma actually appointed a commission to find out why the Wall Street massacre occurred, one of the newspapers came up with this conclusion: Too many n-words have too much money. That was the conclusion of an official government commission. And Black Wall Street was amazing. Dr. Olivia Hooker, who passed just last November, she was the oldest living survivor, and she was a friend. She said: We didn't have to leave the Black community for anything, except for banking. We had our own grocery stores, department stores. Black doctors built a library when White folks wouldn't build a library for Black people. That kind of economic thriving became a source of envy. Wilmington, North Carolina, brother man over here wants to talk ugly about Democrats. People change their ideologies. So the Democrats were the Devil once upon a time. There was a group called the Red Shirts which were the Klan. This had he were Democrats. However, the Republicans took that over. They became the Devil and--I am just saying--forgive me, Brother Chairman, I know you said I am not supposed to say that. Forgive me. But in any case, people do change ideology so all this throwing at Democrats, Democrats and Republicans have been racist. But in Wilmington, North Carolina, Republicans and Black people came together to form a fusion government. And White folks were so frightened that they took all the prominent Black men in that town, arrested them. The next morning gave them tickets to leave town. They had to leave their property, their livelihood, their families, everything. This is why we need reparations. White Democrats were so threatened by the notion of the fusion government that they basically burned people out. They documented 60 deaths, but there is a film--when I was talking and you told me I couldn't talk--there is a film called ``Wilmington on Fire.'' I want everybody to watch this film, ``Wilmington on Fire.'' It really does talk about what happened in Wilmington in 1898 when they just basically burned Black folks out. Twenty five percent of the Black people in Wilmington left. Nearly one-third of the Black businesses in Wilmington went out of business. It was really about economic envy. So, absent this economic envy and fear, Black folks, we didn't get the 40 acres and a mule, but we were still trying to do it. And then folks came in and said: Wait a minute. If we let them do their thing, where is our cheap labor going to come from? So that is what happened. Thank you for the question. Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Chairman. I am out of time. Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Last, but far from least, is the sponsor of H.R. 40, The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for her 5 minutes-plus. Ms. Jackson Lee. It is appropriate for me, Mr. Chairman, to thank you so very much and to dispel this audience from any suggestion and witnesses that we are here on a temporary pass, doing temporary work, that is going to be fleeting and never to be seen again. I want to thank Chairman Cohen, who comes from the heart of Memphis in Tennessee, who has walked in the life of a dual society. And I want to thank Chairman Nadler, who has indicated, as I did, supported H.R. 40 and the leadership of John Conyers. I want to thank all my colleagues on this panel for their diligence and outstanding questions. They are going to be in the forefront of educating, answering the questions, being a team, and I look forward to their work on this very powerful committee, the Judiciary Committee. What better place to have this hearing. And to those who are again trying to understand our process. You have to have a hearing, then there is something called a markup, then there is a vote in committee, and then there is the opportunity to go to the floor of the House of Representatives on to the Senate, which will be the other body as we call it, and the challenge that I will accept, and I hope that you will accept, and then the signature by a President of the United States of America. Let this day, June 19, 2019, be the marker for the commitment for each and every one of you who have come to support to say: On my watch, we will watch this bill pass and be signed by the President of the United States of America. I want to acknowledge Pastor Alan Patterson, who is from my hometown--and I know he wouldn't mind me saying--the inheritor of a great historic church in the historic Fifth Ward, Texas, that was a settling place for freed slaves, Mount Corinth Baptist Church. I am delighted that he is here, and I thank him. All the others I have thanked. Let me thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman is very kind, but I will be diligent. Let me thank the witnesses who are here. Each and every one of them. Let me thank Mr. Coates, Mr. Glover, Ms. Browne, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Owens, the Right Reverend Eugene Taylor Sutton, and, as well, Dr. Julianne Malveaux, Professor Eric Miller. Let me get to my questions at this point. During the Red Summer of 1919, violence against African American communities erupted. Two years later, in the Tulsa race riots, 300 African Americans were killed and the entire Black community of Greenwood in Tulsa was destroyed. Another devastating racist attack took place in Rosewood, Florida, in 1923, Black-owned homes and businesses were systematically burned, at least eight people were killed. During--and despite African American service in World War II. I commend Mr. Coleman and I think Mr.--Mr. Owens and Mr. Hughes, excuse me: Read the bill. What the bill says is that this is a study to consider a national apology, which has been done, and a proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery. The institution of slavery has never gone away. It exists. It is subsequent to du jour and de facto, that is, that it is subject to the laws and to the current sphere of what has generated today. Racial and economic discrimination against African Americans and the impact of these forces on living African Americans that are to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes. Why does the Congress have to do it? Because a Congress is the law-making body of the Federal Government, and it was the States and Federal Government that institutionalized laws that made slavery an act of the state. And it is not the courts, they will interpret, but we have to correct our error. That is why, in that historic moment, Republicans and I guess some Democrats came together in the Congress and supported the 13th Amendment, which then Democrats and Republicans or whatever they were called at that time throughout the States, then the States voted to accept that particular amendment. That is why the Congress must do its job. I welcome the disparate opinions, but I would argue to the gentleman from Columbia that you are I think, without the historical perspective and the pain, of being opposed at your very young age to affirmative action and reparations. So I would welcome a continuing debate. My door is open for you. I welcome you being here as a witness. But I think it is important to take note of this: One, my husband--excuse me, love him too--not my husband, love him too. My father was Ezra Clyde Jackson. He was the baby boy of a widowed mother with three brothers that went to World War II. A young man that graduated from high school for arts, New York City. He, out of high school, went to the cartoon industry in New York, it was thriving, what an amazing thing for a young Black boy. When the White men came back from World War II, my husband--my father was summarily fired for them to take his place. I was not born then, but I can tell you the life of that talented Black man was never the same until some 40 years later, when he was able to--talent never lost--able to be called back into that industry. Racism, it wasn't slavery; it wasn't 1892. It was in these prosperous '40s that you were talking about that my father, because of the color of his skin, his brilliant talent, the cartoonist artist that he was, was summarily fired. And so the question I have, Dr. Malveaux, while the White middle class were being buoyed by the New Deal, period of my father's life, African Americans were consistently excluded from its benefits. For example, the 1935 Social Security Act carved out jobs largely filled by African American workers, such as farm and domestic labor, from its old age and employment insurance. Federal housing programs also discriminated against African Americans by redlining Black neighborhoods to preclude them from receiving Federal Housing Administration, FHA. The GI Bill, which dedicated billions of dollars toward expanding opportunity for soldiers returning from war, also contributed to the widening gap between White and Black Americans. Southern congressional leaders made certain that the programs were controlled by local White official, resulting in Black veterans being denied housing and business loans. Dr. Malveaux, I want to get to your seatmate there, Mr. Miller. So I am going to you first, and I also want to get to Mr. Coates on these issues. And I thank all the other witnesses. Could you comment on this impact, on this continuing impact when we didn't benefit from that? Ms. Malveaux. Thank you, again, Congresswoman, both for the hearing and for the question. The continuing impact is it shows up in the wealth gap. In addition to the entirety of the way that we redline Black communities through the Federal Housing Administration, redline communities so that people could not get housing loans, even when they qualified for them. This was government policy. This is why Congress must do this. Congress did the Devil, and now Congress has to do the right thing. It is quite simple. I am so happy that you mentioned the GI Bill for a couple of reasons. Number one, as you said, the State authorities decided who got benefits. In the State of Mississippi, fewer than 1,000, the number is 600 or 700, but I will just round up, fewer than 1,000 Black men were able to go to college on the GI Bill in Mississippi because when they went to get their GI benefits, the GI boys said: Well, you could go to barber school, or you could go to trade school. But these were brothers who were qualified to go to college, should have had that opportunity, would have had generational differences in the way they lived had they done that. So Congress has indifferently, essentially sidelined Black people from the opportunities that they created for White people. It is plain and simple. Sideline us from those opportunities, and that is why it is time now to talk about how to fix that. My brother who has done the work on Tulsa can talk so much more about that. But let us simply say the commission that is created must go through line by line and look at all this--and detail it. I don't like to think--like I said, I am not Kumbaya. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Ms. Malveaux. I don't like to think White people are evil. I think White people are ignorant. I think White people do not know what the history is. And I commend you all to look at the history and the work that you have done in the past and then challenge you to do the right thing. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Mr. Coates, may I bring you to the 21st century and recent article in The New York Times that basically says---- Mr. Cohen. We have a call for votes; make it real quick. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. This is Kansas City: Downtown is booming. But in the shadows of the city's thriving business and entertainment district are languishing East Side neighborhoods pocked with boarded-up homes and overgrown, trash-strewn lots. The shiny cafes and storefronts are almost nonexistent there, and residents like LaTonya Bowman feel forgotten. ``I love downtown, and I would love to see it grow too, but you have got to be real,'' says Ms. Bowman, who lives in the predominantly Black East Side. ``It is like neglect. We get the leftovers.'' Can you just bring that all together for us in what you have ascertained about the commission, racism, and where we are today. Mr. Coates. Sure. I think the consistent point from the comments that you just read--the article you just read from-- stretching all the way back to the period of enslavement in this country is the idea of theft. Enslavement is threat. For 250 years, Black people had the fruits of their labor stolen from them. We don't often think about Jim Crow and the era of segregation as theft, but it is theft too. If I agree to pay taxes, if I agree to fealty to a government, and you give me a different level of resources out of that tax pool, if you are giving me a different level of protection, you have effectively stolen from me. If you deny my ability to vote and to participate in the political process, to decide how those resources are used, you have effectively stolen from me. So it makes a kind of sense that after a period that begins in 1619 of theft, ending conservatively in 1968, I think I will get an argument on that, but conservatively in 1968 that if you steal from a group of people over that long period of a period of time, you will have the very wealth gap that Dr. Malveaux-- results from. I think it is very, very important to bring that into the conversation because this wasn't a passive discrimination. This was appropriating resources from one group and giving them to the other through the auspices of the state. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to you to yield back. And I feel the power in this room. And I ask my colleague Mr. Johnson: Let us work together. Let's get this done. It is long overdue. It is deserving, and it is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Lee. And of course, I want to thank all of our witnesses. This concludes our hearing. I want to thank our witnesses. This has been a great panel. This is what, magnified times 10, 20, 50, of a study would be like because this panel would be heard and heard and heard, and people would get the story of what has happened in America and different perspectives on how to deal with it. Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional material for the record. I want to thank my ranking member and all of my members. Our attendance was excellent. If anybody sees Jon Stewart, tell him everybody was here and very attentive. And, with that, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ======================================================================= [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]