[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 171 (Tuesday, October 29, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8588-H8590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 STAND AGAINST INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Scanlon). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise because I love my 
country.
  And I rise tonight also because we had a hearing today in the 
Committee on Financial Services. We had the hearing today because of 
words that Dr. King called to our attention. He reminded us that, in a 
real sense, all of life is related. He said that life is an inescapable 
network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny. What impacts 
one directly impacts all indirectly.
  He went on to say that I can never be all that I ought to be until 
you are all that you ought to be, and you can never be all that you 
ought to be until I am all that I ought to be.
  This hearing was held because we wanted to highlight and recognize 
the fact that invidious discrimination exists for persons who are 
members of the LGBTQ community. Tonight, I want to talk about this 
invidious discrimination not only as it relates to the LGBTQ community, 
but also as it relates to other communities within our country. In 
fact, all of these communities are a part of humanity.
  With reference to the LGBTQ community, we had empirical evidence that 
proved beyond reasonable doubt that members of this community are being 
discriminated against when they apply for loans. They are being charged 
higher interest rates and a greater percentage than persons who are not 
members of the LGBTQ-plus community. They are being discriminated 
against on their jobs. They are being discriminated against when they 
apply for jobs if it is known or suspected that they are members of the 
LGBTQ-plus community, discriminated against in being promoted, in pay 
raises.
  The LGBTQ-plus community is being discriminated against, and it does 
not make good sense to do this. It is irrational. But it also does not 
make good dollars and cents to do this because we are talking about 
millions of people. The estimates are as high as 16 million. Some say 
more, some say less. We are talking about a $1 trillion economy within 
the community.
  It just makes good sense for us not to discriminate against people 
who want to put their money into the economy, who want to put their 
work product into the economy, who want to help America succeed. It 
does not make good sense for this level of discrimination to exist, but 
it does.
  One of the salient messages that we wanted to impart at this hearing 
today was the message that you are not alone. There are persons who are 
allies of the LGBTQ community who are going to stand with you, who are 
going to stand for you, and who are going to stand against the 
invidious discrimination being perpetrated upon you.
  Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment 
of destiny.
  The Muslim community is being, has been, and most likely will 
continue to be discriminated against until there is some change in this 
country. We have had from the highest office in the land an indication 
that Muslims should be banned from the country. An attempt was made to 
perfect such a ban of Muslim persons from the country.
  Life is an inescapable network of mutuality. If you can ban one 
religion, you can ban another. Muslims today--only fate knows which it 
will be tomorrow. We must protect every religion if we want our 
religion to be protected.
  This is the way life works, the mutuality. What impacts one directly 
impacts all indirectly.

                              {time}  1815

  People of color are being discriminated against in an invidious way. 
In the Latinx community, the family separation that took place at the 
border was unconscionable.
  It is hard to believe that this country that holds out the welcome 
torch, the Statue of Liberty, this country that has brought in 
immigrants from across the globe would turn away children who are 
fleeing harm's way in the way that we did it; this country that has a 
history rooted in immigration would do such a thing, babies crying for 
their mothers as they are being torn out of their arms.
  It is a sad thing when you contemplate it. It is a very sad thing 
when you see it perfected.
  We cannot allow this to happen to children who are coming here trying 
to flee harm's way, because the truth be known, but for the grace of 
God, there go I and possibly you. We all can have dates with destiny 
that we cannot contemplate in the present.
  So we ought to protect the rights of people who are fleeing harm's 
way, who are only asking for what the law provides in this country. And 
the law in this country does provide for people who are fleeing harm's 
way to come and say, ``I am here. I am here because

[[Page H8589]]

I need help. Will you help me? Will you give me the opportunity to 
demonstrate that I qualify for the opportunity to become a part of this 
country?'' rather than summarily turn people away or send out a clarion 
message, ``We have no more room. Don't come. Go back.''
  This is not the country that does this.
  To borrow a phrase from a great and noble American who has made his 
transition, the Honorable Elijah Cummings: We are better than this. 
This country understands that we must continue to be the light for the 
world when it comes to righteousness.
  When it comes to African Americans, we have a history, a long history 
of invidious discrimination, a very long history. A Civil War was 
fought because of the invidious discrimination being perpetrated, the 
hate, if you will, that was being perpetrated upon African Americans.
  And today, within the last several months, perhaps a year or so, we 
have had the Chief Executive Officer proclaim that we have some s-hole 
countries, countries that are predominated by persons from Africa, 
where Africans are the indigenous population.
  But persons in this country, persons of color, of African ancestry, 
are being discriminated against as I speak, as is the case with the 
others that I have mentioned earlier, I might add, also being 
discriminated against.
  And there are people who say, when we talk to people about the issues 
that are of concern to them, we ought to talk about kitchen table 
issues. Well, I can tell you without question, reservation, hesitation, 
or equivocation, when African Americans talk about kitchen table 
issues, they talk about invidious discrimination. They may not use this 
terminology, but the import of what they say is the same.
  They say: I am being discriminated against on the job.
  They say: I have suffered discrimination when I have tried to apply 
for a loan.
  They say: I have suffered discrimination when I have sought to get a 
promotion.
  They talk about discrimination. It is a kitchen table issue. But 
there are those who don't see it as such, or if they do, they don't 
talk about it as such. It is a kitchen table issue: invidious 
discrimination in the African American community.
  There is invidious discrimination in the Asian community. We have 
been working to try as best as we can to deal with the question of 
linguistics.
  We have seen this happen in the Latinx community, the Latino 
community, as well. People will advertise in one language, and when you 
come into the place of business, they will conduct business in another 
language.
  So you are induced to come in and transact business, let's just use 
this as an example, in Spanish, induced to come in and transact 
business in Spanish, but once you arrive, the contract is in English.
  There are many who would say, well, what is wrong with that?
  Well, here is what is wrong with that. If you know that you are going 
to communicate in English when you bind the person with the contract, 
why would you entice the person to come in in Spanish? If you know that 
you have no intentions of conducting your business in Spanish, why 
would you entice the person to come in with Spanish?
  This is a form of perfidy. It is ill will. It is not the way people 
of good will treat other members of society. We respect people to the 
extent that we want them to understand what they are doing.
  In the area of housing, we have tried, on a contract, to have 
language that simply says: What language would you prefer to do 
business in? We indicate that you do not have to complete this portion 
of this document if you choose not to--this is a person who is 
applying--and we also indicate that this is not going to be binding 
upon the person who has presented the contract. We are trying to get 
some sense of the linguistic needs that are prevalent in our society, 
just trying to get some sense.
  However, that language that we had worked and toiled to put in place 
has been rejected. It has been rejected, and we are trying to protect 
it.
  I have traveled to many places in my lifetime. I have had the good 
fortune to travel to many other continents and many countries, and in 
so doing, I have always appreciated the fact that people would try to 
communicate with me in English. In each and every country, there were 
people who would assist me in English. There may have been some 
exceptions, but generally speaking, English.
  People moving through airports in distant places can have the 
announcements made in English.
  I have gone to hotels where the persons who were working in the 
hotels in foreign countries could speak multiple languages. One of them 
would be English.

  People have catered to us across the globe. We have had the welcome 
mat extended to us because we are Americans and we speak English and 
they want to do business with us. They want to roll out the welcome 
mat. Unfortunately, we have not shown a similar characteristic.
  It is my belief that we ought to show a level of respect to other 
people who come to this country. Many of them are here to do business. 
Many of them are here as immigrants. Many of them are here for lawful 
purposes, yet we do not concern ourselves with the linguistics.
  We have had difficulty putting up street signs in communities that 
are in multiple languages. There are many people who oppose this.
  When I have traveled through airports and through other countries, I 
have seen the signs in multiple languages, including English.
  Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment 
of destiny; what impacts one directly impacts all indirectly.
  This discrimination must end because it not only impacts the persons 
who are being discriminated against--the LGBTQ, the Muslims, the people 
of color, the African Americans, the Latinx, the Asians--it not only 
impacts these people directly, it impacts all of us indirectly, because 
Dr. King was right then and his words of profundity still ring with 
truth today:

       I can never be all that I ought to be until you are all 
     that you ought to be, and you can never be all that you ought 
     to be until I am all that I ought to be.

  All of this has been called to the attention of Members of this House 
because I believe that there is still work to do with reference to the 
question of impeachment.
  I have said on this floor before when I spoke here last, and I say 
again, we cannot allow invidious discrimination to be weaponized so 
that people suffer to the extent that the weaponization is creating the 
suffering.
  And it starts at the top. And because it starts at the top, this 
House has a duty to start at the top. And if we do our duty and start 
at the top, we will understand that just as we can impeach a President 
for issues related to national security, we can impeach a President for 
issues related to invidious discrimination.
  The Republicans did it in 1868--Republicans. Some things bear 
repeating: Republicans impeached a President in 1868 based upon issues 
rooted in invidious discrimination.
  We had just fought a Civil War, and those who were called freedmen--
freed persons, if you will--were working with a Freedmen's Bureau to 
try to acquire the same rights as others. But there was a President, 
Andrew Johnson, who was of the opinion that they did not merit the same 
rights, and he fought against the Freedmen's Bureau. He fought to 
maintain white supremacy.
  But radical Republicans, radical Republicans, radical Republicans, 
radical Republicans stood up to him. They impeached him, and President 
Johnson changed his tune, to borrow a phrase. Oh, he was still the 
bigoted racist of his time, but he did tone down. And he did not get 
reelected, by the way.
  He was a successor to Abraham Lincoln, but he did not get elected--I 
should not say, ``reelected.'' He was Vice President, and he did not 
get elected President.
  The point is this: Radical Republicans cared enough for newly freed 
people--radical Republicans. They cared about invidious discrimination. 
We had just fought a war. They stood up.
  By the way, I have an opinion that I will share with you.
  I believe that the Republicans in this House right now would do a 
similar thing if a Democrat happened to occupy the White House and 
behaved the

[[Page H8590]]

way the current occupant behaves. I believe that Republicans of this 
time would respond the same way the Republicans of that time, in 1868, 
responded.
  I believe that if any person in the White House who was there with 
the title of Democrat behaved the way the current occupant behaves, 
that person would be impeached, and Republicans would lead the charge.

                              {time}  1830

  Life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment 
of destiny; what impacts one directly impacts all indirectly.
  The inaction that we take today will produce an action in our future. 
Our failure to act today is going to say to the next occupant: You 
cannot conclude that this is the last person who will disregard all the 
protocols and rules. You cannot assume this. You can only assume that 
we have this one, and you can hope that there will not be another, but 
there can be.
  If we show that there are no guardrails, if we demonstrate that we 
don't have the courage to do what Article II, Section 4, of the 
Constitution mandates, in my opinion, our inaction today will result in 
future actions that would be harmful to this Nation.
  This is our calling. Only we can bring justice to all of these that I 
have called to your attention tonight who are being discriminated 
against. We can't bring the kind of justice that is needed by ignoring 
the harmful discrimination that is taking place.
  More than 50 percent of Americans, according to a Quinnipiac poll of 
just a couple of months ago, I believe, maybe 3 or 4, indicated that 
more than 50 percent of the people in this country believe that the 
President is a racist. We ignore it because it is uncomfortable. It is 
easier for us to take on the challenge of national security.
  Well, invidious discrimination that causes white supremacists to 
march up and down the street screaming ``blood and soil,'' invidious 
discrimination that allows persons to traverse the country so that they 
can murder people of a certain hue from a certain place, that is 
harmful to this country.
  This level of invidious discrimination should not be tolerated by 
this Nation. We have a responsibility to stand up for those who are not 
in this Chamber to stand up for themselves. This is our calling. I am 
here tonight on behalf of all of these who I have called to your 
attention. I stand for them.
  I may stand alone, but it is better to stand alone than not stand at 
all. I stand for them because I know the harm that they can and have 
suffered. And I believe that we ought to have at least one Article of 
Impeachment that deals with invidious discrimination. I believe it; I 
encourage it; and I support it.
  I understand that we want to get back to bigotry as usual. I 
understand that, to a limited extent, I stand in the way of getting 
back to bigotry as usual, back to bigotry as usual when it is a talking 
point, not an action item, when you don't have to vote on Articles of 
Impeachment that deal with bigotry. That is too hard.
  I understand that we want to get back to bigotry as usual, when we 
can say that we are for principles above politics, when we can proclaim 
that we do not put party above country. I understand. I want to get 
back to bigotry as usual. I am sorry that I am one of the impediments. 
But I assure you, my dear friends, I can't let it go. I can't. I know 
what the suffering is like.
  I suppose it is my destiny to be here to call these things to our 
attention. We can ignore them. We can tolerate this bigotry. But 
remember this: Those who tolerate bigotry perpetuate it.
  There are people and organizations that have built their reputations 
fighting bigotry. Yet, when there was an opportunity to vote to deal 
with bigotry at the highest office in the land, well, the argument was 
the Senate won't convict so why would we do it.
  Well, it is the same argument for discrimination as it relates to 
national security, as it relates to abuse of power. The same argument, 
but we now put principle above politics--the same argument.
  There are those who said that: Well, you know what will happen if you 
remove the current occupant.
  Well, the same argument could be made now. But it is because we have 
a different issue, it is not invidious discrimination.
  We now can put principle above politics. We now are not concerned 
with who the next occupant might be. We now say that the Senate has to 
just do its job and that we are going to do our job.
  Things have changed, and thank God they have. I am appreciative that 
they have changed. I really am. This is why I am calling to our 
attention the necessity to have an Article of Impeachment related to 
invidious discrimination.
  There are those who believe that, in this country, invidious 
discrimination has become a tool, a tool to be used by political 
parties, a tool to be used to rally the vote, to get out the vote, to 
create a constituency to vote, just a tool to be used. And that tool is 
being managed so that the political parties can continue to play their 
games--a tool.
  I don't want to manage; I want to end. I do not want to see us manage 
invidious discrimination. I want to see us end it.
  That is why I stand here tonight. Life is an inescapable network of 
mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny. What impacts one 
directly impacts all indirectly.
  Dr. King's probably most famous words were: ``Injustice anywhere is a 
threat to justice everywhere.'' Injustice in any community in this 
country is a threat to justice in every community in this country.
  I love my country; I didn't come to Congress to make this speech. I 
love my country; I didn't come to Congress to impeach a President. But 
because I love my country, I am making this speech. And because I love 
my country, I have brought Articles of Impeachment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________