[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8822-H8823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      WE ARE THE HOPE OF THE SLAVE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise 
tonight with love of country and heart inspired by ``Harriet.'' 
``Harriet,'' the movie.
  I saw the movie, ``Harriet,'' and I was inspired to speak tonight 
because of some of the horrors associated with the movie. There were 
some high points in the movie, but the movie is about a person born 
into slavery, a person who had been given the promise of freedom, 
freedom that was denied.
  Inspired by this movie, I rise. I also would rise because I am 
inspired by the poem Maya Angelou left us, the poem that allows us to 
express some of the reasons why I am here in this Congress, if you 
will.
  In this poem in the last stanza, she leaves us these words:

     Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
     I am the dream and the hope of the slave.

  The dreams and hopes of the Harriets, the dreams and hopes of those 
who were able to survive the journey across the ocean; those who were 
able to survive and not be lynched; those who were able to survive Jim 
Crow laws, and Bull Connor's dogs.

     I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
     I rise.
     I rise.
     I rise.

  I am proud that Maya Angelou gave us this poem, because it gives us 
something to believe in. We are the hope of the slave. There are many 
of us.
  I am not the only one, but I rise tonight. I rise because I am the 
beneficiary of people who lived and died so that I might have this 
moment.
  I am not supposed to be in Congress. People lived and died, people 
who survived German Shepherds, and high-pressure water hoses.

                              {time}  1845

  I am the beneficiary of people who fought in a war, a war for 
freedom. And in that war for freedom, some 600,000 Americans lost their 
lives.
  Most people believe that World War II claimed the most American 
lives--not so. Nor did World War I, nor the Vietnam war--not so. It was 
the Civil War that claimed the most lives of Americans, a war fought so 
that I might have the privilege of standing here today.
  I don't say to you that that is what was in the minds of the people, 
but the liberation of a people has metamorphosed into this opportunity.
  So I rise understanding that, in that war, there were some African 
Americans. Then, they were known as colored troops. Some 30,000 colored 
troops died, and still I rise knowing that others made a sacrifice.
  And I am here tonight to talk about the bigotry that still exists in 
this country. Bigotry is on the rise in this country, and we, the 
Members of this House, have acknowledged it, and we are responding to 
it. We have responded to it with hearings:
  Tuesday, April 9, 2019, hearing styled, ``Hate Crimes and the Rise of 
White Nationalism'';
  Wednesday, May 8, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting the Rise of 
Domestic Terrorism in the Homeland'';
  Wednesday, May 15, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting White 
Supremacy (Part I): The Consequences of Inaction'';
  Tuesday, June 4, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting White Supremacy 
(Part II): Adequacy of the Federal Response'';
  Wednesday, September 18, 2019, hearing styled, ``Meeting the 
Challenge of White Nationalist Terrorism at Home and Abroad'';
  September 20, 2019, hearing styled, ``Confronting Violent White 
Supremacy (Part III): Addressing the Transnational Terrorist Threat.''
  These are some of the hearings that we have had in our response to 
the rise of bigotry, to the rise of hate, white supremacy, anti-
Semitism, all of the various invidious discrimination that we find 
ourselves having to deal with--Islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, 
all of the invidious phobias that we have to contend with.
  We are responding, and we are responding because this hate has to be 
dealt with. Those who ignore invidious discrimination, those who ignore 
hate, those who ignore racism--all of the various phobias that I have 
called to your attention--perpetuate these various forms of invidious 
discrimination.
  We perpetuate when we ignore. When we tolerate, we ignore. I rise 
tonight because we cannot ignore the hate. We have to stare it down. We 
have to take it on. I must do so because I am the hope of the slave, 
the many who suffered.
  I have been given this opportunity, and it would be a waste, a wasted 
opportunity, if I but only came to this Congress and took on the issues 
of our day, the issues du jour, and ignore this issue.
  Other issues are important. I don't put them aside. But this issue 
cannot be ignored. To ignore it would be a betrayal of those who 
suffered so that I might be here. It would be a slap in the face to 
those who died so that I might have this opportunity.
  So I take advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded me, not 
necessarily because I want to, but because I have to. I don't have a 
choice. And as long as I am in this Congress, I am going to be the 
reminder. I am going to be the conscience for those who have suffered. 
I will not back down.
  And tonight, I want to ask the question: Why do more than 51 percent 
of American voters think that the President is a racist?
  This is printed. This is information available.
  Yes, in this country, the greatest country in the world--the country 
that stands for liberty and justice for all; the country with 
government of the people, by the people, for the people; the country 
wherein no one is above the law--in this country, 51 percent of 
American voters believe that the President is a racist.
  Why would 51 percent believe that the President is a racist?
  This makes people uncomfortable to hear me stand in the well of the 
House of Representatives and talk about the racism emanating from the 
Presidency. It makes people uncomfortable.
  People want to get back to bigotry as usual, when bigotry is 
something that

[[Page H8823]]

we confront on an as-needed basis, but not anything that we seek to 
end, bigotry being something that we read about, that we hear about, 
but we don't have to do anything about.
  No, we have to do something about it.
  So the question: Why would 51 percent--more than 50 percent--of the 
American voters believe that the President is a racist?
  Could it be because at the time he was promoting an immigration 
policy he called countries in Africa, countries where people of color 
are predominant, could it be because he called them s-hole countries?
  I don't use scatology. I never use profanity--I should correct 
myself. I never speak profanity. There are times when I do think it. 
And I am told that, as a person thinks, so is the person, but I never 
say it. I respect those around me to the extent that I don't use 
scatology.
  But the question is: Why do people think that the President is a 
racist?
  One answer is: Could it be because he has infused bigotry into 
policy?
  When he was negotiating this policy, immigration policy, he made this 
comment and thereafter promulgated a policy--or attempted to--that 
would limit persons coming from countries of color, would limit them 
access, and open access to persons coming from countries predominated 
by Anglos.
  Could it be because he launched a travel ban against Muslims? Is this 
why more than 50 percent of the American public believe that the 
President is a racist, a travel ban based upon religion?
  In this country, we appreciate and celebrate freedom of religion. If 
you can ban one, where is the line? Where must you stop?

  The ban was initially shot down. After some tweaking, this policy was 
implemented.
  This President is thought by more than 50 percent of the American 
public--that is my refrain--to be a racist.
  Could it be because he attacked a Muslim Gold Star family, the 
parents of a Muslim who served in our military, who gave his life for 
our country? Could it be because he would attack this family, a Muslim 
family?
  Could it be because he claimed that a judge was biased against him 
and said that he is a Mexican? Could it be because he believes that he 
cannot get justice from a person of color?
  More than 50 percent of the American voters believe that the 
President is a racist. And if I said ``people'' before, I correct the 
Record here and now. It is voters.
  Could it be because the Justice Department sued his company twice for 
not renting to Black people? The President of the United States, having 
been sued for not renting to people of color, maybe this is a reason 
that more than 50 percent of the American public believe that the 
President of the United States of America is a racist.
  Uncomfortable to hear, not pleasant, but it is the truth. And it is 
written that, if you know the truth, the truth will set you free. I 
hope to free some souls tonight.
  Could it be because he refused to condemn the white supremacist who 
advocated for him? He didn't say: ``White supremacist, I don't want 
your support,'' didn't condemn white supremacy and white supremacists.
  Could it be because he questioned whether the only African American 
to become President of the United States was born in the United States? 
Could it be because he carried that message near and far?
  He was almost proud to take on the challenge of questioning the 
nationality of the Black President of the United States. And since he 
has become President, it seems that he has tried to undo the legacy of 
the African American President.
  Could it be because he took out a full-page ad advocating the death 
penalty for those who were charged in what is known as the Central Park 
Five, a horrible case? Someone did ungodly things to a young woman in 
Central Park. Five persons of color were taken into custody. He took 
out a full-page ad and was an advocate for the death penalty.
  Could it have been done because of principle? Let's give him the 
benefit of the doubt for the moment. But later on, it was proven that 
the five did not commit the crime--not based on a technicality; based 
upon DNA evidence.
  The President never apologized--stood his ground. As a matter of 
fact, he hasn't apologized for any of the things that I have called to 
our attention tonight. He does not apologize. He does not repent. He 
does not say ``I am wrong; I made a mistake''--something that I do more 
often than I would like to, but I make mistakes. He doesn't apologize.
  Five people incarcerated, but five people liberated based upon 
evidence--no apology, no retraction from the President.
  Could it be because he has condoned the beating of a Black Lives 
Matter protester?
  Could it be because he has stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-
Semitic image created by white supremacists?
  Could it be because he has been sanctioned by the U.S. House of 
Representatives for his racist comments directed at Members of 
Congress?
  There are many reasons to be discussed, but we have to acknowledge 
that, with all of this evidence and with our moving forward on 
impeachment, with all of this evidence, should we not consider the 
impeachment of this President as the Radical Republicans--as they were 
called, but they were Republicans--did in 1868 with Andrew Johnson?

                              {time}  1900

  Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson in article X--for those who care 
to read the articles, article X of the XI Articles of Impeachment 
against him.
  Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson for reasons rooted in his 
bigotry. He was the President Trump of his time.
  Andrew Johnson did not want the freedmen and -women to have the same 
rights and privileges as other Americans. He fought against this. He 
fought the Freedmen's Bureau. He did not want them to be accorded 
freedom--the Harriet Tubmans of the world to have their freedom.
  Andrew Johnson was the bigot of his time, but the Republicans took a 
stand. The Republicans took the moral high ground.
  When you are standing on the moral high ground, you have a moral 
imperative to go forward. And they did. And the Republicans impeached 
Andrew Johnson. I admire the Republicans of 1868. I believe that what 
they did was right. And, more importantly, it was the righteous thing 
to do. I am a person who stands with what they did.
  There are those who would say, ``Well, that was 1868.''
  Well, the Constitution hasn't changed. It was based upon the same 
Constitution that we read, the same Article II, Section 4 that we have 
used for our impeachment going forward currently--same articles. 
Nothing has changed.
  You can't conclude that what they did in 1868, when they were closer 
to those who framed the Constitution than we are today, had a greater 
sense, perhaps, of what--if you measure your sense of what was 
available by your nexus to those who made it available--they were 
following the Constitution.
  We should follow the Constitution. We have a duty and a 
responsibility to the Harriets of the world to not allow this level of 
bigotry to continue to emanate from the Presidency.
  Impeachment is moving forward. I had said months ago that the 
President would be impeached. I repeat only what I have said then when 
I close with: He will be impeached. The hands of history will record 
that President Donald John Trump was impeached by this House of 
Representatives.
  And for those who say that I have already made up my mind, you are 
correct. I have, because the evidence is apparent, and there is no 
requirement that I must wait until we have had subsequent hearings.
  He will be impeached. And I believe that we ought to add articles 
that include his invidious discrimination harmful to this society.
  Madam 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.

                          ____________________