[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4331-H4335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         CALLING FOR INVESTIGATION INTO INSENSITIVE COMMENTARY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. De La Cruz). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise today 
at this moment to call attention to a news story reported by CNN.
  I have a news article that has been printed, and the style of the 
article reads: ``Seattle police officer under investigation as footage 
shows him saying woman's life had `limited value' after she was fatally 
hit by police car.''
  Madam Speaker, this lack of empathy and sympathy, this is what I 
would call, as has been called by others, shockingly insensitive 
commentary. It is something that cannot go unnoticed.
  I do believe that there must be a thorough investigation. For those 
who have not had an opportunity to see what I am calling to your 
attention, it is available to you on the internet.
  This officer made a comment that concerns me, and I believe it would 
concern many others.

                              {time}  1630

  One of the comments made is the person is ``. . . a regular person.'' 
A regular person. I believe that all people merit the same amount of 
respect. I don't know what a regular person is, but in this dialogue 
with another person, he is known to have said, ``Yeah, just write a 
check,'' and then he laughs. Then he goes on to make the comment that I 
called to your attention earlier, ``she had limited value.'' Limited 
value.
  To the family, I do not know them, I extend my deepest sympathies, 
and I assure you that I stand with you when you have a demand for a 
thorough investigation, as is the case with India, the country of 
origin for this young lady who was killed by a police officer who was 
responding to a call.
  I hope that this will not quietly go away. Her life meant something, 
and we ought to make sure that we do all that we can to thoroughly 
investigate and make sure that justice prevails.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I will make my additional comments from another 
podium.
  Madam Speaker, and still I rise, proud to be an American, proud to 
have this opportunity to serve in the Congress of the United States of 
America.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise to call to the attention of the Congress 
and to the attention of the Nation that we have a problem related to 
Black lives. Black lives still matter, and there is a reason for saying 
this that will become more apparent as I give my commentary.
  I will start with this article that was printed in USA Today on 
September 4. This article, the title of which is, 2022 Hate Crimes Up 
10 Percent Over Prior Year, reads in part: Study shows new record for 
10 largest cities.
  In another article from USA Today, it reads in one place: ``Last 
year, as has been the case every year since the count began''--some 
things bear repeating.
  ``Last year, as has been the case every year since the count began, 
most hate crime victims were Black, according to the Center for the 
Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University San 
Bernardino, which collects and analyzes official State and municipal 
hate crime data sets.''
  Since the genesis of collection of this data, per this article, most 
hate crime victims have been Black. I will explain why, but first 
another article.
  This one is styled, ``Police fatally shot a pregnant Black woman in 
Ohio. The calls for accountability are growing.'' This is in Vox, dated 
September 8, 2023. This article talks about an organization named 
Mapping Police Violence, and there is the following language: ``Mapping 
Police Violence, a

[[Page H4332]]

group that collects data on police shootings, found though Black 
Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the population, they comprised 
at least 20 percent of the people killed by law enforcement so far in 
2023.''
  This is not old news. This is contemporary. Blacks comprise 13 
percent of the population, but at least 20 percent of the people killed 
by law enforcement so far in 2023. This relates to Black people. I will 
explain why in just a moment.
  This article goes on to say, ``Per The Washington Post tracker of 
fatal police shootings, the number of these killings has risen in the 
last few years.''
  It goes on to say, ``Because of incomplete policing data, the race of 
all police's victims isn't known. But from what data is available, it's 
clear police also continue to shoot and use force against Black people 
at disproportionate rates.'' I am paraphrasing slightly. ``The Post's 
data shows Black people are roughly twice as likely as White people to 
be the victim of a fatal police shooting, while Mapping Police 
Violence--``that is the organization I mentioned earlier--``which 
tracks police killings by any means, found Black people are nearly 
three times more likely to be killed. Part of this disparity stems from 
the fact Black people are more likely to be profiled by police''--then 
it goes on--``for instance, Black Americans are 20 percent more likely 
to get stopped for traffic stops than White people.''
  Now we get to something meaningful and substantive. This article in 
Vox says, ``There are a number of factors behind police violence and 
racial disparities''--``There are a number of factors behind police 
violence and racial disparities, including deep-seated systemic racism. 
. . .'' Remember, this is from Vox, an article dated September 8, 2023. 
This is from Vox.
  ``There are a number of factors behind police violence and racial 
disparities, including deep-seated systemic racism that dates back to 
how `slave patrols' were used to police enslaved people who attempted 
to escape. . . .''
  Madam Speaker, this takes us back to why Black people were brought to 
this country. Some say the initial introduction into the Colonies was 
on August 20, 1619. August 20, 1619.
  There is a depiction that I would like to show. This represents the 
persons who were of African ancestry brought to this country on August 
20, 1619, aboard this ship, the White Lion, and they were traded for 
goods. The Colonies took the people of African ancestry, and they, in 
turn, accorded the persons who were aboard the White Lion goods. People 
traded for goods. August 20, 1619.
  Now, this, my friends, was the genesis of something that continued 
for more than 240 years. 240 years.
  Why did this continue for more than 240 years? Remember, I will be 
getting back to what I said about the police and the killings and the 
hate crimes against Black people.
  Why would this continue for more than 240 years? Because during that 
period of time, a decision was made to have in this country an 
identifiable, subservient, obsequious class of people, a class of 
people who would be identifiable. Black people are identifiable. They 
were to be subservient, enslaved for more than 240 years. However, it 
wasn't to end. It was to continue. For 240 years, people were enslaved 
because there was a desire for an identifiable, subservient, obsequious 
class of people.
  There was to be an upper class, and it existed; a middle class, and 
it existed; a lower class, that is what they called it at the time; and 
beneath that class, this subservient, obsequious class of people. They 
were to be submissive and obedient. They were to address the master's 
son, who might be 5 years of age, to the same extent that they would 
address the master. They were to be obedient, and if they were not 
obedient, the master could take whatever actions desirable to chastise, 
and that is being polite. Whatever actions desirable to do whatever it 
was believed necessary to force them to comply and be subservient and 
obsequious. More than 240 years.

  Babies were born into slavery. They were enslaved. Babies. Slavery 
was not just hard work, which is what a good many people think of it 
as, just hard work, that is all. No. The truth has to be told, and 
those who would deny the truth being told, Governor DeSantis, those who 
would deny it will be judged harshly by posterity. You will not find 
yourself within the annals and the halls of those who are considered 
great and noble people. History is going to judge you harshly.
  However, it was more than hard work. They didn't get any benefits. 
There were no benefits associated with being enslaved.
  So let me tell you for just a moment what it was, as I make my case. 
It was kidnapping, yes, but it was more than kidnapping. People were 
kidnapped from their homes, their homeland. By the way, many of them 
were traded into slavery by their own people; own people meaning from 
the same continent, same country.

                              {time}  1645

  They were traded into slavery, so many were kidnapped. It was more 
than kidnapping; it was lynching. Once they traversed the ocean, those 
who were able to survive the harsh voyage, being shackled together, 
stacked on top of each other, it was cruel and inhumane what they did, 
it dehumanized from the very moment they were taken into captivity.
  It was more than kidnapping. It was more than the brutality of having 
to suffer this transatlantic journey. It was lynching, because if you 
got out of line, you were lynched--or could be, not all were, but you 
could be lynched. Meaning, literally taken out, a rope thrown over some 
branch of a tree, some limb or branch, some part of it, other means of 
doing it as well, noose tied around your neck, and there you were to 
hang until you died.
  Thereafter, you would stay so that others could see the consequences 
of not being subservient and obsequious. It was more than kidnapping 
and the brutal transatlantic slave trip and the lynching that took 
place, it was also castration. Many men, enslaved human beings, who 
were not subservient and obsequious were literally castrated.
  Remember, these persons were the property of another human being. 
Property at that time under the laws that existed, not ever in the eyes 
of God, property of another human being. Courts declared that these 
enslaved persons had no rights that a White person had to respect. It 
was more than the slave trade: crossing the Atlantic, being kidnapped, 
lynched, castrated. It was also rape.
  It wasn't just rape--and there is no way to say ``just rape''--but it 
wasn't rape where a person decides, I am going to show you who is in 
charge. It was also done to destroy the manhood of the woman's 
significant other because it could be done in his presence to 
dehumanize him, to make him understand that he had to be subservient 
and obsequious.
  It was all of these and more. It was also the separation of families 
at the auction block, literally. Children could be sold and go to one 
master, mother goes to another, father could conceivably go to another.
  It was the dehumanization of human beings. By definition that is what 
dehumanization is. They were dehumanized. They had to be reduced to 
something less than a human being so that the rest of society could 
say, well, it is okay, these are not human beings. We would not treat a 
human being this way.
  They were something less than human beings, and they were to be 
subservient and obsequious.
  This, Madam Speaker, is what I agree has been called one of the 
greatest crimes ever committed against humanity. Crimes against 
humanity which continued for more than 240 years. Not only did it 
continue for 240 years, it then metamorphosed into convict leasing for 
almost another 100 years.
  Convict leasing wherein there were Black codes and if you violated 
one these Black codes, you could be arrested. If you were arrested, you 
could be incarcerated. Then after incarceration, you could be leased to 
someone who could work you possibly for the rest of your life, so you 
were back into slavery by another name.
  There was also lawful segregation. With this lawful segregation came 
the notion--it didn't go away--that the persons who were segregated had 
to be obedient. They had to be subservient and obsequious. There was 
still the belief--that didn't end with the ending of slavery. It was 
the passage of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery in this country. 
Of course, we had the

[[Page H4333]]

Emancipation Proclamation. I understand this, but it was the 13th 
Amendment that lawfully said: You can't do this.
  The ending of slavery did not end the mentality that had been 
inculcated in society. Remember, society now had been corrupted with 
this mentality, and this was passed on through the generations that 
these people who were brought here to be this permanent subservient, 
obsequious class--some would say underclass--it didn't end with them 
being extricated from slavery by way of the 13th Amendment. It was 
still within society. It had been baked into society.
  Even to this day it still resides in society, to a certain extent. 
Not to the same extent, but to a certain extent, but it was in my 
lifetime. Racism and invidious discrimination, which is what slavery 
and then the leasing of persons metamorphosed into. It then evolved and 
metamorphosed into something that we call invidious discrimination.
  Racism didn't go away with the passage of the 13th Amendment. White 
supremacy didn't go away. To have this subservient class, this inferior 
class, you have to have a superior class. It didn't go away.
  In fact, in my lifetime, I live to see racism so inculcated in 
society that preachers literally preached it, teachers taught it, 
police officers policed it, judges adjudicated it. In my lifetime, it 
was pervasive in such a way as to be visible. It is less visible now 
but it still exists.
  This notion that Black people should be subservient and obsequious 
still exists. It exists to the extent that Black men cannot talk to 
police officers the same way White men can. I know. They cannot.
  This is why parents have this, what they call ``talk'' with their 
children, if they have Black sons. Black women can't treat them the 
same as White women, but I am focusing on Black men for this moment. 
Black men are taught early--I was taught, and if you talk to any 
professional, they will tell you that they teach their boys more so 
than their girls, but the girls are taught as well--that when an 
officer stops you, you give him all of the deference that you can 
because they understand the consequences of being what the officer 
might perceive as disrespectful.
  Many of these officers, many of them, not all of them--this is not to 
indict the entire police department, which is what my critics will 
say--which is not true. My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I have great 
respect and reverence for the police, but I don't have it for those who 
are the dastards who brutalize people without justification, just 
decide that you are going to teach people a lesson.

  This class of people, the obsequious, subservient class, from time to 
time we assume that we have arrived, and on a dark night, we will make 
comments to a police officer. Well, those comments can cost us our 
lives.
  I know that people would say to them: Give me your badge number. I am 
going to report you.
  Black men can't do that.
  There is still a belief that we have to be respectful at all times 
and show some degree of subserviency. There is still this desire that 
we be obsequious.
  This explains George Floyd. Those officers who held George Floyd 
down, they wanted to punish him. They wanted to teach him a lesson. It 
wasn't just about arresting him. You don't have to put your knee on a 
person's neck for this length of time to arrest him. They wanted to 
teach him a lesson. They wanted him to understand that he was to be 
subservient and obsequious.
  As bad as that was, and it was bad because it cost him his life, they 
not only wanted him to understand, they wanted all of those onlookers 
to understand as well.
  Just as when they would lynch a Black man, they wanted all of the 
other enslaved people to understand.
  Just as when they would castrate, they wanted all of the other men to 
understand, to understand that you had to be obedient, that you had to 
be subservient, that you had to be obsequious.
  If you failed to abide by this unwritten protocol of life in this 
country, then these are the consequences; what happened to George Floyd 
and what happened to many of those who were enslaved. They wanted to 
put fear into the minds of those who were the onlookers and cause them 
to cower and to understand that they did not occupy a space such that 
they could speak up and stand up for themselves.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that this is why for 240-plus years we had 
persons enslaved, but to this day they have not been respected. They 
have been disrespected. The proof is readily available.
  We in this country revere the enslavers and revile the enslaved. We 
revere the Confederate soldiers who fought to keep them enslaved, and 
we reviled the people that were being enslaved.

                              {time}  1700

  We have not given these persons whose lives were sacrificed for some 
240-plus years the opportunity to be respected as they must and should 
be. They must be respected. They were the persons who planted the 
seeds, harvested the crops, fed the country, built the roads, built the 
bridges, built this very facility that I have the honor of standing in, 
and helped to construct the White House and many other prominent 
facilities. They are the economic foundational mothers and fathers of 
this country.
  They gave the United States of America a 240-year head start with 
free labor. You had to feed them, of course, and you had to clothe 
them, of course, to the limited extent that they were, but it gave this 
country 240 years of free labor that we all stand on. We all stand on 
the foundation, the economic foundation, that was built upon the 
sacrifice of millions of lives. Some estimate more than 10 million 
lives were sacrificed to make America great.
  To this day, we still have some of the remnants of this behavior that 
lasted for some 240 years, and this is why we, to this day, are seeing 
those persons disrespected. They are still being disrespected.
  They are not being honored, and the ability to honor them resides 
right here in this House because, in 1956, the Congress of the United 
States of America honored the Confederate soldiers with a Congressional 
Gold Medal. This is the highest honor that the House of Representatives 
can accord. The Senate also followed suit, and the President signed the 
legislation honoring Confederate soldiers.
  These were the enslavers. We have revered them, yet we still revile 
those who were enslaved for 240 years.
  It also can explain why this building is a symbol of national shame. 
This is the Russell Senate Office Building. For edification purposes, 
that means that this building is where Senators have space. The Russell 
Senate Office Building is a symbol of national shame. This building is 
paid for with taxpayer dollars.
  Why is it a symbol of national shame? Because Richard Russell was a 
racist and a bigot. Senator Richard Russell was a racist and a bigot. 
Senator Richard Russell fought antilynching legislation, the 
legislation that would stop people from lynching. Lynching is a crime. 
It is to stop people from just deciding that you are going to take the 
law into your own hands as though there was no law that you had to 
abide by.
  Richard Russell fought civil rights legislation, opposed it. Richard 
Russell was a coauthor of the Southern Manifesto. Richard Russell was a 
bigot and a racist, yet we have a Senate office building honoring 
Richard Russell.
  That is why the building is a symbol of national shame, and the 
Senators ought to be ashamed to allow this to continue. They ought to 
be ashamed of themselves, a Senate office building paid for with 
taxpayer dollars named after a person who was a racist.
  Why? Here is what some have said: We don't change the name until we 
can acquire another name, and we can't agree on another name.
  That, my friend, is a facade. That is just a way of avoiding having 
to deal with the reality of the facts that make this a symbol of 
national shame. It is a poor excuse.
  The Senators ought to be ashamed. They ought to be ashamed to even 
say this because here is what they can do, and I have a resolution 
asking them to do this. They can let the building revert back to the 
name that it had before it was the Russell Senate Office Building, and 
that name was the Old Senate Office Building. Let it revert back to 
this name and then take all the time you need, ad infinitum, to select 
another name.

[[Page H4334]]

  I have no name to recommend. I have not suggested that it be named to 
honor any person, and I am not going to. I want Richard Russell's name 
off because I don't think that we should demean the people of color, 
the Black people, who have to go into this building by having his name 
on the building.
  I don't go into the Russell office building unless I am going to 
protest Richard Russell. I will go there for protestation. In fact, I 
have written letters telling people who have invited me to speak in 
that building that I will not. I am not going into the Russell Senate 
Office Building. I will be more than honored to go in when that name 
changes, and it will change. It will change, but why is it still there?
  I have explained to you the fact that there are people who say we 
can't agree on a name, but I am going to give you another reason why. 
It is still there because Black people don't have to be respected the 
same way White people have to be respected. It is true. They don't have 
to be. There are no consequences for those Senators.
  I assure you that if this building had a name that was insulting to 
White people, the name would change. I can think of some names that if 
those names were on this building, they would come off immediately, if 
not sooner.
  Again, Black people don't have to be respected. This is what is 
inculcated within the minds of many, not all, but many people in this 
country. They don't have to be respected to the same extent as White 
people. That is a belief that exists in this country.
  This is why a woman in the park, Central Park, I believe it was, 
could make the allegation that a person of African ancestry was 
accosting her when it wasn't true, but in her mind, she knew that she 
could fall back on that. That was something that would trigger police 
action.
  Black people are not respected to the same extent, and we know it. We 
feel it. We are not respected to the same extent.
  The Senators know there are no consequences. Why remove the name? 
What are Black people going to do? What can Al Green do other than come 
to the floor and denounce this with facts? What can he do other than 
this?
  No consequences. We are not going to lose an election because we are 
working in a building that is named after a racist. There are no 
consequences because Black people are not respected to the same extent 
as White people.

  There is a belief still inculcated in this society that Black people 
ought to be subservient and obsequious. All people don't believe this, 
not all people, but a good many do, and a good many of them wear badges 
and carry guns, and a good many of them have raised their right hands 
and been sworn to uphold the Constitution and serve in the Senate of 
the United States of America.
  The Russell Senate Office Building is a symbol of national shame. 
This is why we have a request for the Congressional Gold Medal for 
African Americans who were enslaved. I believe that if a Congress in 
1956 can accord a Congressional Gold Medal to the Confederate soldiers 
who were the enslavers, surely we can do it for the enslaved. Surely, 
we can, but they don't have to.
  What are the consequences of doing the righteous thing, not the right 
thing, the righteous thing? What are the consequences?
  I would hope that there are no consequences for doing the righteous 
thing, but for not doing the righteous thing, there are no 
consequences. There are no consequences for deciding that there will 
not be a Congressional Gold Medal given to people who were enslaved for 
240 years, who were the economic foundational mothers and fathers of 
this country whose lives were sacrificed to make America great. There 
are no consequences.
  We don't have to do it. Not much would be said about it, but there is 
this conscience agenda that I put forth. On this agenda, the conscience 
agenda, there is the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal. There is 
inculcating the date August 20 annually as slavery remembrance day. 
There is the removal of the name ``Richard Russell'' from the Russell 
Senate Office Building. There is also something else: the enacting of 
the Securities and Exchange Atonement Act.
  This legislation would require the insurance companies that insured 
people who were enslaved, insured them so that the master, the owner, 
could receive some compensation when or if the enslaved person died for 
certain reasons, to atone. They have admitted that they have done it 
through their predecessor institutions as well as the banks.
  I was the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations for Financial Services. The big banks came before us. 
There was an acknowledgment indicating that they knew of their 
predecessor institutions being engaged in the process of helping 
persons to buy and sell enslaved people, people who had been 
dehumanized. They did it, and I asked them the question: Do you think 
you have done enough to atone? The answer was, no, they didn't think 
they had, but they haven't given us reason to believe that they will. 
Therefore, this legislation will help them to move toward atonement.
  There is more than this. There is a need for a department of 
reconciliation to deal with the transgressions our Nation has engaged 
in over the centuries--a department of reconciliation not just for the 
enslaved but a department of reconciliation to deal with the many other 
transgressions.

                              {time}  1715

  We hold ourselves out to be the bearers of the torch of liberty. We 
hold ourselves out to be people who pledge allegiance and want liberty 
and justice for all to a flag that symbolizes our desire for liberty 
and justice for all.
  We hold ourselves out to be the people who believe that all persons 
were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain 
unalienable rights; among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.
  We can't do this with the credibility that should be a natural 
corollary of holding ourselves out as such without having 
reconciliation. Reconciliation has to come to America.
  I love my country. I salute the flag. I say the Pledge of Allegiance. 
I sing the national anthem. So I am not a person who hates this 
country. By the way, I should love it. My ancestors are the ones who 
made it great. They are the ones whose lives were sacrificed so that 
America could be great. Yes, I love what they have done. I love other 
people in the country, too. My religion requires that I love everybody. 
It doesn't require me to like everybody. So I love them.
  This department of reconciliation would help us to achieve what we 
claim we represent. This department of reconciliation would have a 
secretary of reconciliation just as the Department of Labor has a 
Secretary of Labor and the Commerce Department has a Secretary of 
Commerce. This person would report to the President just as these other 
Secretaries report to the President.
  This person would have a budget--this department would--just as other 
departments have a budget. I have suggested that it be linked to the 
Defense Department's budget, to some portion of it, so that it would 
always be funded. The money would not come from the Defense Department, 
but a percentage that would relate to what the Defense Department's 
budget is because the Defense Department is always going to be funded, 
notwithstanding current circumstances where we have difficulties 
arriving at agreements. We are going to fund the Defense Department, 
make no mistake about it, so this department would be funded.
  It would deal with all forms of invidious discrimination. It can deal 
with the Trail of Tears. It can deal with what happened to the 
indigenous Americans, the aboriginal Americans, the persons who were 
here before Columbus, the persons who were here at the genesis of human 
beings being here. They were treated brutally. The only reason they 
exist in this country now is because they were strong enough to survive 
the attempts to impose genocide. They survived it. There has been no 
atonement for this, no proper atonement. No proper atonement.
  The list goes on and on. All of these, the persons who were interned, 
American citizens interned. There has to be atonement. America owes it 
to itself to atone for these transgressions.
  That is what this conscience agenda is about, our moral imperative. 
Our

[[Page H4335]]

moral imperative. The conscience is that thing within you that says 
this is the right thing to do. The moral imperative is the thing that 
says this is the thing I must do. So we have the conscience agenda, our 
moral imperative to do the righteous thing; to inculcate August 20 as 
Slavery Remembrance Day.
  In Houston, Texas, we had a Slavery Remembrance Day event. I had the 
opportunity to present legislation and talk about it, and we had over 
1,000 people to attend. This month, I was at Georgetown University 
where a slavery remembrance event took place. The students there were 
the sponsors. They did an outstanding job. We have had slavery 
remembrance events in other places, and there are now calls from 
additional institutions to have slavery remembrance events.
  I look forward to inculcating August 20 as the annual day for 
remembrance of those who were enslaved.
  This conscience agenda calls for the awarding of the Congressional 
Gold Medal, calls for the removal of Richard Russell's name from the 
Russell Senate Office Building, calls for the enacting of the 
Securities and Exchange Atonement Act, and, of course, the 
establishment of the department of reconciliation.
  All those things are doable. All these things I hope to see done in 
my lifetime, but if not, I believe they can be done. I believe that one 
lifetime may not be enough, but I do believe that in somebody's 
lifetime we have to have the genesis of all of this. To be the 
progenitor of it is in no way insulting to me.
  I close now with what I have on my letterhead. After I sign my name 
right under my name on my letterhead we type in ``Congressman Al Green, 
Ninth Congressional District of Texas.'' Then right under that you will 
see the words ``scion''--scion is a way of saying descended, but it has 
nobility associated with it--``scion of the enslaved people whose lives 
were sacrificed to make America great.''
  And still I rise, to quote Maya Angelou: Bringing the gifts that my 
ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of--I will paraphrase and 
say--the enslaved. And still I rise.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________