[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 198 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6068-H6071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
              THE RIGHT OF THE STATE OF PALESTINE TO EXIST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, proud to be an 
American. Why shouldn't I? My foreparents suffered 240-plus years of 
slavery to make it great. I am proud to stand in the House of 
Representatives today as a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and 
unafraid.
  Today, as a liberated Democrat, I will address two issues. Both 
relate to votes that I have taken. The first issue that I will address 
deals with affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. The 
second issue that I will address will deal with my having voted 
``present'' in the case of the expulsion of Mr. Santos.
  With reference to the state of Palestine's right to exist, I am proud 
to tell you that on Tuesday of this week, we took a vote. Mr. Speaker, 
that vote on Tuesday of this week related to the State of Israel's 
right to exist. I believe that Israel has a right to exist. I believe 
in and support Israel's right to exist. I support Israel. I have done 
so since I have been in this Congress. Since I have been here, we have 
voted on more than $50 billion in support to Israel. You will find that 
I have voted for all the help to Israel.
  I have spoken on the floor in support of Israel, and I think that my 
record is very clear on where I stand when it comes to the State of 
Israel and its right to exist. I voted for the resolution. It was 
reaffirming Israel's right to exist. I voted for it. I, in voting for 
it, realized that it did not have something that I thought we ought to 
have, and that is a statement indicating that Palestine has a right to 
exist.
  Palestine has been there, the inhabitants. In 1948, when the U.N. 
decided that it would, by way of resolution, recognize two states in 
the area, the area referred to was Palestine. I believe that Palestine, 
with Palestinians, has a right to exist, as well.
  Today, I will file the resolution that I shall read. This resolution 
is one that affirms the state of Palestine's right to exist.
  Now, I understand that Palestine is not a state currently, and I 
address that in the resolution. This is not calling for an immediate 
styling or having Palestine become a state. That is not what the 
resolution is about. It is recognizing the right to become a state.
  In this Congress, we have said that there should be a solution to the 
concerns related to Israel and Palestine, and it is a two-state 
solution that we have talked about.
  The President of the United States has said that there should be a 
two-state solution. I believe that there should be a two-state 
solution. If there is going to be a two-state solution, and if we are 
going to fund Palestine and Israel as we have--we have sent many 
dollars in humanitarian aid to Palestine--and if we are going to 
continue

[[Page H6069]]

to do this, and if I am going to continue to vote for these funds, I 
want Congress to be on record saying that there ought to be a State of 
Israel and that we can have a state for Palestinians, as well.
  I shall file the resolution, and I shall file it immediately after I 
finish this statement about Palestine as well as about my vote of 
``present'' on Mr. Santos for his expulsion.
  First, let's talk about Palestine. Here is a resolution. It reads:
  Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. In the House of 
Representatives, Mr. Green of Texas submitted the following resolution, 
which was referred to a proper committee.
  The resolution itself reads:
  Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist.
  Whereas, this resolution may be cited as the original resolution 
affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist;
  Whereas, the people, the Palestinian people, are inhabitants of the 
land of Palestine;
  Whereas, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed 
Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab 
and Jewish states.
  I may have said 1948 earlier. This corrects my earlier statement.
  Whereas, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement 
recognizing Israel as an independent state; and
  Whereas, on November 28, 2023, the House of Representatives agreed to 
H. Res. 888 reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist by a vote 
of 412 ``yeas,'' 1 ``nay,'' and 1 ``present.''
  I voted for the resolution. I believe Israel has a right to exist. I 
believe that the House of Representatives should be on record 
indicating that Israel has a right to exist.
  Continuing: Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of 
Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future 
time--important words, ``and at a future time''--to become a nation-
state.
  Some things bear repeating: Resolved that the House of 
Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time 
to become a nation-state.
  If we believe in a two-state solution, then we want to have this 
resolution approved by the House of Representatives. We believe that 
Israel has a right to exist as a nation-state. We say we want a two-
state solution. This but only codifies what we say.
  The President of the United States has said there should be a two-
state solution. You can't have a two-state solution without at some 
point recognizing the fact that Palestine has to be one of the two 
states.
  Again: Resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's 
right to exist and at a future time to become a nation-state.
  That was number one.
  Number two: Recognizes the two-state solution as the only solution 
that will secure a lasting peace in the region.
  Number three: Rejects calls for Palestine's destruction.
  Just as we reject calls to have Israel destroyed, we should reject 
calls to have Palestine destroyed or the notion of a Palestinian state 
to become a nonexistent notion.
  I believe this resolution is going to make a difference. I am going 
to file this resolution. I believe that the resolution ought to go to 
the proper committee. I will ask the chairperson of the proper 
committee to bring the resolution to a vote within the committee or to 
process it out of the committee. I will leave it to the chair and the 
ranking member to make the decisions as to how this will work.
  I want it to come to the floor for a vote. I would like to see it 
have the opportunity to come to the floor for a vote with the same 
level of expediency that the resolution supporting Israel's right to 
exist had in coming to the floor to a vote. There was expediency 
exerted. There was expediency that allowed that resolution to get to 
the floor not within months, not within weeks, but within days. I ask 
that this resolution receive the same level of respect.
  We have to respect Israel's right to exist, and we have to respect 
Palestine's right to exist. Both have the right to exist. The 
resolution makes it possible for the Congress to go on record.
  I also believe this. Aside from filing the resolution, I believe that 
there are three things that have to happen for Palestine to become a 
state. The first thing that has to happen is there has to be a 
recognition that Palestine is a state, obviously, but by the House of 
Representatives, that it should become a state by the House of 
Representatives. Number one, Palestine has to become a state, and the 
House of Representatives has to recognize this right for Palestine to 
become a state.
  Number two, I think that the Israelis should recognize Palestine's 
right to become a state, but I don't think that we have to allow them 
to determine whether Palestine should become a state. I think that 
Palestinians have the right to have statehood without having the 
Israelis determine that they should become a state.
  Number three, just as in 1948 when President Truman recognized Israel 
as a state without the consent of the Palestinians, I believe that a 
President of the United States can recognize Palestine as a state 
without the consent of Israel. I don't think Israel has to give its 
consent for Palestine to become a state. Just as we recognized Israel 
without Palestinians giving their consent, we can do the same thing for 
Palestine without Israel giving its consent. I believe that Palestine 
has a right to become a state, and I don't believe that Israel has the 
right to veto the Palestinian's right to become a state.
  I will file this resolution, which will put the House on record. If 
the House goes on record, I will continue my efforts to push for a two-
state solution as a resolution to the concerns between the Palestinians 
and the Israelis.


            On the Matter of the Expulsion of George Santos

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, now, to my second point, the issue 
related to Mr. Santos.
  I voted ``present'' today. Let's look at what the vote count was. The 
vote count was 311 ``yeas,'' 114 ``nays,'' 2 ``present,'' and 8 persons 
not voting.
  I am proud of my vote. I am proud to say that I voted ``present.''
  It is not unusual for me to stand alone. I know that it takes a 
certain type of courage to stand alone. I pray that I will continue to 
have that type of courage because I believe that the House has made a 
mistake today in going on record and expelling Mr. Santos from 
Congress.
  I believe it was a mistake because I believe that the process itself 
will now lend itself to whatever 290 persons believe to be a reason to 
expel a person, that becomes a reason for a person to be expelled. 
Whatever 290 persons can agree on, you can now expel a person. I don't 
think that that process is a fair and just process.
  Let me continue by saying this. Yes, the House had every right to do 
what it did. Yes, constitutionally, the House had the right to do what 
it did. Constitutionally, it did, yes.

                              {time}  1200

  Yes. So it is not about whether I differ with the Constitution or 
differ with whether the House had a right to do this. I believe that we 
have the right to do things, but I believe also that there are better 
ways to do things, and there are some ways that we should not do 
things.
  Prior to today, it has been said many times, that five persons have 
been expelled--two for having committed crimes and three for having 
been associated with the Confederacy and its rebellion against the 
Union, the United States.
  I think that what we have done today opens ourselves up to having 
persons expelled for things that a good many people are not going to 
agree with. Let me explain.
  To expel a person without a bifurcated system, in my opinion, is a 
mistake. Impeachment has a bifurcated system. The House indicts by way 
of impeaching, and then after impeaching, the Senate has the trial to 
convict or not. Impeachment itself is not bifurcated, the process to 
remove the President from office is bifurcated. Impeachment is one part 
of that process. That is the function of the House.
  The process then provides that if you want to continue and remove, 
you have to get the consent of the Senate. That is the bifurcated 
process to remove a President from office.
  I think we ought to have a bifurcated process--notwithstanding our 
right not to. I think we ought to have a bifurcated process to remove a 
person from Congress.

[[Page H6070]]

  There is only one way for a person to get to the Congress of the 
United States of America, unlike the Senate, where you can get 
appointed. With the Congress, you have to be voted in by the people. 
That is why this is the people's House. This House belongs to the 
people of the United States of America, and membership herein belongs 
to the people of the United States of America.
  In the infinite wisdom of those who were the codifiers and the 
writers of the Constitution, they have given us the authority to remove 
people. We can do it. I just happen to disagree with the way we are 
doing it. By doing it this way, without having the actual House of 
Representatives give some deference to the judicial system, we no 
longer have another party in the process.
  We, in fact, now have become the investigators, the judges, the jury, 
and the prosecutors. We have every right to do that. I don't quarrel 
with anyone who would say to me, as a retort, well, we have the right 
to do it. We have every right to do it.
  The question is: should we do this?
  I don't think so. I think it was a mistake. I think that at some 
point in the future we are going to see the error of our ways. This 
decision is going to haunt us. You cannot appeal a decision of the 
House of Representatives, which is why we ought to have the judicial 
system involved.
  If a person commits a crime, it is brought to our attention, there is 
a conviction, it comes from the judiciary, and we then act on that 
conviction. We have now a second party involved in the process such 
that that party can deliberate and make a decision without the House of 
Representatives having influenced that decision. I think that is a fair 
way to remove people from the House of Representatives.
  I don't think that we should do it with the House being the 
investigators, the judge, the jury, and the prosecutor. I believe that 
justice itself would be better served if we used the system that we 
have been using. Utilizing the system that we have put into place today 
I think is going to create some serious concerns for us in the future.
  What can we do?
  We can impose sanctions. We can remove persons from their committee 
assignments. We can publish our findings. We can allow the citizens--
which every 2 years they have the opportunity to determine who will 
serve them--allow them to have the vote and let them determine whether 
or not they want a person--that I might deem unfit to serve--give them 
the opportunity to do so.
  I think that a bifurcated system works better than the system that we 
have now installed in the House of Representatives.
  I believe, given the history of my country that I love--again, I love 
it because my foreparents suffered for 240 years as enslaved persons. 
We built it. We made it great with the economic foundation of mothers 
and fathers. Yes, I love my country.
  I also understand that my country is not always fair to people of 
color. It hasn't been. To this day there are times when it still is 
not. I think people of color are going to regret having cast that vote 
because we are the most vulnerable--we are the most vulnerable in this 
country.
  Let me say this: we are among the most vulnerable because I recognize 
that there are other persons who are vulnerable, as well. We are among 
the most vulnerable in this country. Among the most vulnerable. There 
are others who are vulnerable, as well. I don't want to disrespect the 
truth.
  I know that we suffer because I understand how we got here and why we 
were brought here. We were brought here to be permanent--240 years of 
slavery is evidence of the desire to have permanency. We were brought 
here to be permanent subservient--with no power. Subservient. Having 
the mindset of a person who wants to serve and wants to please.
  A permanent subservient. Powerless. There was a desire that we never 
have the power that we have today. I am grateful for the way the 
country has metamorphosed to this point. I am sorry it took so long. I 
regret that there was ever an institution of slavery. A permanent, 
subservient, powerless cast of people.
  I would also add this: identifiable. Identifiable, permanent, 
subservient, powerless cast of people. Identifiable. There is your 
evidence. Identifiable. Subservient--240 years, plus, of slavery. A 
powerless, subservient cast.
  Born into slavery. Died as a slave. That 240 years has not been 
erased. No, we don't have slavery in the country today, but we still 
have some minds that have not metamorphosed into the future. We have 
some people who still disrespect people of African ancestry.

  They disrespect people of African ancestry as evidenced by certain 
things they do or choose not to do. Disrespect. Disrespect because they 
will respect people who rebelled against the country, who fought to 
maintain slavery, who were in the Confederacy, they respect them.
  In 1956, this Congress gave them a Congressional Gold Medal, the 
enslavers, the Confederate soldiers. To this day, the Congress doesn't 
have the respect that it should have for the enslaved. No Congressional 
Gold Medal for the enslaved. The Congressional Gold Medal is for the 
enslavers.


 The Russell Senate Office Building is Disrespectful to People of Color

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, persons of color suffer greatly in 
this country. Disrespect. Disrespect because right across the street 
there is a building, the Russell Senate Office Building, that 
disrespects people of color.
  Richard Russell was a self-proclaimed white supremacist. He was a 
Senator who fought the Voting Rights Act and voting rights in general. 
He was a Senator who was a coauthor of the Southern Manifesto. He was a 
racist and a bigot.
  His name is on the building. We have been asking now for a long time 
that his name be removed from the building. We find that the Senate, in 
its wisdom, has not done so. That is disrespecting people of color. 
Yes, we are among the most disrespected in this country.
  There is evidence and the Senate could remove Russell's name from 
that building tomorrow if they wanted to. It is not a question of 
whether there is a way, it is a question of whether they have the will. 
I marvel at how Senators' offices are in a building named after a 
racist and a bigot. I don't go into the Russell Senate Office Building. 
I respect myself enough to stay out of the Russell Senate Office 
Building.
  Those Senators, they decide the timeline. Until they decide that it 
should be removed, it won't be removed. It will be removed. When it is 
removed, I am going to acknowledge it and be grateful for it. I will 
tell them that it took too long. It is just taking too long. Why?
  They claim they can't remove a racist's name from a building paid for 
by taxpayer dollars because they can't agree on a new name. We have 
solved that problem. Simply call it what it was before it became the 
Russell Senate Office Building, and that was the Old Senate Office 
Building.
  Let it become the Old Senate Office Building. Then take as much time 
as you like to conclude that it should have some worthy person's name. 
I have no name to offer. I only want that you do justice by Black 
people the same way you do justice by other people.
  The same way you make an issue of an injustice against others. Make 
the same about television time available to criticize the Richard 
Russell Office Building and the name being on it. It is a symbol of 
national shame.
  Why is it that CNN, MSNBC, FOX, all of them, why have they not made a 
big to-do of it?
  One of the reasons may be because they report the news from the 
Russell Senate Office Building. Yes, they are all located right there 
near the rotunda where Richard Russell has a statue in his honor.
  The Richard Russell Office Building is a symbol of national shame, 
and the news outlets ought to be ashamed of themselves to tolerate it 
and then participate in it--to participate in the perpetuation of the 
maintenance of the name on the building. They ought to be ashamed of 
themselves.
  Yes, people of color are among the most disrespected. Yes, we are.

                              {time}  1215

  That is why I am concerned about this vote that we have taken today. 
It is because we are among the most disrespected that I am not sure our 
transgressions are going to be judged the same as the transgression of 
a person of a different hue. I believe that a

[[Page H6071]]

person of a different hue can get a better decision than a person of 
color in this country.
  We see it all the time in the courts of the country. I was a judge of 
a small claims court for one-quarter of a century. I was a litigator. I 
saw the injustices as they took place that I could do nothing about. 
This is an injustice that is in its infancy.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I warn you that you are going to see the 
injustice take place. You will see it. Maybe what I am saying today 
will help to prevent it. I doubt it. I doubt it.
  There are some Members that I am very much concerned about now that 
this vote has been taken. I am very much concerned about them because 
there are people here who would want to remove them from office if they 
could without having committed a crime because of positions that they 
have taken, policy positions. That would be an injustice.
  So, I am proud of my vote. I voted the way I voted for reasons that I 
have called to your attention, Mr. Speaker, but a review does not hurt.
  One, Mr. Speaker, the only way you get here is if the people elect 
you. You can't be appointed to the House of Representatives. It is the 
people's House. The people send us, and the people ought to remove us 
unless we have committed a crime and been adjudicated as such by a 
proper court.
  Two, the decisions are not appealable. There is no appeal from our 
decision.
  Three, the process itself is not bifurcated any longer when it comes 
to removal from the House of Representatives. Prior to today, it was 
bifurcated, and the judicial system would have the opportunity to judge 
a person and determine whether the person was guilty of a crime. 
Finding such, that could then be used by the House of Representatives 
to expel the person.
  We have taken the judicial system completely out of the process. We 
have become judge, jury, prosecutors, and investigators.
  The truth is, whatever 290 of us can agree on, then that is a reason 
to expel a person. If 290 of us can agree on a reason, then that is it. 
Given the way we have entrenched ourselves now into teams, I don't 
favor the consequences that I can foresee.
  We have allowed ourselves now to become, unfortunately, a House of 
Representatives where this discord is no longer just a difference of 
opinion about policy. It has become a means by which we can come to the 
floor to remove a person from office, a person who was sent here by 
people who voted. I am much afraid for what we are going to have to 
regret because of what we will do as time progresses.
  So, I shall now move to the well of the House and file my resolution 
affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. I have read it to 
you, Mr. Speaker. Some Members may be tuning in late, so I will read it 
again. This is the resolution.
  I voted for Israel's right to exist on Tuesday of this week. I think 
we ought to vote similarly for Palestine to have a right to exist, as 
well.
  It reads:
  Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist.
  Whereas, this resolution may be cited as the Original Resolution 
Affirming the State of Palestine's Right to Exist;
  Whereas, Palestinian people are inhabitants of the land of Palestine;
  Whereas, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed 
Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab 
and Jewish states;
  Whereas, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement 
recognizing Israel as an independent state.
  Mr. Speaker, I support Israel as an independent state. That is not 
here. I support Israel as an independent state. This is a sidebar 
comment. I have supported it. I will continue to support it.
  I supported Israel by voting for more than $50 billion in funds, but 
I did it because I thought we were moving toward a two-state solution. 
I did it because I thought a two-state solution was the will and the 
desire of the House of Representatives.
  I have reached a point now where I have to know. That is what I 
thought. Passage of the resolution will give me the certainty I need. 
The absence of the passage of the resolution will cause me to have a 
great deal of consternation about how I am going to approach votes in 
the future.
  To continue:
  Whereas, on November 28, 2023, the House of Representatives agreed to 
H. Res. 888, reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist--I voted 
for it, and I would vote for it again and again and again if given the 
opportunity--by a vote of 412 ``yeas,'' 1 ``nay,'' and 1 ``present.''
  Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives, 
one, affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become 
a state.
  Mr. Speaker, I accentuated at a future time because I am making it 
clear to those who would make the argument that this is about saying 
that Palestine should become a state today. That is not what I am 
saying. ``At a future time''--I don't know when in the future, but I do 
believe that we ought to have that as our goal since we have stated 
that we want a two-state solution.
  Number two, recognizes the two-state solution as the only solution 
that will secure a lasting peace in the region.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this. There are some people who want a one-
state solution. They mouth ``two state,'' but in their hearts, they 
want one state. I am not one of them. What I say is what I mean.
  Those Members who say they want a two-state solution and really want 
a one-state solution, well, this is not for them. This is for people 
who want a two-state solution.

  Number three, rejects calls for Palestine's destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be people who will say that nobody is calling 
for Palestine's destruction. They are wrong. I was on C-SPAN just this 
week, and there was a caller who called in and who literally, by virtue 
of the way he presented his argument, wanted to see the destruction of 
Palestine, the destruction of Palestine. I am not for that. I am not 
for that. I am not for what is happening with the destruction of 
Palestine currently. For us to conclude that it is okay to destroy 
Palestine is an absurdity.
  How could we possibly approve of the destruction that we see and the 
lives that are being taken? How could we approve of that? I don't 
approve of it. If others can approve of it, the killing of babies, I 
don't approve of it.
  Yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but you have to do it in a 
just fashion. To perform, if you will, an unjust act in the name of 
justice is still an injustice. You cannot clean it up by saying it is a 
just act. Your actions themselves speak for you.
  Killing babies is not a just act, especially when you have declared 
war on Hamas and you end up killing Palestinian babies. It was wrong to 
kill Israeli babies. What Hamas did was dastardly. The way they did it, 
it is impossible to even imagine a human being doing it, but you can't 
complain about killing innocent Israeli babies and then decide: Well, 
it is okay. The Palestinian babies are just collateral damage. They 
just happened to be in the wrong place.
  What is wrong with us? I will not support the killing of these 
Palestinian babies. I will not support the destruction of Gaza. I pray 
that this country will come to its senses.
  How long can this go on?
  Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to have this opportunity. I don't 
know how much longer I will have it. There are a lot of people who 
don't like what I say who have the power to change rules.
  As you have seen today, Mr. Speaker, they can change the rules. So, I 
never know when I will be giving my last speech from this podium, but 
as long as I have the opportunity to give a speech, I am going to speak 
truth to power, but more than that, I am going to speak truth about 
power.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________