[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 86 (Friday, May 17, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3351-H3353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SEGREGATION IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise.
I am honored to have this preeminent privilege to speak on the floor,
if you will, or in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. It is a
unique experience to be here. I never take it for granted, and I always
appreciate the leadership for affording me the opportunity to speak.
I rise today as a person of color, a person who understands the need
for Brown v. Board of Education. We needed it then and still need
Brown. We needed it when we enshrined it into law in this country, and
we still need it today.
This is the day that marks the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of
Education, a lawsuit that has impacted the lives of all Americans but
has had a greater impact, I believe, on persons of color because it
eliminated the notion that we could have separate but equal
institutions in the country, especially in the area of education.
Yes, we still need Brown v. Board of Education. There is an article
in today's USA Today. It is styled ``School segregation is still alive
and well.'' ``Seventy years after Brown, funding drives divide.''
Segregation is still alive and well.
I would like to explain why we needed Brown before delving a little
bit more into this topic of funding. We needed Brown because of 335
years of slavery, convict leasing, and lawful segregation--335 years.
It started on August 20, 1619, when the ship White Lion docked at a
place called Point Comfort, near what we now call Norfolk, Virginia.
When the White Lion docked, it had some 20 persons of African
ancestry. These 20 persons were traded to the Colonies, the persons who
were here to form the Colonies, if you will. They were traded. They
became the first enslaved persons to be introduced into what would
become the United States of America.
These 20 persons marked the beginning of something that still haunts
the United States of America, and that is invidious discrimination, but
these 20 persons became a part of millions of persons who would
traverse the ocean, who would be treated as cargo, not as passengers;
persons who would be raped, robbed, murdered, incarcerated; persons who
would be brought to this country because there was a desire to have in
this country people who would be subjugated. They would be persons who
could be immediately identified because of color.
They would be persons who would not be a part of a class because
class is a socioeconomic circumstance. They were not a part of a class,
Madam Speaker. They were a part of a caste, not a class. A class is
socioeconomic. You can move in and out of a class, but a caste is
associated with your heredity. If you were born into this caste, you
would live in it, you would work in it, and you would die as a part of
the caste.
America had a caste system. Persons of African ancestry were a part
of the caste. They were persons who were immediately identifiable, who
were subjugated, and made a part of a caste. This caste system in the
United States of America lasted for some 246 years.
A good many people assumed that slavery only lasted for 20 or 30
years. No, 246 years. People were born into slavery. Babies were
enslaved. People lived their lives enslaved, and they died as slaves.
There were 246 years of it.
These persons became the economic foundational mothers and fathers of
the country. They planted the seeds. They harvested the crops. They fed
the Nation. They built the Capitol, this very building that we are in
now. Their hands were a part of the construction of this facility.
Their hands were a part of the construction of the White House. They
built the roads and the bridges. They were the economic foundational
mothers and fathers, and every person in the United States of America
is standing on their shoulders.
{time} 1230
Yes, they have not been respected. They have not been respected since
they were brought to this country. They have not been respected while
they were here in the institution known as slavery.
It moved from slavery to an institution called convict leasing. These
are persons who were charged with violating what were called Black
codes. They were charged with some offense. It could be a minor
offense.
After having been charged, they would be leased to some plantation.
They would work on this plantation just outside of Houston, Texas, a
place called Sugar Land, Texas.
We have a gravesite with 95 bodies in it. They are called the Sugar
Land 95. These were persons, human beings, people who were leased and
died as convicts, convicts who were leased.
It is a shame that the story of America contains these facts, but it
is the truth, and we ought not be ashamed to tell the truth because
only by dealing with the truth can we get to a point wherein we are
able to communicate fairly and properly with each other and span the
chasms that divide us.
These convicts, persons who were leased is what I will call them for
now, this lasted for 76 years. Madam Speaker, 76 years of convict
leasing; 246 years of slavery followed by 76 years of convict leasing.
I am making the point for why we needed Brown v. Board of Education,
for those who may be tuning in a bit late.
We needed Brown v. Board of Education because of the 246 years of
slavery and 76 years of convict leasing, but it didn't end there. It
did not end with the convict leasing.
We suffered nearly 100 years of lawful segregation, lawful
segregation wherein persons of color were separated.
Persons of color had to go to the back door in this country. In my
lifetime, I was relegated to going to the back door. Persons of color
had to drink from separate water fountains.
In my lifetime, I have been forced to drink from a colored water
fountain, and I might add, a filthy water fountain.
They were never maintained to the same extent that White water
fountains were maintained. Persons of color were required to sit in the
back of buses. In my lifetime, I sat in the back of a bus.
The laws that were enshrined in the Constitution to protect me and
give me equality under the law as explained and extolled in the 14th
Amendment, my friends and neighbors took those rights away from me.
They denied me those rights.
The Constitution said they were there for me, but my friends and
neighbors decided they would deny me those rights.
I know what segregation is about. I have lived it. Yes, we needed
Brown v. Board of Education then, and we still need it now.
Segregation for nearly a hundred years, 246 years of slavery, 76
years of convict leasing, and nearly a hundred years of lawful
segregation. We needed Brown v. Board of Education.
In the process of suffering these some 335 years, we had a Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court in a case styled Dred Scott where Chief
Justice Taney, in his infinite wisdom, indicated that the Negroes or
African Americans, as we would call ourselves now, persons of African
ancestry, if you will, that they had no rights which a White man was
bound to respect and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be
reduced to slavery for his benefit, not for his benefit meaning the
benefit of the Negro, but for his benefit meaning the benefit of the
White man. That is what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said.
It might be interesting to note that most scholars conclude that this
is one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court of the
United States of America.
Yes, we needed Brown v. Board of Education. However, but for some
quirks in history, we might not have the same decision that Chief
Justice Warren arrived at. We might not have it but for some quirks in
history.
I want to talk about a couple of these quirks in history. Thurgood
Marshall was the lead counsel for the NAACP, an organization that I
belong to. I was the president of the Houston branch of the NAACP for
nearly a decade.
Thurgood Marshall, the lead counsel for the NAACP, when he decided to
go
[[Page H3352]]
to law school, he tried to get into the University of Maryland. He
couldn't get in.
He then decided to go to Howard University. At Howard University, he
had the superlative pleasure of meeting a man who introduced him to a
concept, and that concept was use the Constitution to right these
wrongs associated with segregation. That is my paraphrasing of it. That
concept was something that he would take to the courts.
I believe that but for the University of Maryland, Thurgood Marshall
may not have developed the philosophy that he did.
In a strange sort of way, I have to say thank God for the University
of Maryland because had he gone there, he may have developed a
different philosophy, and, as such, would not have taken the case to
the Supreme Court as he did.
Thurgood Marshall won many cases before the Supreme Court, but not
one of them surpassed what he did with Brown v. Board of Education.
Thurgood Marshall takes the case to the Supreme Court, but when the
case gets to the Supreme Court, the Justice who was there at the time
was a person that was unable to pull the Court together to get a
decision by June of 1953.
Because he could not do so, the case was then to be reheard in
December of 1953. Between that time, the June date and the December
date, the Chief Justice died. Then it became the duty of President
Eisenhower to appoint another Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.
President Eisenhower looked to California. There in California was a
Governor, a Governor who was unique in history for many ways, but this
one I find worthy of mentioning.
He ran for Governor as a Democrat and as a Republican, imagine trying
to do that today, and was elected Governor. He ran on the Democratic
ticket and the Republican ticket. Never happen today. We are so divided
here that neither party would tolerate it. The divide is so evident.
The public wants us to span the chasm. We can't span the chasm
because the public is divided. The same people who want Members of
Congress to compromise don't want to see compromise on the issues that
are important to them.
Compromise is about give and take. Compromise is not winner take all,
my way or the highway. The public itself has to understand that they
are part of the reason there is a divide.
Back to the case, Brown v. Board of Education. Chief Justice Warren
became the Chief Justice by virtue of President Eisenhower having
appointed him as such.
President Eisenhower thought he did the country a great service when
he appointed him, but he later said it was one of his greatest
mistakes.
He said he made two mistakes, they were both on the Supreme Court,
and one of those was Chief Justice Warren because it was Chief Justice
Warren who pulled the Court together.
It was Chief Justice Warren who was able to get a unanimous decision
in the Brown case. I don't know that anybody else could have done it.
He was a unique personality. He understood the politics of the
judiciary. He was a Governor. He understood people, what motivated
people and moved people, and he pulled together the Court such that
there was a unanimous decision.
That unanimous decision was not, as one might think, a decision that
would be immediately embraced by the country. It was not embraced
immediately by the country.
There were persons who still wanted separate but equal or separate
but unequal because that is what it was.
You can call it equal, but when you have inferior schools for people
of color, which is what I attended, and then you have superior schools,
not in the sense that the minds in the schools are inferior or
superior, but in the sense that the facilities, the books that I
received were hand-me-down books from another school system.
You could see the names of children who had the books before I
acquired them. Hand-me-downs. The school systems were segregated in
that fashion.
This segregation did not end with May 17, 1954, and the Brown
decision. In fact, a Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, he had a very
clever idea.
He was of the opinion, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, that we ought
to just give the public dollars to the parents, and they could have
these vouchers, and they could use these vouchers to send their
children to private schools, maintain segregation but under a different
name. What a world. What a world. Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate.
If you believe that that was the end of vouchers, you are imminently
incorrect. The Governor of Texas is still pushing for vouchers, still
wants to take public dollars and give them to parents and let them take
their children and put their children in private schools.
That would have maintained segregation if it had been done, and there
is a good likelihood I wouldn't be standing here now.
Do not believe that slavery had to end. It ended because of the will
of Abraham Lincoln.
{time} 1245
It didn't have to end. It could have continued. The caste system
could have continued. To this day, I could be a part of a caste but for
brave people who took a stance and but for the Civil War that was
fought--for all the politicians who are listening--because of slavery.
We could easily find that the caste system exists today if not for
some brave people. So this notion that we integrated, and it was about
desegregation, it wasn't about integration. The Brown decision said
that there should be desegregation with the term ``all deliberate
speed,'' but it didn't happen immediately.
Milton Friedman tried his best to thwart it. In fact, in Prince
Edward County, Virginia, the White elite of that county defied the
Brown decision by closing the entire school system. They closed the
school system, and they diverted public education funds into vouchers
to be used at segregated private academies that were for Whites only.
It would have still been segregation just by another name.
So, yes, we needed the Brown decision, but do not be deceived into
believing that the decision was immediately implemented. We are still
implementing it, by the way. We needed it then. We need Brown now.
Brown has made a difference, but Brown hasn't brought us to the
promised land. We are not there yet.
The Senate of the United States of America disrespects African
Americans on a daily basis. Now, some people don't believe I said that,
so I probably should say it again: The Senate of the United States of
America disrespects African Americans on a daily basis. The Senate of
the United States of America is a place of shame.
The Richard Russell Office Building is a national disgrace. Richard
Russell was a self-proclaimed white supremacist. Richard Russell fought
antilynching legislation. Richard Russell fought civil rights
legislation. Richard Russell coauthored the Southern Manifesto.
His name is on the Senate Russell Office Building. That is the
Richard Russell. The Senate will not take Richard Russell's name off
the building.
You are a place of national shame, Senate. You ought to be ashamed of
yourselves, every one of you. Every one of you. What is wrong with you?
You know you are disrespecting African Americans, yet you leave the
name of Richard Russell on a building being paid for with taxpayer
dollars.
If that name was associated with the Third Reich, it would come down
tonight. We are disrespected, people of color who happen to be of
African ancestry.
The rationale given for not changing the name is that the Senators
can't agree on a new name. Well, I solved that problem. Pardon me for
using a personal pronoun. My mother taught me to say ``we'' whenever
possible, but in my business, if you don't say ``I,'' other people
will. We have solved that problem. Here is the solution: Let the name
revert back to the name it had before it became the Russell Senate
Office Building. Let it revert back.
What was that name, Al Green? It was the Old Senate Office Building.
Just take Russell's name off. Let it revert to Old Senate Office
Building, and then take as much time as you want, ad infinitum, if you
will, and let it become the name of your choice.
I have no name. I am not doing this because I want a name. I am doing
this
[[Page H3353]]
and saying this because it is not just the right thing to do; it is the
righteous thing to do. His name needs to come off of that building.
Brown v. Board of Education didn't bring us to the promised land. We
still have problems here in the Congress of the United States of
America. This one is so obvious. It is intuitively obvious to the most
casual observer. The name ought to come off.
I will say to every Senator: You ought to be ashamed. You made the
Senate a place of national shame.
By the way, the news media ought to be equally ashamed because, in
the rotunda where Richard Russell's statue is, you have the news media
right there above Richard Russell. He has a rotunda devoted to him.
Above him is CNN, MSNBC, FOX. You ought to be ashamed, all of you. You
are perpetuating this. It has been perpetrated by the Senate, and you
are perpetuating it.
Well, Al, you will probably not get back on those stations or
networks again. Do you think that matters to me, that someone would
keep me off because I speak the truth not only to power but about
power?
Speaking truth to power is fairly easy. You say power is a problem we
need to solve. Speaking truth about power is to say, power, there is a
problem, and you are it.
You are it, CNN. You are it, FOX, MSNBC. You are it, Senate. You
don't have the courage to do the right thing. You ought to be
denouncing what the Senate is doing, but you are right there in the
building where it is happening. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
You are perpetuating this insult to African Americans.
So Brown v. Board of Education did a lot, make no mistake about it.
It has made a difference in the lives of people of color, especially
African Americans. It has made a difference. It has made a difference
in job opportunities. It has made a difference in opportunities for
education, opportunities to hold public office. It has made a
difference, but we are still not there.
We aren't because people of color are disproportionately poverty-
stricken. People of color are not--let me close with this. I am being
told my time is up. This is a to-be-continued.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. De La Cruz). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I appreciate you calling it to my
attention. We have much work to do.
____________________