[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H82-H85]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AND STILL I RISE: THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2025, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise today
in the name of government of the people, by the people, and for the
people; not government of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs, for the
oligarchs; or for the plutocrats; and I surely do not rise in the name
of government by the mob and for the mob.
No. I rise in the name of government of the people, by the people,
and for the people.
Today, as I rise, I am going to give two important reasons why Vice
President Harris presided over a Republican certification process
earlier this week.
Stated differently, I am going to give two important reasons why
Democrats did not get the most electoral votes.
First, allow me to commend Vice President Harris for leading the
United States of America, our country, back to the moral high ground. I
was proud to be here. In fact, I was seated on this very row at the
very end. I was proud to be here when the doors opened and the words
were spoken: the Vice President of the United States and the Senate.
There she stood. She came forward. As she came forward, she was quite
statuesque, comely, and courtly. She looked almost majestic as she
walked in.
As she moved down towards the front of the room, I, in my mind,
recited a part of the 23rd Psalm: ``Yea, though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.''
I am not saying that she was walking through the valley of the shadow
of
[[Page H83]]
death. What I am saying is that I knew that if she could walk through
the valley of death and fear no evil, then surely she could walk
through the Halls of Congress and fear no evil.
As she moved forward, I was taken to a point in my life when a song
meant something to me. The song was ``You'll Never Walk Alone.''
She walked forward, never to walk alone.
When you walk through a storm, hold your head up high. Don't be
afraid of the dark.
Then, near the last stanza, the words are:
Walk on, walk on through the winds of life.
I am paraphrasing.
Walk on through the storms of life, and you will never walk alone.
She proceeded up to the dais. As she stood there announcing the
number of electoral votes from the various States, I could see her
standing there alone, and I am reminded as she did so of another song.
This song has to do with standing, standing alone.
The words are: Just stand. After you have done all that you can, just
stand.
I was reminded of all that she did. She worked hard. She worked long
hours. She put everything into it. After you have done all that you
can, then just stand. Sometimes it is better to stand alone, which is
what she did, than not stand at all. It is better to stand alone than
not stand at all.
So I am so proud of what she did because in doing this, she helped us
to reclaim the moral high ground that we lost 4 years ago on January 6,
to reclaim that moral high ground because as she was presiding over the
certification process, it was more than Vice President Harris presiding
or Vice President Pence when he presided. It was the candidate who ran
for President and did not win certifying that the opposing candidate
won. That was the moral high ground. That is something that the United
States of America has had, and she was reclaiming it for the world to
let the world know that in the United States of America, we know how to
win, but, more importantly, we know how to lose.
She claimed the moral high ground for this country, and in so doing,
she was more than an example. She was an exemplar. She was a supreme
and superb standard for the kind of behavior that ought to be exhibited
on occasions such as the one she was presiding over.
She made it clear to those who will look back in time upon this time
that there are people among us who have dignity and respect for the
process.
{time} 1445
She made it clear that, while she did not win, she respected the
process and announced the winner.
I think that Vice President Harris can forever know that she has
brought this country to another place. Many countries around the world
envy what we were able to do this year and this week, juxtaposed to
what did not occur 4 years ago, when a mob disrupted the process at the
behest of the President of the United States of America.
Who can deny that? Who can deny that they came here at the urging of
the President of the United States of America and that their behavior
was nothing near exemplary? Their behavior was shameful. They marched
with symbols of Nazism, with a gallows. They marched saying ugly things
and making vile comments. They stormed the Capitol of the United States
of America.
In so doing, their behavior was disdainful and shameful as they
marched through the Halls. Some even went so far as to defecate in the
Capitol, in places where one would not expect such things to occur.
Yes, there was a difference between this year and what happened 4 years
ago, and that is because we had a Vice President who was a candidate
for President and who understood the necessity to have a peaceful
transfer of power.
Though Vice President Harris stood alone, she stood alone at a time
when it was appropriate and necessary. I have said it many times, and I
will say it one more. There are times when it is better to stand alone
than to not stand at all, as Vice President Harris did, and she shall
be remembered in history as bringing us back to the moral high ground.
Mr. Speaker, I will give the two reasons why she didn't preside over
her own certification and why Democrats didn't get the most electoral
votes. There are two reasons. They had to do with legislation that was
not passed. I am going to walk through the legislation, and then I will
give the two reasons as to why the legislation didn't pass.
The legislation. I have noted six pieces of legislation: The PRO Act,
the John Lewis Voting Rights Act--I have shortened the title--George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, comprehensive immigration reform, and
legislation to raise the minimum wage, as well as to pass the Equality
Act. I have noted those six.
Now let's take a look at these six with a bit more information. This
is legislation that would have made a difference for America and
Americans.
Starting with the PRO Act, the PRO Act would have benefited all
Americans. Labor unions were obviously desirous of having it pass, but
it would have benefited all Americans. It would have benefited American
laborers, the working class. It would have been the legislation that we
need to help close the wage gap. This wage gap is something that has to
be dealt with because, from 1967 to today's date, that wage gap has
increased exponentially.
Currently, the median income for a CEO is about $16 million. It is
$16.3 million, to be a little bit more specific. The annual median
income for a minimum wage worker at $7.25 an hour is a lot less than
that CEO who is making $16 million. In fact, the CEO making $16 million
would make 1,000 times more than the minimum wage worker at $7.25 an
hour, which would be something more than about $15,000 annually.
Who can survive on $7.25 an hour in the United States of America? You
have to have at least two jobs and maybe three. A family would have to
have at least two persons working.
The minimum wage has to be raised. If we pass the PRO Act, labor
would be in a position to defend the desire and the need to raise the
minimum wage and could have pushed more for a higher wage. We have to
raise it to a living wage.
If we should raise it to a living wage, then we can start to close
this wealth gap. Raising it to a living wage won't do it in and of
itself. There is much more that has to be done, but that is a pretty
good start.
It would also help us to protect the right to organize. That right to
organize is a means by which labor can move forward en masse to
negotiate and to do that which is necessary to cause the industries in
this country to raise the minimum wage.
We have more States in this country with a minimum wage above $7.25
an hour than not. In fact, the States are ahead of the Congress. The
Congress needs to catch up with the States and move on beyond that. A
wage of $7.25 an hour is what is known as a slave wage in many
quarters.
We need to pass the PRO Act. We did not. I will explain why in a
moment. There are two reasons.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Act, had we passed it, would have
enfranchised more voters and caused greater participation in the
process. This act would have helped us by reinstating a version of the
Voting Rights Act. In fact, it was in Shelby County v. Holder that the
Voting Rights Act was weakened greatly when section 4 of it was
declared unconstitutional and the preclearance portion of it in section
5 could no longer be exercised.
This Voting Rights Act would have helped to reinstate a version of
the preclearance process. This Voting Rights Act would have helped to
allow people to vote without fear of having the hours set such that it
didn't help persons who might work late hours. There are some people
who work late hours. They work into the morning hours.
In Houston, at one point, we had an opportunity to vote 24-7, 24
hours in a given day. I went out to see the people who were coming in
to vote. Well, we can no longer do that, but had this version of the
John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed, we would have made it easier for
people to vote, harder for people to cheat, and brought more people
into the process. We would have had greater participation. It did not
pass.
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act did not pass. This wouldn't have
cured but would have assisted in arresting
[[Page H84]]
bad police behavior. My colleagues have seen the videos. I don't have
to try to convince people anymore that there are bad police officers.
Not all police officers are bad. Some are. This doesn't mean that you
should paint all officers with the same brush. It simply means that the
bad ones have to be weeded out.
This piece of legislation, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act,
would have helped us to weed them out. It would have also dealt with
these no-knock laws that have cost lives, dealt with chokeholds that
have taken lives.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would have made a
difference, and I can say there were many of my constituents who were
eager to see the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act pass and who were
very disappointed when it did not. Many of my constituents were
disappointed when the John Lewis Voting Rights Act didn't pass.
American minorities, a good many, were disappointed.
These pieces of legislation could have made a difference in voter
participation.
Let's move on to three more.
Comprehensive immigration reform. This was a key piece of legislation
that would have addressed the border issues, addressed labor issues, H-
1B issues, all of these various means by which persons could come into
the country for various purposes associated with work.
Family reunification issues. This country has a history of keeping
families together. We have strayed away from that history. This piece
of legislation, comprehensive immigration reform, would have addressed
that issue, and it also would have addressed discontentment.
What is discontentment? I hear it quite regularly when I am out and
about. I go into places where people are buying food. I hear people
talking. Many of them are not talking to me. Many of them do talk to me
and explain what I am about to tell you.
There are people in this country who just don't believe that it is
fair and that it is right for persons who are coming into the country
to receive what they perceive as benefits that they are not receiving.
They talk about this discontentment. They are not pleased with the way
the system is functioning.
Comprehensive immigration reform could have given us the opportunity
to address this issue. It did not pass.
Of course, raising the minimum wage, I have spoken about this and
closing the wage gap. When you raise the minimum wage, you do something
that we talk about here quite often, and that is the rising tide
theory. A rising tide will raise all boats, we say.
Raising the minimum wage would create that rising tide that would
raise the wages above the minimum wage. The minimum wage has an impact
not only on those who are receiving it but also others who are workers.
It has an impact on the working class.
Raising the minimum wage would have made a difference. I assure you
there are people who would have been grateful that the minimum wage was
raised, and it would have inspired them to come to the polls to vote.
The Equality Act. This act would have protected the LGBTQ community.
It would protect their civil rights and their human rights.
Yes, the Supreme Court made a ruling about discriminating against
persons because of their sexuality, but that is not enough. We have
many more means by which they can be protected if we pass the Equality
Act.
Having gone through these six pieces of legislation, there are more.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, that would help women to achieve equal pay
for equal work. Women now make less than 90 cents for every dollar a
man makes, generally speaking, in the country. That is all women.
Over some number of years, I saw a figure of a trillion dollars
having been lost because women are making so much less. I believe that
it was from the year 1967, and I think it was up to last year.
That is a trillion dollars. Assuming that my numbers are a little bit
off--maybe I didn't get the years exactly right--a trillion dollars is
still a trillion dollars, and it was lost. That is money lost for
healthcare, money lost for schools, children going to school, buying
food, buying clothing, providing shelter, and also money lost for a
pension, something to retire with. It is lost because women are making
less than men in the richest country in the world. They still do make
pennies on the dollar. That is what women are making compared to what
men make.
{time} 1500
So, the query is: Why did we not pass all of these pieces of
legislation? The answer is because we had two Senators--two Senators,
not the entire Democratic Party; not all the Democratic leadership, two
Senators--who would not do what Republicans did when they wanted to get
a certain Supreme Court nominee confirmed.
When Republicans wanted to confirm a certain Supreme Court nominee,
they challenged the process of coming to cloture and, in so doing,
moved to a point where you could appoint that nominee to the Supreme
Court with 51 votes as opposed to 60. They did that, and it was along
party lines. All the Republicans voted to change the rules.
Mr. Speaker, to his credit, Senator Schumer brought the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act that I have called to your attention to
the floor of the Senate. To simplify it, he made a request that it be
passed with 51 votes as opposed to having to hit the 60-vote threshold
and then come back and pass it with 51 votes. He made the request. It
would have passed but for two Senators. These are the two reasons, two
Senators, two Democratic Senators.
Now, why would I focus on Democratic Senators when the Republicans
voted against it? Because if you make your deposits in the Democratic
Party, you expect your interests to come from the Democratic Party. You
may get some from someplace else, but you expect the Democratic Party
to perform. If you put your money into a Democratic corporation, you
expect Democratic dividends.
The Democrats, two of them, chose not to allow the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act to pass the Senate, which is an
indication that none of the other legislation could have passed with 51
votes.
Here is what would have happened had it passed: 50 Democrats would
have voted to allow it to pass with 51 votes. That is not a majority.
The Vice President would be the tiebreaker. The Vice President would
have said to the world that we passed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act, and I was proud to break the tie. We passed the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act; I was proud to break the tie. We passed
the PRO Act; I was proud to break the tie. We passed the Equality Act;
I was proud to break the tie.
All of these various pieces of legislation could have been passed but
for two reasons. Two Senators did not do what more than 50 Republicans
did to claim another seat on the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, the prognostication from me--I am speaking for myself
and no one else--is that we would have seen Kamala Harris come through
that door, still comely, still courtly, still stately, still
statuesque. We would have seen her walk down. We would have seen her go
up to the podium at the dais, and we would have seen her, if this
legislation had passed, certify the election of Kamala Harris for
President--as President, to be more appropriate, if the legislation had
passed.
There are two reasons: Two Democratic Senators refused to do what
more than 50 Republicans did when they saw the opportunity.
I will close with this. Do not assume that those Republicans will now
do what they have done in the past and oppose moving to 51 votes as
they did when there was a Democratic issue on the table. I
prognosticate here and now that they will move to use 51 votes if their
agenda is stalled, and they will think nothing of it. They will do it
with alacrity. They will pass their agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that if they run into a roadblock, they
will do it. If that becomes the issue, they are going to do it. When
they do it, I am going to come back to this podium, and I am going to
say I told you so because we have suffered long enough from our history
of using the filibuster to prevent progress, especially among the
minorities in this country.
I am not giving them a license to do anything. They are going to do
what they are going to do. I am just telling the truth. They are going
to do it.
[[Page H85]]
They will do it regardless of what anybody on this side of the aisle
says.
We have nothing to do with what they do, but I can tell you this: We
have suffered because two Senators would not vote to pass legislation
that could have made a difference in the lives of the American people
as well as in the lives of specific people who have suffered great
injustices, great injustices, grave injustices, lives lost.
I believe that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would save
lives. Voters would receive a better path to getting their votes into
the process. More of them would participate.
I am not saying the election was rigged, none of that. What I am
saying is that we had legislation that people would have appreciated,
and we could have marketed that legislation by simply saying here is
what we accomplished that benefits you at a different level.
Yes, we passed the infrastructure bill. It is a great bill. Yes, we
passed the CHIPS and Science Act. I am glad we did it. These are the
kinds of kitchen-table issues, this is the kitchen-table legislation,
that people were talking about, and the lack of seeing this legislation
passed dampened the enthusiasm of key aspects of the Democratic base.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know there are some people who now want to
back off of this legislation. They want to try to become Republican
lite. That is what I call it. We have to be ourselves. This is what has
been important to our base. We have to stay with what has been
important to our base.
There is nothing wrong with any one of these issues. Nothing has
changed. We still need them. America needs them. America wants them. We
just have to pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am always grateful to have this opportunity to speak.
It means something to me because I don't hate the country. I love this
country. That is why I want to improve it with this legislation. It
means something to me. I am proud to say that I stand here in this
place to speak on behalf of people who cannot speak for themselves, and
I pray that one day we will be able to say that we were there to vote,
to take maybe hard votes and pass legislation that makes a difference.
Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you, if my colleagues on the other side run
into a roadblock, they will do as I said.
Our time will come again. We will have to take advantage of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________