[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 99 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4105-H4109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION

  (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Green 
of Texas was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise with much to say, 
but before going into my message, I yield to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Veasey), a colleague who has done an exceptional job representing 
the 33rd District in the State of Texas. After he has finished, I will 
then continue with my message.


           Recognizing the Life and Legacy of Sylvia Collins

  Mr. VEAZEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Ninth 
Congressional District from Texas, a colleague and a great guy that 
represents the Greater Houston Fort Bend area for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the last couple of weeks, I have lost a couple of 
amazing constituents--one in a terrible tragedy. There was a fire in 
Dallas, an apartment building that exploded. It was a

[[Page H4106]]

gas explosion, and one of the people that lost their life in the 
explosion was Ms. Sylvia Collins, who was just an incredible person.
  Any time I would go to an event in the Oak Cliff, Dallas part of the 
district that I represent, Sylvia was usually at that event. She 
supported and attended so many of the different functions and so many 
of the different programs for constituents and townhalls that I would 
put on for the district, and she is someone that is going to deeply be 
missed.
  She was someone that literally dedicated her entire life and her time 
in Dallas trying to do everything that she could to make sure that 
people were taken care of. She was always looking out for someone else 
and just always had a friendly smile on her face, so much civic 
engagement--her time as a precinct chair in Dallas County and a 
community organizer. She just wanted to make sure that all voices were 
heard. She just did an extraordinary job in doing that.
  Throughout her life, she became known as someone that was passionate. 
Anyone who asked her to join a cause or be a part of something, she was 
always there for them. Whether it was campaigning for civil rights, 
whether it was helping different people that wanted to run for office, 
being a spokesperson for our immigrant community, Sylvia was someone 
that was always there for everyone else.
  It was such a tragedy when she died in the explosion. There were also 
a young woman and her baby that were killed in the explosion, as well. 
We are still trying to find out exactly what happened during that 
explosion, but her loss of life has truly left a hole in the Dallas 
County community, the Dallas County Democratic community, and just 
everyone that came across this amazing woman that always had a smile 
and a hug for you.
  She is going to be missed. I send prayers out to her family.


         Recognizing the Life and Legacy of Anderson B. Lampkin

  Mr. VEASEY. The next person here that I wish to recognize is Mr. 
Anderson Lampkin. His wife is still with us. They would have celebrated 
73 years of marriage in August, an extraordinary couple. The reason why 
I have both of them pictured, even though Mr. Lampkin is the person 
that we lost, is because they did everything together as a family, the 
entire family. Whether it was Boy Scouts, whether it was all of their 
work at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church on the north side of Fort 
Worth, NAACP, they did everything together as a family. I think they 
are just an amazing example of what we need to get back to.
  Mr. Lampkin was born in Gonzales, Texas, but was raised in Austin. 
When he left East Austin, he moved to Dallas, and then came to Fort 
Worth about 10 years later.
  He liked to volunteer and be a part of the community. For 60 years, 
he was a sign language interpreter. He was the deaf ministry bus 
driver, a deacon at his church, a trustee at his church, a leader in 
his church. He was someone that was committed to public service as a 
nonelected official.
  It was just amazing to go to a Boy Scout event, for instance, and see 
him and his wife involved, to see his kids involved, to see his 
grandkids involved in Boy Scouts. They did everything together as a 
unit.
  His leadership and volunteer services touched so many different clubs 
and agencies in Fort Worth and in Tarrant County: Mission Shiloh, the 
Longhorn Council of the Boy Scouts there in Fort Worth, the Fort Worth 
Education Association, and many, many others.
  He was from a very large family, and Mr. Lampkin is someone that is 
going to be missed greatly. I will miss seeing that couple at different 
events together.
  I urge you to keep Ms. Dorothy Lampkin in prayer, and keep the kids, 
grandkids, and great-grandkids in prayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I honor Mr. Lampkin for a job well done.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, my delegation 
colleague, for giving me a few minutes to honor these extraordinary 
Americans.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the way Mr. 
Veasey has conducted this time, and I wish him the very best.
  Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise, Mr. Speaker, as I always 
do, unbought, unbossed, unafraid, and now I must also add unelected, a 
liberated Democrat, truly liberated, liberated to the extent that while 
I have been censured, I have not been silenced.
  While I have now been unelected, I will not be silent. My agenda 
remains the same. It is still the agenda that deals with the voices of 
those that are not heard in this House as they should be, the voices of 
the least, the last, and the lost--the least among us, persons who 
don't inherit a legacy of much, but actually a legacy of poverty, not 
plenty; persons who are among the lost in a society as rich as ours 
where persons find themselves lost in places of despair, living in 
places that you and I would not consider a place habitable. The least, 
the lost, and, of course, the last. The last would be those persons who 
are the last to be hired and the first to be fired--the least, the 
last, and the lost.
  But I also represent other people, and I will continue to do so. I 
represent those persons who suffer invidious discrimination. They are 
among the LGBTQIA+ community. They are women. They are persons who are 
of the Islamic faith. They are persons who are currently suffering from 
anti-Semitism. They are persons who are suffering because of the color 
of their skin.
  Today, I rise to speak on the topic of invidious discrimination 
emanating from the Presidency. I call to the attention of the listening 
audience and viewing audience an article from the Huffington Post, the 
HuffPost. This article is titled: ``Trump Used His Go-To Insult In 
Interview After Knicks Loss''--that would not be the last game, of 
course, the game prior to this one--``And Experts Say It's A Pattern.'' 
We are talking about his go-to insult, and I must commend Ms. Katie 
Mather for the outstanding job she has done with this article. It has 
the date June 9, 2026, as its date of publication.

                              {time}  1130

  I would like to read some excerpts from this because I think it would 
give us an opportunity to understand how the Trump Presidency has not 
only impacted what he does but also some other aspects of society. So 
this is truly invidious discrimination emanating from the Presidency.
  Let me read some excerpts. The first reads: ``'First Take' host 
Stephen A. Smith slammed President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning 
after Trump told reporters on Monday night that Smith wouldn't be a 
good fit to run for President because `you need a high IQ.' ''
  My dear friends, if I may say brothers and sisters because I truly 
believe that there is but one race, and that is the human race, so if I 
may just say, my dear brothers and sisters. Friends, you may call 
Stephen A. Smith many things. I probably would not agree with anything 
that is negative. I don't know a negative side of him. I know that he 
is opinionated, but that is not unusual in the United States of America 
to have people who are opinionated. It is especially not unusual here 
in the House of Representatives.
  So you might call him many things, but I don't believe that you can 
call him a person in need of a high IQ, implying that he has a low IQ, 
and it goes on to say this in this article.
  Stephen A. Smith is brilliant, and I say this without question, 
reservation, or hesitation. He is one of the most brilliant people who 
I have seen in the sports arena, but he goes beyond sports. He talks on 
a multiplicity of subjects all the time, and he equips himself well on 
every topic that I have heard him speak on. Now, you don't have to 
agree with a person to understand the brilliance of the person. He has 
a brilliant mind, and I do believe that the President made this comment 
for dubious reasons.
  So let me continue reading from excerpts in the article:
  ``Trump's `low IQ' comment against Smith has racist implications . . 
. '' This is what the article says: `` . . . racist implications and is 
referred to as a `racial dog whistle' by linguists and political 
experts, said Dr. Karrin Anderson, a communications studies professor 
at Colorado State University.''
  This professor is making the point that when the President says these 
things about persons with low IQs, he is actually signaling to others. 
It is a racist dog whistle.

[[Page H4107]]

  The article goes on to say: `` `What distinguishes a dog whistle from 
just an insult is it is designed to sound innocuous . . .' '' the dog 
whistle is designed to sound as though, oh, it is harmless, just 
another thing someone is saying to be funny or cute. Well, not this dog 
whistle.
  The article goes on to say: `` `. . . Anderson, who teaches courses 
in rhetoric, political communication, and gender and communication, 
told HuffPost: `It is meant to be deniable. The virtue, the rhetorical 
appeal of a dog whistle, is you can deny that it functions in the way 
that it is actually designed to function.' ''
  So this dog whistle is designed to appear to be innocuous and 
harmless, but its functionality is rooted in something else.
  He goes on to say: ``It's a term that white supremacists have 
historically used against people of color, and it's not the first time 
the President has publicly used it. Last month, he called House 
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries a `thug' and a `low IQ' person on Truth 
Social.''
  This is where he speaks much of what he says to the public.
  But this term ``thug,'' let me focus on it for just a moment. Hakeem 
Jeffries, he calls a thug. That is demeaning. He does this to demean 
people of color, but then he adds the injury to this insult of low IQ. 
You can accuse Hakeem Jeffries of many things, but you cannot, in any 
way, produce the empirical evidence to show that he is a person with a 
low IQ. He is a brilliant man, a brilliant person who has the appeal 
that most people understand to be that of a person with great 
intellect.
  So when the President calls him a thug and a low-IQ person on Truth 
Social, and he did this in April, this was a means by which he could 
demean and insult and use the term that those who live in the world of 
white supremacy embrace. This is something that they readily embrace, 
and they understand the dog whistle. They understand what the President 
really means when he says ``thug'' and ``low IQ.''
  Let me go on.
  ``In April, he called Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson the 
`new low-IQ person on the Court.' ''
  The `new low-IQ person on the Court.'
  ``During the 2024 Presidential election, Trump repeatedly described 
former Vice President Kamala Harris as a `low-IQ individual.' ''
  Note what all of these people have in common: color. African 
Americans, persons who have reached great heights in terms of their 
professions, persons who are making a difference in a very positive way 
in our country. But the President would demean them by challenging 
their intellect and, in so doing, appeal to white supremacists who 
still believe that people of color have low intellect.
  Reading on:
  `` `He applies it . . .' '' meaning his low IQ comment, `` `. . . 
indiscriminately to Black people in different walks of life and 
professions.' '' This is what Anderson said.
  `` `That's where it reveals that it is a racist dog whistle because 
it doesn't relate to anything else.' ''
  It goes on to say: ``Experts say the `low IQ' insult has a storied 
past.
  ``There is a long history in the U.S. of this `low IQ' dog whistle.'' 
This is Anderson speaking again.
  It goes on to say: `` `During the colonial era, White male elites 
took for granted that they were cognitively superior to women and 
people of color, and thus, divinely appointed for leadership.' ''
  Well, that explains a lot of the sexism that we have seen. That 
explains a lot of what we have seen when persons decide that they are 
simply going to reduce you to something less than human by assigning 
you to the primate family and calling you an ape or saying that you are 
related to the apes or somehow you are an ape, reducing people of color 
to animals that are not as superior life forms as some others.

  These animals are not persons. They exist, and we want them to exist, 
but we don't want people to compare human beings to these animals, and 
the President does this. He has compared a former President and First 
Lady to apes. We don't like to talk about this, I have found, but there 
are many people who would rather just see this kind of go away and 
let's let that just be something that he has done.
  Well, the President never apologized for it after saying that. 
Someone else actually posted it, but he never apologized. By the way, I 
don't ask him to apologize. I ask him to just tell the truth: That this 
was wrong, that it should not have been posted, and that he would not 
allow this to happen again. That would be more suitable for the means 
by which he can atone for his transgression, but he hasn't done any of 
that. He tends to double down.
  Well, this article goes on to remind us: `` 'IQ was used to justify 
heinous behavior like racial segregation and forced sterilizations.' '' 
Now, this is something that another social scientist, Figueroa, has 
called to our attention in this article.
  Forced sterilization because of IQ actually happened in the United 
States of America. We have much to atone for. As we approach this great 
anniversary, we would have people believe that all is well.
  All is not well. All won't be well until some of our transgressions 
have been properly addressed.
  This notion that you should sterilize a woman because you believe 
that she has a low IQ is more than simply a crime that is statutorily 
illegal. It is really a crime against humanity to engage in this kind 
of conduct. It actually happened.

                              {time}  1140

  After we ended the enslavement of African Americans in this country, 
Africans from America, living in America, who were, at the time, and 
much of the time not declared citizens--so let's just say Africans in 
America.
  After slavery was ended, the enslavement of people after some 240 
years, the people who had a hand in building this very facility, the 
Capitol, the White House, the ones who built roads and bridges, the 
people who planted seeds and harvested crops, they were the economic 
foundational mothers and fathers of the country.
  After we ended the enslavement of these persons, then we embarked 
upon convict leasing, which is another form of racism. Slavery itself 
was rooted in racism. This whole notion of convict leasing allowed 
people who violated some code to be placed in the hands of other 
persons, to be leased out from the government or some arm of the 
government. Many of them died as leased persons, those convicts who had 
been leased.
  There is a grave near Houston, Texas, with 95 bodies in it, persons 
who were convicts and leased, all in a common grave.
  This kind of behavior was justified based upon IQ. They were less 
than human. They were akin to the lower forms of animals that we would 
call primates. As such, you can do almost anything to them that you 
would like, and people did.
  This forced sterilization and this segregation was a form of 
invidious discrimination and was rooted in racism.
  Many of us alive today in this country experienced lawful racism in 
the form of segregation. Many of us went to back doors, drank from 
colored water fountains, sat in the back of the bus, and were locked up 
in the bottom of the jail. Many of us suffered this form of invidious 
discrimination, known as segregation, which is rooted in racism.
  We the people decided that we would no longer have this form of 
invidious discrimination exist lawfully. We ended it lawfully. We 
didn't end it as it relates to the practice. Invidious discrimination 
against people of color still exists to this day in this country.
  People who would say that it doesn't exist, and say that repeatedly, 
those who are in high places, those comments are based in racism. If 
you are saying repeatedly that people of color are not discriminated 
against in this country, and you are repeatedly saying it in public 
spaces, you, my friend, are a racist. You are. Nobody bothered to tell 
you before now. I know you didn't get the word.
  I am here to tell you that people who do this, to demean other 
people, to say that they are less than, that is racist rhetoric. 
Persons who do this regularly, with intentionality, you are a racist.
  As I indicated, IQ was used to justify heinous behavior, like racial 
segregation and forced sterilization. ``That thinking,'' it reads here, 
``was amplified in the late 1900s by a popular book

[[Page H4108]]

titled `The Bell Curve,' which falsely claimed that IQ differences 
between racial groups were biological.
  ``Phrenology, another form of race science that claimed skull shapes 
determined intelligence, has also been completely discredited by the 
scientific community because of how often it was used to uphold 
scientific racism and gender stereotypes throughout the U.S. and 
Europe.''
  Friends, people of color and women have suffered greatly in this 
country under the color of law, under the guise of science that was 
rooted in racism.
  We have to change this. This cannot continue in this country. Until 
we change this, we cannot truly say that all persons are treated 
equally. Although they are created equally, they are not treated 
equally. We cannot say that liberty and justice for all exists when we 
address ourselves and the Pledge of Allegiance. It just doesn't happen. 
It is not the case. There is not liberty and justice for all in the 
United States of America.
  Let us continue. It reads: ``Roughly 8 in 10 of Trump's `low IQ' 
attacks target Black and Brown people, data shows.''
  We are talking about empirical evidence.
  ``Trump has been using this dog whistle frequently. Between January 
20, 2025, and April 25, 2026, Trump posted `low IQ,' or a variation of 
the phrase, 24 times.''
  Let me stop for just a moment and deal with the variation of the 
phrase. There are some people who don't say low IQ. They will say 
stupid. They will say: Oh, Black people are stupid, or they will say a 
particular Black person is stupid. In so doing, they will say: Now, I 
really mean this in the sense of the way the word stupid is defined. 
They use stupidity. They use this in the sense of referring to the 
person's intellect. Again, it is another means by which persons are 
using dog whistles to demean people of color.
  This dog whistle that the President uses has permeated what I call 
racist radio. Yes, racist radio exists. Not all radio is racist, but 
there is a large segment, a subset of radio, that is racist.
  They are on the air daily, utilizing terms such as stupidity, 
depicting people of color as less than human beings. They have done it 
to the extent that they have normalized it within the circle that they 
reside in. They have normalized it. People just come to accept it.
  Well, I don't. I refuse to accept what racist radio does routinely.
  The President, who is at the top of this chain of unscrupulous 
behavior, shapes the tone and tenor for all of these things that happen 
beneath him. Much of what we are seeing today is being perpetrated and 
perpetuated because the President does it. Why can't others do it? 
People see it this way.
  We have this racist radio that is constantly perpetrating and 
perpetuating racist dog whistles in the form of IQ, in the form of 
depicting persons as less than human, who are persons of color, and in 
the form of using language other than low IQ, such as stupid. Stupidity 
has become another dog whistle for racist radio.
  They know that I speak truth. They rarely have the truth spoken such 
that they are exposed. Those of you who are listening to it and 
enjoying it, you are enjoying racism. As long as you continue to enjoy 
it and support it, buy the products being advertised on those stations, 
you are supporting racism.

                              {time}  1150

  Racism exists in the public arena because, in many instances, people 
are buying the products that the racists purvey. The racists sell the 
products on their radio stations. They advertise the products. You buy 
them from those stations, and as a result you are supporting racism. I 
refuse to do it.
  Racism is something that we have to combat along with sexism, anti-
Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, all of the various invidious 
phobias.
  Let me repeat this. It bears repeating. ``Roughly 8 in 10 of Trump's 
`low IQ' attacks target Black or Brown people, data shows.'' It goes on 
to say: ``Trump has been using this dog whistle frequently. Between 
January 20, 2025, and April 25, 2026, Trump posted ``low IQ,'' or a 
variation of the phrase, 24 times, according to a study by Truthout, a 
nonprofit news organization. Eight out of every 10 posts were directed 
at Black or Brown people. In the first 10 months of his second term, 
Trump did not refer to any White person as someone with `low IQ.' ''
  I am going to repeat that. ``In the first 10 months of his second 
term, Trump did not refer to any White person as someone with `low IQ.' 
''
  These are the kinds of things people don't want to hear, but you have 
to know the truth so that you can free your minds. I read someplace 
that if you know the truth, it will set you free. I want to free your 
minds. This will free you, some of you. Some of you choose not to be 
free, and there is nothing that will be said to free your minds because 
you choose not to be free.
  There is no one so blind as he who chooses not to see. Not as he who 
cannot see, but he who chooses not to see. There are many people who 
choose not to see.
  No White person referred to with ``low IQ.''
  The article goes on to indicate: ``It is designed to signal to a 
specific audience that a speaker shares their ideology or belief 
systems.'' That is what these dog whistles are designed to do, to say 
to other people, hey, don't worry, I have got your back, I believe, 
just as you believe, that they have low IQs, so it is okay for you to 
say it on racist radio now. It is all right. You can call persons 
stupid. You can say low IQ. You can do it with impunity because the 
President is doing it.
  Well, it is not all right, and you are not going to do it with 
impunity because you are going to be exposed.
  This goes on to indicate that: ``[Trump] uses it to refer to Black 
people and, predominantly but not exclusively, Black women.'' 
``Predominantly, but not exclusively, Black women.''
  I stand in defense of Black women. I stand in defense of the Black 
women that he has called persons with low IQs. I defend Maxine Waters. 
I defend Vice President Kamala Harris. I defend Jasmine Crockett. I 
defend the women that this President would demean with a racist 
comment, and that is what it is. It is racist. Racist commentary 
constantly repeated over the airwaves.
  It goes on to say: ``I think, in his mind''--this is a person 
speaking now of the President--``I think in his mind, because it 
doesn't explicitly refer to race, he feels that it is easy to deny that 
it's a racist label.''
  My friends, he can deny it, but there are some of us who see through 
it. I am here to tell you that it is racist, and it is a racist label.
  This article concludes with this language: ``By repeating the phrase 
openly''--as is done on racist radio quite regularly. Remember, we are 
talking today about invidious discrimination emanating from the 
Presidency, and I chose this topic, emanating from the Presidency, 
because I wanted to talk about how it has permeated society. It starts 
there at the top with this President, and it permeates society.
  Now, the argument can be made that it was here, and it was, before 
this President took office, but he has popularized it. He has 
normalized it. He has made it such that people in racist radio use it 
regularly and feel as though they are doing something noble by 
demeaning people of color and women and others as well, members of the 
LGBTQIA+ community.
  He says: ``I think in his mind, because he doesn't explicitly refer 
to race, he feels that it's easy to deny that it is a racist label.''
  The final comment: ``By repeating the phrase openly, the practice 
further popularizes the concept.'' By repeating it, he popularizes the 
racist comment.
  As another person who spoke--Harris--once put it, ``Trump's language 
seems to have become less a dog whistle and more a bullhorn.'' ``Less a 
dog whistle, more a bullhorn.''
  So, friends, here we are. We have a President of the United States of 
America who routinely uses racist commentary to refer to people of 
color. Routinely. He does it without a thought as to how it impacts the 
lives of the people he refers to, the persons that he is calling low 
IQ. He doesn't really understand--maybe he does understand and doesn't 
care, but he should consider how it impacts the lives of people, how it 
signals to other people that the persons are less than, and how it can 
cause some people to respond to them in a very adverse way.
  However, we have to say to the President--and I do so today--Mr. 
President, if you are using this kind of commentary, as you do, and you 
continue

[[Page H4109]]

to do it routinely, someone has to tell you what you are doing.
  Here is what you are doing, Mr. President: You are bringing the 
country itself, the country itself to a level of concern for others 
such that we are not seen as we were once seen--as we were once seen as 
a country with the Statue of Liberty, the notion that there is liberty 
and justice for all in our Pledge of Allegiance, the notion that we 
truly respect all people, and that all persons are created equal and 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are causing people 
across the globe to see us differently. You are causing people across 
the globe to understand that the United States is undergoing something 
that they never thought they would see and, quite frankly, I am amazed 
myself.
  Therefore, Mr. President, there is only one thing I can say to you: 
When you do this, you are not only using a racist dog whistle, you are 
a racist. That kind of terminology utilized the way you do it regularly 
makes you the racist who has now given other racists the license to say 
what they say openly and notoriously, normalizing racism.
  As we approach the 250th anniversary, Mr. President, you should be 
ashamed. However, there is no shame in you. You have already 
demonstrated this with your behavior over the many years that you have 
had a public voice.

                              {time}  1200

  You have already demonstrated there is no shame in you, so because 
you have no shame in you, Mr. President, I would call to your attention 
that while I am unbought, unbossed, unafraid, and unelected, censured 
but not silenced, Mr. President, there is still a countdown to 
impeachment. Mr. President, it is just a matter of time. Your day of 
reckoning will come.
  Someone is going to stand in the well of this House of 
Representatives and is going to introduce Articles of Impeachment 
against you. These articles are going to pass in this House of 
Representatives, but before that person does it, however, I believe 
that there will be someone who will introduce articles to lay the 
foundation for the actual articles that will later on pass the House of 
Representatives.
  There is always someone who lays the foundation for things. A 
foundation was made at the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965. A foundation was laid to eliminate invidious 
discrimination in bussing on bus lines when Rosa Parks took a seat and 
ignited the sparked that started the civil rights movement.
  Someone is going to lay the foundation.
  Mr. President, you should know you will be impeached again. You will 
be three times impeached.
  Mr. Speaker, with that said, I, Al Green, a proud, unbought, 
unbossed, unafraid, unelected, and truly liberated Democrat, yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of South Dakota). Members are 
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President 
and to direct their remarks to the Chair.

                          ____________________