Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And today, I rise with love of country at heart.

I rise to announce that I will not allow this issue to become so complicated that the American people might be confused because the truth is we will be voting for one thing: whether we are for taxation without representation or whether we are against taxation without representation. It is really that simple.

As for me, I will be voting with the patriots. I will be voting with those patriots from 1773 who confronted the government, those patriots who were there at the Boston Harbor, those patriots who were there for the Boston Tea Party.

I will be voting against taxation without representation. I believe that this is what the American Constitution and the American way are all about. Since 1773, it has been said, and today, I will respect it with my vote.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise today because I am deeply saddened.

I am saddened because today represents the day in the life of a constituent that she will never forget, that her husband will never forget.

I rise to call to the attention of the world the words of a constituent. These words were printed in the Houston Chronicle. I am grateful to the Chronicle for publishing this story because this story speaks to a circumstance unlike that with George Floyd. I will say more about that in just a moment.

But I rise, grateful to the Chronicle, with the words of a mother. Here are her words: ``Our son was killed before George Floyd, but we are still waiting for answers.''

Their son lost his life 1 year ago today in Houston, Texas, in my congressional district. He lost his life several houses down from his home, the

home of his parents. He lost his life while housesitting for a neighbor. He was 35 years of age, well-liked.

I spoke to many of his neighbors, many of his friends, many of the people in the neighborhood. I never heard one unkind thing said about him. He was a person who was always there to be of service. He lost his life while housesitting, trying to help a friend, a neighbor.

He served in the military. Here is a photo. He served in the military, a graduate of a local high school, Westbury High School. He loved the Dallas Cowboys. He was a typical young person. His name was Joshua Johnson.

Joshua's parents, the Bearys, Mr. and Mrs. Beary, are grieving. They have been grieving since he lost his life a year ago. They have been grieving because the circumstances are questionable.

But these circumstances, unlike the circumstances that we had with George Floyd, are circumstances where there was no body camera. There was no witness to record what happened. These circumstances occurred early in the morning, perhaps around 6 a.m., 1 year ago.

The parents were not present. Mr. Beary took his wife to work. He returned home, and she received a phone call. Here are her words: ``It was April 22, 2020, around 7:30 a.m., when my husband, Richard, who had just dropped me off at work an hour earlier, called me and said the words that changed my life and his forever. He said, `Someone shot and killed Josh.'''

They would go as close as they could to the actual scene, which is just a few houses down from where they lived, and they would encounter a peace officer.

I like the term ``peace officer'' as opposed to ``police officer.'' Both are good terms, but to me, the term ``peace officer'' carries with it something that I think is important for us to consider, as we consider the great issues of our time.

Policing is one of the great issues of our time. A peace officer is always there to make peace, to help us acquire peace, to help us maintain the peace, to do the peaceful thing whenever possible. I know that it is not always possible, but whenever possible.

So, they went as close as they could to the scene, and they encountered an officer who was investigating. They wanted to know what happened to their son, which is what any parent would want to know: What happened to my son?

It is not an unreasonable question. It is not unusual, by the way, for parents to have some emotional characteristics at the time they are posing questions because they just lost their son. They don't know what happened.

This officer proceeded to explain to them that their son approached an undercover officer, that their son approached this officer, who was seated in a vehicle, and when he approached this officer, he had his phone in one hand and a gun in the other hand.

There were persons who were with them at the time the officer was explaining this. These persons sought to intercede and said he had a BB gun. The officer acknowledged that it was a BB gun.

They were told by this officer that the officer who was seated in the vehicle, the officer who was undercover, around 6 a.m., that he told the son to lower his BB pistol--he didn't say BB pistol, but to lower what he thought was a gun.

The story gets murky, but the officer who was undercover said to the son: Lower your pistol. Lower your gun.

He said that their son, Josh, did not do so, that he, in fact, raised it, and the officer responded by shooting him--not once, but twice.

The parents were obviously moved by what they were hearing. By the way, all of this is recorded. What I am saying to you now was being recorded. I have the recording.

They were moved by what was said, and they were wanting more answers. This officer told them that this is how it happened. Maybe not in these exact words, but Ms. Beary quotes him as saying: ``This is how it happened,'' and there is ``no reason to believe it happened any other way.''

Well, let's examine that statement, ``no reason to believe it happened any other way.'' The officer investigating said this without the benefit of a body camera, unlike the George Floyd case where there were multiple cameras, and we saw different angles. No body camera; no camera recording by someone who was a witness standing by; no camera available to the officer who now, within a few hours at most, is giving this rendition of what happened to their son.

He said what he said without the benefit of speaking to a medical examiner. The medical examiner had not arrived. He came to his conclusions without the benefit of what would ordinarily be an autopsy that would be performed at a later time. No autopsy had been performed, so he couldn't have come to these conclusions after perusing an autopsy report.

He came to these conclusions without speaking to the officer who shot her son. No autopsy report; no ballistics report; no conversation with the medical examiner; no body camera. But he indicated that ``this is how it happened,'' and there is ``no reason to believe it happened any other way.'' No other way?

You haven't had a conversation with a medical examiner. You haven't talked to the person who actually did the shooting. You have no body camera. No other way?

You have no ballistics report. No other way?

That story became the actual story that has been published and republished, and it causes great grief for this family because they believe that there has to be a better investigation, that this officer was too quick to draw these conclusions.

In court, we call these things a rush to judgment, a rush to judgment within just a few hours, without having completed an investigation.

He didn't do a walkthrough, hadn't done the walkthrough. For those who may not be familiar with walkthroughs, this is where the officer gets with the person involved, the officer who was in the car, and they walk through and point out certain things that may have happened. He couldn't have had the walkthrough because he didn't talk to the officer who did the shooting.

The family, desperate for help, finally contacted my office. I was, quite frankly, amazed myself when I heard the recording of this officer who was investigating.

By the way, before we go any further, I need to say this: This is not an indictment of all police officers, not an indictment of all peace officers. We are talking about a circumstance that happened in my congressional district.

So, they came to me, and I decided that I would, at a very minimum, go out and see what they were trying to call to my attention.

I was a judge for a quarter of a century of a lowly justice/small claims court. I was known to go out and look at things, to go to the scene of things that occurred, so I went. Thank God I did.

After going out to the actual site, things became even more murky. I was there, getting an understanding as to where the officer was supposed to have been at the time the encounter with their son took place. The son is Joshua, and I am not going to call the name of the officer who did the shooting. At the time the encounter took place and the shooting occurred, it became difficult to comprehend some evidence that was found in a location many feet away, over behind some cars, near a garage, across a street, behind not one, not two, but three cars.

It became difficult to understand how this piece of evidence was at this location, difficult to understand because the piece of evidence was a bullet, a bullet that was fired from the shooter's weapon, made its way to this very difficult location, hit the garage, and bounced off onto the pavement.

This was found the same day that the investigation was taking place. It is difficult to comprehend how it got there, given the angles involved and the location of the garage. It is difficult to understand.

Later on, after talking to more people, we concluded that it would be appropriate to ask the sheriff for a visit. The sheriff was very generous with his time. He did visit with the family, and he brought others with him, another person with him. They had a visit.

We talked, and the sheriff gave assurances that there would be a thorough investigation.

After having that conversation with the sheriff, something else was discovered. This family had a camera. We didn't know about the camera at the time they heard from the initial officer who was investigating.

So, there is a camera that monitors the street that runs past their home. This camera picked up what appears to be the shooting officer, who was undercover, parked on the street. It picked him up as he left the scene. This is important.

Their son is shot twice. Apparently, based upon what has been said and what the evidence seems to reveal, he walked away after he was hit twice. He went over to a car, his car, parked some feet away. He made his way into his car, sat on the driver's side, under the steering wheel. Apparently, having done this--this is, without question, he did these things. Apparently, he is shot twice. The officer drives away after shooting him twice. He leaves the scene, and the person shot, to go out to some other location.

Now, if this is true--and I say ``apparently'' because you look at the cars and then you have to draw conclusions. But if this is true, what kind of officer--assuming that all of what he said was the case, do you really leave the scene? Do you leave a person who is armed, if you believe the person to be armed? Do you leave this person who you believe to be armed to be out, such that someone else might be harmed? There are a lot of questions to be answered.

There a lot of questions to be answered. The family needs to know. I have some of the questions that the family would like to have answers to. I am going to share a few of these questions with you because it is a year later. They have not had any indication that they will receive justice in the near future, perhaps, but not the kind of indication that they are looking for.

Here is a question: How could an investigating officer present an accurate assessment of the facts to Mr. and Mrs. Beary, near the scene, within a few hours after Joshua, their son, was killed, before having done the walk-through, without talking to the deputy who did the shooting, without the benefit of a camera recording, before the medical examiner examined the body of their son, before an autopsy report was completed, and, in fact, an autopsy was performed, before a ballistics report was produced? How could he present an accurate assessment?

And this assessment has been published and republished many times.

Second question: How did the bullet hit this garage of the neighbor across the street with no clear path from where the shooter indicated the shooting took place or where it was indicated by someone that the shooting took place?

Third question: Why would the deputy leave the scene immediately or sometime shortly after firing those shots?

This is a questionable circumstance. It is not comparable to what happened to George Floyd.

And the question that we are going to have to grapple with is: What happens when the cameras are off and no witnesses are available, and you have evidence that seems to contradict the story of the investigating officer, that was given before he had an opportunity to perform a fair and accurate investigation?

What happens when you don't have what we have in the George Floyd case?

Notwithstanding all that we had in the George Floyd case, I don't know of a single person who thought that there would be a guilty, guilty, guilty; who thought that the officer would be found guilty on all three of the charges. I don't know of a single person. Perhaps you do.

But notwithstanding all of the evidence that we saw, all of the testimony that we heard, there were people--I was among them--who literally had great concern for what the verdict would be and how it would be responded to. I had my concerns. I think they were legitimate concerns to have in this case, given our history in the case of questionable shootings, police-civilian encounters, and a person ends up losing his life.

I heard the verdict with my colleagues right here on campus in this facility, and I believed it after a moment of disbelief. It wasn't something that you just automatically, axiomatically believe. But it was something that I believed, but I had a moment of disbelief. But I knew that verdict could be a seminal moment in time that will impact the rest of time.

I believe that those jurors will be treated very kindly by history. I think that history is going to show that they were people who rose to the occasion. Jurors do this, they can rise to the occasion. These did, and I am grateful to them.

I believe that those officers who testified rose to the occasion. They separated themselves from that which is perceived to be egregious, and that is being kind, but they separated themselves from that conduct. History will be kind to them.

But there was overwhelming evidence, and we know what happened with overwhelming evidence. This case has not been ruled upon or judged by a grand jury, and, as a result, we don't know what will happen. All we know is that this family is still grieving. It has been a year since their son lost his life--a year today, around 6 a.m.--and they are still waiting for a decision.

I have some concerns now about the decision. Hear my concerns.

Let us assume that it goes before a grand jury, this case. When I say ``it,'' I mean this case goes before a grand jury. And let's assume that it results in a no bill, the grand jury does not indict. It does not return a true bill, which would be an indictment. Let's assume this is a no bill in this case. What happens before the grand jury stays with the grand jury. This family won't have answers.

There was supposed to be a ballistics report.

Will they have the opportunity to read the ballistics report?

I hope so. But the grand jury works in secrecy. It is shrouded in secrecy. And I am not antithetical to grand juries. But my point is, will this family get answers if there is a no bill?

The system has got to change. You cannot leave a family under these circumstances with more questions than answers after the case has made its way through the judicial system. You can't leave them like this. They will suffer the rest of their lives. They have got to know what happened.

The system has to change. There has to be a way for these families to know more about what happened when the cameras are off and no witnesses are available. There has to be a way for them to at least know what happens when the case is presented.

They are not allowed to be there when the grand jury deliberates. I am not going to quarrel with this. I understand that grand jurors have a right, to some degree, of protection because what they do can bring harm to them. But what I don't understand is why we don't have a system that allows for the evidence to be made available to people who have lost someone near and dear, someone that they love.

In Texas, there is another way that would be perceived as novel. It is only in Texas, by the way. Only in Texas. There is something called a court of inquiry. In Texas, if you believe that a crime has been committed, you can take your evidence to a district court judge, and you can ask that judge to review what you have. And if that judge believes that there may have been a crime committed, that judge would go to an administrative judge. We will call this person a presiding judge. And then that judge can require--that second judge--so you have two judges involved--happens to concur. And then witnesses can be called, and we can examine what happened. But this is only in Texas.

I am looking at legislation to give us the opportunity at a national level to do something similar to what we can do in Texas, because people need to know. These parents would feel much better and get through the grieving process, something that we all will go through at some point in our lives if we live long enough. It would give them--if they had the transparency, if they could just know what was said, what was the decision really based upon if there is not a true bill, an indictment. They need to know.

But they represent many other families who have circumstances where

they have lost someone; questionable circumstances, no camera, no witnesses; and in some cases where there are witnesses who are not believed; in some cases where the camera reveals what others would have us not believe when we see it with our own eyes. There are some cases where we have had video, but we are told that we can't believe our eyes.

Thank God the jurors in the George Floyd case believed their eyes, believed what they saw, believed those officers who gave testimony.

I hope that we will, at some point in our history, reach a time when we won't have a Member of Congress have to engage with family members under these circumstances, but some things have to change before we will get to this time.

One of the things that will have to change is a belief that has been called to our attention by some people who have been demeaned and vilified. And the belief is that Black lives matter.

This is a powerful movement.

Are there some persons who associate with the movement who may have done some things that I don't approve of?

Yes, many have.

But this is a powerful movement. We have got to have persons who are armed, those who have the power of life and death, believe that Black lives matter. We have got to have them believe that you don't have the right to punish a person after you have arrested the person.

Notwithstanding what you heard a former President say, you don't have the right to punish after you have arrested. And you know he said it.

He told peace officers--I like peace officer as opposed to police-- when you are arresting a person you don't have to be nice.

Madam Speaker, once you have a person within your care, custody, and control, that person's well-being is in your hands. You don't have the power or the right to punish them. You may have the power, but you don't have the right to. You don't punish 9 minutes and 29 seconds, a knee on a neck--cruel and unusual punishment. You don't have the right to do this. You may have the power, but you don't have the right. If Black lives matter, then you wouldn't do it.

Not all police officers--not all peace officers--I prefer peace officer to police--not all, but those who do have to be punished, because we have got to let the world know that Black lives matter and that you have got to treat people with the same level of dignity and respect that you want your child to receive and that you want your mother to receive, the same level of dignity and respect because Black lives matter.

I will be with the Bearys this weekend. There will be a vigil in Houston, and I will be there with them. My hope is that we will have heard something about their son's demise from the officials who are charged with the responsibility and an obligation to perform a just and fair investigation. My hope is that this will happen and that they will have some closures.

Madam Speaker, I want Mr. and Mrs. Beary to know that I am never going to give up on this. Their son's life mattered to me. I never met him, but his life mattered. I will be with them. I will be with them until the end. His life mattered.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all. I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all because the criminal justice system is on trial. It is on trial in the court of world opinion. It is on trial for crimes committed against human beings in this country.

Some of the complainants would include Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd.

I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all because we have reached a point in our history wherein there is one case now that seems to have reached the pinnacle of the system, such that everyone is waiting to see how this case will eventually address liberty and justice for all.

One of the complaints is that in this country we have allowed arresting officers, that we confer enormous power on, literally, the power to execute when necessary.

But the question is: Will these arresting officers not only have the power to arrest, but also the power to be judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner?

This is the question before the court of world opinion.

We have a case that embraces decades, perhaps even centuries of misdeeds. My hope is that we will receive a just ruling. My prayer is that, if there is not a just ruling, we will have peaceful protests. I believe in peaceful protests. I have gone to jail participating in peaceful protests. I have gone to jail with John Lewis participating in peaceful protests. Twice, he and I were jailed together.

So I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all, understanding that we have an opportunity now to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow an arresting officer to be judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner. But I also understand, given the history of this country, unfortunately, that things don't always work out as I believe they should.

So my hope is that there will be peaceful protests, but I do hope that the protests will take place if there is not a just verdict. There is nothing wrong with peaceful protests in this country. There is nothing wrong with confronting injustice in this country. There is nothing wrong with standing up for the rights of those who are being denied liberty and justice for all in this country.

I want to see peaceful protests if the wrong verdict is rendered. And, in my opinion, the verdict that we should have is arresting officers can't be judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner. There are those who would say that I don't have the right to come to these conclusions at this time, and they are wrong.

In the court of public opinion, world opinion, many have already come to this same conclusion. I am merely echoing what they have said. As such, I am a messenger, and the message is: Let's pray for a just decision in the court of world opinion.

Madam Speaker, whatever employers are doing in the main is not enough. Workplace violence is the third leading cause of job death. Whatever they are doing is not enough.

Twenty percent of registered nurses in one survey reported an increase in workplace violence. Whatever they are doing is not enough.

It is not unreasonable to ask people to have a plan to protect employees. It is not unreasonable to ask them to enforce that plan. And it is not unreasonable to provide cover for those who report these workplace violence incidents in the form of protection from retaliation from reporting. It is just not enough.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise.

I rise to call to the attention of our Nation a symbol of national shame. And I rise to give commentary as I read a letter that I intend to send to certain colleagues. This is not a letter that I enjoyed producing, that I enjoyed writing, but it is necessary, in my opinion, to call to the attention of my colleagues a symbol of national shame, the Russell Senate Office Building.

This building is right here on the campus in Washington, D.C. It is a building with the name of a person who should not be honored in such a way. It reads--and for our purposes today, I will simply say, ``Dear Colleague.''

It is with love of country above politics that I send this request to remove the name of the racist Democrat--commentary: I will be saying some things about Democrats today because this involves Democrats-- remove the name of the racist Democrat, Richard Russell, from the Senate office building named in his honor and revert to using the building's original name, the Old Senate Office Building until the Senate selects another nominee who will be honored.

The letter goes on to say:

In 1972, the Old Senate Office was renamed the Russell Senate Office Building, hence for 49 years, the Old Senate Office Building has been a symbol of national shame bearing the name of an unapologetic white supremacist.

Richard Brevard Russell, Jr., was a segregationist who worked throughout his career to disenfranchise and dehumanize people of color in our country, especially Black Americans.

He participated in his first filibuster of a civil rights bill in 1935. And in 1937, he was a part of the filibuster against antilynching legislation. In his 1936 reelection campaign, Russell committed himself to preserving and ensuring white supremacy in the social and economic, as well as the political life of our Nation. He also blocked the passage of a 1942 bill to eliminate poll taxes, and stated:

If progressives want to force social equality and

commingling of races in the South, I can tell you now that

you are doomed to failure.

In 1956, Russell coauthored the ``Southern Manifesto'' with Senator Strom Thurmond in opposition to integration of public schools after the Supreme Court unanimously ordered it in Brown v. The Board of Education.

In 1964, during a civil rights movement, he proposed a voluntary relocation program, a racial relocation program to adjust the imbalance of the African-American population between the 11 States of the old Confederacy and the rest of the Union.

My dear friends, this causes me to reflect upon the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears, quite similar but not nearly the same as what happened. The Trail of Tears was from 1938 to 1939, when the Cherokee Nation was forced to give up its land east of the Mississippi and to move to an area that we now know as Oklahoma. Thousands died. Thousands. Many others suffered; they cried. It was a trail of tears.

I suppose this was then-Senator Russell's contemporary version of what could have been a Trail of Tears for African Americans. What a shame and sinful thing to propose that people simply be relocated because you have the power to do it, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was a thing that would be done with some degree of honor and dignity. It was done because he had the power and he had a racist mentality, Democrat Senator Richard Russell.

That same year, Russell and 17 fellow Democrats--all senators--along with one Republican--let me pause for just a moment. Some things will bear repeating. I will repeat that. But I know that there seems to be this unwritten rule that you don't say negative things about Democrats if you are a Democrat. But there is a higher calling, and we all have to speak the truth about injustice and that trumps any of these rules related to politics. You have to put country above politics, and the people within the country should be always placed in a position such that justice will prevail.

So I will read again: That same year, Russell and 17 fellow Democratic senators, along with one Republican, led the 60-day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't care what party they were in; it was wrong.

When this filibuster failed and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, Russell, a Democrat, led a southern boycott of the 1964 Democratic National Convention as an act of rebellion. He was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Regrettably, dear friends, our Nation's history is stained with the bigotry of men like Russell. And although racism still dwells in our country, we do not have to honor it, and that is what we are doing with the Russell Senate Office Building. We are honoring bigotry and racism. We are honoring, in a sense, the anti-Semitism and the hate and the bigotry that he espoused and was proud to do so. He never repented. He never atoned. And taxpayer dollars are being used to maintain this facility, the Russell Senate Office Building.

Friends, by reverting the name of the Russell Senate Office Building back to the Old Senate Office Building, we are given the opportunity to atone for honoring this bigotry for 49 years, as well as we are given the opportunity to honor someone worthy of having a Senate office building named in their honor. This would be the appropriate thing to do.

And by the way, I, in no way, advise that a certain name should be utilized. I simply say remove the name of Russell, and after removing the name of Russell, let it revert to the name that it had, the Old Senate Office Building. And in so doing, the Senate has time to select a new nominee, another person to be honored.

No building maintained with taxpayer dollars should bear the name of Richard Brevard Russell, Jr.

To this end--and it actually reads ``therefore''--I will introduce a resolution calling on the Senate to remove

the shameful name of Richard Brevard Russell, Jr., from the taxpayer- maintained Senate office building bearing his name. And I am going to request serious consideration of this resolution in the 117th Congress.

But that is not all that I plan to do. I shall not go into great detail about the rest of what I intend to do, but I will say this: When I go over next to the building, I will go over there to stand in the area where there is a statue of Richard Russell, Senator Richard Russell, a statue. There is a rotunda. He is the prominent figure; there are no other statues in that rotunda. If you traverse the Capitol, you will find many statues but none, in my opinion, honored to the extent that Richard Russell is being honored. He has an area unto himself.

I am going to go there, and I am going to point out that this is the statue that we have to move. I am going to talk about it from the statue itself, and I am going to point out some things about the statue, because we can't tolerate this kind of legacy being perpetuated. It is time to end it. It is time to stop glorifying bigotry and hate with taxpayer dollars.

How can we insist on renaming military bases that bear the names of racist Confederate generals and others, or military people, and then have an office building that we traverse on a daily basis that we are in and out of that is named after a racist and a bigot? How do we justify this?

We have the power--not the House--but the Senate has the power to change this. I will ask that the Senate change it, but I will also go over to the Senate. And I want to let the world see what's going on in that hallowed facility wherein we allow to occur what we desire to change--and what we are changing, in fact, in other facilities. It is time to change it.

Madam Speaker, I believe that this change should take place immediately. It has been 49 years. We have had enough time to consider it.

Madam Speaker, 49 years under various Presidents; 49 years Democrats in control, Republicans in control.

Some would say that we are just realizing how insidious this invidious behavior has been. Well, now that we know, we ought to move posthaste to change that which we could have changed many years ago.

I love my country. I have great respect for people who hold public trust. But I do believe that when we hold public trust, it is important for us to point out these kinds of circumstances that demean the reputation of the United States of America.

This symbol of national shame puts a stain on the notion that we believe in liberty and justice for all. It puts a stain on the notion that all persons are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It puts a stain on the notion that we would speak to the world about their shortcomings but won't address one that the government has the power to change. It is shameful. This has to change.

Now, there are some who would want the change to take place, but they don't want it to appear as though someone has called this change to the attention of people and that they somehow will feel that it was done because it was called to the attention of the public.

Friends, when others speak out about injustices against other subsets of society, I have always been there to fight for that change, and I will continue to be there to fight for that change. It doesn't have to originate with me. If it is something that requires a righteous movement to make a positive change, I am going to be a part of that.

I am going to continue to support and fight for the rights of persons in all the various subsets of society who have been discriminated against. Just today, I was on the floor to fight for the rights of people who work in certain venues, who are being hurt, harmed, and some even die. That is my calling. That is why I was sent to Congress. I wasn't sent here to go along by trying to get along, not calling to the attention of my constituents and this country the changes that have to be made.

This is where I stand. This is where I will not retreat from. This is a position that means something to me and my constituents, and it ought to mean something to every person in this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time. I thank the leadership for the time. And I thank the people who have taken the time to hear these words. But there is much more to be said and much more to be done about a symbol of national shame.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really about mothers and daughters who earn about 82 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man earns. It is about mothers and daughters who lose about $1 trillion a year because of the wage gap.

For those men who don't have a really good reason to vote for it, it is about the fact that a woman gave birth to every man alive. So for all of the suffering, we ought to vote for this bill, because we are here as a result of some woman suffering for us.

At this time, I include in the Record a letter from the National Committee on Pay Equity.

National Committee

on Pay Equity,

April 14, 2021.

Re Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7) and vote no on

harmful amendments.

Dear Representative: As the House votes on the Paycheck

Fairness Act (H.R. 7), the National Committee on Pay Equity

(NCPE) strongly urges you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act,

H.R. 7, without amendments that limit its scope or undermine

its critical protections.

The National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), founded in

1979, is a coalition of women's and civil rights

organizations; labor unions; religious, professional, and

educational associations, commissions on women, state and

local pay equity coalitions and individuals working to

eliminate sex- and race-based wage discrimination and to

achieve pay equity. These pay gaps can be addressed only if

workers have the legal tools necessary to challenge

discrimination and employers are provided with effective

incentives and technical assistance to comply with the law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is one of these urgently required

tools.

Despite federal and state equal pay laws, gender pay gaps

persist, and earnings lost to these gaps are exacerbating the

financial effects of COVID-19, falling particularly heavily

on women of color and the families who depend on their

income. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been passed

three previous times by the House of Representatives, mostly

recently in the 116th Congress, offers a much-needed update

to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new tools to battle

pervasive pay gaps and to challenge discrimination.

Women are increasingly the primary or co-breadwinner in

their families and cannot afford to be shortchanged any

longer. Women working full-time, year-round are typically

paid only 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, adding up to

a loss of more than $400,000 over a lifetime. This wage gap

varies by race and is larger for many women of color: Black

women working full time, year round typically make only 63

cents, Native American women only 60 cents, and Latinas only

55 cents, for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic

male counterparts. Latinas lose more than $1 million over a

40-year career due to the wage gap. While Asian American and

Pacific Islander (AAPI) women make 85 cents for every dollar

paid to white, non-Hispanic men, many AAPI communities

experience drastically wider pay gaps. And even when

controlling for factors, such as education and experience,

pay gaps persist and start early in women's careers and

contribute to a wealth gap that follows them throughout their

work lives and into retirement. Persistent pay

discrimination, often cloaked by employer-imposed pay secrecy

policies, is one factor driving these wage gaps.

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal

Pay Act of 1963 to ensure that it provides robust protection

against sex-based pay discrimination. Among other provisions,

this comprehensive bill:

ends secrecy around pay by barring retaliation against

workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages, and

requiring employers to report pay data to the EEOC

prohibits employers from relying on salary history in

determining future pay, so that pay discrimination does not

follow women from job to job

closes loopholes that have allowed employers to pay women

less than men for the same work without any important

business justification related to the job

ensures women can receive the same robust remedies for sex-

based pay discrimination that are currently available to

those subjected to discrimination based on race and ethnicity

provides much needed training and technical assistance, as

well as data collection and research

The COVID-19 pandemic and systemic racism have exposed how

the work performed primarily by women, and particularly Black

and brown women, has long been and continues to be

undervalued and underpaid, even as the rest of the country is

newly recognizing the essential nature of this work. We

cannot build back an economy that works for everyone without

ensuring that all women can work with equality, safety, and

dignity, starting with pay equity. Passing the Paycheck

Fairness Act would mark a vitally important step toward

ensuring this becomes reality.

We urge you to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without

harmful amendments that weaken its critical protections.

Sincerely,

Carolyn York,

Secretary-Treasurer,

National Committee on Pay Equity.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise because I love my country.

And, Mr. Speaker, I rise today understanding that we are in mourning. Our country is grieving. There are many reasons for this, but we still haven't acknowledged that there is something we can do to eliminate some of the mourning and grieving.

We are mourning because police officers are being murdered. Many have been murdered across the length and breadth of the country. We are mourning because persons are losing their lives at the hand of the police. Many have lost their lives. We are in a state of mourning, but it goes back far beyond George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, Sandra Bland. It goes back to really the founding of the country because we have not atoned for some of our transgressions. Literally, we have committed crimes against humanity for which we have not atoned.

Slavery was a crime against humanity; we have not atoned. What we did to the indigenous population was a crime against humanity; we have not atoned. The internment of the Japanese, based upon our xenophobia, we have not atoned. Banning Chinese from the country, we have not atoned. What we did to Muslims, banning them from the country, we have not atoned.

There must be atonement. We have to reconcile. We did not do so in 1868, as it relates to slavery. We should have, but we had a President who was antithetical to it, Andrew Johnson.

So, I am going to offer a resolution, a resolution to create a department of reconciliation such that we can accomplish our atonement, get out of this grieving, and bring our country together.

When we had a systemic need for dealing with agriculture, we created a Department of Agriculture. When commerce was in need of some help, we created a Department of Commerce. We have a Department of Labor because labor needs the kinds of legislation and the kinds of benefits that a Congress can accord labor, the persons who actually work for a living. When we needed defense, we created a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security.

So, I am proposing that we have a department of reconciliation so we can deal with the issues that have haunted this country for centuries. A department of reconciliation with a secretary of reconciliation, a department of reconciliation with a budget, a department of reconciliation with under secretaries so that we can accomplish our atonement with a department of reconciliation. It can be done.

I am not asking for a commission. This is about a commitment. A department indicates that you are committed to a cause. We were committed to labor; that is why we have a Department of Labor. We were committed to education; that is why we have a Department of Education. We now need a department of reconciliation, a commitment to ending this long, sorrowful grieving that we have suffered over the years so that we can understand each other better and work together better with each other.

If we fail to do this, if we fail to reconcile, Dr. King's words will become our greatest nightmare. He indicated that we must learn to live together as brothers and, I would add, sisters, or we will perish together as fools. We need a department of reconciliation. I will introduce a resolution for such.

Madam Speaker, when you are a son of the segregated south, when you have heard your mother called girl, and your father called boy, when you have had to go to the back door, when you have had the Klan burn a cross on your property, you know hate when you see it. You know what a hate crime is when it takes place.

What happened in Georgia was hate personified, it was a hate crime. I will march with the people who will be opposed to this. I will stand with them. We cannot allow this kind of injustice to go unchallenged. It is better to stand alone than not stand at all. This is a hate crime and we must--we must seek justice for those victims, and we must demand that these persons who are calling these viruses by names associated with people, that they ought to stop, and we ought to demand it. I do so. I demand that they stop.

Madam Speaker, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a picture of a symbol of national shame. It is the Russell Senate Office Building. The Russell Senate Office Building is named after Richard Russell, a racist and a bigot.

For 49 years, taxpayer dollars have gone into this facility. For 49 years, people have had to endure knowing that this facility is named after a bigot.

I believe that it is time for change. It is time to take the name of Richard Russell off this building. We don't have to name it in honor of someone else. Let it revert to the name that it had prior to Richard Russell; it was the Old Senate Office Building.

I ask that we do this, and I am going to write a letter to each and every Senator explaining this and hoping that each and every Senator will at some point decide that a building paid for with taxpayer dollars should not be named in honor of a racist and a bigot.

Madam Speaker, my constituent, Mr. Jose Escobar, was living his American Dream, married to an American-born woman, two American-born children, living in an American-built house, paying American taxes. Yet when he reported to ICE, he was taken out of the arms of his wife and babies, sent to El Salvador with $20 and the clothes on his back. It took us more than 2 years to get him home, but I went to El Salvador with his wife, and we brought him home.

Madam Speaker, I will support this legislation because I want no one else to experience what Mr. Jose Escobar experienced.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today in strong support of this legislation because it includes trans women. Some of the most brutal, horrific crimes created in the minds of people have been perpetrated upon trans women.

Madam Speaker, this legislation protects them, as it protects all women. I support it and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise, a very proud and liberated Democrat, unbought and unbossed.

I rise today with a question, Madam Speaker.

The question is: Should the taxpayers of this country, the good people of the United States of America, should their tax dollars be utilized to pay for the upkeep, the maintenance, and the utilities on a building that is named in honor of a bigot and a racist?

Should our tax dollars be used for such a purpose?

Madam Speaker, let me share something with you. This is the Senate Russell Office Building.

This is how the Russell Senate Office Building looks. It has a certain degree of majesty associated with it. This is where Senators do their work. The press is found in this building, in an area just off of a rotunda. This is the Russell Senate Office Building. This is what it looks like to the naked eye. This is what people see when they drive by. Unfortunately, there is much to be seen that the eye cannot reveal to the brain.

The building named after this man, Senator Richard Russell, is a symbol of national shame. And I think that because it is a symbol of national shame--and I shall say more to you about it, Madam Speaker, as I do what I am about to do, which is to label it for what it is: a symbol of national shame--we ought not pretend that this building is a place that ought to honor a person with such a name.

It is a symbol of national shame paid for with tax dollars. These lights and the utilities are paid for with tax dollars.

Who was Senator Richard Russell?

This is the Senator, Madam Speaker, who, in 1935, participated in the very first filibuster of a civil rights bill--Richard Russell--when he and his colleagues stopped an anti-lynching bill with 6 days of nonstop talking.

Senator Richard Russell, in so doing, allowed the lynching to continue without legislation that was antithetical to it. In this country, up until 1968, some 3,446 persons--more than 3,000 Black people--were lynched in the United States of America.

There are people who don't want to hear this. There are people who would say: Wait. At some point we will get around to doing the right thing. We will bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice, and we will change the name of this building.

There are some people who would say: Wait, Al, don't bring this up now.

Madam Speaker, I refuse to allow those who are not suffering to determine the timeline for the suffering to end for those who do suffer. I am one of those who happens to be suffering, and it is painful for me to see this symbol of national shame in the United States of America, the country I love.

I believe that it is time now for us to make that change. We have had some 40-plus years--about 49 years--to change this, and we haven't done it. It is time to change it. I am not going to wait for someone else to say that it is okay to come to the floor and say that you can make this change.

I am a liberated, unbought, unbossed Democrat. It is time for this to change. It has got to change.

How soon should we change this?

Immediately, if not sooner. If it doesn't change today and doesn't change tomorrow, I will still stand my ground. It has to change, and I will await that change. It must change.

A little bit more about Senator Russell. It was in 1972, shortly after his demise, that the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 99-1, that the old Senate Office Building be named the Russell Senate Office Building. Madam Speaker, the vote was 99-1. They knew when they did it that he was a bigot and a racist.

Madam Speaker, when I say it ought to happen immediately, I assure you there are some names that I could give this evening of people who have similar histories who are still alive, and if we named a building after one of these people, then this Congress would assemble and would change that name immediately.

I know what we can do when we want to do something, so there is no question about whether there is a way to get this done. The question is: Do we have the will to do it? Do we have the will to take a racist and a bigot's name off of a building that is housing the Senate, Members of it?

I decline to go into the building. I will never say that I will never go in, simply because there are times when, of necessity, I may have to. But when I do, I do it with a degree of shame. I am not proud when I have to go into that building.

The last time I was there it was to show some other person the rotunda where his statue happens to be. He occupies a space all to himself. It is not like going through other areas where you see multiple personalities represented. He has a space all to himself, a bigot and a racist; and we, who have the power to make the change, tolerate it.

A bit more about Senator Russell. Here is a statement from the Senator; perhaps not a direct, exact quote, but here is a statement from the Senator: ``As one who was born and reared in the atmosphere of the Old South, with six generations of my forebears now resting beneath southern soil, I am willing to go as far and make as great a sacrifice to preserve and insure white supremacy''--some things bear repeating. He said: ``To preserve and insure white supremacy in the social, economic, and political life of our State as any man who lives within her borders.''

He is taking a pledge to maintain white supremacy, Senator Richard Russell; a Senate office building in his honor, in his name.

Let's just continue with a bit more about Senator Richard Russell. Senator Richard Russell blocked the passage of a 1942 bill to eliminate poll taxes.

Senator Richard Russell co-authored the ``Southern Manifesto'' in 1956 with Senator Strom Thurmond, in opposition to the integration of public schools. Fought integration. It was segregation. He was a segregationist.

It was segregation that caused me to get on a bus that was in disrepair, that would break down, to ride within blocks of other schools predominated with persons who are Anglo, or were Anglo at the time, ride past those schools for some 20 to 30 minutes to get to another school in another city. That is what segregation did.

It was segregation that caused me to get books that were hand-me- downs when the other schools where Anglos were had the books. When they were finished with the books, when they got new books, then I could get a better book that was not the latest edition of the book I needed.

It was segregation that caused me to have to go to colored water fountains.

It was segregation that put me in the back of the bus.

It was segregation that forced me to the balcony of the movie.

It was segregation that locked us up in the bottom of the jails.

I know segregation. I know what it looks like. I have seen its ugly face. The Klan burned a cross in my yard.

I know what it smells like. I have had to drink from those filthy water fountains.

I know what it sounds like. I have had people call me ugly names.

So I just hope my friends will not get too discombobulated when they hear that Al Green came to the floor and said what he is saying now. Don't expect me to tolerate this. You can get some others to do it, but you won't get me to do it.

I will not tolerate this. I demand that this change take place. I am not asking.

Why would I engage in the protocols of polite society when this level of bigotry exists in my face?

Let's talk a little bit more about Senator Richard Russell. He led the 60-

day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964; led the southern boycott of the Democratic National Convention in 1964, after LBJ--one of the greatest Presidents ever, in my opinion--signed the Civil Rights Act.

He called the Civil Rights Act shortsighted and dangerous. Those civil rights acts, the act of 1965, when President Johnson signed it, he signed it in ink, but it was written with the blood of those who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the Honorable John Lewis having been one of them.

I remember talking to him. He said he thought he was going to die.

Signed in ink but written in blood.

John Lewis was a great and noble American.

That Civil Rights Act is probably the reason that I am here. I probably wouldn't be in Congress if not but for what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge; people who had the desire to see liberty and justice for all, but who also had the ability to take the blows to their bodies without resorting to retaliation.

If they had retaliated on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, it would have been just another melee. It would have been just another skirmish. But they didn't. And because they suffered, I am able to stand here and make these comments.

So you can well understand, I hope and I pray, that--because I know how I got here--I am not going to tolerate this. I know how I got here.

I didn't get here because I am so smart. I got here because somebody found out what a 90-pound German Shepherd bites like.

I am here because somebody understands what it is like to go to jail for a cause.

I am here because somebody understands what it is like to lose a loved one--Myrlie Evers--for a cause.

So let's not play games. I am not here to satisfy and satiate those who would say wait, give us a chance to do this on our own terms.

You have had 49 years; 49 years too many, in my opinion. So I am not going to wait. And I will be back again to talk more about this after I finish what I am about to say now.

Senator Richard Russell twice, 1949 and 1964, introduced legislation--this is a painful thing to read. This is a painful thing to have to utter--twice introduced legislation to move African Americans out of Southern States. That is Senator Richard Russell.

So dear friends, I beg your pardon if anyone takes offense at what I have said. But I must tell you, I would say it again, and probably will, given the opportunity because, at some point in life, you just have to take a stand.

The people who sent me here, they didn't send me here to go along as a result of toleration of things like this. They didn't send me here to go along so that I could move along. They sent me here to take a stand. And there are times in life when it is better to stand alone than not stand at all.

I am a liberated Democrat. I stand alone, but I stand on truth. I stand on the words of Carlyle, ``No lie can live forever.''

This is the ultimate manifestation of insidious prevarication to imply that this should be honored with the name of Russell.

Now, there are those who are going to say, well, Al Green, what would you name the building? A tactic quite often used, because when I say, well, let's name it--you complete the sentence--they will say, well, I think it ought to be named--you complete the sentence.

But that is not what I am saying, dear brothers and sisters--and I say brothers and sisters, because, in my heart, I believe there is just one race, as Dr. King put it, the human race. And I believe that all persons are created equal, from a bass black to a treble white on God's keyboard, as he put it.

So, my dear brothers and sisters, that is not what I am saying. I am saying, take this name off, Russell. I am saying, let it revert back to the name it had before Russell was placed on it. That name was the Old Senate Office Building. I am saying, let it revert back to the Old Senate Office Building, and you decide the name. The name I will leave to you until and unless there is a need to prevent this from happening again, something similar.

But there are many people worthy of having this building bear their names. This man is not worthy. This man does not deserve this honor.

So let it revert back to the Old Senate Office Building, and then do what we do; get a committee; get a commission; find a way to name it appropriately. And then I believe that those that I speak for, who do not live in the suites of life, who live in the streets of life, those that I speak for, who are among the least, the last, and the lost, those that I speak for, who are not among the well-off, the well- heeled, and the well-to-do, those that I speak for, many of whom have gone to glory, but I believe that they will find reason to know that change, long though it may be in coming, that change can take place, and that this country will be a better place for it. The country I love, by the way.

I am not the guy that you are going to tag with this mantra, this label, this caption, this style: He doesn't love his country. I love my country.

I am not the guy that you are going to tag with, he is a flag burner. I wear the flag.

You can't tag me with being a guy who refuses to stand for the national anthem. I stand and I sing the national anthem.

You can't tag me with being the guy who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I say the Pledge of Allegiance.

But now, tag me, label me as the guy who loves his country and who refuses to accept this level of bigotry, who refuses to accept allowing the tax dollars from people who are eking out a place in the world, for their tax dollars to be used for this. I am that guy. I am the guy who is going to stand up for this--against this, if you will.

Finally, this: I never came to Congress to say what I am saying. I came to Congress to help people who were in need of housing. That was what I thought I would do. I came to Congress to help people get a decent day's pay for a hard day's work.

This is not something that I planned, but it is something that I cannot stand, and I have to stand against it. There is just something that won't allow me to tolerate this.

I know that this will engender some additional detractors. I get the calls; I know. But there just comes a time in your life when you have to decide that there are some things worth making a sacrifice for. I choose to do what I do because I know how I got here.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind words. He and I spoke earlier today, and I believe that there are people who assume things about us that are just not true.

There are probably people who assume that he and I don't get along, but they don't understand that there are things that can bring people together that supersede the physicalities that we place all of our emphasis on.

I would have the world know that he and I talk and that we don't have hard conversations about the things that are important to both of us. I appreciate his kind words.

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear brother. God bless him.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and I rise with gratitude and appreciation for the Biden administration. This administration did not give up, did not give in. This administration has become now a symbol of hope and help for working class people. It is time for us to put more emphasis on the workers and less emphasis on the billionaire class.

Madam Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat unbought and unbossed.

I rise today to address the question of life and death, the question associated with the Governor of the State of Texas indicating that on tomorrow people may go out into the public and to public venues without a mask. He is leaving it to the public to make decisions associated with life and death. Life and death in Texas because the 7-day average for hospitalizations is 6,000. The number of people that died on last Sunday was 65. Life and death. And he leaves it in the hands of people who may somehow believe that he is risking his life. Not so. Not to the extent that the public will be, those who haven't been vaccinated because on December 22 of last year the Governor was vaccinated.

The Governor has resources. If by chance he should contract the virus, the Governor will have access to the finest medical care in the world. The Governor will get to the hospital expeditiously either by some car that will have some officer driving at a high rate of speed because the road will be cleared for him or he will pursue his needs by way of helicopter. The Governor has resources.

Better example. The former President, who called the virus a hoax, when he contracted the virus, he went to the finest medical center, received the finest medical care, and he survived.

His friend, who attended one of his rallies and 9 days later contracted the virus, died. This is a matter of life and death. The virus has not dissipated. It has not gone away.

So to the people of Texas, I love you, but I say this to you: If you don't have the resources that the Governor has, if you don't have a helicopter, if you don't have access to the best medical care in the world, if you don't have a doctor that will be waiting on you when you get to the hospital, if you have to go to the emergency room--the Governor won't go to the emergency room, he will bypass that.

So if you can bypass the emergency room and you can have the finest medical care in the world, maybe you should consider going into public venues without a mask. But if not, remember, it is a question of life and death, and the life you save may very well be your own.