Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following votes:

1. H.R. 374, To remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public Law 105-384, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill.

2. H.R. 538, Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this bill.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes:

H. Res. 40, Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO'' on this bill.

H. Res. 40, Rule Providing for consideration of both H.R. 78--SEC Regulatory Accountability Act and H.R. 238--Commodity End-User Relief Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO'' on this bill.

H.R. 39, TALENT Act of 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor for me to stand here in the well of the House to know that I am one of less than 450 people in the world who have been accorded the preeminent privilege of standing in the well of the Congress of the United States of America.

It is an honor to stand here at this podium with a rostrum behind me with the word ``Justice'' etched in it. Right behind me, ``Justice'' is etched into the rostrum. You can't see it at home because it is low, and it is beneath the view of the camera.

Today, I want to talk about justice, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about justice and the Justice Department. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because we have a President-elect who has said he will be a law and order President. I want to make a distinction between law and order and justice, and I want to attribute this to the Justice Department versus a law and order department.

Mr. Speaker, you can have law and order in a dungeon, but you won't have justice. There is law and order in North Korea, but you don't have justice. Justice, Mr. Speaker, is what this Department is all about. It is not the law and order department. One of the best ways to explain it is to harken back to something that was called to our attention yesterday at the hearing for the nominee to become the head of the Justice Department.

When the Honorable John Lewis spoke, he went back to 1965, and the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge. On that day, George Wallace--one of the great segregationists of his time and, perhaps, the greatest segregationist of his time--had made it perspicuously clear to his troops that, if you maintain order, there will be law to protect you. As a result, those troops beat the marches all the way back to the church where they started. They were peaceful protesters. The Honorable John Lewis said he thought he might die. That is what law and order meant to a good many people in the South.

Law and order without justice is what took place on that day; but thank God there was a judge, the Honorable Frank M. Johnson. The Honorable Frank M. Johnson issued the order to allow those marches to move from Selma to Montgomery, and he did it notwithstanding his classmate George Wallace having said that they were banned from doing it. This was justice, not law and order alone. This is our fear--that the Justice Department will go back to the hands of someone who may consider it a law and order department and a department in which there is a belief that you can do anything to maintain the order and that there will be law to support your actions and activities.

Mr. Speaker, we must protect the notion of justice for all people in this country. This is why I was there yesterday to lend my support to Senator Booker when he spoke about justice and when he indicated that he could not support the nominee. I was honored to be there, seated right near the Honorable John Lewis when he said he could not support the nominee. I was also honored to be there with the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Cedric Richmond, when he indicated: If this nominee is a civil rights advocate, why is the civil rights community so opposed to him? I think those were some very sage comments.

I must tell you that we in this country have come too far to allow the Justice Department to become the law and order department.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I think it appropriate to point out what the style of this bill is, what the words on the actual bill say. There seems to be some confusion with my colleagues on the other side as to whether or not this is a mom-and-pop bill.

The bill itself says, ``A bill to improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the cost and benefits of its regulations and orders.''

The Securities and Exchange Commission deals with Wall Street, deals with megabusinesses. This is not about a mom-and-pop store. This is not about the small business in the neighborhood. This is about megabusinesses desiring to have access to markets without the regulations necessary to protect investors.

This bill, if it passes, will place the SEC in a mission impossible position because it will be impossible for the SEC to do what it needs to do to promote regulations that will prevent fraud. Either litigation will stop them or they won't be able to define and quantify the benefits associated with regulation that can prevent fraud.

A good example has been presented, but some things bear repeating. If we had produced regulations that would have prevented Bernie Madoff from robbing the country of $64 billion, we wouldn't have known it, we couldn't quantify it, because it wasn't knowable.

This bill puts the SEC in a position of having to do that which is not knowable because it would prevent fraud.

Now, having said this, the Waters amendment will at least allow us to curtail some of the conflicts of interest that can take place by persons who will come from some entity that works with persons on Wall Street or when they leave, go to an entity that works with Wall Street. Our regulators ought not be able to take their rules and regulations to companies and businesses that will impact Wall Street after they leave or impact their businesses once they are on Wall Street.

This amendment that the Honorable Maxine Waters has presented would cause the SEC to identify, analyze, and address potential conflicts of interest in its proposed rules, and it would go on to make sure that persons who work for the SEC do not create conflicts of interest.

We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right; they must also look right. It doesn't look right for these Wall Street types, the persons from Goldman Sachs and related industries who will come to Wall Street, take jobs, and promote rules that benefit their former employers, nor does it look right for them to produce rules that will benefit employers that they will go to when they leave Wall Street.

That is what this amendment will prevent. It is simple. It is not complicated, and it deals with conflicts of interest. I think this amendment ought to be supported.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, let me say this in my 1 minute. It appears that the other side believes that nothing is better because that is what this bill would cause the SEC to produce--nothing. It would stagnate the SEC. It would place the SEC in litigation. It would literally decimate the SEC because you cannot quantify bills or regulations that will prevent fraud. You can't quantify it. I have given you the example.

I know the public is listening. You need to weigh in on this, members of the public, because this is not about mom-and-pops. It is about megacorporations. This piece of legislation that Ms. Waters offers at least

will deal with conflicts of interest beyond the person who happens to work with the SEC, which is what has been addressed. It will deal with conflicts of interest as they relate to the businesses that they will go to or the businesses that they have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would exclude from this bill regulations that would promote financial stability and prevent or reduce systemic risk. I have indicated previously that we are concerned about the bill's unintended consequence--I don't think that my colleagues are doing this with malice aforethought--the unintended consequence of stagnating the SEC to the point that it cannot produce regulations that will prevent fraud. Nowhere in the bill does it exempt regulation that will prevent fraud.

I believe that this will help us because the bill needs to allow the SEC the ability to move at the speed of innovation. These products are coming on the market. The best way for the SEC to be able to react to them efficaciously would be for the SEC to have rulemaking authority at the same speed of the innovation.

I hope that we won't allow the SEC to be bogged down with a cost- benefit

analysis that is impossible to produce and that, when produced, will produce litigation. Again, I think this is a reasoned, thoughtful amendment. I trust that it will be adopted.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I would remind my friend across the aisle that the Volcker rule does deal with systemic risk. I would remind him that the SEC does play a role in regulating systemic risk.

Having said that, let's just talk again. And I would engage in a colloquy with you and use my time. Explain to me how you would quantify a regulation designed to prevent fraud such as the fraud perpetrated by Madoff.

How would you quantify it in dollars and cents? Because that is what you are all about, dollars and cents. How do you quantify that?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it does have to do--you are trying to divert us from the actual problem, which is regulations that can prevent fraud.

How do you propose to quantify in dollars and cents regulations that will prevent fraud when the fraud that can be perpetrated is not knowable?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, there is no way for anyone to have known.

I reclaim my time. There is no way for anyone to have known what Bernie Madoff was going to do. It was not knowable. You are imposing a mission impossible upon the SEC.

There is a real question that has to be answered today, Mr. Chair, or at some point in the future: Does Congress regulate Wall Street or does Wall Street regulate Congress?

Now, this is a serious question because that is what this kind of regulation gives us the image of being a part of.

Wall Street wants this. This benefits Wall Street. It doesn't benefit mom and pops. It doesn't benefit Main Street. It benefits megacorporations. And you can couch the language in any clever way that you want.

In the final analysis, this is all about megacorporations being able to do things that would prevent--that would not be in the best interest of investors. Investors who are listening to this. You ought to be concerned. This impacts you. If this legislation passes, your opportunity to participate in Wall Street with regulations that are going to prevent fraud from being perpetrated upon you--similar to what Madoff perpetrated--will not be possible.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me simply say this: People who are viewing this at home should become very much concerned about the direction that we are headed in. This is a new Congress and here we are currently trying to emasculate the SEC by putting it in a position such that it cannot produce rules to protecting investors; by requiring it to know the unknowable; to know that a rule that you are putting in place to prevent fraud has a quantifiable dollar amount that you can produce so that you can measure that against the cost of producing the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I propose would benefit the SEC and investors.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for the recitation. It was very touching, very moving, and I just want to commend him for keeping the memory alive. Thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, I am honored tonight to thank the leadership and to thank the Members of Congress who have been supportive of this resolution that we bring to the floor for a discussion. This is a resolution that honors the NAACP.

This resolution is not new to the Congress of the United States of America because, in 2006, it actually passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote and then, in 2007, it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 410-0; in 2008, 403-0; 2009, 424-0; and 2010, 421-0.

I thank the leadership and the Members of this body for the support it has shown to the NAACP with the passage of this resolution through the years.

I am honored to be a member of the NAACP. I take great pride in my membership. I have a life membership in the NAACP. I have been fortunate enough to serve on the board of the Houston branch of the NAACP. I served for nearly a decade as president of the Houston branch of the NAACP, and I have been the beneficiary of the NAACP's works. The NAACP has made America the beautiful a more beautiful America.

Tonight, Madam Speaker, I would like to continue this discussion of the NAACP. I would like to say just a few words first about the founding of the NAACP. It was founded on this day 106 years ago--106 years ago--when approximately 60 people answered what was called the call.

It was a clarion call for persons to come together to talk about and discuss a means by which lynching could be dealt with. Of the 60 people, about seven were African Americans. The NAACP is not now and never has been an organization that has been supported by only African Americans or what some might call a Black organization. It has always been an integrated organization.

After having been founded in 1909, February 12, 106 years ago, the NAACP did embark upon a campaign to end lynching in the United States of America, a sad chapter in our history, but one that we must never forget because we never want to see these things happen again.

As things are doing well now in this area of lynching--we don't have lynchings in the United States of

America, generally speaking, we understand the adage--the premise--that if you don't remember your history, there is a possibility that it can be repeated.

For this reason, we talk about these things. They are a sad chapter in our history, but it is a chapter that we dare not forget. The NAACP, in embarking on this campaign to end lynching, published a publication in 1919 that was styled ``30 Years of Lynching in the United States.''

It is interesting to note that lynching was so prevalent in the United States that the great Billie Holiday--the great Billie Holiday-- sang a song, she was known for this song, styled ``Strange Fruit.''

This was a song that she could only sing in certain places because this was one of the first songs that dealt with the protest movement around this notion of civil rights and human rights for African Americans. This song was first presented in New York at a nightclub, the Cafe Society.

When she first presented the song, she had much fear and much consternation because she wasn't sure how it would be received. After she finished singing the song, there was a silence. For a moment, she thought that it would not be well received.

Then one person, as is the case with many movements, one person started to applaud and, after that, one person, then another and another. Then she received a very loud ovation for this song.

I am going to share the words to the song with us tonight because this song is probably one of her signature songs, but it is also a song that predated ``We Shall Overcome,'' which was a part of the civil rights movement, the contemporary civil rights movement.

These are the words to the song, and you will have some appreciation for why I am mentioning it to you. The words are:

Southern trees bear a strange fruit,

Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,

Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze,

Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Of course, we know that this song is referring to the lynchings that were taking place. In fact, between 1882 and 1968, according to Tuskegee Institute, there were 3,446 African Americans lynched in the United States of America--a sad chapter in our history.

This is why the NAACP came into being. In part, it was established to ensure political, educational, social, and economic equality for all persons--for all persons--not just African Americans, not just Blacks, not just as we were known at that time, Negroes, but for all persons; and it was established as well to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination--all noble challenges and challenges that we would easily embrace today.

At that time, when the NAACP was founded, because of lynchings that were taking place and because of a desire to make sure that all persons were treated fairly and equally, it was a difficult thing to do.

The NAACP, I am proud to say, has a history of being on the right side of right. It is consistently on the right side of right. The NAACP was on the right side of right in 1948 and 1953 when it filed and won the lawsuits Shelley v. Kraemer and Barrows v. Jackson. These lawsuits dealt with restrictive covenants.

There was a time in this country when persons could restrict the sale of property to people simply because of who they were, the hue of their skin, restrict the sale of property to people because of the way they looked.

These two lawsuits were taken to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and were won. If the truth be told, we sleep where we sleep and we live where we live because of the NAACP, because the NAACP was on the right side of right.

What is interesting about this proposition of being on the right side of right, Madam Speaker, is the notion that when you are what I call-- what some others would call a Monday morning quarterback, but what I call a hindsight quarterback--a hindsight quarterback, that is my phrase--when you are a hindsight quarterback, it is easy to be on the right side of right because others have had to suffer the slings and arrows associated with being on the right side of right at the right time, in the right place, in the right space. The NAACP has dared to be on the right side of right when it was very difficult to be there.

In 1948 and 1953, when Shelley v. Kraemer and Barrows v. Jackson were litigated, it was not easy to be on the right side of right, to talk about integrating neighborhoods, to talk about selling property to anybody if they could pay the price of the cost of the property.

Being on the right side of right means something in the country that we know and love. It means something in a country that stands for the proposition of liberty and justice for all, a country that stands for the notion that government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It means something to be on the right side of right; hence it means something to have an organization like the NAACP that will step forward using litigation when necessary, protests when needed, but always a peaceful means to a just end. The NAACP has been there and has always been consistently on the right side of right.

The NAACP was on the right side of right in 1954 when it won the lawsuit Brown v. Board of Education. I would daresay that we eat where we eat because of the NAACP and we go to the schools that we go to because of the NAACP.

The NAACP took that lawsuit to the Supreme Court under the leadership of the Honorable Thurgood Marshall with the aid and assistance of the honorable Charles Hamilton Houston and won that lawsuit, placing the NAACP again on the right side of right, overturning decades of injustice with one single lawsuit. The NAACP made a difference in the lives of all Americans.

The truth be told, if we did not have the NAACP, we would have to create it because you need an organization like the NAACP. You need an organization that is willing to take a bold stand in difficult times, an organization that understands that it is not easy to be on the right side of right, but that understands also that a great country has to move forward, and to do so, it must be on the right side of right.

Let me pause for just a moment because we have had a great sage come into the Chamber tonight. He is, of course, the sage from New York. We know him as the Honorable Charlie Rangel.

I know him as a friend to all of humanity, a person who has consistently been on the right side of right, a person who speaks with clarity, with force, sincerity, and he actually calls them as he sees them, without any fear and without any belief that there are consequences that can be of great harm to him, such that he should not speak truth to power.

Tonight, I am honored to ask my dear friend if he would join me and give his commentary on the NAACP.

I will now yield to the gentleman from New York City, the Honorable Charles Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Thank you very much, Mr. Rangel, for your very eloquent recitation. Once again, you have risen, you have stepped up to the plate, and we are most appreciative that you took a moment to come over and be with us. Thank you very much.

If I may now, we have another Member of the Congress with us from the 18th Congressional District in the State of Texas. She is a voice for the voiceless, a very powerful voice, not only in Congress, but across the length and breadth of the country when it comes to human rights, human dignity, and human decency.

I am honored to have my colleague with me tonight, the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, who is adjacent to me, the Ninth Congressional District in Houston, Texas. The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

Thank you very much. I applaud you for your very kind words about the NAACP, and I also compliment you for giving us additional examples of the NAACP being on the right side of right-- the right side of right.

With the history that it has for being on the right side of right, one can imagine 100 years from now, when someone looks through the vista of time back upon this time, when the NAACP is the champion right now for voting rights, who will be on the right side of right when we look back?

I think that is important for us to consider because we never want to be on the wrong side of history, but we are in a situation right now where it will take some courage for some people to be on the right side of right as we tackle this question of voting rights, voting rights that have been diminished by the evisceration of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which emasculated section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which means that there is no coverage. We have to now find a way to reinstate section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Who will be on the right side of right? Who will be with the NAACP? When we look back 100 years from now and we examine these circumstances and we understand that it was not easy to be on the right side of right, who will be there so that we can accomplish, again, what the NAACP has fought for for many decades in this country?

I thank you, again, Madam Speaker. I thank the leadership for this opportunity. Our time has expired, but our energies are still with us, and we will continue to be a part of this great august organization known as the NAACP, as it continues to be on the right side of right.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for allowing me to be a designee for this moment in time.

I am also very appreciative for this special time. This is Black History Month, and it is a very special month in the life of African Americans. But if the truth be told, it is a special month in the life of all Americans because Black history is American history.

I had the opportunity just a couple of nights ago to appear on the floor with a couple of my colleagues, the Honorable Donald Payne, Jr., from New Jersey and the Honorable Robin Kelly from Illinois. They were here to have a Special Order hour. I want to compliment them because that Special Order hour, indeed, dealt with a lot of Black history. They talked about 50

years from Selma--where we were, where we are now, and where we are headed. They did such a great job that I thought it appropriate to acknowledge the outstanding effort and the fact that a good number of Members were very supportive of what they did. I am honored to also say that we plan to continue that tonight with this Special Order time, and we will talk about Black History Month, but from a slightly different perspective.

We are honored to say that this resolution that we have introduced into Congress--it was introduced on January 6, 2015--this is the ninth time that I have had the pleasure of introducing this resolution, and it has 24 original cosponsors. And I want to thank all of the original cosponsors for being a part of helping this resolution come to the floor for this Special Order time.

We are not here for the purpose of passage, but we are here for the purpose of expressing much about Black history and explaining why this resolution is so important. It is important not only to me and the people in my district, which is, quite frankly, one of the most diverse districts in the country--in my district, the ballot is printed in four languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Hence, Black History Month is important to not only the African Americans in my district, but all of the other friends, associates, and constituents that I have in my district. They constantly talk to me about Black History Month. We talked about other aspects of history as well, but tonight we will focus on Black history.

It is important to note that this is the 100th anniversary of the organization that promoted and promulgated Black History Month. This organization, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, founded by the Honorable Carter G. Woodson, is the organization that has carried the torch, the flame of hope for history to be inclusive, and they have done an outstanding job.

There was a time that I can remember in my lifetime, in my history book, when there was little mention of the accomplishments of African Americans in history; and in world history, even less. I remember one of my books proclaimed that the reason there was little mention of the nations, the countries in Africa was because they contributed very little to history. Literally, that was the kind of statement that I had to read as a child.

Well, I am honored that we have come a long way from a point wherein we were rarely included to a point where we are included, but I think not enough yet. My hope is that at some point in time we won't have a Black History Month, we won't have any type of history month other than history on a daily basis, because at that point in time we will have included all persons and all of the great cultures in this country in the history of our great Nation.

Black history does not mean that Black people assume that they are better than anyone else. It just means that they would like to be included in history because they believe that no one else is better than we are. We are all the same. We are all God's children, and we all bring special talents and special attributes that make this great country the wonderful place that it is.

Tonight, in talking about this century of Black life, history, and culture in this, the United States of America--and we could make it the world--but let's just talk about the United States since the organization the Association for the Study of African American Life and History was founded in the United States--this is the 100th anniversary--I will ask the question and give some examples of why this question is so important.

The question that I pose tonight is with reference to the giants that we know about in history, and we stand on the shoulders of giants--we all do--the shoulders of giants, people who have done great things to make it possible for us to have these great opportunities that we have, people who suffered many of the slings and arrows of life so that others could have a better quality of life. Many of them are well known. We stand on the shoulders tonight of giants.

The question that I pose is: Whose shoulders do the giants stand on? If we stand on the shoulders of giants, whose shoulders do they stand on?

Thurgood Marshall, one of the greatest litigators in the history of the United States of America, won 29 of 32 cases before the Supreme Court. He was a great litigator and went on to become a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the first African American, a giant.

I stand on the shoulders of Thurgood Marshall. A good many people in this Congress stand directly on the shoulders of Thurgood Marshall, in that we are here because of some of the litigation that he won before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We stand on the shoulders of Thurgood Marshall.

On whose shoulders does Thurgood Marshall stand on? Well, the person that probably shaped his legal career more than any other was the honorable Charles Hamilton Houston. Charles Hamilton Houston was a Harvard lawyer. He was a person who was the dean of the law school at Howard University.

He was the person who concluded that the Constitution of the United States of America did not condone ``separate but equal,'' the person who is said to have killed Jim Crow, the person who was a part of all of the lawsuits of the civil rights era from 1930 to 1954, including Brown v. Board of Education, the honorable Charles Hamilton Houston. He is the person that cultivated and mentored Thurgood Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall came to Howard University after having been a reject at the University of Maryland. He tried to get in, and he could not. In a strange sort of way, it compels me to say: Thank God for the University of Maryland because had they not rejected Thurgood Marshall, he would not have come to Howard University.

There is a good likelihood he would not have met Charles Hamilton Houston and, as a result, may not have acquired the intelligence that Charles Hamilton Houston provided a plethora of lawyers about the Constitution as it relates to ``separate but equal.'' It was Thurgood Marshall who became his prize student. Thurgood Marshall, along with Charles Hamilton Houston, became two of the great litigators to bring down Jim Crow.

One of the cases that Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston brought before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the one that stands out more than any other, is the case of Murray v. Pearson.

In that case, Murray wanted to get into the University of Maryland as well. Isn't it ironic that Thurgood Marshall, who could not get into the institution and who went to Howard University, had the opportunity to become the understudy, if you will, of the honorable Charles Hamilton Houston? Isn't it ironic that the circle comes back to the University of Maryland with one of his first cases after completing law school?

Thurgood Marshall was the lead counsel, along with the honorable Charles Hamilton Houston, against the University of Maryland to bring about an opportunity for the use of the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' being attacked with constitutional provisions, and they were successful.

I am proud to know that while Thurgood Marshall is the giant, a Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall is known far and wide for his legal prowess. He stood on the shoulders of an even greater giant, an unsung hero to some extent. Well, now, we do know much more about Charles Hamilton Houston than previously in previous years.

It is important to note that he is not the person who has received all of the glory, all of the platitudes, and all of the accolades that Thurgood Marshall received, but he was the architect. I am proud to say that Thurgood Marshall stood on the shoulders of a giant.

Let's go on. Let's talk now about another giant of the civil rights- human rights movement, and that was Rosa Parks. Everyone knows the story--most everyone does--about how Rosa Parks decided that she was going to take her seat. Rosa Parks was a giant. She decided to take a seat in what was, at that time, a racist Southern town.

The story is told that Rosa Parks was tired and that she just had to take her seat because she was tired--not true my friends, not true.

Rosa Parks was an officer in the local NAACP. Rosa Parks was a person

with great standing and credibility in her community. Rosa Parks had stature. Rosa Parks had the backing of the NAACP. Rosa Parks had people who could get her out of jail.

She had people who could work with her and help to stage, if you will, in the minds of some, this moment in time when she literally decided that she was not going to move back nor stand up so that her seat could be held and had by a person of a different hue.

It was a bold thing to do. It was a very bold thing to do in the South, the segregated South at that time, the segregated South where the Constitution accorded us all of the rights of other citizens, but our friends and neighbors denied us those rights that the Constitution accorded us. This was the segregated South, and this was Rosa Parks. She decided to take that seat, backed by the NAACP and backed by a host of persons who were prepared to work with her and support her.

The truth be told, the honorable Rosa Parks, who is considered by many the ``mother of the civil rights movement,'' the honorable Rosa Parks stands and stood at that time on the shoulders of a giant. She stood on the shoulders of a giant that we rarely hear about and rarely read about.

It is the story of a giant who was but 15 years of age at the time she made her mark, if you will, in history. It is the story of a giant who was arrested 9 months before Rosa Parks for doing the same thing that Rosa Park did. She was a 15-year-old girl, Claudette Colvin. She was the first person arrested under the circumstances comparable to Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama.

She went to jail. Little is known about her. Little is known because it was thought at the time that she was not the ideal person around which to rally. It was thought at the time that a more senior person was needed, a person who had greater standing in the community. She was not that person.

Ah, but here is where history--history--tells the story. She was one of four people to file the lawsuit--the lawsuit--that ultimately ended segregation of the bus line in Montgomery, Alabama.

Although Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and the multitudes marched and protested, they marched and they protested for approximately a year or more, it was not the march or protest that actually brought about the ending of this form of invidious discrimination. It was really the lawsuit, Browder v. Gayle. It is important to note that there were four plaintiffs in the lawsuit and that Claudette Colvin was one of those four plaintiffs.

It was that lawsuit that made the difference in the lives of not only those people in Montgomery, but people across the length and breadth of this country because that was one of the first times that the opinion expressed in Brown v. Board of Education was expanded to include public transportation. That was an important, significant event in history.

It was Rosa Parks who received a lot of the credit. I love her, and I think she deserves all the credit she received, but I also think there are these unsung heroes and heroines who have not received their fair share of credit for what they too have done. In fact, they are the shoulders that giants stand on. Claudette Colvin is the giant on whose shoulders Rosa Parks stood on.

Moving to another giant, we all know of Dr. King, and last week and earlier this week, we talked a lot about Selma, and we talked about the march that took place there.

In talking about that march, we talked about how people assembled at a church, and they decided that they were going to march peacefully from Selma to Montgomery. As they proceeded to march, they came to a turning point in history. They came to one of those seminal moments in history that will forever define the life of a country, to be quite candid.

They came to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and they confronted the constabulary on the other side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge. If you have not gone to the Edmond Pettus Bridge, you should go and see the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

If you understand the times that these persons were living in, you have to realize that these were some brave, courageous, and bold souls to be willing to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, knowing that the constabulary was on the other side with clubs and on horses.

You have to ask yourself candidly: Would you have confronted what you knew was waiting for you in the form of possible death on the Edmond Pettus Bridge?

The Honorable John Lewis indicates that he thought he was going to die that day because, when confronted by the constabulary with these clubs, they beat the marchers all the way back to the church.

If you see the movie ``Selma,'' you can get a fair depiction and representation of what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. There will be another march this year across the Edmond Pettus Bridge. For those who are interested, I am Congressman Al Green. You can call my office, and we will tell you about it. You might want to join us.

Let's talk about the Edmond Pettus Bridge and this march. Dr. King was not there for Bloody Sunday. There were reasons that compelled him to do some other things in his life. There were other persons there. The Honorable John Lewis was one of them.

In a sense, when Dr. King came back--or he came to Selma following Bloody Sunday to march, he was standing on the shoulders of those who had already gone before him and confronted this constabulary.

Let's really take a closer look at the history--at the history that we rarely talk about and hear about as it relates to the Edmund Pettus Bridge because there is a person that I conclude is the greatest unsung hero of the civil rights movement who had a hidden hand in the march from Selma to Montgomery.

When they went back to make the final march with Dr. King, as they moved across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they had a hidden hand that had signed a court order. That court order was signed by the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, a Republican appointee to a Federal court, appointed by the Honorable President Dwight Eisenhower.

Frank M. Johnson signed the order clearing the way for them to march from Selma to Montgomery. And it is interesting to note that he was a contemporary of George Wallace. In fact, they were classmates. He and George Wallace had a constant confrontation, a mild form of confrontation, sometimes it got a little bit more than mild, but they continually battled each other. Frank M. Johnson was so much of an impact on the times that he had to be guarded 24 hours a day. He was a Federal judge unlike any other. In fact, Dr. King said he put the justice in the word ``justice,'' the Honorable Frank M. Johnson.

So the question becomes, on whose shoulders did Dr. King stand on that day when they marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge? On whose shoulders did the marchers stand on? They stood on the shoulders of a hidden hand of the civil rights movement, the Honorable Frank M. Johnson.

Frank M. Johnson integrated schools, he integrated the jury system. He changed the face of the South, and so little is known about this giant on the shoulders of whom many of the great icons of the civil rights movement stood on that day. This is not to demean or diminish-- obviously, we can't--the role of Dr. King and the Honorable John Lewis; this is simply to say there are others whose stories are not told enough, whose stories should be told more.

And on an occasion like this when we want to celebrate Black history, I think we have to acknowledge that there were unsung heroes and heroines on whose shoulders many of the giants stood on. And we also have to acknowledge that many of these unsung heroes and heroines are not of African ancestry. You see, there really is a White side to Black history. Frank M. Johnson is a part of this White side of Black history. But we also must know that Frank M. Johnson, the great hero that he was, is not in the history that we speak of, is not celebrated to the extent that he should be.

So tonight, I want to say to the family and friends, relatives, those who knew him, we celebrate him tonight. We celebrate the Honorable Charles Hamilton Houston tonight. We celebrate the Honorable Claudette Colvin

tonight. These are persons who were in the shadows but who made a difference, and giants stood on their shoulders.

Now to close. Let's go back to the Edmund Pettus Bridge because a significant thing occurred. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge when they marched across, at that time there were five African Americans in Congress; there were four Latino Americans in Congress, Hispanic Americans; and there were three Asian Pacific Islanders in Congress. Now, rather than five African Americans, we have 48. Rather than four Hispanic Members, we have 38. Rather than three Asian Pacific Americans, we have 14. I would also note that there were 14 females in Congress at that time. We now have 104.

Crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge provided the world an opportunity to see the horrors of invidious discrimination, of onerous segregation, the horrors that people, decent God-fearing human beings in the South, had to suffer. And it provided the President of the United States, the Honorable President from the State of Texas, Lyndon Johnson, the opportunity to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

That Civil Rights Act is in no small part why I happen to stand before you in the Congress of the United States of America. I stand on the shoulders of many giants. Many of them are known to us, but there are a good many of them who are not known to us, and I am proud to say that during this time of Black History Month, it is appropriate for us to acknowledge them and celebrate them for what they have done to make it possible for many of us to have the opportunities that we have.

And today, as we look back and we revisit the Special Order hour, ``50 Years Ago From Selma: Where Are We and Where Are We Headed?,'' I must tell you, in concluding, that we are headed back to the future. We are headed back to the future because the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which accorded us the many opportunities that we have today, that Civil Rights Act of 1965, section 4 of it has been eviscerated. And as a result of the evisceration of section 4, we have seen, unfortunately, section 5 of the act lose its potency because without section 4, you don't have a section 5. Section 5 has been emasculated; section 4 eviscerated, section 5 emasculated. Section 5 is there, but it does not have the coverage areas that it is to address. And so without section 5, we find ourselves back to a point in time wherein we will have to again relitigate the whole question of the right to vote, to a certain extent--very limited--but also in this context the means by which we were able to secure many of the seats in Congress that the 48 Members presently enjoy.

So without that section 5, an effective, potent section 5, we find ourselves with a circumstance where we are looking back now to that future, that future that is going to require us to do some heavy lifting to reinstate section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

And, as they marched once before, we will march once again this year. My hope is that we will be able to in this Congress come to a bipartisan conclusion that section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is still important to a good many people, and that we will work together to revitalize section 4 of the Voting Rights Act so as to give section 5 the potency it needs to provide the coverage that has been of great benefit to us.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to share these thoughts at this moment in time about some of the great heroes and heroines and some of the unsung heroes of the civil rights movement. I thank you, and I thank the leadership for allowing us this time to celebrate Black History Month in these, the great United States of America. God bless you, and God bless our great country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I welcome the opportunity to stand with you, my dear friend. Thank you.

We are classmates.

I do. And if I may say, I rarely think of sides of the aisle when you and I are talking. It doesn't become a significant factor in our lives as we converse and we celebrate our friendship.

What a wonderful thought.

I appreciate you sharing that vignette with me because it is very much heartfelt. It is good to have a person to tell the actual story. If you have read it, you will know of what I speak; if you haven't, I commend it to you--Dr. King's ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail.''

It is one of the greatest pieces of literary history, saving a few holy books, I would say. It is absolutely one of the best stories of what that time was like. Dr. King talks about how he had to explain to his children why they couldn't go to a certain theme park, and how he could see the clouds over their heads as they were saddened by their inability to go to the theme park because of who they were.

I ask people to please read that letter because it really parallels what you are saying tonight here on the floor of the House of Representatives. You are right--we have come a long way from those times. These times are difficult in a different way, however. There is still great work to be done, and you and I can work together to get some of this additional great work done.

But notwithstanding all that I have said tonight, I conclude with this: On a bad day, it is still good to live in the USA.

On a bad day when your spouse wants to leave you, or on a bad day when your puppy wants to bite you, let your puppy bite you and let your spouse leave you, in the United States of America, on a bad day, it is still good to live in the USA.

Thank you very much.

I was not and probably someone prior to Ned Wade. There were other lawyers who were there long before us.

Well, thank you.

I know that your time is of the essence, and you have been very generous with me, Mr. Fortenberry.

Will the gentleman allow one additional comment? The Honorable Ted Poe and I have had a friendship for many, many years. He is imminently correct. We were on different sides of the table, literally, in the courtroom, but we never allowed many of the political maneuvers of the time, the political issues of the time, to prevent us from being friends, and we brought that friendship to the Congress of the United States of America.

While there is still great work to be done--even in the courts, there is still great work to be done. There is great work to be done in the area of litigation that still is matriculating through the courts, but we still have to acknowledge that it is a better time to do it now than to do it then.

We have greater friendships and greater opportunities. On a bad day, it is still good to live in the USA.

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Speaker, because time is of the essence, please allow me to get right to my message.

Where were we in 1965? I will relate this to Congress. In 1965, when they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, there were five African American Members of Congress. Now there are 48. In 1965, there were four Latino Members of Congress. Now there are 38. There were three Asian Americans in Congress. Now we have a total of 14. There were 14 women in Congress. We now have 104.

Where were we? We were at a point in our history when it was turning for us, but it was a bloody point in our history because, when President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he signed it in ink, but it was written in blood. It was written in the blood of the people who crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, in the blood of the people who lived and died so that some of us could have these opportunities to serve in the Congress of the United States of America. That is where we were.

We have progressed. We have more Members of Congress, but in a true sense, it is back to the future because we have seen the evisceration of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which emasculated section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, meaning you don't have any States or any territories under section 4 so you cannot preclear them under section 5. We are now back to a point wherein we have to find a way to revitalize and to reinstate section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

I am sorry that the time has run out, but I do want to say this: if we with only five Members of Congress could get a Voting Rights Act passed, one would think that with 48 we can get it reinstated.

Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose H.R. 30, wrongfully named the Save American Workers Act of 2015. H.R. 30 does not ``save'' American workers, rather it endangers the health insurance of up to a million American workers. H.R. 30 would eviscerate and emasculate the Affordable Care Act: It raises the threshold of hours employees must work before they are eligible for employee-based health insurance from 30 to 40.

Why, Mr. Speaker, would we choose to weaken the Affordable Care Act when Gallup reported, on January 7, 2015, that in the last quarter of 2014 the uninsured rate dropped to a record low of 12.9%? The Affordable Care Act is working as it was intended to work, and the 114th Congress should be working to strengthen and improve it rather than weaken and repeal it.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, passing the Affordable Care Act was the right thing to do in 2010 and standing up to defend it is the right thing to do today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that I stand at the podium today to thank two Members of Congress who last week took the lead on LEAD. LEAD is Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. I want to thank Congresspersons Jolly and Reichert for what they did on last Friday in paying a special tribute, if you will, to the 900,000-plus who serve us as peace officers in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that in my family I had an uncle who was a peace officer, and he had an influence on my life that literally changed the course of my life and set me on the course that I currently am pursuing. My uncle and I were riding along together, and I was asking a lot of questions. He made a statement that became indelible with me. He said: This boy is asking so many questions, I think he is going to be a lawyer.

I was younger than 10. I don't think I knew what a lawyer was. I am not sure how old I was. I remember I was very young. But I also remember that if my uncle thought that being a lawyer was a good thing for me, then that was a thing that I should do.

This was a peace officer, a police officer, a deputy sheriff that had a lasting impact on my life. I am so grateful for his service to his community and the way he has been an outstanding citizen in his community. His name is Dallas Yates.

I am proud to tell you that when I saw these Congresspersons paying tribute to peace officers, police officers, I concluded that I would have to add to the Record some thoughts because there is a phrase that we use quite often when we reference peace officers. It is styled, ``in the line of duty''--``in the line of duty.'' And officers do so many things in the line of duty. Some of these things, quite frankly, are not things that they are expected to do, but they do them anyway.

The Washington Post reported that two officers delivered a baby on Christmas Day in the line of duty. They were on duty when they did it. Officers are not trained to deliver babies, but when called upon, they take the lead to do what needs to be done.

Think of the thousands of people who have been stranded and who were helped by peace officers: flood victims helped by peace officers, persons with something as simple as a flat tire helped by police officers, all in the course and scope of their duty. And then, of course, we have officers who have literally gone into fires to save lives. It has been reported that officers have done this. In fact, the Tulsa World recently reported that an officer saved a life from a fire in the line of duty, in the course and scope of duty.

That phrase means a lot more than simply lending a helping hand. ``In the line of duty'' means sometimes that officers lose their lives. In this country, we had 27 officers die in 2013 as a result of felonious incidents all occurring in the line of duty. We had 49 that died from accidents in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, when this term is used now, ``in the line of duty,'' to refer to these officers who make the ultimate sacrifice so that others may have a better life, you have better appreciation for what ``in the line of duty'' means. It is more than mere words. It means sacrifice. Many families have had to mourn the loss of a loved one in the line of duty.

So I am proud to salute the officers--the 900,000-plus--and I thank the Congresspersons who led the discussion celebrating, appreciating, and commemorating those who have served and have gone on to make their transition in the line of duty.

I think it appropriate to close with these words that express some thoughts about how we measure our lives and how the life of a person is measured and appreciated. Ruth Smeltzer reminds us:

Some measure their lives by days and years,

Others by heartthrobs, passion, and tears.

But the surest measure under the sun

Is what in your lifetime for others you have done.

I want to thank the 900,000-plus officers for what they have done for others in their lifetime in the line of duty. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the rule of law. For that reason, today on the first annual Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (L.E.A.D), I would like to honor our brave men and women in both state as well as federal law enforcement agencies. In our nation, we have approximately 900,000 law enforcement officials. Without these hardworking individuals, who constantly risk their lives, the rule of law would not be possible. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 76 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line-of-duty in 2013, 27 deaths were the result of felonious, criminal acts by perpetrators. My own home state of Texas has lost more officers than any other state in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my life I have been truly inspired by the professionalism and devotion to public safety of those in law enforcement. I know I speak for many people of good will when I say I wholeheartedly support the efforts of law enforcement officers to serve and protect our communities and our country. Additionally, we will not let the questionable actions of a few individuals acting under the color of law besmirch the reputation and legacy of all law enforcement officers in our great nation.

Section 3:

``Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.''

Madam Speaker, I am honored to stand here today as a Member of the Congress of the United States of America, and I am grateful to my constituents for allowing me to serve in this capacity.

My district is a very diverse one. It contains the greatest medical center in the world, the Houston Medical Center, and it contains the first domed stadium, the Astrodome. We speak more than 80 different languages, and the ballot in the Ninth Congressional District in the State of Texas is printed in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. We are indeed a very diverse district.

My constituents are constituents not unlike those across the length and breadth of this country. There are issues of concern to them. I want to assure my constituents that as we move into the 114th Congress, I will be pushing legislation that will be important: the LAW Act, the Living American Wage Act. We have filed this bill before, and we will file it again in this Congress.

The LAW Act indexes the minimum wage to poverty. It is our belief that anyone who works full time should not live below the poverty line. People should be able to work their way out of poverty.

The LAW Act indexes the minimum wage to poverty such that when the poverty level rises, the minimum wage will also elevate, such that people who are working for minimum wage will continue to live above the poverty line.

As an aside, I spoke to a person who is working at the wage that is paid to the persons who wait tables, the wait staff, $2.13 an hour; and one of the things that was called to my attention was that these persons--good people, hardworking people--don't always make a lot with these tips that are supposed to supplement their income.

I have been told that as little as $8 in one day in tips were being made by one of my constituents, so I am concerned not only about the $7.25 an hour, the minimum wage, but also about the $2.13 an hour. I also supported H.R. 1010, which was filed in the last Congress, and it also indexed the minimum wage, not to poverty, but it did index the minimum wage.

I will be concerned about comprehensive immigration reform because in my district, I have a good many persons who are the sons and daughters of immigrants who came here not of their own volition. Many of them came and discovered that they were not American citizens after graduating from high school.

I support what the President has done with his executive order. I have to support what he has done with his executive order, given that I am the beneficiary of the greatest executive order ever written: the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not free the slaves, but it did pave the way for the passage of the 13th Amendment.

I am honored to say that I support what the President has done, but we still must have comprehensive immigration reform because there is much more to be done. With millions of people living in the shadows, we need to know who is in the country, and we also need to make sure those who are in the country pay their fair share of taxes, that they are a part of the infrastructure that elevates the country--the economic infrastructure--and to do this, we need comprehensive immigration reform.

I am also concerned very much about our veterans. This is why in the last Congress, we passed the language that was in the HAVEN Act in the defense authorization bill.

Senator Jack Reed, thank you so much. Senator Jack Reed helped to get that through the Senate, and that language got through the Senate because Senator Reed was there. Senator Reed, we are eternally grateful, and I think a good many veterans are too.

Twenty million dollars was made available to veterans to help those who are low-income veterans who are injured in some way, such that they cannot use their facilities in their homes as they would without that disability. Counters are lowered, bathrooms are made accessible, and ramps are installed.

Senator Reed, thank you for helping us to get this $20 million, which will be matched by NGOs who will perform this service and help our veterans.

Finally, we are concerned about law enforcement. I respect law enforcement. I support law enforcement. What happened to these peace officers in New York was dastardly done. The dastard that did it is a person that we can never ever in any way glorify. The people who commit crimes ought to be punished, and I support punishment for people who commit crimes.

I also support having a system that prevents our law enforcement officers from being falsely accused. I believe that a camera on an officer can make a difference, and I am honored to say that my colleague, the Honorable Emanuel Cleaver, and I are working together on bills that we have filed to bring them together, so that we can help our law enforcement avoid specious accusations and make sure that they have the evidence of what actually occurred.

God bless my constituents and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Honorable Ted Poe, will recognize this name. The Honorable Lee Duggan, a district court judge in Houston, Texas, reminded young lawyers that we live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right, they must also look right, and this bill doesn't look right. It doesn't look right when you combine 11 bills into one overnight and then present that to the floor without any amendments being available to the bill.

We should not allow a poison-pill process to develop at the genesis of this Congress. If we do it now, we will continue to do it. I think we have to concern ourselves not only with these 11 bills, but with the many other bills that are to follow. We can never allow this to start the new Congress. We should prevent it.

I would also add this. I am all for doing a lot of things with a hurry-up process. I would like to see us do something about minimum wage; we are not doing anything about minimum wage at all thus far. I would like to see us do something about comprehensive immigration reform; that will be a piecemeal deal if it ever becomes a bill.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with those who believe that the process ought to be fair. It ought to favor the openness that allows for amendments. I say to you that this is not right, and it doesn't even look right.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say without reservation, hesitation, or equivocation, I have preeminent respect for the constabulary. I have a relative who was a part of the constabulary. I believe that police officers have a very difficult job, and they do it under stressful circumstances, and I believe that most police officers are doing a good job every day.

I also want to say that there are many people without the constabulary, however, who would have us get over Michael Brown, get over Eric Garner, get on with it. And then there are those who say in the alternative--not in these exact words but with words connoting this--they say, if you can't get over Garner, get over Brown, because Garner is a better case for you to take to the court of public opinion.

To these people I say, we can't get over Garner and we can't get over Brown, because if the truth be told, Garner and Brown are two sides of the same coin, two sides of one coin. If the truth be told, without the eye of the camera, without what appears to be clear and convincing evidence, without what appears to be evidence that is beyond reproach, without the eye of the camera, Garner would be Brown. The Garner case is only what it is because the camera was there to capture the essence of what happened.

If the truth be told, without the camera, there would be questions about how Garner was arrested, there would be questions about how he was taken to the ground, there would be questions about whether he made comments about his inability to breathe. How many times did he say, ``I can't breathe?'' There would be questions about whether or not he made some effort to harm some officer. There would be questions about whether the guns were somehow at risk of being taken from an officer.

If the truth be told, without the eye of the camera, Garner would be Brown.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, I have made an appeal to this House to bring H.R. 5407 to the floor. Let it go to a hearing. H.R. 5407 is the TIP Act, the Transparency in Policing Act. H.R. 5407 would accord the Justice Department the opportunity to do a survey and ascertain the cost of equipping municipalities, counties, police departments--the constabulary, if you will--with cameras. Then it would go on to require those that can afford it to have the cameras, and those that cannot, it provides an exemption to them.

H.R. 5407 is good legislation. It is not a panacea; it won't cure all. For those who are concerned about the camera not being enough to cause a proper decision to be reached before a grand jury, it may not be, but it sure does provide the opportunity to galvanize the country around the notion that something needs to be done. It is not a panacea, not a cure-all, but it does present an opportunity for officers to be exonerated.

H.R. 5407 would do more to help officers than anything out there right now that I can see, because it gives the evidence of what actually occurred at an event, it can cause officers not to be questioned about what they did, and it will cause those who would perpetrate dastardly deeds and fraudulent circumstances upon officers to be properly prosecuted.

H.R. 5407 is a bill that is before the House and has a good many supporters right now, more than 40.

I believe that H.R. 5407 deserves a hearing. I make an appeal, I beseech, and I implore my colleagues, who have the preeminent authority to make a decision as to whether it moves forward, to please give H.R. 5407 an opportunity to be heard. This is not an appeal from one Congressperson; this is an appeal from those who are concerned about proper policing.