Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 522, H.R. 5585, the Financial Netting Improvements Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, H. Res. 1078, congratulating the St. Louis Cardinals on winning the 2006 World Series, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 519, H.R. 5602, To Authorize the Extension of Nondiscrimatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the Products of Vietnam. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 518, S. 819, The Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 517, H.R. 3085, To amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to a very important issue relating to medical reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement Act and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) created new reimbursement mechanisms for IVIG therapies. CMS's implementation of the MMA has resulted in reduced access to life-saving therapies for Medicare beneficiaries. CMS potentially closed the door to medical treatment when they issued the CY 2007 proposed rules for the physician fee schedule and the hospital outpatient prospective payment system, which, if implemented, would effectively limit IVIG treatment by not properly reimbursing providers.

IVIG is a vital medical service. It is a plasma-derived therapy tailored to the individual's diseases and treatment options to achieve optimal results. Nearly 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries are afflicted with primary immune deficiency (PID) which only responds to IVIG therapy. For many Americans there is no substitute for IVIG treatment.

More to the point, this treatment allows individuals to carry on normal daily-life activities. PID requires IVIG therapy every 3 to 4 weeks for the duration of an individual's life, but without such treatment the individual not only imposes additional medical costs on an already overburdened system, they cease to be active members of our society. Such an outcome is simply not acceptable. IVIG therapy is cost-effective and beneficial for the patient. As far as I am concerned, that should be enough to get CMS to rethink implementing any reimbursement change that has the potential to harm access and reduce medical outcomes.

In May of this year, thirty-five members of Congress, including myself, sent a letter to Secretary Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services expressing our concern over this matter and encouraged Secretary Leavitt to consider a payment adjustment, combined with product specific reimbursement. We also made clear that we would be open to any other mechanism he may have deemed suitable in order to resolve this patient access dilemma. Secretary Leavitt's response was, quite simply, inadequate. He failed to address our specific concerns or pose alterative remedies that would allow patients continued access to IVIG treatment.

I urge CMS to reconsider its actions in this case to ensure patient access to a necessary and legitimate medical treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise very much in support of this bill.

Is it exactly like I want? No. Obviously, it is not like what Mr. Berman wants either. And if you don't like the bill, just vote ``no,'' as you have on many immigration bills. But this is what we have today, and the American people want to see us proceed.

This bill reasserts that State and law enforcement can and should help Federal officers on immigration law whenever they reasonably can and if they choose to. What a weird thought. We might get help from our local law enforcement as they do in drug enforcement.

It is a policy that our law enforcement community has conducted successfully for decades in helping this government, the Federal Government, enforce Federal drug and racketeering laws. This is not new.

Why then the outrage and the mass lobbying against it by the pro- illegal immigration crowd, or should I say open border crowd?

Because this bill goes to the heart of our enforcement problem, that is, simply a lack of enforcement. That has been our problem. Across the board, from the borders to the workplace to illegal immigrant crime, we have allowed the odds to become hopelessly stacked against enforcement.

In regards to rounding up criminal illegal aliens, we currently have roughly 5,000 Federal agents trying to apprehend 500,000 illegal aliens with court orders against them. Eighty thousand of them are serious felons, such as murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and rapists. Vote against this bill if you want those people to stay out on the street. That is all right.

These odds, obviously, are impossible. There is no way we are going to have 5,000 Feds catch 500,000 violent criminals. But if we allow our 700,000 State and local police to volunteer to help, and they are American citizens too, the odds get a lot better. That might start an epidemic of looking at other ways to improve our odds, Mr. Speaker, in fighting overall illegal immigration.

And that undermines the illegal immigration lobby's theme song, which is the lie that we cannot stop illegal immigration. So, well, let's just give up. Let's just give in.

Well, we can stop all these problems if we only have the will. This body needs to have the will. The Senate has to do what it has to do, but we are the people's House. We need to show the gumption to get this done. This legislation proves how using commonsense partnerships between State and Federal authorities to multiply manpower will get the job done.

We are not talking about going after illegal aliens who are otherwise obeying our laws and are just here to work. This bill is targeted only on criminal aliens. Ironically, most of their fellow victims are their fellow immigrants.

Let's make one point absolutely clear. There is nothing in this bill that prevents local police from granting immunity from being reported for deportation to any illegal immigrant crime victim who comes to them for help.

Mr. Speaker, this short bill is the key component in the CLEAR Act that I introduced 3 years ago. It has already passed this House twice as a part of larger legislation. I think my friend from California didn't vote for it, but it did pass this House. Let's send this over to the Senate as a clean, short bill and see what they have got to say about that.

I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the chairman for the time. I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, we deal with an issue today that could likely determine the long-term fate of our Republic. As Mr. Hyde just pointed out, voting is the bedrock of our Republic, and today we deal with voter fraud.

The U.S. Constitution and the constituents of several States clearly define the legal requirements to vote. A voter must be of minimum age. They must be a citizen of the United States, and each voter must vote only once. I do not think anybody in this body would disagree with that.

What we discuss today or debate is over how do we enforce the voter laws we have on the books.

A tamper-proof photo ID is the only practical way to prevent the mass input of fraudulent voters into our system. Some say, oh, we do not have any. How the heck do we know we do not have any? We do not check anybody to see if they are fraudulent or not.

That was the recommendation of the nonpartisan Federal Election Reform Commission, headed by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Republican Secretary of State James Baker.

It is also the opinion, by the way, if anybody is interested, of 80 to 90 percent of the American public. It happens in every poll that is taken on this issue. My State of Georgia, in fact, has already passed such a requirement. They have even gone back and amended the law to include free State-issued photo IDs for anyone who needs one.

But that is not good enough for some. Yesterday, the State Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, Jr., legislated on the court and ruled that requiring a photo ID, in his opinion, is unconstitutional because it imposes a duty on the voter not specifically required in our State constitution. I feel very certain our Supreme Court will satisfy this problem within the next couple of weeks. He did not address, however, Legislator Judge Jackson Bedford, Jr., the fact that, without the photo ID, the legal votes of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens could negate the legal ballots of hundreds of thousands of our citizens around the country. He did not address the fact that, without a photo ID, tens of thousands of partisans could fraudulently vote in another person's name and cast multiple ballots, negating the legal ballots of our citizens. He did not address the fact that legal voters of Georgia have spoken loud and clear over and over through their lawfully elected representatives that this measure is needed, and it is desired.

He did not, meaning the legislative judge, address that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to each State a republican form of government, and this ruling directly conflicts with the perfect right of the citizens of Georgia. Our Governor and State legislature must fight this tyrant in Georgia.

But we can speak loud and clear against those who show their contempt against the right of the American voters across our Nation. We can stop election fraud today by voting for this magnificent restoration of our constitutional rights by my friend and my colleague Chairman Hyde.

Defend the Republic. Support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Ed Templeton, the President of SRP Federal Credit Union, on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU.

For the past 34 years, Ed has dedicated his life on behalf of improving financial institutions in America and currently serves on the South Carolina Credit Union League Board of Directors. His illustrious experience further includes service as President of the Columbia Chapter of Credit Unions, member of NAFCU's Education Committee, and member of the Better Business Bureau of Augusta, Georgia.

As the President of SRP Federal Credit Union, Ed has focused on ensuring his members receive helpful, personal service. Through his credit union, Ed is continuously educating his members on how to prevent identity theft. He also understands that today's youth must be armed with the knowledge to be financially savvy. SRP Federal Credit Union established the ``Teaching Kids How to Handle Money Responsibly'' program which was designed to help children at an early age develop the decision making skills for sound future financial decisions.

Ed's involvement to improve the lives of others can be further illustrated through his involvement as a Member of the Board of Directors for the Shepard Blood Center in Augusta, and in his past service as Elected Commissioner for the City of Hephzibah.

It is because of the good work of Ed and others like him that the credit union movement enjoys the success it has today. Such service is the hallmark of the credit union movement and I wish Ed the best of luck in his new role as a member of the NAFCU Board of Directors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank Chairman Dreier for making my amendment in order under this rule. I rise today in support of this rule, in support of the VRA, and against H.R. 9 as it presently is written.

We should all understand that in 1965, 40 years ago, when the VRA was written, part of it was intended to be permanent law and part of that bill was meant to be temporary.

The Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965, and it was a good bill. It enabled all citizens to be able to vote unencumbered. I strongly believe in that.

Now, 40 years later, we are not trying to remove the temporary part of this bill, meaning 4, 5 and on, but later this morning we are going to try to amend section 4 of the Voting Rights Act so that it may be updated, modernized and actually brought into the 21st century.

Only section 4 of the temporary part of the Voting Rights Act are we trying to amend. Section 4 of the VRA is the formula or the trigger mechanism that determines which jurisdiction, whether it be city, county or State, that has broken the rules and, therefore, is to be put in the penalty box of section 5. This is the section that puts jurisdictions under the heavy hand of the Justice Department, the preclearance section of the bill.

The trigger section occurs when less than 50 percent of citizens of voting age do not vote in Presidential elections. To determine if you will be under section 5 of the VRA, the elections used are 1964, 1968 and 1972, elections 40 years ago, presidential elections between Goldwater and Johnson. Only those who violated section 4 during those 8 years are under preclearance today. H.R. 9 wants to extend that 25 more years, using 40-year-old data, applied to the same jurisdictions, no matter how good their voting record is today.

H.R. 9, it does not seem to matter that many other jurisdictions around the country have also violated section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, even in this century. Those violations are not looked at generally by anyone.

My amendment, that we will have later today, changes that and updates section 4 to use the election years of 1996, 2000 and 2004. It will be incumbent upon the Attorney General, and he is so instructed, or she, to look at all jurisdictions in all States, and this information is to be reviewed after each Presidential election, using the latest three Presidential elections.

If you violate section 4, you are and you should go to the penalty box, which is the preclearance section. If you are in the penalty box and have not violated section 4 in the last three Presidential elections, you get to come out of the penalty box. It is that fair, it is that just, and it is just that simple.

Listen carefully now. The authors of H.R. 9 are going to give you many reasons why my lovely State of Georgia should stay in the penalty box, even though we have one of the absolute best voting records in the country of electing black Georgians and black voting and black registration, but I bet we do not hear them talk about that.

The truth is that under my amendment all Georgia jurisdictions stay under preclearance. Under my amendment all Georgia jurisdictions, meaning counties, stay under preclearance, except 10 counties out of 159, even though all of Georgia will be treated as if we are still under section 5.

They are not going to mention that 837 jurisdictions today in 16 States are under preclearance, but if my amendment were to pass, over 1,000 jurisdictions in this country will be under preclearance in at least 39 States.

I think that black Georgians who have protections under the law should give those same protections to black Tennesseeans.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about this all day. I appreciate the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear, I believe every citizen of this country should be able to vote unencumbered. I believe, actually, that the Voting Rights Act has been and is a good thing and it should be reauthorized. I nor anybody I know is trying to do away with section 5, though I continue to hear it over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, today we battle a phantom that has haunted this Chamber since the day, probably, it was first built. It has stalked us since before we were a Nation. It poured the curse of slavery on our infant Republic. It fed the flames of regional conflict until we suffered the most devastating war in our history. It gave birth to segregation, poll taxes, and literacy tests.

This specter embodies what is perhaps our Nation's original sin: discrimination. It has dunned us with a moral debt that maybe can never be fully paid. I pray that is not the case. But then again, maybe it is only waiting for a generation with the courage to exorcise that demon out of our hearts and out of this land.

Our forebears, in spite of their many blessings that they left us, failed this challenge. They had the chance with Dred Scott and instead decided that slaves were not human beings. They had a second chance with Jim Crow, but instead built a segregated society.

Today, we have a rare chance, and I mean rare, to revisit the fundamental issue, discrimination, that our predecessors avoided dealing with.

Discrimination is the creation of laws or systems that deny a person the same rights enjoyed by their fellow human beings, not because of what they do but because of who they are. In 1965 that meant white people in many areas of this country, and especially in my beloved South, set up legal hurdles that kept people of color from voting. Not because of what they did, but simply because of who they were.

The Voting Rights Act, passed by this House in 1965, stopped that practice. It did so by temporarily denying the voters of my State and others their constitutional right to determine election practices without Federal interference.

This harsh measure, known as section 5 oversight, was not discrimination. It was not laid on these jurisdictions because of who they were, but because of what they did. Now, this is a profound point. Forty years later there is not a single member of my State legislature who served in 1964, particularly the Democrats, under those discriminatory laws. Seventy percent of today's Georgians did not live in Georgia in 1964. They are either dead or have moved away under these discriminatory laws. They were either unborn or have since moved perhaps somewhere else.

Yet H.R. 9 would leave all these people, who have committed no wrong, with diminished election rights. Not because of what they do, but because of who they are. This is blatant discrimination based on nothing more than where we live.

All who dwell on a particular type of soil, section 5 soil, now have their constitutional rights curtailed. Is the Earth beneath our feet guilty of the crimes of man? Does it then condemn all who trod on our soil? That is the contention of H.R. 9, as it ravages the rights of the innocent, those whose only offense is in where they live.

Unlike H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act did not condemn the righteous with the wicked. It reserved its penalties only for those jurisdictions where offenses

had occurred and only until those injustices were corrected. It was not a life sentence and certainly not a sentence on those yet unborn.

Georgia now outperforms the Nation, outperforms the Nation, in every area of black voting: turnout, registration, the success rate of black candidates in our State. Yet H.R. 9 turns a blind eye to these facts and seeks to let the innocent continue their punishment for another quarter of a century.

Mr. Chairman, either we restore their voting rights to equality, or the Supreme Court will be forced to do it for us. And the Court will do so in ways far more damaging to section 5 than any reasonable amendment that I am going to bring later today that we could devise.

The days of allowing the ghost of the past to discriminate against the living are and should be coming to an end. Our choice today is whether it will end through carefully crafted amendments or will it be through the judicial act. All we are trying to do is change section 5 so that every citizen in this country, whether you are from Tennessee, whether you are from Wisconsin, have the same equal rights that minorities in Georgia have.

And when you get time, look at these maps. On the right it shows you everybody that is in white is not under section 5. If you are in a color, you are under section 5. Everybody on the map on the left covers 39 States that actually have been guilty of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. I do not understand how you can go home and you can say you are all for equal rights, fair rights, protections for voters in Georgia, but it is not all right to have those same protections in Tennessee or in Arkansas or in Wisconsin or Ohio. What is wrong with looking at the whole Nation? Everybody is not going to go under it. Everybody is not going to break section 5 formula. But others are besides just us. And on that map Georgia stays under section 5, and I hate it. I wish we were not. Ten counties might get out, but they can only get out for 4 years. The Attorney General is going to be requested to look at it every 4 years and all across the country, including Ohio and including Florida. What is wrong with that? I fail to understand why anybody would find fault.

You say that we have had so many objections, meaning Georgia. I promise you an objection does not automatically mean discrimination. We have had five objections since 2000. One of them came from a majority black city council, and it was thrown out. That puts us in the penalty box for another 10 years.

Let me quote what my good friend John Lewis said in an affidavit:

The State (Georgia) is not the same State it was. It's not

the same State that it was in 1965 or in 1975 or even in 1980

or 1990. We have changed. We have come a great distance. I

think that it's not just in Georgia but in the American

South. I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of

race.

Clearly John is proud of Georgia's progress, as am I.

Congressman Lewis is not alone in recognizing progress.

Here's how my State's African American Attorney General Thurbert Baker testified before a Federal three judge panel in 2001.

The State's (Georgia) racial and political experience in

recent years is radically different than it was 10 or 20

years ago, and that is exemplified on every level of politics

from statewide elections on down. The election history for

legislative offices in the Georgia House, Senate, and the

United States Congress reflect a high level of success of

African American candidates.

But this is more critical. The Judiciary Committee record seems to show that the problems that do continue to exist occur across the Nation, not just the States in the covered jurisdictions.

So why isn't the Judiciary Committee going after these current potential violations instead of dwelling on those from four decades ago?

Since 1965, there have been 83 Department of Justice objections raised to voting changes in Georgia.

And here's a critical point for the record--a DOJ objection does not equal guilt.

DOJ itself withdrew 14 of those 83 objections.

When my State tried to satisfy one of those objections in drawing congressional districts, the district lines demanded by DOJ objection were then thrown out by the Supreme Court. So objection does not equal violation.

Fifty-five of the 83 objections were in the first 10 years as the act was being implemented, leaving 28 objections between 1975 and now.

Only seven objections have been stated since 2000, well within national averages. And again, an objection is not a violation.

It's now been 40 years since the Voting Rights Act took effect. Georgia has a higher percentage of black elected officials than the overwhelming majority of States not included in Section 5 Federal oversight.

Yet the Federal oversight continues.

Nationwide, there are 9,101 black elected officials. Blacks make up 11.4 percent of voters, and 1.8 percent of elected officials.

In contrast, Georgia has 611 black elected officials. Blacks make up 26.6 percent of our population, and 9.3 percent of elected officials.

That's more than double the level of black representation of the Nation as a whole.

Black elected officials make up 20 percent of our State House and Senate members, and 30 percent of our members to the U.S. House.

Georgia has a black Attorney General, elected by voters statewide. Georgia has a black Supreme Court Justice.

Georgia and the South now lead the Nation in civil rights achievements, putting to shame the record of those States who continue to point their hypocritical fingers at the grave of Bull Connor.

Yet Georgia remains on the Federal oversight list, while States with a fraction of our percentage of black elected officials per capita remain oversight free.

If Georgia remains on that list without modification, then the majority of the people of a State, who have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose legislators have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose State has one of the highest levels of minority elected officials in the Nation, will have their State's constitutional right to determine political boundaries and election rules usurped without justification.

That's a clear-cut violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it's voter discrimination against every Georgian.

Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming were included in 1970, but successfully filed ``bailout'' lawsuits that allowed them to get off the list, because no one had a political reason to object.

To successfully file a bailout, the State must prove that during the past 10 years no scheme such as poll taxes or literacy tests have been used; all changes affecting voting have been reviewed prior to their implementation; no change has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the District of Columbia district court; there have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination; there are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and Federal examiners have not been assigned.

As can easily be seen, a simple accusation will keep a State off the bailout list for 10 years at a time.

DOJ can file an objection, then withdraw it, and that's all that's necessary to keep Georgia under Section 5 another 10 years.

There must be a more lawful means for the citizens of Georgia to regain voting rights equality with the rest of America.

Later today I will bring an amendment to ensure that all Americans will have equal protection under the Voting Rights Act.

Under this amendment, minority voters nationwide will have access to the same Section 5 protections, if there has been a violation of their rights.

At the same time, all voters across America will be treated the same if there has been no violation in the last 12 years.

With this amendment, the Voting Rights Act will be restored to its original intent--to end unjust discrimination in Voting Rights, for all Americans.

This amendment provides lawful means to win release from Section 5, while expanding minority voting rights protections nationally.

It is the only commonsense solution to avoiding a constitutional challenge.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to submit for the Record an article from Dr. Ronald Gaddie of the University of Oklahoma and an article from the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Chairman, when the original Voting Rights Act passed this House, it was to correct voting discrimination evident in the 1964 Presidential election. The legal protections and enforcement scheme in the new law were all designed around that challenge.

The specific challenges of 1964 have long ago been rectified, yet the specific enforcement scheme contained in sections 4 and 5 remain based on 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Here are the current rules on the VRA:

To fall under section 5 Federal oversight, a voting jurisdiction has to have committed both of the following offenses:

One, they must have maintained discriminatory tests or devices to discourage voting in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.

Two, they had to have fallen below 50 percent voter registration or turnout in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.

Note that an area must have committed both offenses back then to fall under section 5.

We have a rare opportunity today to update the Voting Rights Act and bring it back into compliance with the original intent of the bill to safeguard voting rights all across the country, not just in the current 16 States.

Instead of continuing to face legal protections on 1964 conditions, this amendment will update them to modern results and toughen the standard, and, indeed, add more jurisdictions under the Voting Rights Act.

First, instead of requiring a jurisdiction to violate both of the standards to fall under section 5 oversight, a jurisdiction is placed in the penalty box for violating either one of the two triggers.

Second, the Presidential election years used to determine violations are updated to the most recent three elections, 1996, 2000, 2004. They would be automatically updated in the future to ensure that the act stays current.

Third, the penalty period for new violations is increased from the current 10-year bailout rule to 12 years, by requiring an area demonstrate three

clean Presidential elections in a row in order to get out of the penalty box.

Under this amendment, the Justice Department is ordered to automatically review nationwide results and add noncomplying areas to the section 4 list or section 5 oversight after each 4-year cycle. Any jurisdiction that does not violate either trigger for three Presidential election years in a row will be automatically removed from section 5.

That is a real incentive for State and local governments to move aggressively into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. It guarantees the terms for getting off the list, without bankrupting local governments with legal bills as do the current arbitrary 10-year bailout requirements, which in many cases are impossible to meet. And it is certain that a partisan Justice Department wants to make sure you stay under there for 10 years, and with enough time we will explain how they do that.

The Justice Department will therefore determine whether specific jurisdictions need to be added or deleted from Federal oversight list based on their performance in 1996, 2000, and 2004 rather than 1964, with automatic rolling updates to future election cycles.

The end result of this amendment would be expanded Federal oversight in areas with current violations, and section 5 oversight relief for areas with long-standing historic Voting Rights Act compliance.

My State of Georgia, under my amendment, will unfortunately, remain on the list since we fell below the 50 percent trigger in 1996.

There are currently 837 jurisdictions under section 5 oversight. That would be on the chart to the right. Under this amendment, there would be a minimum, with my new amendment there would be a minimum of 1,010 covered jurisdictions all across the country in 39 States. That is indicated by the chart on my left. The white areas are people not under 5; under my amendment the colored areas are people who would be under 5 because they broke the same rule under section 4 as we did in Georgia.

In fact, there would be substantially more than that. Our researchers could only find areas out of compliance in 2000 and 2004, without spending a great deal of money in 1996, but we will know 1996. So all these areas that failed to comply in 1996 would also be added to section 5 oversight as well. We just can't tell you for sure right now how many more that might be.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will significantly improve voting rights protections by eliminating default amnesty for modern violations. It will provide understandable and clearly defined goals for areas not in compliance with either original trigger, and thereby encourage vigorous remedial action by those governments, and actually strengthening and updating the Voting Rights Act to go after current violations.

I do not understand why it is not important about violators in 2004, but we seem to not take that up in H.R. 9.

Our amendment provides long-overdue equity to the areas of our country that unjustly remain under penalty for 40-year-old violations that have long been remedied. And do not kid yourself, just because a partisan Justice Department objects to a submittal does not necessarily mean they are right. The Supreme Court has said on occasion that they are wrong. Nor does it mean that there has been any discrimination.

I urge Members to support updating the Voting Rights Act for the 21st century with this amendment

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to simply point out that most of what the chairman said I certainly don't agree with, and I fully expect the Supreme Court not to agree with it either.

I didn't write section 4, but I can read even though I am not a lawyer. It is very clear what the mechanism in section 4 says and means to put you under section 5, and there is no reason, I think, on earth, that every jurisdiction in this country shouldn't have to live under the same rule.

The scattered counties we are talking about over there that would go under section 5 end up being 200 or 300 more that aren't under there now. And, Mr. Chairman, if you think they have problems in Montana in discriminating, you ought to do something about it. All I can do is have them follow section 4 of the original VRA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention to my colleague that 43 of the people you had testify were 43 people who came in to justify what you had done in H.R. 9. Everybody has been here long enough to know how you set up hearings. There were three people in that whole group that disagreed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Chairman, of course our amendment does not do that. It simply applies to every jurisdiction in the country equally, equal protection under the law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), and then I will do my close, and the chairman says he will then close.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to Mr. Conyers, I am not on the Justice Committee, the fair Justice Committee. I don't have any right to testify before the committee, nor am I asked to testify before the committee, nor would I, I doubt, be allowed to testify before the committee simply because I don't agree with H.R. 9 as it presently is written.

What we are asking here basically is that everybody be treated equal under the law. Section 4, I didn't write. Section 4 clearly says what the formula is. In fact, section 4's formula is why my State is under section 5.

Why in the world shouldn't we look at everybody in the country today, in the 21st century?

In 1964, my son was 2 years old. He was part of the 30 percent of Georgians that are still in Georgia today. I don't think he had anything to do with 1965.

I was 23 years old. I didn't have a clue what was going on in 1965. Half of the 30 percent of the people in Georgia who were in Georgia in 1965 had nothing to do with this. You are finding my grandchild guilty for something my grandchild didn't do, is not doing and doesn't want to see happen. Yet you will not take this and apply it to other States who deserve to have the same equal protections under the law that we do in Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I find this sort of interesting, Mr. Chairman. It seems like you are concerned about the bail-out provisions and the cost to the Justice Department if they actually do their job, which they are not; but no one seems to be at all concerned about the cost of bilingual ballots or counties or States having to print 35, 37 different ballots on the box. Nobody cares about that unfunded mandate, only that the Justice Department could not possibly afford to do what it is supposed to do.

Actually, I hope that you are the one that argues the case when this goes to the Supreme Court, Mr. Chairman, and use that very same argument you just put on us about Mr. Westmoreland's amendment.

This amendment has the support of some of the strongest supporters of section 5 renewal, and it is there for a very practical reason. The Supreme Court would likely throw out a 25-year extension of section 5 if no attempts have been made to update the rules that determine whether counties remain under Federal oversight. The court allowed section 5 to stand for one reason. Even a nonlawyer can read it in there. It was to be a temporary remedial tool. There was not a thing in that law that says past discrimination puts you under section 5. There is nothing written in the bill that says that. You say that because of the findings, but it is not in the bill.

But the rubber-stamp renewal of section 5 for another 25 years would mean the original 837 counties would be under Federal oversight for 65 years, affecting people that had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. It does not take a legal scholar. Even I can determine 65 years is not temporary.

There must be a more realistic method for counties to win release from the penalty box than under the current law, which is almost impossible, if they have truly ended discriminatory practices or if they have followed the rules under section 4.

This amendment allows the Justice Department to help section 5 counties simply determine if they are eligible for bailout. What is the Justice Department for if not for that? It provides an expedited means for counties to regain their constitutional rights if they have met the bailout standards according to DOJ and no one else objects to their petition. This is not only fair. It gives many counties in compliance with the act a realistic chance to win release from section 5 for the first time.

It is hard work being fair, Mr. Chairman. It requires a lot of effort for everybody to be equal under the eyes of the law. And that is what basically Mr. Westmoreland's amendment is asking for. I actually think further amendments to the bail-out section are needed as well, though we are not doing it today. But the Westmoreland amendment will help justify allowing section 5 to withstand court challenges, while providing long-needed equity for counties that have indeed remedied past discrimination.

I am going to be honest with you. There is hardly any way to get out of the bail-out provisions. In 25 years, 11 counties have been able to do so. Don't you think more counties would have if they could possibly have done it? Those 11 counties that got out have minority populations of under 5 percent. They live right across the Potomac River. This nonsense about it costing $5,000, you cannot hire a lawyer to come uptown for $5,000. It costs big dollars for small cities and rural counties to get out from under this whether they are guilty or not, but nobody seems to care whether they are guilty or not. It does not concern anybody about fairness here.

Partisans, and there are plenty of them and you all know it, at DOJ try to make sure that there are objections to submissions. A very perfect example: all you have got to do is have one submission objected to by the Department of Justice. In the last 5, 6 years, we have had six objections in Georgia. One of them comes from a small little town in south Georgia where the city council is majority/minority. They had a change they wanted to make in their voting laws, and they submitted it to the Justice Department. The Justice Department says, oh, no, you can't do that, we object. It is not as if they are always right. It is just that they get the last word until the Supreme Court gets ahold of them.

That one objection puts my State back in the penalty box for 10 years. That is an unfair circumstance. That keeps us there for another 10 years. It does not matter what is right. It does not matter what is fair. It does not matter what is legal. It means you just cannot get out of it. It is designed to be that way. It is people in the civil rights division in the Justice Department that are very bias, very partisan; and they work darn hard at making sure we cannot get out of the penalty box.

I have heard over and over today people talk about a bill passed in Georgia. They are simply trying to make sure only American citizens vote. That is all it was all about. It is so easy to vote in Georgia. We have illegal alien citizens of other countries trying to vote all the time. A simple voter ID, it was precleared by the Justice Department that, Mr. Chairman, you think so much of. We were told it was all right. Then it goes to court. Well, you know how you do that? You venue shop. You go around and wait until you can find a judge that will say what you want to say, and that is exactly what they did in this particular case. So that is an objection; so now we get to stay in for another 10 years.

My last observation on this subject is all four of these amendments are commonsense amendments. They do not, in my opinion, have anything to do with bringing down section 5 or the Voting Rights Act, which I do not want them to do. They add some sensible changes to it. It has been 41 years since this was written.

Mr. Chairman, in 1982 you voted against section 203. Today you are promoting section 203. You are against the

King amendment. What happened? Did you change your mind in 25 years? Probably so. That is legal. That is fair. That is okay if you have changed your mind concerning how you feel about that in 25 years. A lot has changed in 25 years. A lot in our State and our country has changed.

Vote for these amendments and make this thing fair, and everybody will have equal protection under the law

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Community Health Center Reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching 1,000 community health centers with 3,600 sites serving over 13 million Americans. There are over 80 of these sites in northeast Georgia alone, in my district and in Chairman Deal's district. They operate in rural communities where health services are either scarce, or, in some cases, nonexistent. They help keep our poor out of expensive emergency rooms.

With 25 percent of our population living in rural areas, only 10 percent of our physicians practice there. Rural Americans, like many folks in my district, are more likely to live below the poverty level and therefore be uninsured.

Health centers are Medicaid and Medicare providers, guaranteeing access for much of our elderly. While health care costs have risen, health centers have been kept theirs well under those of other providers.

Patients of health centers are generally healthier, use emergency rooms less and save money. In Georgia, they save the State $13.4 million each year in Medicaid costs alone. Community health centers are a good deal for poor Americans and taxpayers.

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of this program, and I am glad the President has supported the expansion of health centers in 200 new communities.

Mr. Speaker, the least expensive way possible to provide health care is to provide the best possible treatment up front. Community health centers are doing just that, and all of us need to support them.

Mr. Speaker, this rule, which I support, will allow one of the most critical actions to date in the war on terror. Hardly a charade.

This action is not military in nature. It is entirely political. But it will determine victory or defeat as surely as any battle in Iraq.

Our troops can defeat any enemy on earth. Our volunteers, our patriots, our heroes, our warriors, under any conditions they can win if we have the will, if we have the backbone to do what is right.

That is what we debate under this rule. Do we have the will to win?

Many, not all, of the other side of the aisle lack the will to win. The American people need to know precisely who they are. If there are any on this side of the aisle who hold the same view, this will allow them to be found out as well. Then the public can decide the course of this war in November by hopefully throwing the defeatists out of office.

This debate, under the rule, is as critical a fight as any our troops could have on the battlefield. No one has any doubt our soldiers will win any fight we send them to. That is not the question. The world's doubt is entirely over the backbone of this Congress.

Because of the statements of Members of this body, not their votes, but what they say today, and of the Senate, that have given substantial propaganda assistance to the enemy, this rule, this debate is absolutely essential to preserving the victories of our troops that they have won with their blood and their lives.

It is time to stand up and vote. Is it al Qaeda or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 173rd Airborne in 1968-69 Vietnam, I saw how the words of Senators and Congressmen undermine the hard-fought victories and sacrifices of our soldiers.

Men who today sit in Congress publicly trashed the troops on the front back then, comparing our American soldiers to the barbarian Genghis Khan.

American media overlooked decades of Communist torture and atrocity against Vietnamese civilians. I couldn't overlook it. As a dental surgeon I had to reattach the tongues cut out by Viet Cong terrorists.

Where was our media? They instead chose to focus the world's attention on isolated American failure at My Lai.

Through carefully planned international media and political manipulations, the NVA and Viet Cong were encouraged to keep fighting, regardless of their defeats in the field. American media fell right into line with the enemy's public affairs plan.

Our troops and citizens were told over and over by the press and politicians that their efforts were futile, our countless victories pointless, and every reverse, no matter how slight, disastrous.

The result of this psychological warfare was that the same Nation that had prevailed in World War II against heavy odds, numerous battle defeats, and our enemies' military parity, simply walked off the field in Southeast Asia.

It was a lesson in strategy our enemies have learned well, one that is now being used against us in Iraq.

It is of great interest to note that the same reporter who ``broke'' the story on My Lai also ``broke'' the story on Abu Grahib nearly four decades later--while overlooking the thousands of executions, beheadings, and other atrocities of the enemy.

Coincidence or planned strategy?

Same players, same actions, seeking the same result--unconditional U.S. withdrawal from a war on terror we didn't start, allowing barbarians to slaughter millions of innocent civilians, with the end result our Nation humiliated and compromised on the world stage.

The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that we can fight our enemies in this House by sending an unmistakable message that America will not run.

The day that our enemies in Iraq believe this, the war will be won.

It's time for this body to start fighting for our soldiers.

The 173rd has been back in action in this war, and I will be darned if I will let what happened to us in Southeast Asia happen to these guys in the Middle East, if I can help it.

Let's finally bury the ghosts of Vietnam by committing to victory. In doing so, we greatly reduce the need for future military action, as potential enemies will no longer doubt our national resolve in a showdown.

Mr. Chairman, we need to pass the Deal amendment. We need to strike section 110 of this bill that has been put in the bill at the last minute. That section is very, very simple that needs to be stricken. It prohibits the Corps of Engineers from updating the amount of water that counties in Georgia, Alabama and Florida can draw from the Corps of Engineers' lakes.

Now, the Corps of Engineers is simply doing what the Federal courts have told them. Someone says this is in court now. No, this is not in court now.

It is very clear. The corps will have to complete this NEPA process and was ordered to do so by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia as late as January 6, 2006, and it says do this as quickly as possible. The problem is we have not been able to work this out in the three States.

The second part of the problem is Alabama and Florida do not want the Corps of Engineers to work this out. Well, maybe they will be and maybe they will not, but we have to have a master plan. So says the law.

So support the Deal amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to commemorate the good work of the Morehouse College TRiO Programs, specifically the Student Support Services--SSS--and Robert C. McNair Scholars programs.

Morehouse is not in my district, although it was founded in my district, and I am well aware of the fine work the institution does. It is one of only three all male colleges or universities in the country, and the only one with the distinction of being historically black.

Every year, 500 men leave the familiar gates of Morehouse to enter graduate schools across the country, the board rooms of Wall Street, and even the hallowed halls of our congressional office buildings. However, much of this would not be possible if it were not for the services provided by SSS and the McNair programs.

SSS at Morehouse services 175 students each year. These are often students from low income families or first generation college students. The nurturing environment these students receive is one of the many reasons why SSS is so successful in helping with the College's retention rate.

In addition, SSS provides academic, professional, and financial counseling for students throughout their matriculation as well as financial aid assistance and help with graduate school navigation. There is even some direct

financial assistance for students who are Federal Pell Grant recipients.

The McNair Program, named in honor of engineer, scientist, and Challenger astronaut Robert E. McNair, serves a smaller student population of 23 each year. The goal of this program is to increase the number of doctoral candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. This program prepares undergraduate students for the world of vigorous research that doctorial studies require. Therefore, not only does Morehouse work closely with these students during their undergraduate years, but it also tracks the students' progress until successful completion of higher education degrees.

One of the major advantages of these programs is the mentoring the participants receive. Here they are off in college, many are the first to do so in their families, and they get the chance to receive guidance and assistance from professionals who want them to succeed. What more could a student ask for?

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the good work the professionals at Morehouse SSS and McNair Programs do. Among them are Dr. Ruby Bird, Malcolm Williams, and Michael Maxwell. I also want to congratulate all the Men of Morehouse that will become Morehouse Men on May 14th, 2006, with special acknowledgement of those who took advantage of the assets Morehouse TRiO Programs have to offer.