Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding, as well as for the tremendous job that you have done anchoring this CBC Special Order along with our good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois.

It reminds me, back at home, sometimes the pastor in my church would have a guest preacher come and deliver the sermon for the occasion, and the guest preacher will do so well that he will remark afterward, it is a dangerous thing when you bring that type of preacher to the pulpit because the congregation may not want the main preacher to come back again.

You and Congresswoman Kelly have done such a tremendous job, certainly, Steven Horsford and I are at risk of losing our anchor positions. Nonetheless, we thank you for all that you have done.

It was a particular honor on Friday, along with Congresswoman Yvette Clarke and Congresswoman Kelly and Congressmen Greg Meeks and Charlie Rangel, to be at the official unveiling held by the United States Postal Service of the Shirley Chisholm stamp to commemorate the life and times of this tremendous woman, this Member of Congress, this trailblazer, all that she had done.

I recall that she once made an observation to a young person who was considering a career in public service and asked Congresswoman Chisholm whether he should pursue this or not. Congresswoman Chisholm responded by saying to this young man interested in public service, Well, if you decide to run for office, don't be a career politician. She said, Be a statesperson. Representative Chisholm explained that the difference is, a career politician is only concerned with the next election, but a statesperson is concerned with the next generation.

As we stand here today, we would all do well to take that piece of advice that Congresswoman Chisholm uttered decades ago as it relates to the policy agenda connected to the theme ``when women succeed, America succeeds'' because, in order for that to be possible, we also have to be sensitive to what we are doing for the next generation of young people in the context of child care availability, universal pre-K, strengthening the Head Start program that has served so many over decades.

What are we doing for the next generation to make sure that women, in particular, who are raising up the future leaders of America, are equipped with the resources and the ability to provide them with the best possible upbringing?

Now, 50 years ago, in this Chamber, President Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke before a joint session of Congress and he declared a war on poverty. And we know that, as a result of that initiative, there were several legislative programs that were enacted into law between 1964 and 1966--Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, school breakfast program, Food Stamp Act, college work study, minimum wage enhancement. All of these programs, taken together, contributed in a meaningful way to lifting millions of people out of poverty.

Now, we know, as we stand here today we have still got a lot of work to be done. But instead of there being a war on poverty, what we have seen far too often during this Congressional session and the previous one is a war on women. That is unfortunate that we have gone from trying to lift people up and give them an opportunity to pursue the American Dream to failing to deal with the issues that women in America face today and, in some instances, aggressively trying to roll back rights that were hard-fought and acquired over the years.

Now, as the President mentioned in this State of the Union that we all witnessed over the last week, that women in America make 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. President Obama called it an embarrassment. I agree with that statement. It is also a national outrage.

How can it be the case that in America, in 2014, we are still allowing for such significant pay disparity that, as Congresswoman Lee pointed out, is even worse for women of color? So we have got to move forward under the principle--to bring to life the notion that one should be provided equal pay for equal work.

The second thing that we can do is to deal with this minimum wage issue that we have in America. As was pointed out earlier today, two- thirds of minimum wage earners in America are women. And so the failure to raise the minimum wage, to have indexed it appropriately for inflation to account for cost-of-living increases in America, disproportionately adversely affects women in this country. The reality is, with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, a woman in America can work full-time, 35 hours per week, across an entire year and, in attempting to raise a family, fall well below the Federal poverty line. It is the classic definition of working poor.

So the failure to raise the minimum wage has consequences for women, for the family, and for the overall well-being of communities all across America, particularly when considering the fact that, in 40 percent of American households, women are either the primary or the sole breadwinner.

So that means, particularly as it relates to some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle who often express concern for family values--and I share that concern--the best family value is a good paycheck; because if you ensure that when people are working hard they are paid well for it, then we are ensuring that they have the capacity to take care of their families, of which women, increasingly, are the sole or primary breadwinners.

So I just commend my distinguished colleagues, Representative Kelly and Representative Beatty, the dynamic duo of the CBC freshman class, for all that they have done and will continue to do on behalf of women, communities of color, and America in the context of their tremendous advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to once again have this opportunity to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and to anchor--along with my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Representative Steven Horsford--the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, where for the next 60 minutes we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great significance for the communities that we represent as well as for the entire country.

Income inequality is an issue that is of increasing concern to working families, to low-income Americans, to middle class folks, to those who aspire to be part of the middle class. We know that at this moment in time in 2014 income inequality is the worst that it has been in America since the Great Depression.

Now, we live in the wealthiest country in the world. Yet we know that all across America there are people who are struggling to put food on their tables, clothing on their backs or to provide shelter for their families. That is an unacceptable situation, and we know that things have gotten worse over the last 5 years since the collapse of the economy. The recovery, while progress has been made, has been uneven, inconsistent and schizophrenic in many ways. Some have benefited, particularly those amongst the wealthiest 5 to 10 percent of Americans, but others have fallen behind.

So, today, the Congressional Black Caucus will speak to the issue of income inequality, but it will also propose why it is something that needs to be addressed and what some of the things are that Congress can do, in working with the President, to deal with this pressing issue in America.

We have been joined by several distinguished members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is now my honor and privilege to yield some time to the dean of New York's congressional delegation, a legendary Member of the House of Representatives, the Lion of Lenox Avenue, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel.

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

I certainly thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his eloquent, as always, observations.

It is an honor and privilege to be joined by the Representative from Texas, who has been a fighter on behalf of these issues--a voice for the voiceless and someone who is always on the front lines trying to deal with socioeconomic inequality wherever it might be found in America, but certainly in her home district anchored in Houston, Texas. Let me now yield to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas.

Earlier this month, we marked the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. In this Chamber in January of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke before a joint session of Congress and announced a series of initiatives designed to combat chronic poverty in America. As a result of this effort, there were several legislative battles that were won in the march toward trying to create, as President Johnson said, the Great Society--Medicare, Medicaid, the Food Stamp Act, the school breakfast program, college work study, Job Corps, and minimum wage enhancement. These were all part of the war on poverty.

But, unfortunately, as we stand here today, in 2014, some in this Chamber have abandoned this war on poverty and instead have launched a war on the poor. As a result, we have seen income inequality grow. That is why it is such an important issue for us to confront now.

I am pleased that we have been joined by one of the strongest voices in the Congress for dealing with this issue, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, someone who is the vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative G. K. Butterfield.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina.

As you pointed out, income inequality and poverty should not be a partisan issue. It impacts urban America and it impacts rural America. It impacts blue States and it impacts red States. It impacts the north, the south, the east, the west, and the heartland of this country.

That is why it has been unfortunate that, heretofore, we have seen a refusal by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to do commonsense things like raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which would lift millions of the working poor out of poverty and set them on a pathway toward the middle class.

Now, one of the places where income inequality is particularly pronounced is in my hometown of New York City, one of the greatest cities in the world, one of the richest cities in the world. But 25 percent of the population in New York City lives below the poverty line. In the shadow of Wall Street, the engine that drives the world economy, that is an unfortunate reality.

One of the people who has been raising this issue and fighting hard to address this back home in New York City is my distinguished colleague who represents the Ninth Congressional District, immediately adjacent to the one that I am privileged to represent. It is my honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.

I thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Yvette Clarke, and look forward to continuing the fight and the march toward socioeconomic justice on behalf of the people we represent back at home in Brooklyn and New York City.

It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to another good friend, the dean of the freshman class of the CBC, someone who has continued in the great tradition that had been set forth by his father and his predecessor and is carving out his own reputation as a fighter for justice on behalf of the people he represents back at home in New Jersey. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the Garden State, Representative Donald Payne, Jr.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his very thoughtful observations and, in particular, for focusing on the need to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed across America. There has been a myth that really has been put forth unfortunately by those who seek to undermine this program that individuals who are receiving unemployment assistance, who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, simply are sitting home looking to collect a check without going out and actively searching for employment. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The reality is--and this is connected to the dynamic around income inequality that we are discussing here today--is that for every 2.8, 2.9 million Americans who are unemployed, looking for a job, there is only one job that exists. So obviously we need to do more in this country collectively to generate employment as opposed to exploiting good middle class jobs to other parts of the world and not seeing any reciprocal economic benefit in return.

I am thankful that I have been joined by the coanchor of the CBC Special Order, someone whose very district representing urban parts of Clark County in Las Vegas as well as rural parts of Nevada can speak to the issue quite clearly that income inequality and poverty in America is not simply an urban issue or a rural issue. It impacts all of America, and we are thankful here in this Congress that he has been such a strong champion for his district and for these issues that are impacting people all across the country.

Let me yield to my good friend from Nevada, Steven Horsford.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nevada for the very precise and comprehensive analysis that was given today on the House floor.

There were several important points that you raised that I would like to elaborate on and perhaps have a follow-up discussion. One of the issues that you discuss relates to the failure of the economic expansion as well as the recoveries that have taken place increasingly over the last several decades to benefit in any proportional way people in the middle class and those who aspire to be part of the middle class. This has been a trend that we have seen for

the last 30-plus years. It has been particularly pronounced in the 5 years or so since the economy collapsed in 2008.

When we look at the recovery, I mentioned earlier today that it is a particularly schizophrenic and inconsistent one because we know that the stock market is way up, corporate profits are way up, CEO compensation is way up and the productivity of the American worker is way up, but middle class wages remain stagnant.

Now, why is that a problem? This chart illustrates the fact that essentially since 1950, the productivity of the American worker--our ability as workers throughout this country to produce more in a more efficient fashion, costing less in time and resources, has consistently and exponentially increased--the productivity of the American worker. But essentially over the last 30-plus years or so, wages connected to that output of the American worker have remained flat.

So what does that mean? That essentially means that while the American worker is far more efficient and effective in doing their job and in being more productive, the profits and the output generated by the American worker have not inured to the employees. It has inured to the employer and a very small percentage of individuals.

So when we talk about income inequality, we are not saying that we have a problem with success. We are saying everyone should benefit from the success that the American worker has created as opposed to just a small number of individuals--the so-called job creators. We are thankful for their ingenuity and their effort; but the reality is the productivity of the American worker has increased, yet the middle class has not benefited.

Back between 1978 and 2001, CEO compensation had increased 876 percent--CEO compensation between 1978 and 2001. And what has happened as it relates to compensation for the average American worker during that same time period? It has increased 5.4 percent. That is a shameful difference, one that we should not tolerate in this great country.

The other observation that my distinguished colleague made related to the fact that if we increase the minimum wage, it will not just benefit millions of Americans by lifting them out of poverty. Parenthetically, why in the world would we want a society where people work full-time throughout an entire year yet find themselves in poverty? That makes no sense. But increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy, as my colleague indicated, because it increases consumer demand. An increase in consumer demand leads to economic growth, an increase in economic growth leads to additional job creation, and everybody benefits. It is a commonsense solution.

So let me now turn to my colleague from Nevada for some parting thoughts. And I appreciate, as always, your comprehensive analysis and observation.

I thank my colleague.

In summation, income inequality is a threat to our economy and the integrity of our democracy, and we must do everything possible to right this wrong in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State and the anchor of today's CBC Special Order for his eloquence, his continued leadership and, of course, for all of the hard work that you have put in on behalf of the people that you represent back at home. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with you, as well as with all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who continue to be a voice for the voiceless, the conscience of the Congress fighting hard each and every day to bring to life the American Dream for the greatest number of people possible in this wonderful country of ours.

Last week we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. In January of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson came to this House before a joint session of Congress and rolled out a series of initiatives designed to march us toward what he would term the Great Society, a war on poverty to lift people out of their perilous condition and bring to life for them the American Dream.

His war on poverty produced programs like Medicare and Medicaid, school breakfast, Head Start, the Food Stamp Act, minimum wage enhancement, Job Corps, college work study, program after program enacted between 1964 and 1966, which, taken together, were effective in lifting millions of Americans out of their impoverished condition.

Fifty years later, we have made a tremendous amount of progress. But, unfortunately, there are many in this Chamber who, instead of continuing the great legacy started by President Lyndon Baines Johnson here in January of 1964, have instead engaged in what perhaps is more appropriately termed a war on the poor, a war on working families, a war on the middle class, a war on senior citizens, and, in its current manifestation, a war on the long-term unemployed.

Unfortunately, whenever folks identify, set their sights on a government program that they don't like, the operating procedure follows a script that is all too familiar: demonize, downsize, and ultimately pulverize.

First, the script says you have got to demonize the program; tell things to the American people that don't necessarily hold up to the scrutiny of a comprehensive factual examination. Once you demonize the program, it enables you to downsize it, to reduce its impact, to reduce our investment. Ultimately, the goal of those who are engaged in this war on the poor, war on the long-term unemployed in its current iteration, ultimately the goal is, once you have demonized it and downsized it, in some way, you just want to pulverize it.

So if you think about this in the context of what we face right now in America, we have heard emanating from this Chamber and other parts of the country this caricature of individuals who supposedly are the long-term unemployed. As the gentleman from Nevada has indicated, we have heard representations suggestive that these are individuals who are couch potatoes sitting at home channel surfing, who only get exercise once a month apparently when they are running out to get their unemployment check and then race back into the house, and that is the only exercise that they get.

What is the basis for this caricature? What analysis has been done of the 1.3 million Americans who you have unceremoniously thrown off the long-term unemployment rolls to come to this conclusion? You have no evidence to make this caricature.

In fact, we know that current statistics suggest that here in America, while we have made significant progress since the Great Recession, 8.1 million private sector jobs that have been created, we know that we still have a way to go. For every 2.8 Americans who are looking for a job, only one job exists.

So the facts are working against those who are unemployed at this point. It is not as if they are not working hard to find a job. The jobs statistically don't exist, simply in terms of the raw numbers. We have an economy that needs to produce more jobs.

Now, what I found fascinating about this whole situation, in addition to this unwarranted caricature that you have created--folks on the other side of this debate who don't necessarily like unemployment insurance and have been plotting to work against it, perhaps since the moment that it was first put into effect in this great country--is that during the short time that Representative Horsford and Payne and Beatty and Veasey and myself have been here, what folks here in the Congress have systematically done is to undermine our ability to actually recover and produce jobs.

This is now at least the third meaningful instance in which this type of unproductive legislative behavior has been witnessed. We first saw it in the march toward April 1 when economists subjectively warned that if we allow sequestration to take effect, what would happen is that we would cost the economy approximately 750,000 jobs. Yet folks on the other side of the aisle, many people in this town decided that, notwithstanding the random nature of the $85 billion in sequestration effects, the impact that it would have adversely on the economy, that we were going to allow sequestration to take hold on April 1. That is exactly what was done; an unproductive, unconstructive action that robs the American people of jobs that might have otherwise existed.

Then in October of this past year, we see another unproductive action taken by those who constantly complain about the alleged slow pace of the economic recovery but then consistently take actions to undermine it. So on October 1, we shut down the government because of this unbridled obsession that some people have with the Affordable Care Act, even though at the time it was the law of the land, it remains the law of the land, passed by a duly elected Congress in 2010, signed into law by President Obama as a first-term President, passed constitutional muster in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and then reaffirmed by the American people with the Electoral College landslide that took place in November of 2012. Yet you came to this floor and decided that you were going to shut down the government for 16 days.

Why was that unproductive? Because not only did you push hardworking civil servants out of work, but objective analyses of the situation said you cost the economy $24 billion. And then you create this caricature that you want all of us to believe that the unemployed are simply sitting home with this alleged plethora of jobs that exist and they can't find them.

Now we find ourselves in another situation where, instead of coming together to try and reasonably take steps to put Americans back to work, what you have decided to do, since unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed were allowed to expire on December 28, is that you are threatening to cost the economy an additional 240,000 jobs.

So for the third time within the last 12 months, legislative malpractice here in the Congress essentially has resulted, or will result, in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars and billions of dollars in lost economic productivity. Yet you create this caricature that there are Americans sitting at home on the couch channel surfing, getting one day of exercise per month racing out to get their unemployment check.

There is no basis for that conclusion. That is why we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives, saying that we need to pass an extension of unemployment benefits and that we need to pass it now.

As I prepare to yield to my good friend, I just want to point out that, at

this point in time, as the chart reflects, the long-term unemployment rate in America is higher than it ever has been before as a percentage of those who are unemployed, which means that, today, 37.7 percent of those Americans who are receiving unemployment insurance are long-term unemployed, meaning they have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

In prior instances, when this Congress and our government had allowed unemployment insurance to expire for the long-term unemployed, the percentage of those who actually had been out of work for 27 weeks or more was much lower--15 points lower when unemployment insurance was allowed to expire for this category of Americans in March of 2004, about 16 points lower when unemployment insurance was allowed to expire for this category of long-term unemployed folks in April of 1994 under President Clinton, and if my math serves me correctly, about 22 points lower in June of 1985 under President Reagan when unemployment benefits were allowed to expire.

So we are in a very different situation than we have been in the past. It is an urgent situation. Progress has been made. We still have a long way to go, and that is why it is necessary for us to do everything possible to help out those Americans in need and not leave them on the battlefield simply to fend for themselves.

I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Nevada.

I think that you have identified a subject matter that is important for discussion before the American people as a result of this argument that we have heard related to the need to pass unemployment benefits only if a pay-for or an offset or a host of programs on the GOP wish list is passed simultaneously to our trying to provide some measure of relief to unemployed Americans. I am going to let the distinguished gentleman from Nevada address this argument in the current situation, but I would note that we have seen this type of ransom-like behavior here in this Chamber before.

We saw it when I first arrived on the floor of the House of Representatives. It was when we were waiting day after day, week after week, month after month for a Superstorm Sandy relief bill to be passed--more than 75 days, unprecedented in the history of our country's response to a natural disaster--for the people I represent back home who were devastated by Superstorm Sandy. The reason for the holdup was that this ransom-like demand of offsets--unprecedented in American history--was put before us. It was the same situation as it relates to the government shutdown, in which we were told that you can keep the government open--that is a proper function for us here in the Congress--but only under circumstances in which you delay, defund or destroy the Affordable Care Act--ransom-like behavior.

Now we find ourselves in a similar situation, and I yield to my distinguished colleague from Nevada to lay out why we once again find ourselves dealing with unreasonable demands to do what otherwise is our proper duty here on the floor of the House of Representatives and in Washington.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the Badger State, for his continued leadership, and each and every week when we are in session coming to the floor of the House of Representatives and articulating the progressive message for all to hear and for the good of the country. I appreciate you yielding some time during this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order.

This month we marked the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. We know that on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson came to this very Chamber, spoke to a joint session of Congress, and laid out a series of initiatives designed to combat chronic poverty in this country.

As a result of this effort, there were many legislative battles that were won: in the march toward the creation of a Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, school breakfast program, the Food Stamp Act, minimum wage enhancement, Job Corps, college work study. These were programs all part of that Great Society era enacted between 1964 and 1966; and taken together with other war on poverty initiatives, they managed to rescue millions and millions of Americans from their impoverished condition and set them on a pathway toward the middle class.

Over the years, we have attempted to continue that war on poverty with great success such that the situation in America now is better than it was in 1964; yet we know that the war continues. Instead, it seems like as opposed to waging a war on poverty here in this Chamber, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to embark on a war against the poor, a war against middle class families and senior citizens, those who are striving to realize the full potential of the American Dream. And that's why we are also so troubled by the failure to extend long-term unemployment benefits.

Now, I arrived in this Chamber feeling as if I was prepared for the experience, given the professional and educational legislative experiences that I had had in advance of January 3, 2013. And it has been my honor and my privilege to work with such a tremendous class of freshmen.

I have been troubled over the last year by the fact that I appeared deficient in one area, and that is in my failure to have any meaningful experience in the art of hostage negotiation. But from the very beginning that I set forth in this Chamber, it seemed as if those skills were necessary in this climate.

In January of 2013, we had to wait more than 75 days before this House would pass a Superstorm Sandy relief package, unprecedented in the history of this Congress' response to a natural disaster because there were some who put forth a ransom note, demanding offsets, even though never had that happened in the history of the Republic.

Then several months later, in the run-up to October 1, you had an Affordable Care Act law passed by this Congress in 2010, signed by the President, declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in an opinion parenthetically written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and then reaffirmed with the overwhelming electoral college election of the President in 2012. Notwithstanding any of that, you had folks demanding an exchange for keeping the government open: that we either delay, destroy, or defund the Affordable Care Act. Again, a ransom note exercise.

Here we are, 1 year removed from my inaugural experience around the Superstorm Sandy debacle back again facing an almost unprecedented situation where the majority has said, in exchange for us renewing long-term unemployment benefits for Americans that reasonable people should conclude are in need, not only do we want a pay-for, almost unprecedented, the last 17 times that this has been extended, but we have got a whole list of ransom demands that we want enacted in order for us to rescue these Americans who are in distress.

I am just hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we can get together subsequent to the United States Senate which has signaled and indicated its willingness to move forward, see to it that it shouldn't be the case that in exchange for taking a positive step forward in this institution, we always have to take two steps backward.

The positive step would simply be to renew the provision of unemployment benefits for the long term, individuals who have been working hard to find a job, and then coming together to figure out collectively how we can all move forward in the best interest of this country and our economy. I am hopeful that that will take place in the next day or week, certainly within the month, and we will continue to press forward in that regard.

With that, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his continued leadership.

Mr. Chairman, the Jeffries Amendment to H.R. 3309 accepted in the House Judiciary Committee amended the bill's fee- shifting provision in a meaningful manner designed to reduce the likelihood of an adverse award made against a non-prevailing party. As originally introduced, H.R. 3309 required the court to award fees to a prevailing party in patent litigation ``unless the court finds that the position of the nonprevailing party or parties was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.''

The Jeffries Amendment modifies this provision to disallow fee- shifting when: 1) ``the court finds that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party or parties were reasonably justified in law and fact'' or 2) when a named inventor or non-prevailing party encounters special circumstances such as ``severe economic hardship'' that would make a fee-shifting award unjust. With respect to the latter provision, the amendment further limits the circumstances under which a fee- shifting award is proper by mandating consideration of additional factors by the court.

During the debate on the House floor, a claim was made that the term ``substantially justified'' means ``reasonably justified'' as interpreted through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), The EAJA is a body of law unrelated to intellectual property jurisprudence. Accordingly, its precedential value is uncertain. However, to the extent this body of law is considered relevant, the oft-referenced Supreme Court decision in Pierce v. Underwood explicitly asserts that ``substantially justified'' and ``reasonably justified'' are not synonymous. Consequently, even when viewed through the EAJA lens, the Jeffries Amendment clearly lowers the bar that a non-prevailing party must meet in order to avoid an adverse fee-shifting determination.

The EAJA states in pertinent part: ``(1)(A) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.''

The Supreme Court in Pierce v. Underwood decided several issues regarding the EAJA, including the applicable standard of appellate review and the meaning of ``substantially justified.'' Regarding the standard of review, the court held that the plain language of the statute stating ``the court finds,'' makes clear ``that the determination is for the district court to make, and thus suggests some deference to the district court on appeal'' by employing an abuse of discretion standard. H.R. 3309 also includes ``the court finds'' language in its formulation. As such, any appellate court reviewing a fee-shifting decision by the district court should apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard as well.

In order to determine the meaning of ``substantially justified,'' the Court studied the plain meaning of the statute, dictionary definitions and the legislative history to conclude: ``[w]e are of the view, therefore, that as between the two commonly used connotations of the word `substantially,' the one most naturally conveyed by the phrase before us here is not `justified to a high degree,' but rather `justified in substance or in the main'--that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. That is no different from the `reasonable basis both in law and fact' formulation adopted by the ninth Circuit . . .'' It is important to note, of course, that the phrase ``reasonable

basis'' as referenced in Pierce v. Underwood does not appear in H.R. 3309 as originally introduced, or as amended.

For purposes of understanding the reduced burden effectuated by the Jeffries Amendment, the most relevant part of the Pierce v. Underwood decision is the majority opinion's assertion that ``our analysis does not convert the statutory term `substantially justified' into `reasonably justified.' '' In other words, the two terms yield different standards. Logically, then, ``reasonably justified'' sets forth a lower threshold that must be met by a non-prevailing party.

The concurring opinion of Justice William Brennan further clarifies the practical difference in terms. `` Reasonable' has a variety of connotations, but may be defined as 'not absurd' or `not ridiculous.' Webster's New Third International Dictionary 1892 (1976) . . . While it is true `reasonable' and `substantial' overlap somewhat . . . an overlap is not an identity.''

Accordingly, since the Supreme Court does not equate ``substantially justified'' with ``reasonably justified,'' the suggestion that the change made to the fee-shifting provision in H.R. 3309 is practically meaningless lacks merit. In sum, the Jeffries Amendment deliberately lowers the bar from ``substantially justified'' to ``reasonably justified'' in a manner that relaxes the fee-shifting standard in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today we rise to consider H.R. 3627, the Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act of 2013. This legislation is part of the continuing effort to stamp out the scourge of child abuse in our society.

According to the organization Childhelp, each year there are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States. At least 6 million children are impacted on an annual basis. Every day an average of four to seven children die in this great country as a result of child abuse and neglect, and more than 78 percent of reported child fatalities resulting from abuse and neglect were caused by one or more of the victim's parents.

We must do everything in our power to change this sad reality. Our effort, of course, must be comprehensive and should include both robust criminal justice enforcement and parental education and prevention efforts. In other words, our approach should be balanced. Those who abuse children must understand that the consequences connected to their criminal behavior will be significant.

We must also aggressively take steps to prevent child victimization before it occurs. In doing so, we can mitigate the severe trauma of child abuse and simultaneously channel precious taxpayer resources away from the criminal justice system.

H.R. 3627 requires the Attorney General to issue a report regarding the penalties for violations of laws prohibiting child abuse in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. This report must consider, of course, whether those laws provide enhanced penalties when the victim has suffered serious bodily injury or permanent or protracted loss or impairment of any mental or emotional function, as occurred in this tragic case referred to in North Carolina. This reporting requirement is a good step toward helping Congress accurately evaluate the statutory landscape in the child abuse context and govern in a more informed fashion.

In addition, the legislation permits prior convictions for assault, sexual abuse, or serious violent felonies to be used to trigger additional penalties for habitual domestic abusers on Native American reservations and in special maritime and territorial jurisdictions. This trigger will better protect potential child abuse victims from repeat offenders.

For the above-referenced reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and am prepared to close.

Let me just simply say, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for putting forth this measure in the House and helping to shepherd it hopefully into swift passage and then into law. I also commend the Davenport family for their courage, their strength, and their perseverance, and I wish them Godspeed as it relates to the recovery of their child moving forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for his stewardship and the ranking member for his legitimate expressions of concern.

Madam Chairman, this bill is a work in progress, but it is a meaningful step in the right direction as it relates to dealing with a patent troll problem that is adversely impacting small businesses, start-up companies, tech entrepreneurs, innovators, and inventors in New York City and all across the country.

In our judicial system, we must ensure that outcome is determined on the basis of the merits of a claim and not the high cost of litigation in the patent context. When the latter occurs, innovation is hurt.

We must also jealously guard the ability of legitimate patent-holders to vindicate their rights in court. With respect to that concern, there is still significant work to be done in the Senate, particularly as it relates to section 285. But notwithstanding that concern, this bill, the Innovation Act, represents a solid foundation upon which to address the patent troll dynamic, which almost everyone in this Chamber agrees is a significant problem.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today, along with the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, my good friend, Representative Horsford, proudly coanchoring the CBC Special Order, what we have termed throughout the year as our ``hour of power.'' With these 60 minutes, we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about issues of great significance that affect the folks back home in our congressional districts and that, in many instances, impact the entire Nation.

Today, we have gathered here to look back at the issues that members of the CBC have tackled individually and collectively throughout the year on behalf of the American people, but we look back in order to look forward as we anticipate the challenges that we confront in the next year on a whole variety of issues. Throughout the year, we have come to the floor every Monday that we have been in session in order to address a great many issues of significance to the American people.

We came to the floor in early February to deal with comprehensive immigration reform. Then we addressed the need to preserve section 5 of the Voting Rights Act during the week in which the Supreme Court was holding oral argument. We confronted the challenges in and around sequestration. We presented the CBC's people's budget, which sets forth a more progressive way forward in order to deal with the economic challenges that we confront in this country. We addressed health care disparities, the student loan crisis, poverty and income inequality in America, entrepreneurship. We had the opportunity to reflect and to celebrate the life and the legacy of a former distinguished Member of this august body, Representative Bill Gray, from the great State of Pennsylvania. We reviewed economic security through the labor movement. We stood up, of course, for the Affordable Care Act. We addressed the debt ceiling and the need not to hold the American economy hostage. We confronted hunger in America and the absolute moral imperative to stop the more than $39 billion in cuts that our friends on the other side of the aisle would like to make to the SNAP program.

These are the issues that, throughout this year, we have taken to the floor of the House of Representatives to talk directly to the American people about the issues that we are working on on their behalf.

Today, I am pleased that so many distinguished members of the CBC have come to join us, including the distinguished chairperson, who has led us admirably and with great courage and intelligence and clarity throughout the entire year. I am now pleased to be able to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Marcia Fudge.

I thank the distinguished chairperson of the CBC for her thoughtful and eloquent remarks and, certainly, for making the point that we as members of the CBC have come to Washington to try and make a difference on behalf of the people whom we represent back home and throughout the entire Nation. We have come to work together to try and find common ground, to promote solutions for the American people in the face of the difficult challenges that we have confronted. We didn't come to deal with a government shutdown that cost $24 billion in lost economic productivity or to deal with this constant obsession with the Affordable Care Act and the consistent effort to delay, defund, or destroy the opportunity to give tens of millions of otherwise uninsured Americans access to health care.

Hopefully, as the first session of the 113th Congress winds to a close and as we move toward the opportunity to get some things done next year, we can find our way toward a more productive second half of the 113th Congress.

I am pleased that we have been joined by the distinguished architect of the Congressional Black Caucus' budget as well as by a member of the Judiciary Committee, who has worked hard on issues of social and economic justice. He is here today to share with the American people the work that the CBC has done in putting forth a more progressive, inclusionary budget that works for working families, middle class Americans, and seniors.

I yield now to Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia.

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his very thoughtful exposition and explanation about the CBC budget and the fact that there really are two different visions that have been set forth when comparing the CBC budget and the Republican budget.

The CBC budget, of course, is designed to promote progress for the many. The budget presented by the House majority is designed to promote, in our view, prosperity for the few. The CBC budget creates a balanced approach to deficit reduction that invests in the economy, protects important social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare. The House GOP budget balances itself on the backs of working families, the poor, the most vulnerable Americans in our society. That, I believe, is the wrong approach to take as it relates to the well- being of the American people.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his thoughts and his work on that progressive document that the CBC has put forth.

It is now my honor to yield to our distinguished co-anchor for the CBC Special Order, who has been with us throughout the year anchoring, articulating, putting forth the CBC vision on a vast array of issues important to our districts and to the American people.

Today, I believe he is going to speak to us about the work that he has led in partnership with other members of the CBC and folks on our side of the aisle for fair, racially inclusive, and equitable America.

Let me yield to my good friend, Representative Steven Horsford.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from the Silver

State for his observations and for his look forward as it relates to the issues that we all hope this Congress will decide to tackle as we close out the first half of the 113th Congress and move toward calendar year 2014.

This has been a year of lost opportunities, of obstruction, of delay, of distraction, and a failure to meaningfully address the issues of importance to the American people. This has been a very schizophrenic economic recovery. We have come a long way since the collapse of the economy in 2008, but we still have a long way to go.

As members of the CBC have consistently pointed out from the floor of the House of Representatives, there are people who have been left behind, and the American people deserve this Congress putting aside issues of partisan bickering and to attempt to find common ground to solve their problems.

The stock market is way up. Corporate profits are way up. Productivity of the American people, way up. CEO compensation is way up, yet unemployment still remains stubbornly high. There are Americans who have been left behind, and we have failed to take up a jobs bill from the floor of the House of Representatives at any point this year.

As my colleague from Nevada also pointed out, we have a very broken immigration system. There is almost uniform agreement across the aisle about that fact. Yet there has been a failure to bring a meaningful piece of immigration reform legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives, despite the overwhelming demand for action by the American people.

Now, we all agree, as the CBC indicated earlier this year in February when we took to the floor to talk about the need to address the issue of the broken immigration system, that something needs to be done. And there really only are three possible options:

One, we have mass deportation of the 11 million undocumented individuals who are in this country. That is option number one;

Option number two is the status quo; just leave the broken immigration system in place;

Option number three is meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform with a tough but fair pathway towards citizenship.

Mass deportation is impractical; the status quo, unacceptable. Comprehensive immigration reform is the right thing to do for this country, for the economy, and for the American people.

I am hopeful, as my colleague from Nevada indicated, that that is the direction that we will go in as we speed to a close this year and attempt to restart the Congress after the end of the first half of this session.

I am pleased that we have been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from Texas who is a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. She has worked on many issues. She is a leader within the Congressional Black Caucus and is a leader within the Congress on the issues of social and economic justice. It is now my honor and privilege to yield to her, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas for her leadership on a wide variety of issues important to the social and economic justice landscape, and, of course, for laying out a very significant roadmap, a blueprint for the future in terms of what this Congress should confront as we close out this first session of the 113th Congress and move toward the second session.

We are pleased that we have also been joined by my neighbor back home in Brooklyn, the distinguished gentlewoman from the Ninth Congressional District, a woman who is one of the CBC cochairs on the task force related to comprehensive immigration reform. She has been a leader on that issue, as she has on many others. She is a member of the Small Business Committee, as well as the Homeland Security Committee. She represents one of the most diverse districts anywhere in this Nation and has made us all proud to call her a colleague. I yield now to Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.

One of the things that the CBC has attempted to work on, as my distinguished colleague from New York has indicated, is to deal with comprehensive immigration reform in a manner that fixes a broken system for all involved, and we certainly are thankful for the distinguished gentlewoman's work as a member and leader of the CBC task force on immigration reform.

We both proudly represent districts that are incredibly diverse. Back at home in the Eighth Congressional District in Brooklyn and parts of Queens, I represent African Americans, Caribbean Americans, South Asians, Russian-speaking Eastern European Jewish immigrants, Latinos, Chinese Americans, the gorgeous mosaic of the American people. What I found--and this has been the history and the experience, in fact, in New York City--is that immigrants are hardworking, entrepreneurial, spiritual, family-oriented, community-centered individuals. America would be strengthened, of course, by fixing our broken immigration system.

Let me now yield back to my distinguished colleague from New York.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from New York for her leadership on this issue, for the progress that has already been made, and her continued commitment.

The CBC, as I close, Mr. Speaker, will continue to take its role seriously as the conscience of the Congress, a voice for the voiceless, and the guardian of the integrity of the democratic process.

And I am just hopeful, as we move forward, that our friends on the other side of the aisle will end the obfuscation, end the obstruction, end the obsession with the Affordable Care Act, and we can find common ground to advance an agenda for the benefit of the American people.

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

Congressman Horsford, thank you very much for yielding, and thank you very much for the tremendous leadership that you have shown on this issue and for anchoring the CBC Special Order, this hour of power during which, for 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black Caucus consistently, every Monday that we are in session, have the opportunity to take to the floor of the House of Representatives and to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great significance affecting their quality of life. Today, we are tackling an extremely important issue in a country that is the wealthiest Nation in the world. It is the issue of hunger.

For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out why in this country, with all of this wealth--I come from the city of New York, where Wall Street is the engine that drives the world's economy. Yet, in neighborhoods that are in the shadows of Wall Street, you have children and seniors who are going to bed hungry and who are waking up the next day without any hope as to how they will be able to satisfy their nutritional needs.

Across this country, it appears that there are approximately 50 million people who are food insecure--50 million Americans who go to bed hungry at night. Approximately 16 million of those Americans are children born into very difficult circumstances not of their doing. They are not hungry by choice. They are hungry based on the urgency of their situations. It seems that, in this great Nation, we should be doing everything possible to deal with that food insecurity.

Now, as it relates to Americans and to those who are most impacted by food insecurity and hunger, approximately 1 in 10 Caucasian households is food insecure; one in seven overall households in America is food insecure; and approximately one in four African American households--25 percent of the people in the African American community--goes to bed hungry. Not a single person, whether he is Black or White, Asian or Latino, old or young, should be food insecure in the greatest Nation in the world.

The reality of the situation is that, as opposed to making progress on this issue in America, we stand here today on the floor of the House of Representatives and are at the risk of going backwards because there are some in this Chamber on the other side of the aisle who, for some reason, think that it makes sense to balance the budget on the backs of children and seniors and of those who are hungry in America. There is no other way, Representative Horsford, to explain the fact that, in this Chamber, you had people voting for a $39 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, colloquially known as ``food stamps''--a $39 billion cut.

Now, the explanation that is often given to us is that this is a fiscally responsible approach to the reality that, from a financial standpoint, we are on an unsustainable path in America. Certainly, as a member of the Budget Committee, I am of the view that there are some challenges that we have to confront in moving forward, particularly as they relate to the growth of the older American population and to the fact that people in America are living longer. Those two realities are going to create a strain on health care costs in America, and it is something that we are going to have to confront in moving forward. When you hear doom and gloom statements made about the deficit and the debt in America, it is important to unpack those statements and to really and truly evaluate what has driven the explosion of the debt in America.

It certainly hasn't been the fact that there are hungry people in this country whom we are trying to help. That is not driving the debt explosion in America. It is a failed war in Iraq while in search of weapons of mass destruction, weapons that to this day have not and will never be found because they didn't exist; a mis-prosecuted war in Afghanistan that has carried on much longer than it needed to because we were off on a diversion in Iraq; the Bush tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and in 2003, which helped to explode the deficit, that were unpaid for and that benefited disproportionately the wealthy and the well off in America.

These are the reasons we are in the debt and deficit situation that we confront in this country today. It is not because we have got 50 million Americans who are food insecure whom we are trying to help in the greatest Nation in the world.

Now, I am thankful for organizations like the Food Bank For New York City, back at home, which provides assistance to those who are trying to make it on a day-to-day basis with food banks all across the city, including many in the district that I represent.

But there is a role for government to play in providing assistance to needy Americans. These aren't individuals who have chosen poverty as a lifestyle. They have not chosen hunger as a lifestyle. These are individuals who find themselves in a difficult spot, and we as a government should be doing everything we can to help them turn their lives around.

In 2008, the economy collapsed. It was the worst situation financially that we found ourselves in since the Great Depression. Since that moment, the recovery that we have experienced, as I have talked about from time to time on the floor of the House of Representatives, has been a very schizophrenia one. It has been an uneven one. It has been a recovery that has benefited some in America while others have been left behind.

Earlier today, the stock market crossed over to the 16,000 point mark for the first time, I believe, in our Nation's great history. The stock market is way up, CEO compensation is way up, corporate profits are way up, the productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet unemployment remains stubbornly high and consumer demand is stagnant and working families and middle class folks are struggling. Income inequality has reached levels in some places in this country not seen since the Great Depression; and, as we have discussed, far too many Americans are hungry.

It seems that in the midst of this uneven, schizophrenia, economic recovery, where the corporate titans are doing well and those with robust stock portfolios are doing extremely well, and CEOs and companies are doing extremely well, that we can find the compassion in this House and in the Congress and in our great government to make sure that in America, the richest Nation in the world, we can embrace the principle that no child, no senior, no individual should go to bed hungry; and that we can't rest until every single American has been able to benefit from the turnaround that began to take place under this administration, but that still has a ways to go in order for all Americans to be included in getting up off the ground, moving forward, and putting them in a place where they can pursue life and liberty and happiness consistent with that principle included in that grand document of our Founding Fathers.

Let me close by making an observation. Earlier this week, or a few days ago over the weekend, I had an opportunity to attend a farmers market in the east New York portion of the district. At this farmers market, there was a whole host of healthy food options that were being sold, many of which were grown in the community garden that was immediately adjacent to this farmers market. It was a wonderful sight to see seniors and young people and others who were out with the opportunity to purchase healthy food options--fruits and vegetables--at an affordable price. It was an example for me of what can be done on a community level to help tackle this issue.

I resolved myself that as I came back down to the Congress, I would commit to doing all that I can to replicate that effort for the people in the Eighth Congressional District back home, for the people in Nevada, for the people all across this country to deal with the hunger issue, but also to make sure that healthy food options are made more available, because we recognize that the consequence, not just of hunger, but of poor diet, bears a direct relationship to the fact that many in urban America and in other parts of the country are disproportionately suffering from a wide range of ailments--respiratory disease, heart disease, childhood obesity--that directly relate to poor nutrition.

That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the aisle have remained committed to the Affordable Care Act as something that is good for America. All of these issues that we work on here in this country ultimately tie toward trying to do things that are good for America-- for children, for seniors, for working families, and for the middle class.

That is why I am proud to stand with my colleague, Representative Horsford, as well as the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, in tackling the issue of food insecurity, tackling the issue of the Affordable Care Act, and continuing to work on behalf of the betterment of America.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, and I think it is very important to note that in addition to the compassionate reasons to provide food assistance to hungry Americans in the greatest Nation in the world--that, it seems to me, should be sufficient enough reason for the government to act. But if that, for whatever reason, does not provide adequate motivation for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to deem it significant, to allow for the robust Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to remain in effect, I would suggest that there are also economic benefits to making sure that we provide assistance to low-income Americans.

Every economist who has studied the sluggish nature of our economic recovery recognizes that perhaps the biggest problem that we confront is the inadequate nature of our consumer demand, that Americans, for a wide variety of reasons, aren't spending enough. One of the reasons on the low-income side of the socioeconomic strata is because poorer Americans just don't have the resources. One of the reasons why I support an increase in the minimum wage is because independent economists have clearly indicated that, if you put additional dollars in the hands of lower-income Americans, the likelihood is they will spend those dollars, which increases economic productivity because of the increase in consumer demand.

Similarly, if you have Americans who are food insecure and you provide them with additional resources in order to deal with the hunger problem in their household, they are not going to save that money. They are going to spend that money to deal with their food insecurity and that of their children. But that has a stimulant effect on the economy. It helps our economy grow. That was the reason why increased SNAP benefits were included in the Recovery Act.

As my colleague from Nevada indicated, as of November 1 of this month, those increased SNAP benefits have lapsed; therefore, you have got people all across America with $20 to $24 less per month that they can spend in trying to address the food insecurity issues that they have. That is a problem in America. That is why one of the reasons when we as Democrats talk about things that should be done to turn the economy around, to invest in America, we support a balanced approach to deficit reduction and economic recovery. The other side supports an approach that balances the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society. My friends on the other side of the aisle will say: That is just hyperbole; what facts do you have to support that charge?

Well, is it hyperbole when you cut $39 billion from the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program that your intent is to balance the budget on the backs of the hungry in America? When your budget cuts $168 billion in higher education spending, is it hyperbole to suggest that your intent is to balance the budget on the backs of younger Americans in pursuit of the American Dream through a college education? Is it hyperbole to suggest that when you cut $810 billion from Medicaid, as your budget does, that your intent is to balance the budget on the backs of the sick and the afflicted and the poor in America? That is not hyperbole. These are the facts that your budget, your legislative action, have laid on the table.

I think if I had a dollar for every time that a Member on the other side of the aisle claimed wage, fraud, or abuse in order to justify some egregious, draconian cuts, I would be a multimillionaire right now.

It is unfortunate that in the absence of legitimate facts, in order to justify going after these programs, that the allegation of waste or fraud or abuse, without a scintilla of systematic evidence, is laid on the table to justify actions, but let's be clear. The reason that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, have made the decision to go after programs like SNAP and higher education funding and a wide variety of our social safety net programs that have made America great in many ways is because, essentially, in the budget supported by the majority, passed in this House, Representative Horsford, the majority wants to take the top tax rate in America, 39.6 percent, and what they do in this budget, after making all of these egregious cuts, is to lower that top tax rate from 39.6 percent all the way down to 25 percent. Now, the argument is always made that the reason this is being done is because of stimulating the economy as a result of some well-worn, tired, trickle-down theory that has been proven to be discredited based on the facts as we know them over the previous two administrations.

And I will just briefly make that point related to why in the world would you, in 2013, make the argument that if you drop the tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent and then cut $39 billion from SNAP in order to try and do it, cut billions of dollars from higher education funding, voucherize Medicare, cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid, it is because you expect America to accept the argument that that is going to create a stimulating effect on the economy. Well, when the top tax rate was 39.6 percent during the 8 years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, 20 million jobs were created; when, under the Bush administration, the top tax rate was dropped to 35 percent, we lost approximately 650,000 jobs. The facts don't support the nature of your argument.

That is why we think that there is just absolutely no justification to engage in alleged cost-cutting behavior, such as cutting $39 billion from SNAP in support of an economic theory that has widely been discredited.

I thank the distinguished gentleman again for his tremendous leadership in bringing to the House floor such an important issue of concern to the African American community, but really of concern to all Americans.

Hunger is an issue that should be nonpartisan in nature. It affects urban America and parts of suburban America and certainly rural America. It affects individuals who are Black, who are White, who are Latino, who are Asian, all different religious groups and ethnic persuasions. It is an issue that we should be willing to work on on a nonpartisan basis to find common ground with folks on the other side of the aisle to address an issue that should trouble every single Member of the House of representatives.

How can it be that we accept the fact that there are 50 million Americans who are food insecure in the wealthiest Nation in the world?

I have traveled all over the district that I represent, and I hear the arguments of some on the other side of the aisle that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, as it is sometimes referred to, is a program that creates dependency. Well, I haven't met a single one of my constituents who chooses hunger as a lifestyle. It seems to me that is a rough style to choose.

These individuals, for one reason or another, find themselves in a tough spot, and we in the Congress should be doing everything we can to try and help them out, to get them back on their feet, to put them in a position where they can move forward and make progress for themselves and for their families. Ultimately, that would mean progress for the community and for this country.

I thank the gentleman again for his leadership, and I look forward to working with you on this issue as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his leadership.

This bill represents an unjustified corporate giveaway being built on the backs of hardworking individuals from all across this country who in many cases were unwittingly victimized by asbestos exposure. It is an unwarranted, unnecessary, and unconscionable effort to benefit Big Business and the asbestos industrial complex, which in many instances has unleashed mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other diseases of mass destruction on Americans all across this country who are hardworking and, in most instances, simply trying to make a living for themselves and for their families.

It is being done allegedly to create greater transparency and in the name of litigation reform. Yet the record reflects that there is no evidence of systematic fraud, no evidence of systematic waste, no evidence of systematic abuse, no evidence of systematic overpayment to victims of asbestos exposure.

This is wrong, it is shameful, it is a bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate; and that is why I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to rise this evening and once again stand as an anchor for the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, this hour of power, where, for the next 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have an opportunity to speak to the American people about building a budget to create progress and prosperity for all Americans in this great country of ours.

Now, earlier today, myself and several other Members of Congress, including the distinguished Representative from the Ninth Congressional District of New York, Yvette Clarke, and the legendary Congressman John Lewis, had an opportunity to attend the homegoing service of Congressman Major Owens, who so proudly served in this institution for 24 years, first elected in 1982, having retired in 2006.

As I listened to speaker after speaker reflect on Congressman Owens' time in this great institution, it seemed to me that one of the things that became increasingly clear was his steadfast commitment to making sure that the funding priorities that emanated from this Congress were decent, were humane, were humanitarian, and were designed to stand up for and protect the least of those in American society.

Congressman Owens, during his 24 years in this Congress, consistently stood up for funding as it relates to early childhood education. He consistently stood up for funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. He consistently stood up for social safety net programs. He consistently stood up to open up the doors of the American Dream for the greatest number of people possible.

And so, in that regard, on the day of his homegoing service, I think it appropriate that we just dedicate the pathway toward prosperity that we are endeavoring to put forth today in the great spirit of Congressman Major Owens, who, for more than two decades labored in the vineyards of this Congress, fighting for budgets that stood up for the least of those amongst us.

I want to yield first to the distinguished chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, who so ably and passionately and intelligently led the CBC forward in this 113th Congress. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge.

I thank the distinguished chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for her always thoughtful and eloquent remarks.

I now want to yield some time to the architect of the CBC budget, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Representative Bobby Scott.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his very thoughtful and comprehensive remarks.

It is now my privilege to yield the floor to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Representative Barbara Lee, a very distinguished member of the House Budget Committee, someone who has consistently been a voice for the voiceless and an advocate for the poor, for the disenfranchised, for all those that are aspiring to the American Dream.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from California for her very eloquent and thoughtful comprehensive remarks, as well as the remarks of Representative Bobby Scott as well, and noting, of course, the role that the late Congressman Major Owens played in the context of the CBC budget during the years that he served in this Congress with such distinction.

I want to now yield the floor to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, whom I have the honor and the privilege of serving with on the House Judiciary Committee, who represents her district in Houston so ably, but of equal significance has stood on the floor of the House of Representatives as a Member of Congress standing up for those who might not otherwise be able to stand up for themselves in the context of making sure they get a fair shake in their pursuit of the American Dream.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas for her very powerful, strong, thoughtful, and comprehensive remarks.

Hopefully, as we move forward in this Congress with the conference committee that Representative Lee just discussed, they will take heed to her plea that you keep in mind those in America and the middle class and working families, those who aspire to be part of the middle class, and be compassionate as we move forward to address the issues that confront this Nation.

Earlier this month, as a result of the reckless behavior of some in this House of Representatives, we experienced 16 days of a government shutdown. It was a legislative joyride that was doomed to end in a crash-and-burn scenario, as it did. Unfortunately, as a result, the American people have been left with the damage of a $24 billion hit to the economy in terms of lost economic productivity.

Thankfully, as a result of the agreement that reopened the government, both sides agreed to finally move forward with the appointment of negotiators to try and resolve differences in the House Republican budget and the Senate Democratic budget and move forward with a plan for America that both re-energizes our economy and deals with the long-term deficit problems that we will have to confront.

We believe the CBC budget that has been discussed here on the floor of the House of Representatives provides insight into the type of things that should be considered by the negotiators in the House and the Senate as they move forward.

I would note, parenthetically, that though the conference committee is just at the early stages of beginning, at this point in time, this process really should have occurred months and months ago. This House passed its budget in March. The Senate passed its budget shortly thereafter, and Democrats in the House and the Senate have been calling for the appointment of conferees since the early spring.

For some reason, there was a refusal amongst our friends on the other side of the aisle to move forward, but we are thankful that at this point there is an agreement finally to sit down. The American people have demanded that we attempt to find common ground to resolve the issues of concern for this great Nation.

Now there are two different approaches that have been put forth. Our approach is designed to deal with the deficit problems that we have in a balanced fashion. The other approach, I believe, is designed to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in other society: children, working families, the poor, the disabled, middle class folks, senior citizens.

Now some may say that is just hyperbole. Well, what does the budget on the other side of the aisle actually do? It cuts assistance pursuant to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by $135 billion. That is not hyperbole. That is in the budget. In a country, at this moment, where 50 million people are hungry, 18 million of them are children.

The budget put forth by the other side of the aisle also cuts spending on higher education by $168 billion. That is not hyperbole. That is in the budget. It makes it more difficult for young people in this great country to access the American Dream--young people who are already in a debt crisis. Student loan debt in this country exceeds $1 trillion. We should be doing more to help people get a higher education, not less, in this country.

The document that was presented by the other side that will be subject to negotiation at the conference committee also cuts assistance and spending on Medicaid by the amount of $810 billion. That is not hyperbole. That is in the House Republican budget. That is notwithstanding the fact that the majority of people who benefit from Medicaid assistance in this country are actually children and the disabled and senior citizens.

So we have got very different priorities, blueprints, road maps as it relates to dealing with the problems that we confront here in America.

The balanced approach that we advocate for essentially has four different elements.

First, we believe it is important to invest in the American economy. It is time to invest in America, invest in job training and education, transportation and infrastructure, research and development, and technology and innovation.

Let's invest in America so we can create increased economic activity. We are in the midst of a very schizophrenic economic recovery. It is a recovery that has disproportionately benefited the wealthy in America.

Let's just look at the facts that have been laid before us.

We have got corporate profits that are way up. The stock market is way up. CEO compensation is way up. Productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet wages have remained stagnant, and unemployment is still stubbornly high.

Working families and middle class folks have been left behind in the context of this recovery. That is why we believe the first element of any budget has to invest in America. Because if you invest in America, you increase economic activity. If you increase economic activity, you raise consumer demand. If you raise consumer demand, the economy grows. If the economy grows, by definition, the deficit will be reduced.

Parenthetically, let me also note that despite all the rhetoric from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, under this administration, Barack Obama, the deficit has actually been reduced by half during his 5 years in office. In fact, I think as a percentage of GDP, the deficit has been reduced to a degree that has not been

seen since the drawdown in the aftermath of World War II. So we hear a lot about fiscal irresponsibility directed at the White House, notwithstanding the fact that this White House has presided over a near historic level of deficit reduction.

Invest in the economy.

The second thing that is important is that we should get rid of some wasteful corporate loopholes that have outlived their usefulness. We can just close or change or modify some of the benefits that oil and gas companies have received. They are making record profits. There is no reason for the loopholes and the benefits and the subsidies that exist right now. If we just were to address them, we could save the American people $25 billion over the next 10 years. If we were to change some of the loopholes that actually incentivize companies to move jobs overseas, we could save the American people $168 billion over the next 10 years.

If there is such a moral imperative not to saddle our children with the debt burden that we have in America, if that is such a moral imperative, can't we not agree upon a single loophole that can be closed in the name of the children and the grandchildren of America? Not one?

That is what we believe is the right thing to do here in the CBC.

The third thing that, I think, is part of a balanced approach to dealing with the budget and a reduction in the deficit has to do with making some spending cuts where appropriate, but we have got to do it in a manner that is sensitive to the fragile nature of the economy. I think all of us on this side of the aisle are willing to concede that there are probably some areas in which efficiencies can be found in the name of fiscal responsibility for the American people. Spending reduction sensitive to the fragile nature of our recovery should be part of any balanced approach in dealing with the problems that we face in America.

Lastly, we in the CBC certainly believe that any budget agreement has to stand up for important social safety net programs in America, like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid--programs that have been phenomenally successful, particularly in reducing poverty amongst older Americans. It is unfortunate because there are times when these programs--Social Security and Medicare--are unfairly demonized and are made part of deficit reduction talks even if the facts suggest they don't necessarily have a place in that regard. Social Security, for instance, remains a solvent program at this moment and into the foreseeable future. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. That, in fact, was a statement that Ronald Reagan made in 1984 in a debate with Walter Mondale. It was true then, and it is true almost 30 years later.

Now, when you think about the attack on our social safety net programs and on the obsessive desire to change--decimate--so-called entitlement programs, often this discussion is raised in the context of the enormous debt problem that we have in America--$16.7 trillion. Certainly it is a problem that we have got to confront in this country, but what also is often not clear is the fact that spending on so-called entitlement programs really does not account for the debt problem that we confront in America. This is what this poster board and the chart so clearly illustrate.

In fact, much of the debt that we currently confront in this America can be tied directly to policies emanating from the 8 years that George W. Bush was at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. More than half of our debt can be traced to the failed war in Iraq--totally unjustified in search of weapons of mass destruction that still haven't been found and never will be found. The debt can be tied to the war in Afghanistan and to the fact that it was mis-prosecuted as a result of being distracted by the joyride that took place in Iraq, costing lives and American treasure. The debt problem can be traced to the Bush tax cuts passed in this Congress in 2001 and 2003 without being paid for.

Then, of course, was the laissez-faire attitude toward Wall Street, resulting in reckless behavior by some that collapsed the economy, robbed millions and millions of Americans of the little wealth that they had tied into homeownership, and the resulting bailout that took place and the need for an economic stimulus package through the Recovery Act. All of that accounts for a significant amount of the debt that we now confront.

So when both sides sit down at the negotiating table in the context of the Budget Committee, we should do so with the facts objectively established as opposed to putting a bull's-eye on the back of important social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare just because some folks in this Capitol don't like those programs from their very inceptions.

The last observation that I will make is that the budget that has been set forth by the CBC and by Democrats in the House and the Senate, as compared to the budget that has been put forth by the House GOP, is very different in the context of how we review and evaluate tax fairness in America.

I think some would be surprised to know that, in the House GOP budget, it cuts taxes by lowering the top tax rate for high-income Americans from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. This is not the Reagan budget, supply-side economics. This is not George Herbert Walker Bush or George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. This is the current budget on which we are going to have to negotiate and find common ground. It cuts the tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent in order to slash all of the social safety net programs that we reviewed earlier.

Why is that a wrong-headed policy?

As I close, and as this chart illustrates, the top tax rate was at 39.6 percent notwithstanding the fact that so many people on the other side of the aisle, in good faith, constantly say, that type of tax rate is the type of rate that hurts the economy. Under the 8 years of the Clinton administration, with a 39.6 percent top tax rate, 20-plus million jobs were created; 8 years later, when the top tax rate was cut by this Congress from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, we lost 580,000 jobs. That is an apples-to-apples comparison that discredits the notion that lowering the tax rate somehow stimulates growth in the economy when the 8 years of the Clinton administration as compared to the 8 years of the Bush administration clearly discredit that theory in the manner that a former President referred to as voodoo economics.

So I am just hopeful that, as we move forward with this conference committee--we have got big differences--we can sit down and endeavor to find common ground and do the business of the American people: keep government open, invest in our economy, protect our social safety net programs, and help create prosperity for the greatest number of Americans possible.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege today to stand in the House of Representatives, along with my distinguished colleague from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford, to coanchor the CBC Special Order, the hour of power, where, for the next 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity to talk directly to the American people about the situation that we face in this country right now related to both the government shutdown and the impending debt ceiling crisis that we confront.

Mr. Speaker, this is day 14 of a government shutdown brought to us by reckless, irresponsible, and unreasonable behavior by our friends on the other side of the aisle. It is a government shutdown that is hurting the American people. It is hurting children, placing their Head Start programming at risk. It is hurting seniors who rely on the Meals on Wheels program. It is hurting expectant mothers who may be unable to receive the nutritional assistance that they are otherwise qualified for. It is hurting the more than 800,000 hardworking civil servants who have been unceremoniously cast out of their jobs, uncertain as to when they may be able to return. It is hurting America.

But as bad as this government shutdown has been, we are also faced with a crisis that might be even worse if we are unable in this House to raise the debt ceiling within the next several days. The Treasury Secretary has indicated that the United States effectively will run out of the capacity to pay all of its bills and its creditors if we do not raise the debt ceiling by Thursday, October 17, just a few days from now.

Now, the debt ceiling has been a vehicle that all too often has been mischaracterized, perhaps intentionally, perhaps out of ignorance. I am not certain. But let's just clear the record as to what the debt ceiling actually represents. It is a backward-looking vehicle, not a forward-looking vehicle designed to give the President the ability to spend more. That is a gross mischaracterization. The debt ceiling is a backward-looking vehicle designed to give the President and this administration the capacity to pay bills that this Congress has already incurred.

We just want the Congress to undertake its constitutional responsibility pursuant to the 14th Amendment, where, in section 4, it makes clear the validity of the public debt authorized by law shall not be questioned. And it is Congress, in section 5 of the 14th Amendment, that has the responsibility to adhere to that constitutional requirement.

We are going to explore this theme and the consequences of a debt ceiling default during this Special Order. And I am very pleased that we have been joined by the dynamic leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, the distinguished chairperson from the great State of Ohio, Representative Marcia Fudge.

I thank the distinguished chairwoman for her insightful, thorough remarks.

I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who has joined us today to share her remarks and observations as to this debt ceiling crisis that we are confronting right now.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from the great State of Texas for her observations and certainly hope that all people of decency on both sides of the aisle will denounce the hateful words that we saw on display here in the Nation's Capital this weekend.

We are pleased to have been joined by the distinguished Representative from the great State of Virginia, Representative Bobby Scott.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his observations and for reminding the American people that the President, the Senate majority, Democrats in the House of Representatives have always been prepared to sit down and attempt to find common ground as it relates to the challenges that we confront here in the country. We have been asking for a conference committee to be put into place so we can discuss the budget passed by the House and passed by the Senate and figure out how we can negotiate around those differences since March; but the House majority has refused to appoint Members to negotiate the budget differences.

But we are not going to be put into a position where essentially you say, Give us everything we want--the right-wing Republican agenda for this country rejected by the American people on

November 6, 2012. But notwithstanding that fact, give us everything we want or we are going to shut down the government or force a default that plunges this country and the world into a painful recession. We are not interested in negotiating on those terms because it is not in the best interest of the American people.

I am pleased that we have been joined by the distinguished Representative from the great State of California.

I yield to Representative Barbara Lee.

Congresswoman Lee, thank you for continuing to be an unyielding advocate for the downtrodden, the disaffected, and the disenfranchised in such a tremendous way.

I now yield to a distinguished member of the freshman class, also joining us from the great State of Texas, my good friend, Representative Mark Veasey.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for his observations and for his historical analysis, pointing out that raising the debt ceiling is something that has consistently occurred throughout the last century here in America.

I want to enter into the Record a White House correspondence that reads, in part, as follows:

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the

world. The full consequences of a default--or even the

serious prospect of default--by the United States are

impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration

of the full faith and credit of the United States would have

substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on

the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can

ill afford to allow such a result.

Mr. Speaker, this letter is dated November 16, 1983, and those words were written by then-President Ronald Reagan to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker: The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.

Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his two terms; and yet our good friends on the other side of the aisle want to come here and lecture President Obama as if he is being irresponsible, when the paragon of conservative Presidential leadership recognized the necessity on 18 occasions--and as memorialized in this correspondence-- of raising the debt ceiling.

The White House,

Washington, DC, November 16, 1983.

Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr.,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Howard: This letter is to ask for your help and

support, and that of your colleagues, in the passage of an

increase in the limit on the public debt.

As Secretary Regan has told you, the Treasury's cash

balances have reached a dangerously low point. Henceforth,

the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the Federal

Government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet

all of its mandated expenses, and thus the United States

could be forced to default on its obligations for the first

time in its history.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the

world. The full consequences of a default--or even the

serious prospect of default--by the United States are

impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration

of the full faith and credit of the United States would have

substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on

the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can

ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the

disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one

conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the

Congress adjourns.

I want to thank you for your immediate attention to this

urgent problem and for your assistance in passing an

extension of the debt ceiling.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan.

We are pleased that we have been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from Columbus, Ohio, who has conducted herself with such intelligence and grace in her 10 months here in the United States Congress, and we are proud to call her a member of this freshman class.

I yield now to Representative Joyce Beatty.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio for her very eloquent remarks.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on the Special Order?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have also been joined by another distinguished Member of the freshman class, the always nattily dressed representative from the great State of New Jersey, my good friend, Congressman Donald Payne.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to the gentleman from the great State of Nevada, Representative Steven Horsford, my good friend from the silver State, my co-anchor on the CBC Special Order Hour of Power, to close us out for the evening.

Mr. Speaker, let's reopen the government, raise the debt ceiling, and get back to doing the business of the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, October 15, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the achievements of Reverend Lawrence E. Aker III. During his years of service, Rev. Aker has ministered to thousands and worked tirelessly to improve the lives of all those he encountered. In honor of his tenth anniversary as pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church, Rev. Aker was honored at a celebratory banquet on April 27, 2013 at Steiner Studios in Brooklyn, New York.

In 1917, Cornerstone Baptist Church was founded in Brooklyn, NY by a small group of forward minded individuals. Today, it is a thriving church of over 1,500 members with active boards, clubs, Sunday school programs, and choirs. In the last decade, Cornerstone Baptist Church has continued to thrive under the outstanding leadership of Rev. Aker. In order to meet the needs of his ever-growing parishioners, an additional Sunday service was added. By embracing technology, Rev. Aker has made his church more accessible to all who are called to worship. During his tenure, the church underwent extensive renovation to the exterior of the edifice. This beautification of the church was greatly celebrated by the community, lifting not just the congregation but all those in its vicinity. As a visionary, Rev. Aker plans to continue the church's enhancement through the renovation of the church's gym and community center.

His strong commitment to nurturing the next generation led to the creation of ``Friday Nite Fire,'' a weekly bible study for youth and young adults. He also created the Women of the World (WOW) ministry, which offers spiritual guidance to women. Rev. Aker's reach extends outside the parish: I experienced this first hand as a member of the Assembly when we worked together to organize a community career fair at Cornerstone Baptist Church.

This past winter, I was privileged to accept the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award with the Reverend, given to us from the State of Israel and presented by Ambassador Ido Aharoni, Consul General of Israel in New York, for ``spreading compassion and uniting communities of all backgrounds.'' As a life-long parishioner of Cornerstone, I could think of no higher honor than to be counted among his company.

Rev. Aker holds a Bachelor's degree in Communications from Howard University, a Master in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, a Master of Sacred Theology from Yale University, and is currently a Doctor of Philosophy candidate at Drew University.

Rev. Aker is an inspirational leader whose work would not have been possible without the love and support of his wife Cynthia Aker and their devoted children. We thank his family for sharing him with us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Rev. Aker on his 10th pastoral anniversary. For his commitment to the people of Brooklyn, he is worthy of the highest praise.