Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials into the Record on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege once again to stand here on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to help anchor this Special Order along with my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford, where for the next 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great significance as we kick off Small Business Week in America and commemorate the 50th anniversary.

Entrepreneurship innovation, the capacity of Americans who have an idea and want to translate that idea into a business initiative in urban America, in rural America, in suburban America, is something that we here in the Congress should not simply celebrate, as we will do this week, but figure out ways to make sure that we can facilitate those entrepreneurial ideas in the most robust manner possible and help those entrepreneurs from all over the country translate their ideas and their dreams into small business reality.

It goes without saying that small businesses are the heart and soul of the American economy. A significant number of people all throughout the country are employed in small businesses on Main Street and throughout inner-city commercial corridors and in the far reaches of rural America. Many of these small businesses we, of course, know were also hit extremely hard in the aftermath of the collapse of the economy in 2008. They were knocked down on the ground. And it's our job in the Congress and government, working with industry, to help lift those small businesses up off the ground and get them back on their feet so they can survive and thrive in the face of the economic difficulty that they confronted.

So we will be presenting ideas related to entrepreneurship for small businesses throughout America generally and in the context of entrepreneurship and innovation in the African American community.

We are going to begin today with the distinguished gentleman from Newark, New Jersey, our good friend, Representative Donald Payne, who is a distinguished member of the Small Business Committee. Prior to arriving in Congress, he worked hard on these issues, and he has been a leader since being sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives. It is my honor and my privilege to yield to Representative Payne.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for so eloquently laying out the history of entrepreneurship in America through the lens of the Black community, and also for detailing his own personal experiences in Newark, New Jersey, experiences that, I think, were replicated in many inner cities all across the country in the face of urban decay and abandonment that took place in the 1960s and in the 1970s. It was those African Americans who remained behind in inner city after inner city after inner city in America with an entrepreneurial idea of providing a service that otherwise may not have been available. We want to make sure that we create opportunities for all Americans to be able to grow their businesses and transform their ideas into reality.

I look forward, and all the members of the CBC look forward, to working with Representative Payne in his capacity on the Small Business Committee with the leadership that he has demonstrated.

We've now been joined by another distinguished member of the freshman class who also has experience from a personal perspective as a successful small business owner and entrepreneur. So it's my honor right now to yield the floor to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio. She certainly eloquently illustrated the point that small business and entrepreneurship are as American as baseball and apple pie. And for women and minority-owned businesses to thrive is for America to thrive, as has been pointed out by speaker after speaker.

So many of the jobs that Americans hold to this day are as a result of the employment that small businesses provide. So as we figure out how we can continue to recover from the Great Recession of 2008, it's critically important for us to make sure that we can guarantee the best possible opportunity for small businesses to succeed and for entrepreneurial ideas to flourish. That is why we've taken to the floor today, and it's my honor and my privilege to now yield to another distinguished member of the freshman class, my co-anchor for the CBC Special Order, the gentleman from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford.

I want to thank my good friend, Representative Horsford, who's made several important points. And if I could just highlight a few in particular, we hear a lot of talk here in Washington, D.C., about the evils of regulation. That talk is generally put forth in very generalized terms, without being able to point to specific regulations that actually are impeding the growth and opportunities of small businesses, but is certainly something that we hear a lot about, the evils of regulation.

But the reality is if you really want to deal with some of the problems that are confronting small businesses in America, I think Representative Horsford has laid it out in pretty compelling ways.

One, we need to ensure that our small businesses have access to capital in order to be able to grow their businesses, allow them to flourish and expand, build upon the ideas that exist.

Two, we've got to make sure that we give these small businesses access to contracting and procurement opportunities. Many times there are small businesses that have the capacity to do the job, but are unaware of the opportunities that actually exist, whether that's at the Federal Government level, the State government level, or down at the municipal or county governmental level.

And, lastly, as my good friend, Representative Horsford, pointed out, we've got to make sure that we provide access to technical assistance to deal with the compliance issues that businesses do confront. That doesn't mean that all of these issues are overly burdensome or unnecessary. But we want to make sure that small businesses do have the capacity to operate within the regulatory framework that is applicable and reasonable and that the elected officials in whatever the particular jurisdiction have deemed necessary for the proper functioning of a small business.

So I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nevada for raising those very compelling points.

We've now been joined by a very important leader on the issue of small business and entrepreneurship, who comes from the great State of New York, the great borough and county of Kings and Brooklyn, where we have many entrepreneurs. And she's helped many businesses over time. She is on the Small Business Committee.

She's my neighbor, so I wanted to make sure I gave her the appropriately generous introduction. It's an honor to yield the floor to the distinguished gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from New York for her very thoughtful and insightful remarks, and I certainly thank her for pointing out that immigrants from the great State of New York and, in fact, immigrants who have come across the world to States all across the United States are hardworking, family-oriented, entrepreneurial, and innovative individuals who have helped to revive and rejuvenate communities all across this great land. It's something that we in this Chamber need to recognize as we celebrate and commemorate Small Business Week and prepare to move forward hopefully with some form of comprehensive immigration reform that we recognize the contributions that immigrants have made in the small business context.

We've been joined by another champion of small businesses here in the Congress who has got a very distinguished record on a wide variety of issues. She has been a thoughtful, eloquent, and passionate voice as it relates to entrepreneurship in America, and specifically within the black community. It is my honor and privilege now to yield the floor to the distinguished gentlelady from the great Lone Star State of Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas for her very eloquent and thoughtful remarks and for her putting forth some very important policy prescriptions for what we in the Congress can do to help advance the agenda on behalf of small businesses all across this country, and certainly in the women- and minority-owned business context.

I also want to note, I am thankful that Representative Clarke mentioned one of the important immigrant businesses that began in the Bronx, New York, but has spread all across the country, the Golden Crust Caribbean Bakery and Grill, as well as I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas for highlighting some of the important businesses that have sprouted up in Houston, Texas. Those are just a few examples of what entrepreneurs in the black immigrant community, in the African American community, have done all across the land. All we're saying is we want to make sure that we provide these businessmen and -women the same opportunities that others throughout time in America have had, because if we do, they will be able to translate their entrepreneurial spirit, their innovative ideas, their vision, into reality that will make economic sense for their communities and lead to the hiring of American citizens and others who need the employment opportunity that these small businesses will continue to generate.

Just a few observations in closing. One of the things that was mentioned earlier today on the floor was the fact that many small businesses confront an uncertain economic environment. And as a result of this uncertainty, they are unable to move forward in any concrete fashion because they don't know when the next crisis will hit our economy: Are we going to default on our debt? Are we going to fall over the fiscal cliff? How long are we going to be dealing with sequestration?

I would suggest to my good friends on the other side of the aisle that if we really want to help out small businesses and entrepreneurs, we've got to figure out a way to come together and find common ground as it relates to moving our economy forward, because as long as we're in this period of uncertainty, it will be difficult for small businesses and for entrepreneurs to take any step forward as it relates to growing their businesses and allowing them to be more prosperous.

Now there is a vehicle for us to try and find common ground. For 4 years, my good friends on the other side of the aisle were complaining about the fact that we were not in regular order, that the Senate failed to pass a budget. Well, this year a budget resolution was passed in the House of Representatives. A budget resolution was passed in the Senate. Two very different visions for where we should go as a country. But the vehicle to find common ground is to move forward with a conference committee. The majority in the Senate has indicated they are prepared to move forward and appoint conferees, but the Speaker of the people's House refuses to do so, even though for the last 4 years folks were complaining about the absence of regular order.

If you want to do something about small businesses, what we should do in America is figure out how we in the Congress can come together, find common ground and create some economic certainty so these entrepreneurs can move forward.

I don't know if my good friend has any parting comments, but let me just say that we in the CBC are committed to continuing to stand up for entrepreneurship in America, for opportunity, for the fruitful pursuit of the American Dream through innovation, and we extend an olive branch to Members of the other side of the aisle on this issue and on all other issues so we can finally find a way to come together and move this economy forward in a way that should benefit all Americans.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, for once again anchoring this the CBC Special Order, this hour of power where, for the 60 minutes that we've been allotted, we in the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people on an issue of great significance, income inequality, which, as you have pointed out Representative Horsford, has increased, has gotten worse, not better, in recent years and, in fact, in recent decades. It's a very troubling trend.

The fact is, in America, we celebrate success, celebrate entrepreneurship and the ability of people to prosper. But we in the CBC think that America is at its greatest when we promote progress for everybody, when we work as hard as we can in this Congress and this country to lift the entire civic participation rates and economic participation rates of everybody in this country.

For the last several decades, objectively and empirically, the rich have gotten richer. They've seen their incomes increase since 1979 in excess of 275 percent. In isolation, that wouldn't be problematic. But when you consider what has happened to the least of those amongst us, to middle-income Americans as well, the situation is extremely troubling. The poor in many instances have gotten poorer, and working families and middle class folks and those who aspire to be part of the middle class are still struggling. In many instances, they've been left behind.

Now it has often been said that when Wall Street catches a cold, many low-income Americans get a fever. Well, we know in 2008, Wall Street, in fact, Representative Horsford, got the flu. And ever since, many low-income communities across this great country have been dealing with economic pneumonia. That's bad for the country, that's bad for our democracy, and we here in the country ought to do something about it.

Now, since the collapse of the economy in 2008, one of the things that has exacerbated the income and inequality dynamic is the fact that some Americans have recovered, but others have been left behind. We are in the midst of a very schizophrenic economic situation right now. Corporate profits are way up. The stock market is way up. The productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet unemployment remains stubbornly high and wages for working families and for low-income Americans has remained stagnant.

That's why we're arguing in the CBC that what we should be doing in America right now is investing in our economy, lifting up low-income workers and working families and those who aspire to be part of the middle class; invest in education; invest in job training; invest in research and development; invest in transportation and infrastructure and technology and innovation. Invest in America in these ways. Put people back to work so we can increase consumer demand; and if you increase consumer demand, the economy is going to grow. And if the economy grows, then the deficit as a percentage of GDP will reduce itself, and everybody benefits.

So if you can't find the compassion simply to do the right thing for those low-income Americans who are struggling here in this great country, basic economic theory suggests that the right thing to do would be to provide support to those Americans who will spend that additional income that they have, put it into the economy in order to help create a more robust recovery.

So I thank the gentleman from Nevada for his leadership on this issue of great importance.

Well, we don't need slash-and-burn budgets that reduce our investment in social safety net programs that are an important part of who we are in America. What we should be doing, consistent with the 10-20-30 proposal, is targeting our investment in a way that is nonpartisan in nature, that will direct resources to rural America and to urban America, to blue States and to red States, that will focus on the poverty problem in a way that will benefit Americans no matter where they might be. That's what we should be doing as a Congress. That's what 10-20-30 is all about, and I'm hopeful that we can find our way to a bipartisan meeting of the minds, find common ground, and engage in investing in programs that will lift people out of poverty in this great country.

Well, let me first thank the distinguished gentleman from the Badger State, my good friend, Representative Mark Pocan, who has been such a tremendous leader on this issue and a tremendous leader on issues of significance to progressive America--to America, in fact-- during his short time in the Congress.

We've seen week after week, month after month, Representative Pocan has come to the floor of the House of Representatives, the people's House, and boldly articulated a progressive vision for how we can deal with some of the problems that we confront today in America.

And certainly when we talk about wrapping our arms collectively around the issues of great significance to this country of ours, dealing with the crisis in higher education is of utmost importance.

As Representative Pocan has eloquently laid out, if the Congress does not act by July 1, more than 7 million Americans will face a doubling of their student loan interest rate from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, increasing an already heavy burden as it relates to their college education.

Why is it important that we address this issue? Well, one, the cost of a college education in America keeps going up, but the amount of financial aid available to these students keeps coming down. And so college and higher education, which is a pathway toward the American Dream, is increasingly out of reach for low-income Americans, for working families, for the sons and the daughters of the middle class.

Why is this troubling? Well, it's troubling because it's clear that going to college makes sense as it relates to creating a better future for Americans.

This chart that we have illustrates the point in a very compelling way--Education Pays. This lays out the median weekly earnings of individuals at different levels of educational attainment.

Now, with less than a high school diploma, you earn approximately $451 a week and your unemployment rate is in excess of 14 percent.

If you've got a high school diploma or a GED, you'll make around $638 per week. You still have a very high unemployment rate on average of 9.4 percent.

If you get a bachelor's degree, your weekly earnings increase exponentially to $1,053 per week, and your average unemployment drops to 4.9 percent.

And if you were to take that a step further and obtain a professional degree, your weekly average earnings increase to in excess of $1,600 per week, and your collective unemployment rate drops to 2.4 percent.

Education pays.

And that's why for the good of America, we support the position that we should invest in young people--help facilitate their pursuit of a college education. It will benefit them, it will benefit their families, it will benefit the communities from whence they come, and it will also, of course, benefit America.

But today, as was indicated by Representative Pocan, we have a student loan debt crisis that we confront in America. Student loan debt is now second only to home mortgages in collective debt as it relates to the American people. It was staggeringly high just a few years ago-- $650 million or so. It now exceeds $1 trillion. It's a crisis of incredible proportion.

Now, similar to Representative Pocan and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Representative Cartwright, we've only been here for a couple of months; but it's been clear in that relatively short period of time that there are many in the people's House who consistently talk about the notion that the debt that we have in America is a moral imperative for us to get under control. It exceeds $16 trillion.

They blame President Obama for that debt, and that's why we have an irresponsible fight every time there's occasion to raise the debt ceiling. I don't want to dwell on that fact, but parenthetically I will note that we're in the situation that we're in today, not because of assistance that the government has provided to those seeking higher education or other positive domestic spending programs, we're in this situation--that $16 trillion debt situation--because of some irresponsible decisions that were made during the 8 years of the previous administration. That's just the facts.

But they'll talk--some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle--about this moral imperative to deal with the debt that we have in America. How dare we shoulder future generations with such a burden.

But then when it comes to the more than $1 trillion debt burden that is actually being shouldered by younger Americans, what we've gotten is an irresponsible bill, H.R. 1911, that will actually make a bad situation even worse.

As Representative Pocan indicated, I've introduced legislation that would freeze the current interest rate at 3.4 percent. There are other ideas on this side of the aisle, all designed to deal with making sure that as many Americans as possible can go to college, that

it is affordable, and they can leave college with a minimum amount of debt so they can accelerate their entry into society as productive Americans.

That's really what we want. Because the higher the debt burden that the average American faces--young American--the more likely it is that they'll put off consumer spending decisions that are important to our economy, such as the purchase of a home; they'll put off because of their student loan debt burden, starting a family; many who might otherwise be future entrepreneurs create start-up companies that may become the next Google or the next Yahoo or the next Facebook, they put off those decisions because they need the certainty of a job that will help pay down this debt. And so there are a lot of complications that are created as a result of the $1 trillion debt burden that we have in America.

And so how are we going to deal with this problem? Well, the GOP proposal, as I mentioned, really will make a bad situation worse. Under the current interest rate, 3.4 percent, over the next 5 years, someone with a subsidized Stafford loan would have about $4,174 in debt. If we did nothing and allowed the increase to take place on July 1, that same individual would have $8,808 in debt over a 5-year period.

But with the GOP proposal, H.R. 1911, the student would be in the worst possible position: in excess of $10,000 in debt. This is not an appropriate approach for our future college students, for younger Americans, for this great country of ours. That's why we are urging the rejection of H.R. 1911. Let's come to the table and have a discussion that allows younger Americans and our college students to benefit from the historically low interest rates that exist and allow them to pursue the dream of a college education so they can grow and prosper and benefit the good of the country.

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 anchor the CBC Special Order along with my very distinguished colleague, my good friend from the Silver State, Representative Steven Horsford, where for the next 60 minutes during this hour of power, members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about the issues facing higher education here in America.

We are at a crisis moment as it relates to our capacity to make sure that we can provide an affordable college education to as many Americans as possible. The problem that we in this country confront is twofold. First, the cost of a college education keeps going up, but the amount of financial aid available to younger Americans keeps coming down. As a result, higher education is increasingly out of reach, particularly for low-income Americans or working families or the sons and daughters of the middle class.

A college education is a pathway to the American Dream. The fact that it's increasingly out of reach is incredibly problematic for this great country. Compounding that fact secondarily is the reality that the amount of student loan debt for younger Americans has increased exponentially. If the Congress does not act in advance of July 1, then the interest rate for federally subsidized student loans will double in its amount. It will increase from its current rate of 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This increase will impact more than 7 million younger Americans. It's a crisis that we must confront.

The CBC today will lay out a vision for how we can deal with the immediate crisis that we confront that's approaching as we march toward July 1, as well as ideas for tackling the broader issue of college affordability. Many of our members will also lay out the problems with the GOP approach as represented in H.R. 1911, which will only make the problem worse--not better.

We're pleased that so many of my distinguished colleagues have joined us today to participate in this Special Order. To get us started is our eloquent and dynamic leader, the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Marcia Fudge.

I thank you, Chairwoman Fudge, for so eloquently laying out both the history in this great country of investing in higher education, whether it is the private school context or in the public school context, but making sure consistently that our young people are prepared for the challenges of the modern day economy, which will increasingly require a college degree, if not a graduate degree and significant training. That is why we at the CBC feel it is important to make sure that we make college more affordable, not less affordable, as the GOP proposal would do.

We have also been joined by a very distinguished colleague from the Lone Star State who has been a tremendous champion on this issue and on many others in the Congress, and so I now yield to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee from the great city of Houston.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from the great State of Texas for laying out in very clear terms the two different visions that exist here in the House of Representatives as it relates to how to deal with access to higher education. The CBC vision is a clear one. We want to increase opportunity to a college degree because we recognize that it's a great way to the American Dream. The other side, unfortunately, has put forth a plan that will help snatch that opportunity away, make it more expensive, increase the debt burden.

And unfortunately, this one particular issue, as it relates to the student loan dynamic, fits within a broader dichotomy as to how we approach dealing with the problems in America. We believe in a balanced approach that invests in America and education and prepares our young people for the challenges of the 21st century economy. But the other side seems to have taken the approach that they're going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable here in America, and that includes young people who are trying to pursue a college education.

That's what their budget proposal says. Take away $168 billion in higher education funding, and then, at the same time, when, on July 1, student loan rates may double, put forth a bill that has been articulated to have made the problem worse if, in fact, it is ever enacted into law.

We're pleased that we've been joined, once again by my distinguished coanchor, Steven Horsford, who represents the great State of Nevada, and so I now yield to my good friend, Congressman Horsford.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for raising some very eloquent points and doing it in such a thoughtful and passionate way. These are solutions, Mr. Speaker, that we really should be discussing in the context of a conference committee to come to some resolution around the budget.

For about 4 years, Members of the other side of the aisle were complaining about the absence of regular order, but this year we passed a budget in the House of Representatives in March. The Senate then passed their budget plan in the same month. The President came back in April, after we got back from recess, and presented his budget. The next step in regular order, which the House GOP has been asking for for 4 years, would be to appoint conferees so the Senate and the House can sit down and work it out and discuss some of the solutions that Representative Horsford and other Representatives of the American people have put forth to deal with our economic situation, make higher education more affordable, and provide businesses with the certainty that they need.

And so the question is, What is the House GOP afraid of? Why haven't you appointed conferees so we can sit down and have a discussion to work out the issues and the problems that are confronting the American people?

We've been joined by another distinguished member of the freshman class, one of the newest Members of the House of Representatives, Representative Robin Kelly from the great State of Illinois.

I thank the gentlelady for her very insightful comments.

You know, it's interesting, as Representative Kelly pointed out, when the economy collapsed in 2008, it created a situation where many younger Americans entered into the job market and confronted increased difficulty in securing employment in their area of study or in any other area of study. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to many of us that, as we still continue to deal with a fragile economic recovery, why in the world would we shoulder these young Americans with an increased student loan debt burden in the face of an already difficult job market? That's a question that our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to have to answer this week, and I don't think that the American people will like what they have to say in that regard.

We're pleased that we've been joined by the very distinguished gentleman from the great State of Virginia, someone who has spearheaded the CBC effort as it relates to our compassionate and strong and responsible budget. I'm pleased to yield to Representative Bobby Scott.

Thank you so much, Representative Scott, certainly for your eloquent and thoughtful observations, and for pointing out what really is a very interesting fact as it relates to what we're doing here in Washington, D.C., this week. If we just simply did nothing, if we all went back to our districts and didn't act in advance of the student loan rate doubling on July 1, that we would actually be better off going back home and doing nothing than if we acted upon the GOP proposal, H.R. 1911, which independently and objectively has been proven to show that it would make the situation, which is bad, now worse for millions and millions and millions of American students. That's why so many of our constituents are cynical about a lot of the things that happen down here in Washington, D.C.

We've been joined by another distinguished member of the freshman class, someone who herself had a very prominent career prior to arriving here in the House of Representatives in higher education, as well as a leader in the Ohio legislature.

I'm pleased to yield now to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio for her great leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to let us know how many minutes are remaining in today's Special Order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've been joined now by another dynamic member of the freshman class, who arrived a couple of months earlier than the rest of us. He has gotten off to a tremendous start. I now yield to my distinguished colleague from the Garden State, the always nattily dressed Representative Donald Payne, Jr.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

As we close, this chart really illustrates the magnitude of the collective problem confronting younger Americans in the United States of America. The student loan debt burden has now exceeded $1 trillion. Now, in this Chamber, we hear a lot about the debt crisis facing America, but we have a student loan debt crisis that must be addressed.

I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Nevada, Steven Horsford, for his thoughts on this matter.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

We will continue to do all that we can to make college affordable for every single American.

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

Madam Speaker, later on this afternoon, the House will vote for the 37th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has already been on record saying that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. So it's just not clear to me why we are wasting the time and the treasure of the American people on another futile legislative fantasy.

In fact, it's a legislative fantasy that has cost the American people more than $50 million. If, in fact, the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed, it would do even more damage, as independent economists have estimated that a repeal would add to the Federal deficit by more than $100 billion.

It's often been said that the classic definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over and over again but somehow expecting a different result.

Barack Obama was elected President in 2008. The Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010. The Supreme Court, with the Chief Justice voting in the majority, held that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional in 2012. A few months later, President Barack Obama was reelected in an electoral college landslide. Yet, later on this afternoon, we're voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time--over and over and over again. It's a classic definition of legislative insanity, as if the 37th vote is going to be any different, will yield any different results than the previous 36 where we've wasted the taxpayer dollars of the American people.

The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and that's a good thing. It's a good thing because over the next decade more than 30 million Americans who otherwise would not have had health care insurance will be insured. It seems to me that that's a good thing.

The Affordable Care Act makes sure that insurance companies cannot deny medical coverage for preexisting conditions. It seems to me that that's a good thing.

The Affordable Care Act provides small businesses with a 35 percent tax credit, which will enable these small businesses to continue to grow and to flourish. It seems to me that that's a good thing.

The Affordable Care Act allows young Americans who are just starting out to remain on the insurance plan of their parents until the age of 26, giving them a real chance to get themselves started in their pursuit of the American Dream. I'm new, but it seems to me that that's a good thing.

Yet later on this afternoon, for the 37th time, we're engaging in another futile legislative fantasy.

There are a couple of other things that we could be doing. We could be dealing with the sequester, $85 billion in random cuts that are costing the economy more than 500,000 jobs, but we're not.

We could be debating the American Jobs Act, trying to put the people of this great country back to work and stimulate the economy, but we're not.

We could be trying to get a budget, go to conference, create some certainty for industry and the American people, but we're not.

Madam Speaker, I'm hopeful that after this vote is taken, we can finally come to the reality that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, it's good for the American people, and we should get back to doing things that will advance prosperity in this great country.

Madam Speaker, this institution is commonly referred to as the people's House. We have an obligation to address issues that impact all Americans.

The sequestration cuts began as a slow burn but have increasingly caused pain for people all across this country. Now, this House somehow found the courage to rescue air travelers from the sequestration battlefield, but we left other Americans behind:

We left Head Start children behind; we left expectant mothers behind; we left seniors who rely on the Meals on Wheels program behind; we left public housing residents behind; we left the long-term unemployed behind.

We have an obligation to address issues that confront all Americans. That's why I support H.R. 900, a one-sentence bill that would repeal the sequester.

Thank you, Mr. Horsford, for once again co-anchoring this Special Order and for your tremendous leadership, and also thanks to Dr. Christensen. We are thankful for all that you have done in chairing the CBC Brain Trust on Health Care.

The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land; the President has been elected and reelected; the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. Let's move forward and address the health care disparities that have been set forth so eloquently here today, come together and deal with the ailments that are facing the American people.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to stand here once again and to anchor the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order with my distinguished colleague from the Silver State, Steven Horsford.

For the next 60 minutes, members from the Congressional Black Caucus will speak directly to the American people about the importance of investing in the education of our children and of our young people as a matter of utmost importance for the future prosperity of this great country.

I've got the honor and the privilege of representing the 8th Congressional District, which includes parts of Queens, and it is largely anchored in neighborhoods in Brooklyn. And 100 years ago this month, in April of 1913, Ebbets Field opened for the first time. Ebbets Field, as the movie ``42'' has illustrated, is the baseball stadium where, on April 15 of 1947, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in America's pastime and became the first African American to participate in a Major League Baseball game.

Now, we know that prior to that moment, African Americans, solely on the basis of their color, were prohibited from playing Major League Baseball. And so you had individuals like ``Cool Papa'' Bell and Josh Gibson, any number of individuals who were stellar at their craft amongst the best who have ever played, confined to the Negro leagues, unable to ever get onto a Major League Baseball field because of the color of their skin.

That all changed on April 15, 1947, when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. And I think that holds an important point for us, what Jackie Robinson illustrated: that if you get an opportunity to get on the field of play, folks who otherwise have been excluded from the mainstream can demonstrate that they will perform just as well, if not better, than everyone else.

And in the context of education in the United States of America, we confront a situation where you have one group of children in this country who've got a first-rate education, and then you've got another group of children who are confined to a broken public school system that has failed them, that has inadequately prepared them for the opportunities that otherwise would be available in life.

We don't have necessarily, the literature has begun to show, an achievement gap that relates to capacity or ability. Yes, based on different performance measures, Black children and White children and Latino children score differently in various areas of proficiency, but the literature has begun to show that's not really an achievement gap. It's really an opportunity gap.

And what Jackie Robinson demonstrated, I think, for all of America to see is that, if you just give our children the same opportunities available to others through the educational system--give them the same bat, give them the same glove, give them the same cleats, allow them to perform on the same fields of human endeavor--that they can perform just as well, if not better, than everyone else.

And if you give them that opportunity, if you give all American children opportunity, it's good for them, but it's good for the community and it's good for the Nation. It lifts everyone's productivity in a manner that will benefit America. That is why the CBC believes that investing in education is the appropriate and a meaningful and the right way to go, given what we confront in our country at this moment.

We've been joined by several distinguished members of the CBC. Let me first yield to my co-anchor, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Representative Steven Horsford.

Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to a great fighter for education and for social and economic justice here in the Congress and in this Nation, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his extremely insightful comments and for his leadership on this issue.

We have also been joined by another dynamic member of the freshman class, who has taken the Capitol by storm with her intelligence and elegance. We are thankful for her leadership. Let me yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty.

I thank the distinguished Congresswoman from Ohio.

I note the connection to Ohio State University that we share in my family. My brother is a professor of history at Ohio State's great institution. Your contribution to opening up opportunities for people of color and all students at such a great public university is noted.

It is important, I think, for this institution to take a look at several of the issues that you've raised, Congresswoman, that Representative Horsford and I will shortly explore.

The debt situation is particularly troublesome, and I'm going to ask the gentleman from Nevada if he would make a few observations in connection to what Representative Beatty noted is a student-loan problem that we have here in America.

Now, the interesting thing is that during the 110-plus days that we all as freshmen have been in this Chamber, we've heard a lot of talk about the moral imperative of dealing with the debt situation that we confront in America. And every time we're about to hit the debt ceiling, there are some in this Chamber who have said that we should perhaps default to send a message that some in this country apparently are reckless with their spending habits.

Now, parenthetically, this is, of course, a complete mischaracterization of what the debt ceiling actually represents. It's not a forward-looking vehicle designed to give the President the opportunity to spend more. It's a backward-looking vehicle designed to allow this administration, or any administration, to pay bills that this Congress has already incurred.

But whenever we talk about the debt, my friends on the other side of the aisle raise it as a moral imperative. I think the fact that we've got student loan debt in America that now exceeds, as the chart illustrates, more than $1 trillion is really what imperils future generations in this country. You've got young people saddled with, on average, in excess of $25,000 per person in debt facing a tough job market, with the inability often to find employment in their field of endeavor, to start a family, to purchase a home, the things that traditionally have been associated with pursuit of the American Dream.

The prescription that has been put forth by the other side, as it relates to how to alleviate this debt connected to students, is very different than the one that, I think, we on this side of the aisle have chosen to offer.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from Nevada if he might elaborate on our CBC vision for how to deal with the student loan problem or the education of young people in America.

I thank the gentleman from the Silver State for those very astute observations. As Representative Horsford has pointed out, a budget essentially is a choice and a pathway forward that people in this Chamber are making decisions on based on what they see as best for America. And the Republican budget that was passed by this House, as Representative Horsford has indicated, in total would cut $168 billion in spending on higher education. That's a value choice, to walk away from young people in America, young people who already are being saddled with in excess of $1 trillion in debt in total.

Now, what else does that budget do? Well, it says that we're going to take the top tax rate, which is 39.6 for millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest and the well off, and we want to slash that tax rate down to 25 percent. So we're going to cut education spending for, among other reasons, to cut further the taxes paid by the wealthy and the well off in this country. That is a choice that is bad for America. It's bad for the middle class. It's bad for working families, and it's bad for our future.

We have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, an expert in all matters pertaining to the budget in this Congress, among other things. Representative Bobby Scott is an expert on the CBC budget, in the budgets that have come out of this House of Representatives, and it is my honor and privilege to now yield to him.

I thank Representative Scott. We both sit on the Judiciary Committee, and in the context of our service on the Judiciary Committee, we will be presented with an opportunity to deal with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Already two hearings have been held on this matter.

One of the issues that has consistently come up is the need to increase the number of H-1B visas for highly skilled immigrants in the STEM field--science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

The technology-and-innovation economy and sector in this country have taken off, and there are actually opportunities. Some estimate approximately 20 percent of the workforce has openings in the technology-and-innovation sector that many would like to see filled by opening up the opportunities for highly skilled immigrants. It's an approach that I think shares bipartisan support.

But, simultaneously, many of us believe that, as a country, we must also invest in STEM education for our children and our young people to make sure that, moving forward, they have the opportunity to develop careers in the STEM fields in a manner that will benefit themselves, their families, their communities and, by extension, the country.

And so before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, I believe that Representative Horsford had an observation or two to make in the area of the need to invest in STEM education.

Thank you, Representative Horsford. And as was noted earlier, the CBC believes that there are children all across America, in many inner-city communities, certainly in the neighborhoods that I represent back home in Brooklyn and places like Bedford-Stuyvesant and east New York and parts of Coney Island, where the public school system has failed them for decades, generation after generation after generation subjected to a broken public school system, from a very early point, all the way through high school.

And unless we invest in turning these broken systems around, we're essentially at risk of dooming young people to life sentences of disadvantage and despair. That's why the CBC supports the President's proposal in his budget to invest an additional $75 billion over a 10- year period, as Representative Horsford indicated, in early childhood education to make sure that we give every American child the opportunity to be successful by putting them on an even plane with those who get the benefit of a first-rate public or private school education.

I want to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, another dynamic member of the freshman class, Representative Donald Payne, Jr., who was a leader on education issues prior to arriving in the Congress, and he's continued to demonstrate leadership in this area and in other areas moving forward.

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for his very astute observations.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the Representative from New Jersey for making it clear that all children in this country deserve the opportunity to be part of a pipeline toward progress and prosperity, even though some, unfortunately, have been subjected to circumstances that often lead to a pipeline from the schoolhouse to the jailhouse. That's not how things should be anywhere in America. And that's why we believe a robust investment in education is the right way to go in this country.

I'm going to ask the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State for his observations on this chart. The chart illustrates that education pays. If you invest in education, increase the level of degree of attainment, what it does is increase the capacity for Americans to earn a better living.

And so, for example, for Americans who have less than a high school diploma, their average weekly earning is $451. But someone with a high school diploma earns, on average, $638 per week. And someone with a bachelor's degree earns, on average, $1,053 per week. If you give an American an advanced degree, their average earnings per week increase to in excess of $1,600.

Investing in education pays for the American people.

I yield to my distinguished colleague from Nevada.

I thank the gentleman from Nevada. We will not, as he indicated, support any budget that balances itself on the backs of children or young people or college students in America. Unfortunately, that is the budget that has been put forth by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We support a balanced approach to dealing with the economic problems that we have in this country that involves the investment in education. That is what we stand for. That's what is good for America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your recognition. Under ordinary circumstances, I would stand before you today as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, where for the next 60 minutes the CBC would speak directly to the American people about an issue of significance that the country is confronting.

However, today, as a result of the extraordinary events that occurred a few hours ago in Boston, Massachusetts, there is no issue that is more significant than standing with the people who participated in the marathon, those runners and those observers and those first responders, who were victimized earlier today.

As President Barack Obama mentioned, this is a moment where we're not Democrats or Independents or Republicans; we're Americans. We're not Blacks, Whites, Latinos, or Asians; we're one today. And as representatives from 43 different Congressional districts across the country, the CBC would like simply to extend our thoughts and our prayers to the family members of those who died earlier today. We want to extend our great sympathies and our best wishes to those who were victimized, and we are praying for full and complete recovery.

We also, of course, want to extend our thanks and our heartfelt gratitude to those first responders who, once again, demonstrated courage under fire and bravery in the face of dangers that were seen and unforeseen.

Now, America is a great country, and whatever is revealed about the attacks that took place earlier today, we're confident that we have the resolve to continue to move forward as strong as we always have been. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and throughout World War II, Americans demonstrated great resolve. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, in the face of the possibility of nuclear catastrophe, Americans demonstrated great resolve. In the face of the uncertainty that followed the horrific Oklahoma City bombings, Americans demonstrated great resolve. And of course in my home city, the great city of New York, and all across this country in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, America demonstrated great resolve this time.

No matter what the circumstances reveal about who was behind what took place earlier today, we're confident that America will continue to show tremendous resolve. Our spirit will not be broken. We're confident that law enforcement will identify those responsible for what took place earlier today and bring them to justice.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is decision time in America. We are at a fork in the road, and we have an opportunity to go in either one of two directions. In one direction, the Democratic approach, we can take a balanced approach to dealing with the economic situation that we find ourselves in and our deficit. The other direction, the GOP approach, is to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable amongst us. The Democratic plan will put Americans back to work. The Republican plan will put Americans out of work. It's decision time in America. We can go in one of two different directions.

Now, a balanced approach to deficit reduction has at least four elements to it:

First, invest in the American economy.

Second, increase revenues by closing corporate loopholes that are unfair, unreasonable, and unnecessary.

Third, we can reduce expenditures in a manner that is sensitive to the fragile nature of our economic recovery. We must reduce expenditures in a way that recognizes we still have a long way to go in order to recover, and the meat-cleaver approach advocated by my friends on the other side of the aisle will not make the decision better; it will just make the situation worse.

Lastly, the Democratic approach, the balanced approach, stands up for important social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that have nothing to do with the economic situation that we find ourselves in right now.

Why should we invest in the American economy?

Well, we don't have an immediate deficit crisis in America right now. We've cut $2.5 trillion from our deficit over the last several years; and we're prepared, on this side of the aisle, to reasonably do more.

But don't overhype the problem. In fact, objective economists have indicated we don't have an immediate deficit problem in America right now. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has conceded that we don't have an immediate deficit crisis in America right now.

Just on Sunday, the chairman of the Budget Committee acknowledged that we don't have an immediate deficit crisis in America right now. That's why we're pursuing a balanced approach.

What we do have is a jobs crisis. Over the last 4 years, under the leadership of President Obama, we have come a long way, almost 6 million private sector jobs added. But we still, of course, have a long way to go.

Let's just look at the landscape. Corporate profits are way up. The stock market is way up. The productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet unemployment remains stubbornly high, and consumer demand remains stagnant.

That's why the Democratic approach is to invest in our economy, invest in education, invest in job training, invest in transportation and infrastructure, invest in research and development, invest in technology and innovation, invest in the things that will continue to make America a leader in the 21st century.

If you invest in our economy, then you will increase jobs for the American worker. If you increase the jobs available to the American worker, consumer demand will increase. If consumer demand increases, the economy will grow; and if the economy grows, the deficit will decline, and so, too, will our debt as a percentage of GDP.

This is decision time in America; and, clearly, the best decision that we can make is a balanced approach to dealing with our economic problems today.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his leadership.

We are at a fork in the road and there are two stark choices. The Democratic plan promotes progress for the many; the Republican plan promotes prosperity for the few. The Democratic plan will put Americans back to work; the Republican plan will put Americans out of work. The Democratic plan takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction; the Republican plan will balance the budget on the backs of children and working families and seniors and the sick and the afflicted.

Whenever we make that observation, our friends on the other side say that we are trying to scare the American people by communicating misinformation. It's a very cute observation, but it has no factual basis. Let's just check the record.

The Republican plan cuts higher education spending by $168 billion. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.

The Republican plan embraces $85 billion in random sequestration cuts

that will cost the economy 750,000 jobs. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.

The Republican plan will cut spending on Medicaid by $810 billion--a program, by the way, that disproportionately benefits poor children, seniors, and the disabled. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.

The Republican plan will turn Medicare into a voucher program, but because that voucher will not keep up with the cost of health care inflation, it will deny beneficiaries what they are receiving today. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality.

And that is why the Republican plan is designed to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society, and it should be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, for his leadership in co-anchoring the CBC Special Order and for giving me the opportunity to lay out as best I can the contrasting visions as represented by the CBC budget--and we're thankful for the leadership of Representative Bobby Scott in that regard--and the GOP budget.

We're at a crossroads in America, a fork in the road, and we can go in one of two different directions. And one direction is a compassionate path, as set forth by the Congressional Black Caucus. The other direction is a more regressive, mean-spirited path, as set forth by the GOP budget.

The CBC budget is designed to create progress for the greatest number of people possible here in America. The GOP budget endorses the view of prosperity for the few. The CBC budget takes a balanced approach to dealing with the economic situation that we find ourselves in here in America. The GOP budget balances the budget on the

backs of the most vulnerable in our society. The CBC budget will create jobs for Americans. The GOP budget will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. These are two very different visions for where we need to go here in America.

A balanced approach has four different elements. First, invest in the American economy. Second, raise revenue by closing corporate loopholes that are unfair, unjust, and in many instances, unconscionable--tax breaks for corporate jets, tax subsidies for big oil companies that are making record profits, tax incentives for American companies to ship our jobs overseas. The CBC budget will close these wasteful corporate loopholes.

Third, we look for savings by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse; and we take this approach because of the sensitive nature of our fragile economic recovery. You can't just cut the budget with a meat cleaver without hurting the American people. And, lastly, the CBC balanced approach stands up for important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that have nothing to do with the economic mess that we find ourselves in right now.

We don't have a short-term deficit crisis in America. That's what the independent objective economists have concluded. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has acknowledged we don't have a short-term deficit crisis. The chairman of the Budget Committee just yesterday acknowledged that we don't have a short-term deficit crisis.

We've gained 6 million jobs over the last 4-plus years, but we still have a long way to go. We've got a jobs crisis.

Now, corporate profits are way up, the stock market is way up, the productivity of the American worker is way up, but the reality is consumer demand remains stagnant. That's why we have to invest in the American economy, invest in transportation and infrastructure, research and development, invest in technology and innovation, education and job training, as the CBC budget compassionately does.

Now, the other budget balances itself on the backs of the poor, children, senior citizens, working families, and the middle class. Now, they'll say we're trying to put forth misinformation to scare the American people. That's a cute observation, but it has no factual basis.

The GOP budget cuts Medicaid by $810 billion. That's not a scare tactic; that's reality.

The GOP budget voucherizes Medicare so that in the future the health care costs wouldn't be covered by this voucher program in the manner that it is right now. That's not a scare tactic; that's reality.

The GOP budget cuts spending on higher education by $168 billion. That's not a scare tactic; that's reality.

That's why we are putting forth a compassionate budget to put the American people back to work.

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 to stand here today as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus to participate one more time as an anchor for the CBC Special Order today on the subject of the impact of sequestration on the American people.

As we know, on Friday, the sequestration took effect, automatic spending cuts of a significant painful amount that will be experienced by the American people all across the land. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it's something that was avoidable had there been a willingness to try and find common ground.

There are many of us who believe that the most appropriate approach would have been to try and find a balanced resolution involving tax reform and revenue and attempting to identify where reasonable spending adjustments could have been made. But instead of all parties trying to come together to find a balanced resolution to the problem that we find ourselves in, there are some in this Chamber who seem committed to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society, balancing the budget on the backs of children and seniors, pregnant women, Superstorm Sandy victims, public housing residents, or national security.

I'm just hopeful that as we move forward that we can find the capacity, find the ability, find the courage to come together to seek out common ground so we can resolve this sequestration matter and move forward supporting the economy in the manner that will be the healthiest for the greatest number of Americans possible.

I'm pleased today that we've been joined by several distinguished members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the chairperson of the CBC, to whom I yield as much time as she may consume, the Honorable Marcia Fudge, who has been a tremendous leader on so many issues on behalf of working families and the middle class and seniors all across this country.

Thank you, Congresswoman Fudge.

I now yield to the Congresswoman from the Golden State, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California.

Thank you, Congresswoman Lee.

The economic recovery, as you pointed out, is still in an extremely fragile state. Many of those most vulnerable Americans who were adversely impacted by the recession still have not been made whole in any way, shape, or form. Sequestration is an $85 billion shock to the system. It may begin as a slow burn, but it is going to sear over time. It is going to hurt our most vulnerable Americans, as has been detailed in congressional district after congressional district after congressional district all across this country.

It is irresponsible for us to even have allowed it to get to this point, which is why we are advocating for everyone to come to the table to find common ground. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Because we are in a divided government, it is unreasonable to simply say ``no revenues.'' So as a result of this hardened position, we find ourselves in the midst of this sequestration.

We've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, my good friend, Congressman Donald Payne, to whom I yield the floor.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for pointing several things out, but particularly for making it clear that we have already made significant progress under this administration, in partnership with this side of the aisle, as we have attempted to move forward over the last several years as it relates to deficit reduction. I believe that we've cut approximately $2.5 trillion--done--as it relates to deficit reduction. While certainly we're open to trying to figure out how to move forward in the best possible way as it relates to the economy, an $85 billion shock to the system over the next several months and approximately $1 trillion over the next 10 years is harmful as it relates to the ability to move the economy forward.

We are thankful that we have been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna Christensen.

Congresswoman Christensen, thank you very much.

I think it's important to emphasize a point that you just made as it relates to what we should be doing to jump-start the economy. We should be investing in the American economy, attempting to grow it so we can create prosperity for the greatest number of people possible, not using sequestration, which is a blunt instrument, to beat the economy and give it a pounding when it is already is in an extremely fragile state.

We know that objective economists have said that sequestration will have an impact of 750,000 lost jobs. We can't afford that at this moment. We urge our colleagues to come back to the negotiating table.

I'm pleased that we've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis.

Thank you, Congressman Davis, for your leadership and for your eloquence in laying out, in a very clear, concise, and articulate fashion, the problems with sequestration that we are forced now to confront here in America as a result of the irresponsibility of some in this Chamber.

I'm pleased that we've been joined by my distinguished co-anchor, the gentleman from Nevada, the Silver State, Steven Horsford. I now yield to Representative Horsford.

Thank you, Congressman Horsford.

I think what is important, as it relates to the moment we find ourselves in right now in America, is that there are some who make the argument that the reason why the sequestration cuts perhaps were acceptable is because we've got to do something to deal with our out- of-control spending problem--I believe that's the phraseology that is

often used--that we have here in America. And certainly when you think about the debt number that we have, $16 trillion, it strikes you as an extremely troubling situation.

And then of course we've had debates back and forth as it relates to the debt ceiling and suggestions from some in this Chamber that the President's effort to raise the debt ceiling is evidence of his willingness to be irresponsible as it relates to the economy.

What's interesting, of course, is that the debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle that's designed to give the administration the ability to spend more. The debt ceiling is a backward-looking vehicle designed to give President Obama at this moment the ability to pay for bills that this Congress has already incurred.

And so when we talk about the notion that there is a spending problem in America, let's be accurate with what really is at issue. And the reality is that many of the bills that we've already incurred, that Americans are forced to pay for and borrow in order to meet our obligations, these were debts incurred by the prior administration.

In fact, this chart illustrates the dynamic that we find ourselves in as it relates to where we really are in America and how we got here. Under the prior administration of George W. Bush, we had two significant tax cuts that were not paid for in 2001 and 2003 that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and the well off. We had an unjustified war in Iraq that cost Americans in lives and in treasure and that contributed significantly to the deficit and our need to raise and borrow additional debt.

And then, of course, we had the collapse of the economy. It cost America, by some estimates, $22 trillion in lost wealth, homeownership, and economic productivity. And as a result of the collapse of the economy, which took place under the prior administration--many argue they were sleeping at the switch and allowed some in Wall Street to engage in reckless behavior--we were forced to bail out some of the largest financial institutions in this country, which added to our financial burden here in America. And then when the administration came in, inherited a train wreck, in order to stimulate the economy we incurred some additional financial responsibility.

And so when you look at this chart, you can see what the projected debt is as a result of things that occurred in the prior administration as a proportion of GDP. This is a dangerously high number. But we are at this point where the debt has increased relative to our GDP because of things that happened in the prior administration. And, in fact, if you look at the bottom of the chart, you see what the debt would be, much lower, as a proportion of GDP, had those things not occurred.

So when you talk about the need to get spending under control, let's be intellectually honest. Because when we're not, you lay out a scenario: Well, it's because of Social Security that we're in this situation. That's not the case. Well, it's because of Medicare and entitlements that we're in this situation. That's not the case. Well, it's because of Medicaid, and we have all of these takers--so-called takers--in our economy. That's not the case.

Two wars, one of which was completely unjustified, the other of which it's not clear whether it was prosecuted in the manner it could have been because we were distracted in Iraq; two enormous tax cuts that benefited the wealthy and the well off disproportionately; the collapse of the economy; a subsequent Wall Street bailout; and then the need for an economic stimulus package explains why we are where we are right now.

And so the sequestration is an irrational, irresponsible, illegitimate reaction to the reason why we are in this place. And that's why, Congressman Horsford, we are arguing for a balanced approach to our economic reality, the one that we confront right now.

I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

I thank you for highlighting some of the impacts that are going to take place in your district in Nevada.

If I might ask, Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on our Special Order?

Madam Speaker, I represent the Eighth Congressional District in New York. It was one of the districts that was hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy that struck on October 29.

The people of the Eighth Congressional District--neighborhoods like Canarsie and Coney Island, Sea Gate, Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, Mill Basin, folks who are in coastal communities along the Atlantic Ocean or who live near the Jamaica Bay--lost their homes, experienced significant damage, were displaced, lost property that can never be recovered.

They were victimized on October 29, and then this Congress attempted to come together to provide swift and immediate relief--as is our responsibility to do when Americans have been hit with disaster. A $60 billion aid package was passed in the Senate. Although there was a promise for a vote in 2012, it didn't happen. At the 11th hour, it was yanked because there were some who were arguing--again, in the name of alleged fiscal responsibility--that we should be considering offsets. Americans in need, desperate, but we should be considering offsets, unprecedented in the history of America's response to a tragedy.

Then, thankfully, in January, we came together. Common sense prevailed and we were able to pass that robust $60 billion package. But now we've victimized those who were impacted by Superstorm Sandy in a district that I represent--and others in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut--for a third time because in this sequestration, $2.5 billion in superstorm aid relief has been cut.

That's just one of the examples of how sequestration will impact folks in my congressional district and all across the country, which is why we've been arguing for a balanced response.

The other thing that I'd note: I was in Brooklyn a few days ago and had a meeting with public housing leaders. The New York City Public Housing Authority, which presides over public housing units in New York City--the largest such public authority related to public housing in the country--will experience a $190 million cut as a result of sequestration. There are already residents of public housing in my district and all across the city of New York dealing with inhumane conditions right now--mold infestation, broken elevators, rat infestation, the inability to get repairs done on a timely basis, violence at levels that should not be tolerated. And instead of cutting almost $200 million from the Public Housing Authority in New York, we should be investing more.

Madam Speaker, we're hopeful that we can arrive at a place where common sense will prevail and we can move forward to keep America moving forward in a reasonable way.

I yield to my colleague from Nevada to close.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 28 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 5, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. President, I now--excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished Member from Maryland, our whip, Mr. Hoyer.

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

Let me first just thank the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, my good friend and colleague, Representative Steven Horsford, for anchoring this CBC Special Order. I also, of course, want to thank Chairwoman Marcia Fudge for the tremendous leadership that she has continued to provide and, of course, to our whip, Steny Hoyer, for his eloquence and his leadership on this and many other issues on behalf of this great country of ours.

It is my honor and my privilege to co-anchor this CBC Special Order, this ``hour of power,'' so to speak, where members of the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people today on an issue of great importance as it relates to the integrity of our democracy. There's no more fundamental issue to preserving the integrity of the great democracy that we have here in America than the right to vote. The right to vote is something that should be cherished, something that should be protected, something that should be respected. But the right to vote has not always been treated in this fashion in this Republic of ours. During the founding of this country, we know, of course, that African Americans were largely excluded from being able to participate in our democracy as a result of the conditions of their enslavement.

In 1869, this Congress came together and sent to the States for ratification the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment that was designed to remedy the situation related to the failure to meaningfully include African Americans in our democracy. It was designed to provide constitutional protection to limit the ability of States to disenfranchise individuals on the basis of race, color, or prior conditions of servitude.

Yet we understand that for about 100 years subsequent to the passage and ratification of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, it was largely evaded in many parts of America as a result of legislative schemes that were devised to prohibit or limit the ability of African Americans and other communities of color to participate in our democracy. These legislative schemes took many forms. Some have already called their names--poll taxes, ``grandfather clauses'' and literacy tests--legislative schemes devised to limit the ability of African Americans and others to participate in this glorious democracy of ours. A large part of it took place in the Deep South, but there were instances of this all over America.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Congress came back in the midst of the turbulent era of the 1960s and passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which included a section 5 preclearance provision that was designed to require those covered jurisdictions, or jurisdictions of all or parts of 16 States, to get approval from either the Department of Justice or a three-judge Federal Court panel here in Washington, D.C., whenever any of these jurisdictions sought to change a law with respect to voting.

The rationale for this section 5 preclearance requirement was because, in these covered jurisdictions, there was a history of discrimination as it related to the franchise, deliberate schemes designed to limit the ability of American citizens to participate in our democracy; and as a result of this history, the section 5 preclearance requirement was put into place. And it has worked. Over close to five decades that it has been in effect, it is perhaps the most successful piece of civil rights legislation that this Congress has passed.

Now, as a result of its success, there are some who have contended that it is no longer a relevant provision of law, and that when the Congress came together in bipartisan fashion in 2006 to reauthorize this provision, that this body, the House of Representatives and the Senate, which passed the reauthorization 98 to 0, Democrats and Republicans, the contention is that this body exceeded its constitutional authority because section 5 allegedly, according to the defenders of disenfranchisement, is no longer relevant.

Now, in the aftermath of Barack Obama's historic election in 2008, there was a Supreme Court case involving Austin, Texas, I believe, in 2009 that was heard just a few months after his inauguration. And part of the argument that was made in that Supreme Court case by those who sought to invalidate section 5's preclearance requirement was that, as a result of this historic election of Barack Obama, race seems no longer to be an issue in America, and they pointed to the elevation of Barack Obama to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now, of course, that was an extremely important moment in the history of our Republic. It was a substantial step forward. But the reality is that the election of Barack Obama has also served to illustrate that in America there's still some issues of race that we've got to confront.

It's interesting, because if you look at the election of Presidents since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it's unprecedented in the aftermath of President Obama's election to have seen the level of voter suppression laws and efforts that we were forced to confront in this country. These efforts presumably are based on the thin claim that those who are advancing these laws are trying to guard against fraud. No evidence of fraud, but those who are advancing these voter suppression laws are attempting to guard against fraud.

When you look at the record, what's fascinating is that when Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, there was no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. He was reelected in 1972, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. And then Jimmy Carter is elected in 1976, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. And then Ronald Reagan is elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. George H.W. Bush elected in 1988, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. Bill Clinton elected in 1992, reelected in 1996 and no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. George W. Bush elected, some would argue under questionable circumstances given the dynamics in the great State of Florida, but again, no explosion of concern related for alleged fraud. The same was true in 2004, notwithstanding some concerns in the great State of Ohio, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. Yet Barack Obama is elected in 2008, and all of a sudden in the aftermath of this historic election there's an outbreak of concern, a pandemic of anxiety as it relates to the fraud that allegedly is taking place in America.

And so, as this chart illustrates--it is a wonderful chart that was prepared by the Brennan Center for Justice in my home State of New York, connected to my alma mater, New York University. It illustrates that since 2001, 41 States introduced 180 restrictive laws. Those States are illustrated by the red on the map. Parenthetically, a curious choice of colors, but those States are illustrated by the red on the map. Forty-one States introduced 180 restrictive laws.

And then you have 34 States introduced photo identification requirements; 17 States introduced proof of citizenship requirements; 16 States introduced bills to limit registration; and nine States introduced bills to limit or reduce early voting periods--unprecedented in the history of our democracy.

I just went through the election of several Presidents who were inaugurated post the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but, for some reason, the American people are smart enough to draw cause and effect when this President was elected. We had an outbreak of concern related to alleged fraud.

Now, thankfully, the Voting Rights Act in section 5 was in place to do something about it. I just talked about the fact that there were 41 States that introduced some form of voter restrictions.

On this map, we see that as of October in 2012 there were 25 laws and two executive actions that were passed in a total of 19 States. A large amount of this activity, as you can see on this map, Mr. Speaker, took place in the Deep South and in Texas, States that are largely covered by the section 5 preclearance requirements.

Let me just pause parenthetically and note that what's also interesting is that there were two States, Iowa and Florida, that in the past had executed through executive order reforms designed to allow those who as a result of the criminal justice system had had their ability to vote taken away from them restored through a process that had been put in place; but in the aftermath of the election of President Obama, what we saw is that in Iowa and in Florida--those two States--through executive order, they repealed those positive steps forward to make it almost impossible for those who had brushes with the law to ever be able to reengage in the ability to participate in American democracy.

These were laws that were passed. Yet, because of the section 5 preclearance requirement, not all of these laws actually were able to take effect. That's an important point as it relates to the continuing relevance of section 5's preclearance requirement. As of October 2012, approximately 12 courts either halted or blunted--they pushed back-- some of those laws that States had attempted to enact.

Perhaps the most relevant example of why section 5 continues to be relevant is due to what took place in the Lone Star State, the great State of Texas, when the legislature passed what would have been the most restrictive voter identification law in the country. It would have prohibited potential voters from presenting student college identifications; they were deemed in this law as invalid. It would have prevented voters from presenting State government identification; IDs that were actually issued by the State of Texas would not have been valid under this law.

I find it interesting, particularly in light of the current debate that we're having related to how we deal with gun violence in America, that one of the forms of ID that actually would have been accepted was a license that allowed an individual to carry a concealed handgun permit. This was too much to accept for the Justice Department and for those who in good conscience seek to defend our democracy, and because Texas is a covered jurisdiction, it had to be presented for preclearance by the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel, and it was rejected. So this law, though passed, never took effect. The same thing happened in Alabama. The same thing happened in South Carolina. There is a law that was passed by the State of Florida that is under consideration. So, as a result, even though many objectively believed it was designed to suppress the vote, it did not take effect in advance of the 2012 election because it was under review by the Department of Justice and their preclearance requirement.

Mr. Speaker, in America, certainly we have come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go. Jim Crow may be dead, but he has still got some nieces and nephews who are alive and well; and until every single descendant of Mr. Jim Crow's is dead and buried, we in the Congressional Black Caucus believe that the section 5 preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act remains as relevant today as it was when it was passed in 1965.

Thank you, Mr. Horsford.

I think you hit on a very important point that should be reemphasized in the context of this debate. Every single reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act section 5 was signed into law by a Republican President. And so in 1970, the reauthorization was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. In 1975, it was President Gerald Ford. In 1982, it was Ronald Reagan. And in 2006, it was George Bush.

It was the current House majority, held in different form, but when Republicans were in charge of the Chamber, they allowed the reauthorization to move forward through the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. Now this may seem strange in the current poisonous environment of Washington that we exist in right now, but there was significant cooperation, tremendous leadership shown by the then- chairperson and the ranking member, John Conyers. It passed in the House of Representatives 390-33.

It's also interesting to note historically that prior to this year, every time section 5 and the Voting Rights Act has been used to address alleged concerns with redistricting, which traditionally takes place 2 years after the completion of the census, when it was used by the Justice Department to block or modify redistricting reforms or changes prior to the Obama administration, on every other occasion since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 it was a Republican Justice Department charged with the responsibility of addressing concerns with redistricting and the problem of racial gerrymandering. It was the Nixon Justice Department in 1972. It was the Reagan Justice Department in 1982. It was the George H.W. Bush Justice Department in 1992. It was the George W. Bush Justice Department in 2002.

And so the history of section 5 and the Voting Rights Act is a glorious one, not just as it relates to the preservation of our democracy, addressing the need to make sure that every American, regardless of race or color, has the capacity to participate in a meaningful way, but it's been traditionally viewed and executed through a bipartisan lens. We're hopeful that when the Supreme Court takes up oral argument on this matter in 2 days, that they will evaluate it on the merits and give due deference to Congress, which has consistently reauthorized it pursuant to its power under article I of the Constitution as well as the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

There really is no case to be made that it should be declared invalid. I believe we've illustrated time after time how it's been used to protect the integrity of our democracy, and we're hopeful that at some point down the road, it will no longer be necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, that moment has not arrived in America as of today.