Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2012, I regret that I was not present to vote on the Motion to Table the Jackson Lee Privileged Resolution and H. Res. 717.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on both bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career and service to the United States of Judge Damon J. Keith on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

Since joining the federal judiciary, Judge Keith has steadfastly and courageously protected the constitutional and civil rights of this country's citizens.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson appointed Judge Keith to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, making him only the second African-American to sit on that court at that time. During his tenure on the District Court, Judge Keith delivered several key civil rights rulings. He addressed the issue of school desegregation in Davis v. School District of the City of Pontiac in 1970; of employment discrimination and affirmative action in Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co., in 1973 and Baker v. City of Detroit in 1979; and finally, of housing discrimination in Garrett v. City of Hamtramck in 1971 and Zuch v. Hussey in 1975. Judge Keith became Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan in 1975.

In 1971, Judge Keith issued a landmark civil liberties ruling in U.S. v. Sinclair, which came to be known as the ``Keith decision.'' Later unanimously upheld by the United States Supreme Court, Judge Keith's decision held unconstitutional wiretap surveillance absent a court order in domestic security cases.

Judge Keith continued to safeguard constitutional rights and civil liberties on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where he has served since his appointment in 1977 by President James E. Carter. In the 1980s, Judge Keith served as chair of Sixth Circuit and Judicial Conference Committees commemorating the Bicentennial of the Constitution. He took senior status in 1995.

Judge Keith was born in Detroit, Michigan on July 4, 1922 and became the first member of his family to attend college, earning a bachelor's degree from West Virginia State College. After serving our Nation for three years in the U.S. Army, he went on to receive an LL.B. from Howard University Law School and an LL.M. in labor law from Wayne State University Law School.

Judge Keith started his legal career with the African-American Detroit law firm of Loomis, Jones, Piper & Colden and was one of six Detroit attorneys invited to the White House in 1963 by President John F. Kennedy to discuss the role of lawyers in the civil rights struggle. Later, Judge Keith and four other African-American attorneys established a law firm in what had previously been the all-white legal district of downtown Detroit. At this time, Judge Keith also served as Chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and President of the Detroit Housing Commission.

Throughout his distinguished career, Judge Keith has received numerous honors and awards, including: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's highest award, the Spingarn Medal, in 1974; the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award in 1997; and, the Edward J. Devitt Award for Distinguished Service to Justice in 1998, presented by a panel comprised of a United States Supreme Court Justice, a federal circuit court judge, and a federal district court judge.

Judge Keith also holds honorary degrees from Harvard University, Yale University, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, Tuskegee University, and over thirty other institutions.

In addition, Judge Keith has played an active role in numerous civic, cultural, and educational organizations, including the Detroit YMCA, the Detroit Arts Commission, the Detroit Cotillion Club, and Interlochen Arts Academy, and has served as an active fundraiser for the United Negro College Fund and the Detroit NAACP.

For fifty-three years, Judge Keith was married to the late Rachel Boone Keith, M.D., with whom he had three daughters, Gilda, Debbie, and Cecile.

For his consistent defense of the Constitution and the civil rights of all people, on his 90th birthday, I honor and thank Judge Keith for his invaluable service to the United States.

I rise today to provide some additional views on H.R. 4251, the ``SMART Port Security Act.'' I strongly support many of the provisions in this bill, which will streamline and strengthen our Nation's port security. In particular, I am pleased to see that this bill makes needed reforms to the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program by streamlining and reforming the process of enrolling, issuing, and renewing worker credentials. This legislation will spare workers the financial and procedural burden of renewing their application until the Department of Homeland Security issues a final rule on biometric readers and implements the infrastructure needed to make the program fully functional.

I want to express my concern about the possible consequences of Section 114 of the bill, which would create a new pilot program aimed at accelerating the deployment of medium-sized unmanned aircraft along the northern border. While improving our Nation's surveillance capabilities along our border is a laudable goal, law enforcement and border security officials have a responsibility to ensure that any use of drone technology in domestic airspace does not unnecessarily or illegally invade the privacy of ordinary citizens who happen to live close to the border.

This legislation and the recent reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration are both components of a significant recent legislative effort aimed at significantly loosening

regulations and other legal barriers that have, until now, limited the deployment of drones domestically. Before this technology is deployed along the border and elsewhere within the United States, Congress must put in place common sense protections that ensure that the privacy and due process rights of Americans are protected. For example, drones should not be deployed for open ended surveillance or law enforcement purposes. If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required. Legal protections should be put in place that clearly outline how personally identifiable information is collected and retained by a drone program. The process by which our country develops these policies and protections should be transparent and include all stakeholders.

This technology has the capacity to dramatically change the character of public life in our country. We must ensure that a legal structure is put in place that will allow us to reap the benefits of this technology, while still preserving the freedoms and values that make our country great.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Rehab and Ahmed Amer Foster Care Improvement Act of 2012. The Act will enhance the existing federal policy of encouraging state foster care programs to place children in the care of willing and able relatives.

This legislation accomplishes that goal by requiring States that receive federal funding for foster care programs to add certain procedural enhancements to their foster care programs so as to ensure a more fair placement decision-making process.

Specifically, my bill requires that, within 90 days after a State makes a foster care placement decision, the State must provide notice of such decision to the following affected parties:

the child's parents;

relatives who have informed the State of their interest in caring for the child;

the guardian;

the guardian ad litem of the child;

the attorney for the child;

the attorney for each parent of the child;

the prosecutor involved; and

the child if he or she is able to express an opinion regarding placement.

Additionally, States must establish procedures that:

allow any of the parties who receive notice of the State's placement decision to request, within five days after receipt of the notice, documentation of the reasons for the State's decision;

allow the child's attorney to petition the court involved to review the decision; and

require the court to commence such review within seven days after receipt of the petition and conduct such review on the record.

The harrowing story of Rehab and Ahmed Amer of Dearborn, Michigan prompted me to craft this bill.

In 1985, the Amers lost two of their children to Michigan's foster care system after Rehab had been subject to criminal charges related to the death of her two-year-old son Samier, who died because of head injuries resulting from a fall in a bathtub.

Although Rehab had been acquitted in August 1986 of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with Samier's death, the State refused to return the Amers' other two children to them and, in fact, removed a third child from the Amers' custody four months after Rehab's acquittal.

As a temporary alternative, Rehab's brother petitioned to be a foster parent to the Amers' three children, but was denied his petition even though he had previously served as a foster parent for other children.

It is important to note that the Amers are Muslim. Nevertheless, the State, rather than placing the Amers' children with a foster family of the same faith and cultural background, sent them to live with an evangelical Christian family, which re-named the Amers' children-- Mohamed Ali, Sueheir, and Zinabe--with Christian names and raised them as Christians.

Today, only the oldest of the Amers' three living children, Mohamed Ali, now known as Adam, communicates with them.

In reaction to the Amers' story, Michigan enacted what became known as the Amer Law. That law requires foster care placement agencies in Michigan to consider and give special preference for relatives when making a foster care placement decision.

The Amer Law is consistent with federal foster care policy, which also seeks to give preference to a child's relatives and, for Native American children, a family of the same cultural background as the child, when making placement decisions.

The Amer Law, however, has several provisions that go beyond current federal law to ensure due process. In sum, this law gives parents, relatives, guardians, and the child in certain cases additional procedural rights, including the right to written notice and an explanation of a placement decision. In addition, it authorizes judicial review of a placement decision by a foster care agency.

My legislation simply adds these enhanced due process features of the Amer Law to existing federal foster care law.

The best interests of the child should always be the overriding consideration when making foster care placement decisions. That standard, however, should also require foster care agencies to give special preference to placing a child with relatives, where the child can be raised in the same culture or religion as his or her own, all other things being equal.

I thank Rehab and Ahmed Amer for bringing this issue to light and for their tireless efforts to make the foster care placement process fairer for everyone, first in Michigan, and, now, nationally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor President Ma of Taiwan for his re-election victory. I believe that the people of Taiwan and the United States have a reason to celebrate President Ma's second inauguration, which occurred on May 20, 2012.

I hope that during his second term, President Ma and the United States can work together to address the concerns that both our countries share, such as enhancing our mutual security, and exchanging ideas to improve the health care of both of our societies.

These efforts, with the countless successes in the past and the close relationship we have maintained with Taiwan, assure a bright and peaceful future for both of our countries.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in support of this amendment with my colleagues Mr. Ellison of Minnesota and Ms. Lee of California. Our amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to submit to the congressional Intelligence Committee within 60 days a report containing an analysis of the potential consequences of a military strike against Iran.

In recent months, the possibility of a preemptive military strike against Iran has been openly discussed as a policy option of last resort as our country and our allies determine how best to confront the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, the national discussion has prompted a large number of current and former military and intelligence officials to come forward to encourage the Congress and the administration to consider the possible consequences both intended and others that may be unintended of such a strike.

These high-level officials include former United States and Israeli national security officials, including a former Bush administration National Intelligence Council chairman, a former National Intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, General Colin Powell's former chief of staff, five retired generals, the former director of the Israeli Mossad, and a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces.

All of these experts have raised concerns that an attack on Iran could possibly result in serious harm to the global economy, potentially ignite a regional war and even push Iran into building a nuclear weapon. With consequences as serious as these being raised by outside and former national security experts, it is critical that the expertise and collective wisdom of our intelligence community be added to this debate so that our country's policy options involving war and peace can be rigorously examined by this body.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for their concern about this phase of intelligence, and I hope to enjoy their support and the support of the committee as a whole in having this amendment added to the work that is going on here today.

I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Members of the House, I want to thank the leadership on the other side for requiring that the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from Arizona, drop ``race'' from this Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, so-called. So it's now just sex selection.

This is the latest in a long series of measures intended to chip away at a woman's right to seek safe and legal medical care. It tramples the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with the needed resources so that their babies--female and male--can come into the world healthy, and so that both mother and child can thrive.

I am grateful that the proponents of this bill have stopped making the ridiculous charge that I used to hear, that reproductive freedom is worse than slavery, and invoking at the same time the name of the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass in the service of their cause. It was deeply offensive, and I'm glad that we won't have to listen to that anymore.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished physician, the gentleman from Washington, the Honorable Dr. McDermott.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just like to remind my colleagues that from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, we have this warning:

We oppose this bill because it does not in any way adjust

discrimination on the basis of sex or race. Rather, it is a

veiled attempt to restrict health care for women of color

under the guise of civil rights.

This is the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

This bill tramples the rights of women under the guise of nondiscrimination while doing absolutely nothing to provide women with needed resources for their babies, female and male, so they can come into this world healthy and so both the mother and the child can thrive.

This measure before us does absolutely nothing to empower women to make important life choices free from any family or community pressures they now face either to have an abortion, or to carry the pregnancy to term. In fact, it fails to employ the tested solutions that will reduce the pressures brought to bear on women to have sons. Experience around the world has shown that supporting women, providing them with tools to become independent and to be safe from violence, rather than criminal prohibitions, helps them resist the pressures of son preference. International organizations such as the United Nations Population Fund, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Women, and the World Health Organization have all said that abortion restrictions are not the solution because they put women's health and lives at risk and violate their human and reproductive rights.

Please, join us and these organizations who are familiar with the phenomenon of son preference and oppose H.R. 3541.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if this measure is passed into law, we would then require that medical and mental health professionals violate doctor-patient confidentiality and report ``known or suspected violations'' of the law to law enforcement authorities. The penalty for failure to report would be a fine or incarceration.

Now, it is not by accident, Members of the House, that this measure is opposed by these outstanding organizations: the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health Association; Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Medical Students for Choice; National Abortion Federation; National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health; National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice; and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Now, this is something that would chill communications between doctors and patients because doctors might hear something that would put them at risk for criminal prosecution, and patients because they would fear that their conversations with their doctors would not remain private. And so what we're doing here is taking the most drastic step that would cause these nine organizations to oppose this legislation.

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

I thank the author of the amendment, and I join with him in it because, ladies and gentlemen, the administration policy up till now has been quite clear: drones pursue specific individuals who appear on a target list maintained by the CIA and initiate attacks only when drone operators are confident that the individual being targeted is a terrorist on that list.

What this amendment attempts to ensure is that the missile strikes being used by the CIA or the Joint Special Operations Command are targeting actual terrorists that pose a threat to our national security and not against civilians who may look suspicious to a drone operator operating thousands of miles away. What I am saying is merely that a new and expanded drone policy that allows for indiscriminate missile strikes against supposedly suspicious individuals obviously increases the risk of civilian death and risks inflaming an already powerful anti-American sentiment abroad. Ladies and gentlemen, this policy will not make us any safer. It will do just the opposite.

I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment so that the Congress ensures that accountability and a

measure of precision and due process are retained as critical components of our country's drone policy.

I thank the gentlelady from California, and I appreciate that ending America's longest war--over 10 years--is not an unreasonable notion, because there is a serious misunderstanding going on about this amendment on the other side.

Withdrawing United States troops does not mean we're abandoning Afghanistan. Please, there's a difference. There are other ways that we can continue to develop the diplomatic and political solutions that can't be won at gunpoint.

Don't you get it? If we're leaving in 2014, we're just saying let's speed it up; let's begin a rational withdrawal. And we have a responsibility to keep a commitment to Afghanistan. It doesn't mean troops. It doesn't mean our military has to die.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am joined on this amendment by my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Keith Ellison.

This amendment is simple in that it merely terminates the most expensive weapons system of the Department of Defense in its history, that is, terminating the F 35B Joint Strike Fighter.

Well, why? Well, because there are many other planes that have capabilities that rival the F 35B and yet cost far less to buy and operate. Our amendment would save $50 billion over the life of this program.

The termination of this program has been recommended by so many groups. I will mention a few: The Project on Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Cato Institute, the Center for American Progress, the Public Interest Research Group, the National Taxpayers Union, our colleague Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and the Bowles- Simpson Commission. Please join us in a very simple idea.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

An incredible number of organizations and people, both Democratic and Republican Members of the House and Senate, have called the F 35B program a scandal and a tragedy--and that is quoting the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain--and Under Secretary Frank Kendall has referred to the process of developing and producing the F 35 as ``acquisition malpractice.''

And then, even worse, the serious performance issues that caused in 2010 Secretary Gates to stop production and place the program on 2 years probation. And according to the Department's figures, the F 35B has driven cost overruns and is directly responsible for scheduled delays in the overall development program. And it isn't even qualified to participate in close air support mission for the Marine Corps' need. It's far too vulnerable for this role, which requires low, slow flying. The Marines would be much better served to utilize the Army's excess A 10s, which have a far superior range and payload capability.

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, because it is a title that does not represent what it ought to underneath.

We've had these kinds of incidents before. In the past, we've always been able to set aside partisan differences and work together to protect the most vulnerable women of our society, abused and battered women. Today, unfortunately, this bill sets aside 20 years of bipartisan progress in our efforts to protect these women.

The bill, as amended by the manager's amendment, rolls back existing protections for battered immigrant women. It fails to include provisions from the bipartisan Senate-passed bill--which all the women in the Senate voted for--which protect native women's lives by authorizing limited tribal criminal domestic violence. It eliminates the language from the bipartisan Senate-passed bill that would help lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender victims of domestic violence receive Violence Against Women Act services without facing additional discrimination.

Now, I'm going to reserve my time here, but I want to just point this out: there are more than 300 organizations--women's organizations, law enforcement organizations, church organizations--that have registered their opposition to H.R. 4970 for the reason that I've suggested. The National Organization for Women, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 20 faith-based leaders of organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, and it goes on and on, police chiefs, captains, detectives, lieutenants and prosecutors.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for all victims of domestic violence and oppose this dangerous proposal that is on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my colleagues on the other side that the 200 or 300 organizations and people that oppose this bill supported the previous legislation. Now, come on.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Zoe Lofgren, a senior member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Nadler has agreed to permit Dale Kildee, the gentleman from Michigan, because of an emergency, to be recognized out of order for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California, Lucille Roybal-Allard, for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the committee, the gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, Judy Chu, a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind my dear friend from Wisconsin, when he was chairman of the committee, in the 2005 Judiciary Committee report, he said:

These protections are designed to ensure that abusers and

criminals cannot use the immigration system against their

victims, as abusers are known for interfering or undermining

their victim's immigration cases and encouraging immigration

officers to pursue removal actions against their victims.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Illinois, Mike Quigley.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

More than 300 organizations oppose this bill, including the American Red Cross and the National Council Against Domestic Violence.

I ask the floor manager: Who supports it?

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee, Hank Johnson of Georgia, himself a former magistrate.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Linda Sanchez, a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Minnesota, Betty McCollum.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Rick Larsen.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

This is the third time I have asked my friends on the other side to please tell me why all of the women's organizations, law enforcement organizations--some 200-plus--are against this bill, and all of them were supporting the previous bill.

I yield to the distinguished manager of the bill, a dear friend of mine, for a response.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Since we're shaming on every organization that protects women, would you tell me who supports the Republican version of the bill? Name somebody.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I have asked why hundreds of organizations are supporting it, and you say: Shame on them. I ask who's supporting the Republican measure and you say: I am. Well, I'm glad to know that. And I think that just about tells everybody where the logic and the support for this bill is. There is none. It's a Republican--not a prank, but a serious blow to women. And that's what the organizations know, and that's why, Madam Floor Manager, they're opposed to this bill.

I yield 2 minutes to Zoe Lofgren, a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our leader, Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in fact, the new tribal protection orders added by the manager's amendment would reverse the Violence Against Women Act's victim-centered approach and would require Native women to sometimes travel hours to obtain protection orders from a Federal district court.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished whip of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

I am pleased to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield now 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this bill has been revealed to be reauthorizing certain grant programs, but it really doesn't. It undermines the safety of the most vulnerable victims of violence. It rolls back important protections for immigrant victims, putting them in a worse position than under current law, and excludes other vulnerable populations, such as tribal women, LGBTQ. In short, any alleged improvements made by this bill cannot conceal the overwhelming harm that it will cause.

When I asked who supports this bill, the floor manager could name only one person. She said, I do. And when I asked her why do all of the women's organizations and law enforcement organizations oppose the bill, she made some other comment about why that was so.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must turn back this unacceptable piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``John Hope Franklin Tulsa-Greenwood Riot Accountability Act of 2012,'' along with Representative Nadler, and additional cosponsors. This legislation will create a Federal cause of action to allow the survivors of the Tulsa- Greenwood Riot of 1921 to seek a determination on the merits of their civil rights and other claims against the perpetrators of the Riot in a Federal court of law.

This legislation is named in honor of the late Dr. John Hope Franklin, the noted historian, who was a first-hand witness to the destructive impact that the riot had on the African-American community of Tulsa. Dr. Franklin made numerous scholarly contributions to the understanding of the long term effects of the riot on the city and worked to keep the issue alive in history and on the minds of policymakers. On April 24, 2007, he served as a witness, testifying in favor of the legislation, and its passage would be a fitting tribute to his memory and to a community which has never received its fair day in court.

The Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was one of the nation's most prosperous African-American communities entering the decade of the Nineteen Twenties. Serving over 8000 residents, the community boasted two newspapers, over a dozen churches, and hundreds of African-American-owned businesses, with the commercial district known nationally as the ``Negro Wall Street.'' In May 1921, all that came to an end as 42 square blocks of the community were burned to the ground and up to 300 of its residents were killed by a racist mob. In the wake of the violence, the State and local governments quashed claims for redress and effectively erased the incident from official memory.

The 1921 Tulsa Race Riot was one of the most destructive and costly attacks upon an American community in our nation's history. However, no convictions were obtained for the incidents of murder, arson or larceny connected with the riot, and none of the more than 100 contemporaneously filed lawsuits by residents and property owners were successful in recovering damages from insurance companies to assist in the reconstruction of the community.

The case of the Tulsa-Greenwood Riot victims is worthy of Congressional attention because substantial evidence suggests that governmental officials deputized and armed the mob and that the National Guard joined in the destruction. The report commissioned by the Oklahoma State Legislature in 1997, and published in 2001, uncovered new information and detailed, for the first time, the extent of the involvement by the State and city government in prosecuting and erasing evidence of the riot. This new evidence was crucial for the formulation of a substantial case, but its timeliness raised issues at law, and resulted in a dismissal on statute of limitation grounds. In dismissing the survivor's claims, however, the Court found that extraordinary circumstances might support extending the statute of limitations, but that Congress did not establish rules applicable to the case at bar. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to provide closure for a group of claimants--many over 100 years old--and the ability close the book on a tragic chapter in history.

Racism, and its violent manifestations, are part of our nation's past that we cannot avoid. With the prosecution of historical civil rights claims, both civil and criminal, we encourage a process of truth and reconciliation which can heal historic wounds. In this case, the Court took ``no great comfort'' in finding that there was no legal avenue through which the plaintiffs could bring their claims. The ``Tulsa- Greenwood Riot Accountability Act'' would simply give Tulsans and all Oklahomans, white and black, victims and non-victims, their day in court. Without that opportunity, we will all continue to be victims of our past.

Mr. Speaker, ``Democracy, at its core, requires that all of the people be included in `We the People.' '' Uttered by Mr. John Adolphus Payton during a 2008 speech in Michigan, this quote embodies his legacy. A true pioneer, John Payton rarely turned down an opportunity to advocate for the least among us and reminded America time and again of the necessity to advance toward a more inclusive and tolerant society. From his youth until his last days, John Payton fought for the recognition of individual rights and taught us how to work toward democracy--not just speak about it.

A quick glance at John's background quickly reveals the makings of a civil rights giant. At the height of the overt racial tensions of 1965, John Payton was one of only a handful of black students at Pomona College. Even as a working student, John found time to enhance the quality of collegiate life for disadvantaged students by founding Pomona's Black Student Association, organizing and participating in anti-war and civil rights demonstrations, successfully lobbying Pomona's administration to recruit more black students, and for the creation of a black studies program. A year after graduating from Pomona College, John enrolled at Harvard Law School in 1974. As a law student he obtained affidavits from black student activists who were injured during Boston's school busing controversy. John served as an ideal model of what true civic engagement should be. Even without a formal title, he used his resources to fight for the rights of others.

Serving as the sixth president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), John led many victories before the U.S. Supreme Court, including the 2010 case Lewis v. City of Chicago, where John successfully represented a group of firefighters who argued that the city had discriminated against black recruits by using a grading system that resulted in no black applicants being hired. Though their claims had been barred by a statute of limitations defense in the lower court, the Supreme Court reversed those findings, allowing the recruits' claims to move forward. Prior to taking the helm of the NAACP LDF, in 2003 John argued in Grutter v. Bolinger that the University of Michigan had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity, and that acknowledging race as one of many factors in admissions decisions was not a quota. In a 5 4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with John's argument, and put our nation one step closer towards achieving equitable higher education for all.

John's journey to erasing the ``badges of slavery'' meant challenging racism head on. As an associate with the D.C. law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering (now known as Wilmer Hale), he contributed to the firm's representation of the NAACP in various legal matters, including assisting with the 1982 Supreme Court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The

Claiborne case rescued the NAACP from certain bankruptcy by avoiding a financial penalty after the group organized a 1960s boycott against white merchants in Mississippi. In 1988, John represented the city of Richmond's program which set aside 30 percent of municipal construction jobs for minority-owned businesses. The Supreme Court ruled that the Richmond law was unconstitutional because it violated the white-owned construction firms' right to equal protection. Many would have been discouraged by the loss, but as John eloquently stated in the 2008 edition of The Civil Rights Monitor, published by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, ``We must recognize that this is a marathon and not a race if we are to find solutions that will work.''

As I sat at John's memorial service, I not only sat as a legal colleague, but as a friend. Many shared their respects for a man who gave so much to promote justice and equality. I thank his wife of 20 years, Gay McDougall, for sharing her lifelong partner so that we could be beneficiaries of his lifelong mission.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it's time for a real jobs plan to get our Americans back to work in every district. And since the conservatives have taken over the House more than a year ago, they have refused to move forward with a real plan to create jobs to get our people back to work--a whole year and no comprehensive jobs plan when Americans needed it most.

Now, in my bill, H.R. 870, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, revised, is a way to bring unemployment down to zero percent. There is no reason why everybody that wants a job in America can't be put in a position or trained for a position.

Yet, although most of the people in the country treat jobs as the number one priority, we still haven't got movement in the House. It is a shame, and I think somebody is going to pay for it.

I thank my friend from Maryland.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, perhaps my colleagues on the other side, my conservative friends, either don't realize what they're doing in this budget or they're trying to make sure that nobody else knows what they're doing in this budget because this budget ends the Medicare guarantees and shifts the costs to seniors. Now, this is a simple statement of fact that it either does or it doesn't.

Number two: Those making over $1 million a year in this country will reap an average tax cut of $394,000, while it preserves tax breaks for Big Oil. True or false? It either does or it doesn't.

Number three: It destroys over 4 million American jobs in the next couple of years. True or false? Well, the Economic Policy Institute tells us that it's true.

The last point I would like to get a true or false response from: It raises

Medicare eligibility from the age of 65 to 67. True or false?

I would yield to anybody on the other side who would like to elucidate, or clarify, any of the statements that I have made. I hear no response.

Thank you very much, Mr. Honda.

Tonight, I want to commend my friends on the other side of the aisle, starting with Mr. Tom McClintock of California and those who are with him this evening, because what has happened is that we have begun to see that, between the leaders in the Progressive Caucus and those who can't possibly vote for the Progressive Caucus bill, we are still finding things that we can agree on. For example, is there anybody, the leader of the other side of the aisle, whose group does not believe that we should invest in our children's education by increasing education, training, and social services?

We all agree on that.

Is there anybody on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, who doesn't believe that our budget makes no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits?

These are beginnings of agreements. We all, on both sides, agree that we must responsibly and expeditiously end our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I congratulate the Member leading the other side.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to proudly associate myself with your remarks.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore