Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise to support the Second Chance amendment of the gentleman from Illinois and thank him for his long work and the work that he has done with many of us in this Congress on this issue. This has been a long journey. I think, if I recollect, it was 7 years in the making, I will say to Congressman Davis, before the bill itself was actually passed.

I want to focus on two points: One, I understand the account of which this money is coming from, and I would make the argument that we have seen a sufficient decrease in the number of undocumented aliens coming across the border, and we've seen a greater handling of the individuals. And frankly, the question is whether these funds should be used in what is a strictly Federal issue, which is the control of immigration in this Nation.

So I would make the argument that this is an appropriate utilization of these funds, these extra funds that would add to Second Chance because, one, it brings it to the President's mark, viewing this through the administration's eyes but really through the Department of Justice's eyes that the Second Chance legislation works. It does work.

And I will tell you why it is enormously important. When I see those individuals who have had an experience in the criminal justice system, one of the things they ask about is, Can we go to work? Second Chance prepares these individuals for work. It helps them be responsible contributors to the workforce. It helps, if you will, shepherd them or give them a roadmap into the workforce. It provides the lifeline to staying out of trouble. Everyone that you come across says to anyone that will hear them, We want to work. Again, Second Chance creates the opportunity for them to work.

And also, I think it assists the enforcement guidance on employers' use of arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions. Again, we understand that people who run afoul of the law must, in essence, pay the price. But when they seek to rehabilitate themselves, the Second Chance legislation has been a lifeline.

I, myself, have had to discuss issues of discrimination against people who have rehabilitated themselves. One case comes to mind. A gentleman who was supporting his family had been out of trouble and had finished with his particular issue for 17 years.

He was still getting the response that they could not hire him because of an arrest and conviction record. The Second Chance steps in in a positive manner, gives these people the opportunity for just that--the second chance. The additional funding, I believe, would be the right direction to take, make us equal with the President's mark, still be fair to the account in which it comes from, allow that account to be preserved, but in fact gives the $10 million to help save and rehabilitate many more lives that really can make America better.

I support Mr. Davis' amendment and the funding for the Second Chance program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I can appreciate the frustration that many times we feel as Members of Congress on actions by the Federal Government, but there are two points that I'd like to make:

One, immigration has been defined as an issue under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. No matter what Attorney General is in place and what position they take, they take it as a representative of the executive, but also of the people of the United States of America.

To highlight Attorney General Eric Holder for fulfilling the responsibilities of an AG, which is to defend against laws that are discriminatory under Federal law, to maintain the integrity of the Federal responsibility of certain laws--which happens to be immigration--would be, I believe, a highlighting or a targeting of a member of the President's Cabinet--and I agree with my ranking member, Mr. Fattah--of any administration for doing their duty.

So I would just say that I am empathetic to all of our frustrations when we deal with attempting to represent our constituencies. Attorney General Holder, in his pursuit of lawsuits, is representing the American people, but also representing the administration and pursuing justice accordingly under the law. I would hope that we would be able to recognize the frustration, but to reject the underlying amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I am offering amendment 381.

I really do thank the chairman and ranking member of this committee. This is a difficult hurdle and a difficult task, but I do believe that this is an amendment that can draw bipartisan concern.

And I say that because all of us have daughters, wives, and sisters. This amendment deals with the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program that my colleague from New York sponsored and many of us cosponsored and saw authorized through the Judiciary Committee. The amendment seeks to restore $34 million to the backlog of rape kit tests that are plaguing the justice system across America.

If we go back more than a decade, New York City reported having 17,000 untested rape kits. In 2004, the Department of Justice indicated there was a backlog of hundreds of thousands of untested DNA kits. This is the only way that law enforcement can ensure that the cases are prosecuted and the right person is prosecuted. This is the only way women who have been violated and sexually abused can have their day in court.

As someone having dealt with a victim of rape, having sat on the board of one of our community women's centers, I know the stories that they've told. We have seen rape increase among our younger women, teenagers, even though during the Bush administration--and we supported it--there was an influx of dollars to the Advancing Justice account. We have still seen thousands of backlog cases. For example, in my own city of Houston--it has been acknowledged in San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston, and other cities across the State of Texas have acknowledged a significant backlog of untested rape kits in their police storage facility, at least 4,000 kits in Houston and 16,000 in Dallas and San Antonio. These are only cities in one State.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the ability to make the added $34 million just for the simple action of justice to millions of women that are yet unaccounted for or to be able to move the backlog, which, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, has not even been assessed. The reason why the numbers are as low as people might assume they are--and I do not believe 17,000 or 22,000 is low--is because the records of the individual jurisdictions are not kept. So these dollars would help to access additional resources directly pointed toward the backlog.

I know that a lot of work was done, but the grant program under this bill, under the DOJ, as I indicated, is down 378 million, or 17 percent. This simply tries to close the gap on the hurt and the harm that have been done to those who have suffered a rape. Remember, justice delayed is justice denied. A rape kit that is now in storage containers around the Nation, because law enforcement doesn't have the resources at the local level to pierce the backlog, means that prosecutors are not able to prosecute the cases and women remain without justice, women who have been brutalized, women who have suffered the devastation of rape, many of whom suffer with, if you will, the devastation of that act for many years. Many of us know that many women ask the question, was it their fault. We've moved beyond that. But I believe this amendment would at least provide the necessary resources in order to provide the overcoming of this terrible backlog.

My colleagues, please help us. Please help us render justice and provide for the solving or the piercing of the backlog of rape kits that have not been tested throughout the Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Chairman Wolf, I appreciate the work of this committee, and it's a committee that attracts the Judiciary Committee. And I have been a supporter of the work of the ATF for many years.

As I looked at the numbers, the ATF has $1,153,345,000. Their work is important. But we're only asking for $34 million because the backlog, as I indicated, has really not been assessed. I appreciate the $125 million. It is my understanding that we're below the mark. I appreciate that. But the point I want to make is that there are backlogs that have not been documented across America. It is far exceeding the $125 million. I just simply ask to be allowed to take $34 million out of the $1 billion of ATF. I certainly support work that they do, but the backlog has been going on and on and on since the Bush administration. We've never been able to solve the backlog on these rape kits.

May I inquire of the chairman one more question, please.

Mr. Wolf, what can we do? We're at what the mark is. Again, I'm looking at different numbers. You're obviously the chairman. I see a shortchange. But the point is this is attempting to respond to the rape kits in jurisdictions that have not been accounted for.

Well, if the gentleman would just yield for a moment so I could respond.

In the spirit of how important this is and to reinforce the fact that there are rape kits that are unaccounted for because there is not any data kept--so I don't think we have met the numbers. But I am willing to work with the chairman and the ranking member to determine how we can move in our next steps.

I will tell you and I do acknowledge that we're doing the work, but we don't have enough money to do all the work that we need to bring justice to women across this Nation.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and will work with the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment regarding the civil rights division, and recognizing the structure of the amendment, I chose to raise a point of concern, as I did with the date rape, and I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member, particularly on the date rape backlog that I believe is epidemic across America.

But in looking at the appropriations bill, I noticed $40 million, 4 percent less than requested, for certain areas in the Justice Department which would include the solicitor general, the tax division, the criminal division, civil division, but more importantly, the civil rights division. And it is well important to recognize how valuable civil rights are to Americans. No matter what your political perspective, there is always someone raising the point, I don't want my civil rights violated.

And so obviously, as I have interacted with the civil rights division, particularly as they are engaging in the results of the discrimination in lending and foreclosures, a large responsibility, particularly looking at the impact of subprime mortgages, and as they look at the enormity of voting rights, and we have had a siege of attacks with voting ID laws passed across America. And one would argue there is nothing wrong with voting ID laws, and you are absolutely right. But when they have been determined to impact minorities in a discriminatory fashion, then it is sad when the civil rights division may be limited in funding.

In the State of Texas, for example, our State law has been ruled invalid under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it discriminates against Hispanics, African Americans, and even the elderly, based upon the requirement of getting a photo ID from the Department of Public Safety. It is not the fault of the Department of Public Safety, but those officers are not located in many places where communities of color live, and, therefore, they are disproportionately impacted in being prevented from having the right to vote.

We have gone through many States' redistricting, and in some instances those cases have gone before the Department of Justice and the Federal court.

So civil rights, I am well reminded that it was the civil rights department of both the Kennedy administration and the Johnson administration that came to the aid of civil rights leaders and activists, particularly in the 1960s under the Johnson administration. On occasion, they had to be rescued by the Department of Justice.

And so I raise great concern when we find ourselves in a place where we would cut those funds such that they might impact the rendering of justice. It is well known that we have tough times, but I hope that as we make our way through the Congress, that we will find that it is important that we ensure that the funding that is rendered to the particular group of lawyers that come to the defense of civil rights of all Americans, that we ensure the full funding of that particular subset of the division under the Department of Justice.

And so my intent would be to add this comment to the Record, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Southerland

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 44: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 45: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

This evening, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be anchoring the Congressional Black Caucus hour on voter protection.

At the same time that I have the privilege of hosting this very important discussion, let me make note of the fact that our very distinguished Member, Congressman Charlie Rangel, is being toasted and recognized by our Members. I know that many of them will be commemorating Congressman Rangel, who is a dear friend of mine. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as a Korean War vet, and understands, when soldiers go to battle, they go to battle so that others might have the opportunity for freedom. Certainly embodied in freedom has to be the idea of being able to vote.

So this evening, as I discuss these issues, I am delighted to acknowledge him as well as to acknowledge that this is really a bipartisan concern--and it should be a bipartisan concern, because, in essence, we should not be at this moment speaking about who you vote for as much as we are speaking about allowing you to vote for the person of your choice and to be able to cast your vote unfettered.

Mr. Speaker, that is what my discussion will be about tonight. As I do so, allow me just for a moment to be able to share, if you will, a point that I hope that we all can adhere to.

This is going to be a tough election season. There are many actors, if you will, who will be involved in this process. This is a Presidential year, so it's going to get particularly feisty. But I do believe that there is a certain collegiality and collaboration as it circles around voting and the idea of voting and of voting with equal opportunity.

Even in our words, we need to try and make sure that we're lifting the voters up.

I heard a comment from someone introducing the intended Republican nominee--though it was tongue in cheek with a little humor--who indicated in his remarks very loudly, ``Osama is dead.'' And in the midst of it, he indicated, ``I mean Osama bin Laden.'' I assume he was trying to make a play on words, but I really hope that we can stay above the line of decency as we recognize that we live in difficult times.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we just heard publicly about a particular effort to attack our aviation assets, which was just announced today as breaking news, and we realize that we live in challenging times. For that reason, I think this discussion on voter protection is extremely important.

So let me just say to my friends that until now, historically, the voting franchise has only been expanded. This is most evident in the constitutional amendments that have been passed to protect and expand the right to vote. And since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it really has been a bipartisan congressional prerogative to ensure access to the ballot.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the Presidents who has been touted as having the greatest legislative record, had to cobble together Republicans and Democrats from the Deep South--then called the Dixiecrats--and moderate Republicans from the North and Midwest. He successfully passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and successfully passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was a bipartisan effort.

And I might say that many Members who have reflected to have had a chance to encounter--some are still in this House. I remember, most famously, Jack Brooks, after it was all said and done, felt that they had done the right thing.

Today I was at a middle school, and I indicated to them that I would be on the floor of the House discussing voter protection. I was inspired by those young people, middle schoolers, who were attentive to learn what their government did. As I left, telling them not how to vote but that they must vote, there was a great excitement in the room. I'm on this floor today for them and all middle schoolers, high schoolers, college students, senior citizens, new immigrants who have taken the oath with great pride, long-time voters, new voters. Those are voters who have the right to vote. That's what we're talking about.

Unfortunately, a series of laws do not go after those who did not have the right to vote, but these series of voter ID laws and new rules and regulations to stop people from voting goes after documented, legal voters with legal voting certificates who have done nothing wrong. Shame on those who would do so.

I just read, recently, that the lead person opposing the voter ID law in Pennsylvania, if I am correct--it's my recollection now--would be 93 years old. That's who we're hurting: senior citizens, people who have toiled and worked and paid their taxes, paid into Medicare. And now, because of when they were born, such as my mother Ivalita Jackson, they do not have a birth certificate. We tried, we looked, and we still have an inquiry in. God bless her.

My mother has since passed while we were in the midst of looking for the certificate for a number of reasons, but she had her voting card and she was eligible to vote. But under new voting ID laws, she would not be eligible to vote. And here is a woman who raised her children, paid her taxes, self-educated herself, achieved a status of a vocational nurse in times when education was not gifted to her.

A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice of NYU Law School concluded that the newly enacted State laws that would affect more than 5 million eligible voters will disproportionately disenfranchise young, low-income, elderly, and minority voters. In 2006, the Brennan Center completed a nationwide survey of voting-age citizens and found that African American voters are more than three times as likely as Caucasians to lack a government-issued ID.

The real nonsense of it all is that voter IDs are to avoid voter impersonation, and voter impersonation is a finite part of any kind of voter fraud. In fact, under the Bush administration, there was less than 20, if you will, that were prosecuted. We're talking about a country of 300 million. And this is by recollection: I think there were some 180 cases that were brought forward, and they only wound up prosecuting a finite number.

The heavy burden on minority voters seems patently unfair, and it seems to be a direct result of the great enthusiasm of all voters in 2008. I want to see that all the time. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose.

Isn't it interesting, when the wave of Tea Party voters had such an impact in 2010 and many of them were new voters, I didn't fare well in that, meaning my party's particular position, but it was the American way. All of the sudden, even with these new voters and the will of the people being adhered to, all of the sudden these new laws come out of the very people who are new to the voting process--many of them--and were excited about voting in 2010. Now comes a sledgehammer to prevent others from voting.

In Texas, thanks to new voter ID, students may not use their school-

issued IDs to vote, which is part of an effort to restrict student IDs as a valid form of identification to vote. This is the same State that will allow Texans with a concealed weapons permit to use their permits to vote, but a student who is trying to get an education, who has a State-issued ID card is not afforded the same privilege to use their student IDs.

Mind you, the Prairie View A&M case established a Supreme Court case that students could vote where they go to school. I remember that because we marched some 7-plus miles down an interstate to Prairie View A&M, thousands of us, to determine that students have a right at Prairie View A&M, that set a historical Supreme Court decision.

By the way, this was not, in essence, a liberal court. This decision was made under the Bush administration that determined that students can vote, and now the State of Texas is suggesting that they can't use their ID. Shame on them. Frankly, this seems out of whack. A student should be able to use their ID to vote.

Eleven percent of U.S. citizens, or more than 21 million Americans, do not have government-issued photo identification. Also, as many as 25 percent of all African American citizens of voting age do not have government-issued IDs.

Mandating voter IDs has a disproportionate and unfair impact on low- income individuals and racial and ethnic minorities. This also has a heavy burden on Hispanic voters in Texas. We found out that many Hispanic voters live in counties where there is no Department of Public Safety office for them to even go to.

Mr. Speaker, do we get an airplane, a helicopter? What do we tell individuals who have toiled, who have worked and are second- and third- generation Texans that just because of their aging status, maybe because of health reasons, they cannot get a voter ID? Senior citizens, voters with disabilities, and many other individuals do not have government-issued ID or the money to even acquire one.

Yes, under Texas law they can vote by mail, but I tell you, getting information to people is very hard. If you're used to going and voting on a Sunday, if you're used to being taken when your family members have the time to take you--which is weekend voting--and you're used to taking your voter certificate and now the new law says no, what an outrage.

But I have relief. As it relates to Texas, I have just spoken to the Justice Department and have been reissued a letter that indicates that the Texas voter ID law is invalid as it relates to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a cause for celebration. Our primary will be May 29. That law will be invalid for both the primary and the runoff.

I've asked the State of Texas to not hide that information and to come out with a clear enunciation--not a negative announcement--that says that the Justice Department has stopped the Texas voter ID law. That doesn't help anybody understand anything. Your duty is to be impartial as a State election officer, and you are to come out and say that the current law stands--not the voter ID law that is invalid under the Voting Rights Act--until a further court determination can be made, which is not until the July 2012 court hearing.

It is important for us to work together, as State officials, to let everyone know your voting certificate is an appropriate document to allow you to vote. That is what government is supposed to do, give fair and impartial information no matter where it falls. And I look forward to working with our State government to ensure that impartial information is now promoted to all people, everyone.

Your voting certificate is a legitimate document. And if you do not have a State-issued voter ID, you can vote in your primary, whether it is Republican, Democratic, or any other primary that is viable in the State of Texas. Why is that so difficult to do? More than 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification, which includes, again, 25 percent of African American voting age citizens, or more than 5.5 million people; 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000 a year; 18 percent of those age 65 and above--and more than 6 million voters; 20 percent of young voters ages 18 to 29, and it is much higher in the Hispanic community.

The photo ID proposals are not new, with calls for strict voter identification laws emerging out of the 2000 Presidential election, when conservative watchdog groups contended that laws intending to facilitate voting, such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, known as ``Motor Voter,'' had opened the doors to illegal voting.

That's impossible, Mr. Speaker. It didn't look like the folks who thought that they were losing suffered too much in the 2000 Presidential election. The candidate of their choice was elected and ascended to the presidency. I can't imagine why they would feel that they had been violated by the 1993 Motor Voter law, which means that you could just register to vote at your various sites around the community, including the motor vehicle department.

The Justice Department, under Attorney General Ashcroft, pledged that cracking down on so-called voter fraud would be a top priority of the Bush administration Justice Department, though ultimately, the Department's own extensive analysis found little evidence of voting improprieties. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, establishing uniform minimum voter identification requirements, prompting calls that States should go further.

Mr. Speaker, this is for everybody. I can't stop or investigate who is coming to the polls and suggest that if you are this party or that party, stay away. Why wouldn't we want to help everyone?

Since 2001, more than 700 voter identification bills have been introduced in 46 States, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A dozen States have passed new voter ID laws since 2003, but only eight States require a photo ID of voters, and only two have laws as strict as those being proposed this year. That was before. Now we have, in essence, a new day. We have some tough laws that are hurting voters. We're talking about voter protection, but we have to overcome voter suppression.

If you look at this map, you will see that we are being overwhelmed by voter photo ID requirements. I would say almost two-thirds of the States have inappropriately and incorrectly believed that they are going to make voting far more secure.

Let me tell you what an ID does: It stops you from impersonating another person. That has been the lowest level of voter fraud because you are silly to impersonate because you are going into a place that might subject you to an arrest. In the State of Texas, precinct judges have the status of a district judge on election day.

This map will show you how bad it is. Look at the red. It requires voter ID. Big Texas: that's why I need the State to announce that the voter ID law is invalid for the May 29 primary, because it looks as if we have a requirement that does not exist for this primary. Someone hear me. We are obligated to tell the 21 million-plus Texans that they have the right to vote with a voting certificate if they are registered to vote for the May 29 primary. That red is getting pretty strong. Blue, photo ID requested. The red is require photo ID only; nothing else. How absurd.

In essence, we're taking a match and burning the voting certificates that people worked so hard to get, that allow people to vote--that you tell people to register again. It also disallows organizations like the League of Women Voters and puts a very heavy hand on what happens when you register people to vote and how you have to get those registrations in. The big ``stop'' sign. That's why it's red. It's the ``stop people from voting'' law.

Then look at the photo ID requested, blue States. Then look at the photo voter ID legislation proposed. It covers 90 percent of America. How absurd. And I would be open to finding a way to ensure that that diminished, limited amount of fraud is taken care of. But this is what it does: It puts up a red stop sign. It stops people from voting. It frightens people from voting. It keeps people from voting.

And then, of course, this is another big, fat, red map which shows the States where voting changes were pursued and the types of changes enacted.

I'll show it in a moment. It includes legislation introduced. Big red photo ID requirements--passed. Proof of citizenship--passed. Restrictions on voter registration--passed. Restrictions on early absentee voting--passed. Executive action, making it harder to restore voting rights. You can see the country is predominantly red with a big ``stop'' sign, stopping people from voting.

I beg of you, why would we, who have the privilege of having a document that gave citizens due process, gave us the freedoms of speech, petition, assembly, all having to do with petitioning your government, and then we have a movement that literally stops us in our tracks. Then we have Citizens United that dumps money into elections and literally skews who gets to be selected by the people.

I want everyone to see how much we need to overcome voter suppression by, in essence, protecting everyone's right to vote. I want to be very clear on this: Everyone's right to vote.

A dozen States have passed, as I have said, new voter ID laws since 2003. But voter ID proposals have a forceful momentum this year not seen in years passed--this year, meaning 2012, 2011, and going back to 2010. This is part of a broader legislative movement to limit access to the political process for disenfranchised groups at a level not seen since post-Reconstruction Era laws implementing poll taxes and literacy tests.

Now we have to know that there are those of us who come from States where the literacy tests and poll tax have not gone away even for 60 years, meaning that we have not even had that relief for 60 years.

There were lawsuits in the 1940s that ultimately generated an opportunity for constituents not to pay a poll tax. I remember the late Beulah Shepard, who came to Texas. If there ever was a person that talked about voting, it was sister Beulah Shepard out of Acres Homes. She always used to recite a poem about just one vote, and she gave a whole list of what one vote, one person could do. She proudly talked about the fact that she paid a poll tax to vote. And she paid a poll tax, I think she said, for her husband and others who needed to vote.

That wasn't too long in America's history and future, Mr. Speaker. What a shameful turn of events that now the late Beulah Shepard is no longer here, and how she'd be crying, turning over in her resting place, to realize that all the toiling that she did to register people to vote, to empower those who had been disenfranchised, now could not vote.

Susan B. Anthony and the Suffragettes, Sojourner Truth, who suffered because women could not vote. They were not landowners. And they tried and worked and toiled and were ridiculed, and finally women could vote. And to find now some elderly woman who does not have her voter photo ID--and I say this. Let the listening public hear. You cannot get a voter ID if you don't bring something like a birth certificate. And this is where our seniors either can't get there or they're too elderly to have access to their birth certificate. Maybe they were, in essence, brought into this world by a volunteer or midwife or family members. There's no birth certificate. Maybe it's in the deep country in the dark of night, where mom and baby did not get recognition until days or weeks afterward. Or, living as long as they lived, the birth certificate has been lost. Mr. Speaker, I've heard of veterans whose documents were burned up in a fire. They were still veterans. They still served their country. We see them every day.

And so here we have a situation where you're disenfranchising groups at a level not seen, as I said, since post-Reconstruction era laws implementing a poll tax and a literacy test. Just over the first 2 months of 2011, photo ID proposals have been introduced in 32 States and passed out of one legislative chamber in 12 States. Lawmakers across the Nation have pinpointed photo ID as a top legislative priority. The Governor of Texas designated photo ID as a legislative emergency in order to allow it to be procedurally fast-tracked to the legislature. Photo ID proposals were pre-filed before legislative sessions began in half a dozen States. And secretaries of State in a number of States have listed photo ID as a top priority.

Let me thank Chairman Emanuel Cleaver for leading out not only members of the Congressional Black Caucus but collaborating with other organizations, and let me thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on this issue. Let me thank Congresswoman Donna Christensen, who is detained at a matter that she had to attend, who's been anchoring these hour-long discussions with the American public.

But we better beware, because what you do to others comes back to you. The idea of limiting a person's access to voting and being able to vote on the cause of how you think they will vote and how you don't want those people to vote comes back to Americans who want to vote in whichever way they do. Stop me from voting, you get stopped from voting.

The idea of a photo ID is not a respecter of race. And if you're elderly and can't get to the Department of Public Safety office or in another State you can't get somewhere, if you're inhibited or prohibited, it is an impact on you no matter what background you come from.

Thank God for the Congressional Black Caucus that is a respecter of the rights of all people. We are fighting for our children. We're fighting for young people, the elderly, the disabled. And no matter who you are, if you're blocked to vote because of the voter ID, this is voter suppression--and we want to have voter protection.

The Governor of Texas designated photo ID as a legislative emergency in order to allow it to be procedurally fast-tracked through the legislature. Photo ID proposals were pre-filed before legislative sessions began in half a dozen States. I don't know why that happened. We're bogged down with the redistricting case.

The secretaries of State in a number of States have listed photo ID as a top priority. Mr. Speaker, it does nothing. The Bush administration showed they couldn't find any fraud worth prosecuting for people who were impersonating a voter. Photo ID proposals have garnered significant momentum in a very mistaken matter--that it's going to do something. It is not.

Let us point out voter fraud. Let us, in essence, carve it out. But you are not going anywhere with voter ID laws who discriminate against the elderly, who discriminate against minorities, who discriminate against those individuals who have lived long enough and served their country long enough that they just might not remember where their birth certificate is--or even their marriage certificate.

Significant momentum is going on this, and it is wrongheaded. Opponents are having difficulty waging effective counterattacks to curb the movement on these bills as majority leaderships, emboldened by their increased numbers following in the 2010 midterm elections, are more committed than they ever have been.

Let me congratulate the State of Ohio and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, where the people of that State defeated that draconian law and they will not have the burden of their voter ID law in the 2012 Presidential election. Yay for them. A battleground State where the people can vote as they choose. And we're going to all realize that Ohioans will not be encumbered by draconian laws. They will battle it out in the democratic process and they will vote, and no one can block them from voting.

In 1890, the State of Mississippi, although African Americans made up 58 percent of the population, due to the structure of voting laws that year in Mississippi, of the 134 elected delegates, only one was African American, and that was during Reconstruction. It does not take a genius to recognize that the African American vote was diluted.

We cannot allow history to repeat itself. That is why we have the Voting Rights Act and why we are ever vigilant to guard against any encroachments on the right to vote.

And so my argument is, today, that we're going to go across America-- and I appreciate my colleagues who have joined in this effort to go across America--and we're going to introduce voting protection seminars to ensure that every voter--minority voters and elderly voters--has a right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad to have spoken to my State officials today. I

will place this letter to Texas State officials in the Record.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.

Hon. Hope Andrade,

Secretary of State,

Austin, Texas.

Dear Secretary Andrade: Thank you for taking my call today

Monday, May 07, 2012 regarding the status of election law to

be utilized in the 2012 Texas Primary and on a possible run

off date. A formal public announcement must be made along

with the production of public awareness advertisements

outlining that the current law is still in place and

operational.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Perez ``with

regard to Section 9 and 15 of S.B. 14, concerning

photographic identification, I cannot conclude that the state

has sustained its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must

object to Sections 9 and 14 of S.B. 14.'' In effect, the

currently proposed photographic identification requirements

and related changes may not be implemented and are not

legally enforceable. The public must be made aware of the

current voting requirements.

The trial date is set for Monday, July 9, 2012 and

therefore all means currently permissible should be utilized

to ensure the public is made aware that there is currently no

requirement in the State of Texas for a state issued

photographic identification in order to vote in the upcoming

elections. Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward

to working with you.

Very Truly Yours,

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

With that in mind, in the name of so many great leaders, from our early Presidents who valued this historic democratic process to the drafters of the Constitution that began to open the words of this great book with the words, We have come together to establish justice, to form a more perfect Union, to ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity to ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States, voter ID laws do not equal to liberty. They do not equal giving our posterity to our children, grandchildren, the grandchildren's children and grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren. The voter ID law is oppressive and it denies the right to vote.

I cry in my heart, Mr. Speaker, for we have fallen victim to a distortion of the right of people to vote and the distortion of the blame game. And so State legislatures have attempted to say they're doing something and, Mr. Speaker, they are not. They are not.

I would like to put into the Record a letter from the Department of Justice dated May 4, 2012.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2012.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Jackson Lee: This responds to your

recent inquiry to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights

Thomas E. Perez, regarding implementation of Texas S.B. 14

(2011).

On March 12, 2012, the Attorney General interposed an

objection, pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of

1965, to S.B. 14's photographic identification requirements

for in-person voting. The Attorney General's objection letter

is enclosed.

The photographic identification requirements and related

changes in S.B. 14 therefore may not be implemented, and are

legally unenforceable, until either the Attorney General's

objection is withdrawn, or until Texas obtains a judgment

from the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia preclearing these changes under Section 5. Texas has

sought such a judgment from the district court in State of

Texas v. Holder. No. 1:12 cv 00128 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 24,

2012), and that case is currently set for trial beginning

July 9, 2012.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate

to contact this office if we may provide additional

assistance regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Ronald Weilch,

Assistant Attorney General.

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2096, the ``Cybersecurity Enhancement Act.'' The bill would reauthorize several National Science Foundation (NSF) programs that aim to enhance cybersecurity. In addition, it would require the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to continue a cybersecurity awareness program and to develop standards for managing personal identifying information stored on computer systems. Further, it would establish a task force which would recommend actions to improve our Nation's cybersecurity.

Cyberspace can easily be considered the nervous system--the control system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the healthy functioning of cyberspace is essential to our economy and our national security.

This issue is not new to me nor to any other Member of Congress. As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have faced the problems which arise when there are breaches and how best to protect our system in both the Crime and Intellectual Property Subcommittees.

As a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply concerned about vulnerabilities in our cyber security protection. For the last few years, threats originating in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States has been to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States.

I realize that we must act in advance to reduce all of our vulnerabilities to these types of threats, in order to prevent any damage to the cyber systems supporting our Nation's critical infrastructures.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the threat posed by cyber attacks is heightened by vulnerabilities in federal systems and systems supporting critical infrastructure. Specifically, significant weaknesses in information security controls continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical information and information systems supporting the operations, assets, and personnel of Federal Government agencies.

For example, 18 of 24 major Federal agencies have reported inadequate information security controls for financial reporting for fiscal year 2011, and inspectors general at 22 of these agencies identified information security as a major management challenge for their agency.

Moreover, GAO, agency, and inspector general assessments of information security controls during fiscal year 2011 revealed that most major agencies had weaknesses in most major categories of information system controls. These and similar weaknesses can be exploited by threat actors, with potentially severe effects.

In addition, the number of cybersecurity incidents reported by Federal agencies continues to rise, and recent incidents illustrate that these pose serious risk. Over the past 6 years, the number of incidents reported by Federal agencies to the Federal information security incident center has increased by nearly 680 percent.

These incidents include unauthorized access to systems; improper use of computing resources; and the installation of malicious software, among others.

Reported attacks and unintentional incidents involving Federal, private, and infrastructure systems demonstrate that the impact of a serious attack could be significant, including loss of personal or sensitive information, disruption or destruction of critical infrastructure, and damage to national and economic security.

Federal agencies are facing a set of emerging cybersecurity threats that are the result of increasingly sophisticated methods of attack and the blending of once distinct types of attack into more complex and damaging forms. Examples of these threats include spam (unsolicited commercial e-mail), phishing (fraudulent messages to obtain personal or sensitive data), and spyware (software that monitors user activity without user knowledge or consent).

Cyber attacks are analogous to guerilla warfare. Attribution of an attack to a specific source or entity is a significant challenge in cyberspace because the Internet was built on an open, anonymous platform. This architecture permits the original source of an attack to be easily masked. While an attack may be traced to a specific country, this does not necessarily mean that the government of that country is behind the attacks. Moreover, because of the near universal access to the Internet, disruptive activity can come from individual actors located in any corner of the globe.

In February 2009, the Director of National Intelligence testified that foreign nations and criminals have targeted government and private sector networks to gain a competitive advantage and potentially disrupt or destroy them, and that terrorist groups have expressed a desire to use cyberattacks as a means to target the United States.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified multiple sources of threats to our Nation's critical information systems, including foreign nations engaged in espionage and information warfare, domestic criminals, hackers, virus writers, and disgruntled employees and contractors working within an organization.

For these reasons and more, I support this bipartisan legislation. We must continue to support the research and development of technology that will help to combat threats to our cybersecurity. It is also essential to train and develop the professionals who are able to continue with the implementation of countermeasures and are the future of R&D.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to move as quickly as possible to pass the Violence Against Women Act, legislation that I was happy to be an early supporter of in the early stages of my honor of serving in this House.

I remember as a young member of the House Judiciary Committee standing alongside of Chairman Henry Hyde, a Republican, as we stood in the Senate to push for the passage of the Violence Against Women Act.

Over the years, we have seen the saving of women's lives. Now it is important that we not stall and take the Senate act which, in fact, has broadened its coverage of Native American women, immigrant women, and women of different lifestyles because it includes everyone.

Do we have to wait, while in Texas on a holiday, where a man goes in and kills his wife and children? Violence. Or the man who is charged with killing Jennifer Hudson's family, looking for his ex-wife. Violence that must stop.

Pass the Violence Against Women Act now. Take the Senate bill that was bipartisan and save the lives of women and men who are subject to violence in their lives.

America, you can do better.

Yesterday, the guest chaplain asked that the House of Representatives be blessed and that each Member of the House of Representatives be blessed. In our opportunity to be free in our expression of religion, I ask that each of us bless this Nation. For that reason, I set this morning to discuss just a series of issues, hoping that we can improve the quality of life of not only Americans, but people around the world.

First, we have to clean up our house. And so I express outrage of the actions of two former TSA workers--TSO officers and two present TSO officers.

All of us can fall short because we are human, but the outrage of participating in drug trafficking right here in the United States as an official of the United States Government should be condemned by all of us, and I will call for immediate hearings to ensure that the culture of TSO officers, besides their frontline duty, is to respect the job and the task. As a champion of their work, believing that their work is vital to the security of this Nation and the fact that we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11, I call for immediate investigation and response.

This morning, as well, we determined that the Secret Service, who finished quickly an investigation of the Colombian debacle dealing with sex workers, prostitutes, we now have discovered through a contractor that, in fact, actions occurred in El Salvador. We thought it might not be the culture. But let's own up and begin, as necessary, to purge those who are reckless in their behavior. Thank you to the men and women of the Secret Service who have always done their duty. But to the dastardly deeds of these who think it's a playground: Get out now. There is no tolerance for this kind of behavior.

Let me move immediately to the work in Syria. I was the first Member to go to the Syrian Embassy to ask for the fall, or the removal, of Dr. Assad, and we have been moving along while others have been slaughtered. Meetings and discussions at the U.N. National Security Council, a special envoy--``do this and do that''--while women and children are being slaughtered, it is time for there to be a stronger statement on the removal of Dr. Assad and the increase in U.N. peacekeepers. The people need your help in Syria. The bloodshed continues and the fear is insurmountable, almost. It is necessary on behalf of their human rights to be able to move quickly in Syria.

As the Supreme Court has discussed the Arizona law, I hope that we can bless America by having comprehensive immigration reform. I hope we can understand that there are laws that work well. Just helping a Korean student who was shot in my jurisdiction whose father was denied entry because of his language and didn't understand, he now has been granted humanitarian parole. Let's have comprehensive immigration reform so that we don't have States who are stopping families who are U.S. citizens in the streets of Arizona, profiling them because of this dastardly law, that we don't have police officers having to become immigration officers while they need to be rescuing people and saving people. Let's do the decent thing. Let's bless America and have comprehensive immigration reform.

Then, of course, the Senate is debating the issue of the Violence Against Women Act, an act that as a new Member of Congress I had the pleasure of both cosponsoring and writing amendments as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and it is sad that we have a divide on the Violence Against Women Act that has bipartisan support. This House should take up the Leahy bill immediately as it passed the Senate. Do you realize how many women are being killed a day, an hour, because of the domestic violence that this particular act helps to outreach, provide resources, counseling and opportunities to be able to nurture those women and to be able to ensure that they are safe?

As a former board member of the Houston Area Women's Center that has been a living example of protecting women against dastardly violence and, of course, men who are subjected to domestic violence, it is, unfortunately, a form of an epidemic in this country, as we have seen with bullying. We have to be able to bless America and have people turn internally. Let them seek help. But why stall the passage of the Violence Against Women Act which, in fact, will provide the nurture, comfort, and resources and the national statement that we abhor and stand against violence against women and others who are being impacted violently against this Nation.

As a Member who stood along Chairman Hyde many years ago, the late Chairman Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a Republican who stood alongside of us to say he stands with legislation to protect women, get the Senate to do its business and let the House do its business. Let us bless America.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, let me thank you for your courtesy. Let me thank the chairperson for his courtesy and the ranking member for his courtesy. I was very appreciative, with the overlapping committee work, for the courtesy of the floor. I thank you very much.

Let me hold up the Constitution and say that I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, particularly, that protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. And I also recognize the bipartisan effort of this particular legislation and recognize that we may have disagreement.

My amendment ensures that comprehensive policies and procedures are implemented by the Department of Homeland Security to protect Federal systems from cybersecurity threats and minimize the impact on privacy. What it does not do is allow Homeland Security and the Justice Department to spy on Americans.

Let me be very clear. It does not allow the infrastructure of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to spy on Americans. I would not adhere to that.

It is a shame that oversight of our Nation's critical infrastructure, however, was not included in this bill. The hard work that has been done by the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. Lungren and Ms. Clarke, joined with other Members, was worthy of consideration.

I understand the strictures that we're dealing with. My amendment is designed to put in place comprehensive privacy protections in order to prevent any gross infringement of an individual's civil liberties or privacy rights. It allows the Department of Homeland Security to protect Federal systems that enable air traffic controllers to operate.

Madam Chairperson, we know the climate that we live in. God has blessed us, if I might even say that, but more importantly, the hard work of men and women who happen to be Federal employees, that no action has occurred on our soil since 9/11.

This amendment would allow the Department of Homeland Security to protect Federal systems that enable air traffic controllers to operate, that enable Congress to operate, that enable all Federal agencies to operate.

My amendment is intentionally narrowly tailored to go after known or reasonable threats to our Federal systems. Let me be very clear. This is not a reflection on this legislation from the extent of hard work.

I am just saying that, coming from my perspective, I would hope that we would look at infrastructure.

I am not advocating for the bill. I am advocating for an open discussion on this issue that certain elements have to be resolved in dealing with the cyberthreats that we face. I've long been an advocate for protecting the right to privacy and the civil liberties of all Americans--that is very much a part of this amendment--but I am also mindful of the importance of the infrastructure.

As we assess cybersecurity measures and take steps to implement legislation, I believe we must be sure to strike the proper balance between effective and strong security for our digital networks and protecting the privacy of individuals as well as infrastructure that involves transportation. I am ever mindful that we must be careful not to go about strengthening cybersecurity at the expense of infringing on people's privacy rights and civil liberties, which is why my amendment is narrowly tailored and sets clear restrictions on the scope of communications addressed and why and how that information can be used.

Our Nation's critical infrastructures are composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemicals and hazardous materials.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

What an exaggeration. I know that they have been propelled by all of the media that has given them great support.

They know that the underlying bill, in fact, is considered an invasion of privacy; but if you look at my amendment, it is only when the communication is associated with a known or a reasonably suspected cybersecurity threat. It is narrow, but more importantly, it has a privacy provision. I believe in privacy. Let me just say that I was not going to be denied the right to come to the floor to be able to frame what we should be doing--looking at infrastructure and the complement of making sure that privacy is protected.

This particular book, even with the amendments they have, will probably not draw this to the point of acceptance. So I would argue that this is a productive debate but that the amendment that Jackson Lee has submitted does not, in fact, at all violate privacy. I would say to them that I look forward to being able to address this question as we go forward.

I am going to ask, at this time, unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment for the misinterpretation that my friends on the other side of the aisle have predicted or thought that they were going to put on this particular amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a milestone reached by Marquis Alexander. He is the first African- American to become commander of Texas A&M's Corps of Cadets. Currently Marquis is a Corporal in the U.S. Marine Reserves and a rising senior majoring in International Studies.

History of African-Americans at TAMU

The history of African-Americans at Texas A&M University dates back to the founding of the institution. African-Americans in the Texas Legislature advocated for and supported the passage of the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1866, which established the A&M College of Texas between 1876 and 1963. African-Americans worked at A&M as laborers, maids, custodians and various other support staff; however they were prohibited from attending as students and faculty.

The history of African-Americans at A&M has been shaped by decades of racial segregation, quiet desegregation, and attempts to redress historical wrongs. It has been filled with lifelong struggles and determination to fulfill a dream which was accomplished when A&M opened the doors in 1963 to African Americans. The past 37 years have been a continuing struggle by African-Americans and A&M to ensure that the dream is kept alive.

The first African-Americans joined the corps in 1964. The first female cadets came a decade later. In A&M's centennial year, Fred McClure won election as body president, making him the first to be equal to that of Corps Commander and Aggie Yell Leader.

Civil Rights

Civil rights is a subject that cannot be ignored or taken lightly, even in this day of progressive movement toward tolerance. We must not lose sight of the continued need for civil rights. We must not relax our initiatives which build greater racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance. While I believe that there is still work to be done on the issue of civil rights and hurdles to overcome, we cannot ignore the progress that has been made as the result of decades of hard work, diligence, the sweat and tears of many of our country's civil rights trailblazers.

This is evidenced by an increase in the numbers of minorities attaining leadership positions in the private and public sectors for example: Ken Chenault, an African American who currently serves as the CEO of American Express; Ursula Burns, who became the first African American woman to serve as Chairman and CEO of Xerox, a Fortune 500 Company; and Antonio Perez, the first Latino American to serve as CEO of Eastman Kodak Corporation to name a few.

Background on Marquis Alexander

He is the oldest of 10 children and the first in his family to go to college. He is said to be an admirable and mature young man. Mr. Alexander is currently a Corporal in the Marine Reserves. He has become the first person with military experience to head the Corps. Texas A&M University has the proud distinction of having the most graduates to enlist in our nation's armed forces when compared to other non-military academies.

Marquis Alexander grew up in my home city of Houston. And our city is proud of his achievements. Marquis has always wanted to attend Texas A&M. He was so ``gung-ho'' military that he participated in Texas A&M's Junior Cadet Accessions Program while still in high school. A week after enlisting in the Marine Corps, he received his letter of acceptance to Texas A&M University.

Yet, true to his word and commitment, Alexander attended boot camp at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego and spent a year and a half on active duty. He subsequently reverted from active duty status and is serving the remainder of his enlistment commitment in the Marine Corps Reserves. He reapplied for admission to Texas A&M in 2009 and was promptly accepted.

He was selected following a rigorous review process in which a host of cadets are considered when leadership selections are made each year. Soon he will assume duties as Cadet Colonel of the Corps, the 2,100 member organization's top leadership position, also known as Corps Commander, and one of the three top positions on campus, along with that of student body President and Yell Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Alexander for aiming high and continuing to strive above and beyond his primary goals of joining the military. He is a mentor and guiding light to those who know him. I congratulate Marquis on his achievement. He has indeed risen to the top and I hope he keeps on rising. In my office, I have an intern named Ashley Hawkes whose family has also dedicated their lives to the military. Marquis Alexander stands as a role to young people like Ashley. Ashley was honored to work on this statement, and was inspired by his story. That is why I stand here today to spread the word about his tremendous achievement to not only honor Marquis Alexander but to inspire young people like Ashley to realize that they must continue to advance.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a

milestone reached by Marquis Alexander. He is the first African American to become commander of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets.

Currently, Marquis is a corporal in the U.S. Marine Reserves and a rising senior majoring in international studies. Congratulations.

The history of African Americans at A&M University dates back to the founding of the institution. African Americans in the Texas Legislature advocated for and supported the passage of the Moral Land Grant Act in 1866, which established A&M College of Texas between 1876 and 1963. African Americans worked at Texas A&M as laborers, maids, custodians, and various other support staff; however, they were prohibited from attending as students and faculty until 1963.

It's been a long time, but here we are today to congratulate this young man, a graduate of Barbara Jordan High School in the 18th Congressional District, my district, in Houston, Texas. He is the oldest of 10 children, and the first in his family to go to college. He is said to be an admirable and mature young man. Alexander is currently a corporal in the Marine Reserves. He has become the first person with military experience to head the corps.

Texas A&M University has the proud distinction of having the most graduates to enlist in our Nation's Armed Forces when compared to other nonmilitary academies.

Mr. Alexander grew up in my home city of Houston. Our city is proud of his achievements. He has always wanted to attend Texas A&M. He was so gung ho for the military that he participated in the Texas A&M Junior Cadet Accessions Program while still in high school. A week after enlisting in the Marine Corps, he received a letter of acceptance from Texas A&M. Yet true to his word and commitment, Alexander attended boot camp at the Marine Corps Depot in San Diego.

He is the kind of young American that we can be proud of. I am so proud of him. Congratulations to you and your family. This is a glory hallelujah day, and congratulations to Texas A&M for opening it up to being a student body president and yell leader.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great amount of privilege today to welcome two humble

spirits in Pastor Joel Osteen and Co-Pastor Victoria Osteen, and to recognize their entire family and their delightful children, Alexandra and Jonathan. Two humble spirits.

As was reflected in his prayer, Joel Osteen has taught us to embrace God's grace and mercy, and for those who will listen, to stand in the sunlight of joy as one looks toward the hopefulness of the future.

I am delighted that Lakewood started in a feedstock store in the 18th Congressional District. The story is told that there were spiders and a lot of dust, organized by his wonderful father, John Osteen, and his mother, Dodie Osteen, two who loved each other dearly but really loved the Lord.

Out of that wonderful union came five children. And out of that wonderment, as John Osteen preached for over 40 years, as the love of his wife, Dodie Osteen, provided a comfort at his side, they built a wonderful church called the Oasis of Love.

But John was taken from us suddenly in 1999. A young man by the name of Joel was at school. But, knowing how much he loved his family, he came home, just happening, a month or so ago or a few years before, working with his father's ministry, and gave a sermon for the first time one week before his father died. Maybe it was the father telling the son that now it is your time.

As we look to the future, Pastor Joel Osteen, who has published many books, continues to be a humble spirit, is known to have the largest and most growing church in American history and, as well, continues with a humble spirit. His phrase that ``Our God is a good God who desires to bless those who are obedient and faithful to him'' is one that we're reminded of. He continues to ensure that those who are in need have a sense of inspiration and hope, and he continues to preach this word around the world.

He asks for all of us, and he asks for America and the world, to become all that God created you to be, and continues to emphasize that we are better than we think. As he was the product of John and Dodie Osteen, he is now, along with his wife and along with his mother, continuing to shine a light.

We're delighted to have him today because we need a light in America. As he reaches those who are seeking light, we ask Pastor Joel Osteen, in his books, in his message, to continue to bless us. He is, in fact, someone who warmly says: America is a great country, but we're better when we work together.

Thank you, Pastor Osteen, for keeping the dream alive, that of your father and mother, of a church that was started in 1959. Thank you as well for opening the doors of your church to everyone that would come. But more importantly, every background, race, color, or creed is welcome in those pews, now some 16,000. And that was a former basketball stadium, or arena, but yet now people come and worship.

I'm delighted to host Pastor Joel Osteen and his co-pastor, his wife, Victoria Osteen, for what they are doing not only for their church and their members, but really what they're doing for harmony and the spirit of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of a native Houstonian Joel Osteen, his wife of 21 years Victoria Osteen, as well as, Joel's parents John and Dodie Osteen. Their Church Lakewood was established in 1959 in my district the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas.

Joel was born in Houston on March 5, 1965 and has become an internationally known televangelist, theologian, speaker and writer.

He was born into a family dedicated to serving their community. In 1959, six years before his birth, Joel's parents, John and Dodie Osteen, founded the Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. Joel bore witness to his parents' commitment to the church and the community that they served.

Joel has married a woman who shares his level of commitment. His wife Victoria is also his co-pastor and together they have two children Alexandra and Jonathan.

John Osteen was not only a founder but also the Pastor of Lakewood Church and as the years progressed he along with Dodie was able to develop a loyal local following. John was a prolific writer and authored 45 books and his wife, Dodie joined him in his passion for writing. She also published a book which described her battle with metastic cancer of the liver. Dodie's survival was a miracle and a blessing for all who heard her story.

Joel, who has always been strongly committed to his family, left for university; however, he returned home early and continued to help his family with the church. Joel had found his calling in life, and gave his first sermon one week before his father's death. That moment set his future destiny--he was called to pastor Lakewood Church.

Before that, Joel believed the next step for the church was television and he worked without ceasing behind cameras and as a producer of the church's broadcasts. Young Joel had a vision and the Osteens, as a family, worked towards that vision to bring their church into the homes of millions of people around the world as a conduit to deliver the word of the Lord.

In 1999, Joel reached his 34th birthday and in that year he along with his family had already celebrated many successes. Sadly, they also had to come together that year to mourn the loss of their patriarch, John Osteen, who died of a heart attack.

At the time of his father's death, Joel had to decide what to do next. He had spent his life dedicated to supporting the mission of the Lakewood Church. He could have chosen a different path in life but had remained steadfast in working with the congregation for so long.

Instead of leaving the church upon his father's death, Joel decided to pick up the torch lit by his parents and stepped into his father's shoes as Pastor of Lakewood Church. The rest is history.

Within the space of 9 years, Joel has transformed the Church and left his mark on history. According to reports, Lakewood Church under Joel Osteen's leadership has become America's largest and fastest growing church. The Osteen family has lived their vision; they are indeed being seen in millions of homes around the world.

Currently Joe's services can be seen in nearly 100 countries. Lakewood Church is nondenominational--there are no crosses or other visual representations of Jesus--instead, the focus is on the message as delivered by Joel and his co-pastors. He wants to teach people on the redemption of Jesus Christ.

Joel has been preaching to millions of people around the world. He has a strong message of unity and encourages diversity and acceptance. Joel is arguably the most popular preacher in the country. Lakewood Church is the largest congregation in the United States, averaging more than 43,500 in attendance per week. The congregation in Houston meets in a 16,000-seat former sports arena.

On any given Sunday over 7 million people watch his services. And his ability to embrace technology has allowed even more viewers to witness his services. Currently the church has 48 million podcasts with over 1 million people downloading their podcasts every week.

I commend Joel Osteen, his wife Victoria, his family and his Lakewood Church team ministry who have worked together to put forward a message that has engaged the hearts and minds of millions.

Joel's Story

Joel Osteen is currently in negotiations with a major network to anchor a primetime reality series based on the inspirational themes of his Sunday sermons. The show will orginate from Lakewood Church and tell the stories of ordinary people meeting extraordinary challenges.

Joel Osteen is a native Houstonian and the Pastor of Lakewood Church, which according to Church Growth Today is America's largest and fastest growing church.

On July 16, 2005 after completing $95 million in renovations, Joel moved Lakewood Church into its new 16,000-seat home--the former Compaq Center. It is the largest regularly-used worship center in the United States.

Each week Joel delivers God's message of hope and encouragement to more than 38,000 attendees.

According to Nielsen Media Research, Joel is the most watched inspirational figure in America.

His weekly sermon is broadcast into every U.S. television market where it is viewed by 7 million Americans each week and more than 20 million each month. His weekly broadcast is also seen in almost 100 nations around the world.

In 2004, his first book, Your Best Life Now, was released by Time Warner debuting at the top of the New York Times Bestsellers List and quickly rising to #1. It remained on the New York Times Bestsellers List for more than 2 years and has sold more than 4 million copies.

Joel was named as one of Barbara Walters' ``10 Most Fascinating People of 2006'' and he was selected as the ``Most Influential Christian

in 2006'' by the readers of Church Report Magazine.

prepared for god's calling

Joel, the son of John Osteen, a highly respected minister of the Gospel and the founder of Lakewood Church, attended Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he studied radio and television communications.

In 1982, Joel returned to Houston and founded Lakewood's television ministry where he produced John Osteen's televised sermons for 17 years until January 1999 when his father passed away suddenly from a heart attack.

For many years, John Osteen encouraged Joel to preach, but he always declined preferring to work behind the scenes. But, in early 1999 Joel felt compelled to accept his father's invitation and he preached his first sermon on January 17th of that year. Little did anyone know that would be the last Sunday of John Osteen's life. Two weeks later, Joel began preaching and later that year was installed as the new Senior Pastor of Lakewood Church.

a new vision for the new millennium

Almost immediately, weekly attendance began to grow at an extraordinary rate and in 2005, Joel moved Lakewood Church into its present location, the former Compaq Center, a 16,000-seat arena that was once home to the Houston Rockets professional basketball team. Now, with his wife Victoria, and the leadership staff at Lakewood, the innovative church is poised for the new millennium.

Joel's extraordinary success can be found in his core message: ``That our God is a good God who desires to bless those who are obedient and faithful to Him through Jesus Christ.''

It is Joel's deepest desire that his own life be an example of that principle and that everyone who hears this message of hope and encouragement would choose to accept God's goodness and mercy and to become all that God wants them to be.

joel's background

Born in Houston, Texas, Osteen married Victoria L. Iloff on April 4, 1987. They have two children, Jonathan and Alexandra.

Joel, son of John and Dolores (Dodie) Pilgrim, is one of five children. His older siblings, Paul, Lisa, and Tamara, and his younger sister, April, are also involved in full-time ministry.

Joel's half-brother Justin does missionary work out of New York.

Joel's father, John Osteen, a former Southern Baptist pastor who became Charismatic in the late 1950s, founded Lakewood Church on Mother's Day, 1959.

Osteen's father developed Lakewood into a body of approximately 6,000 members with an active television ministry, conferences, missionary support and food distribution.

Currently, Osteen and several Lakewood Church personnel travel across the nation, presenting programs in large arenas. The event, titled ``A Night of Hope,'' includes worship music led by the church's music ministry, a testimony by Joel's mother Dodie and a sermon from Osteen. In 2007, the tour expanded to include stops in several other countries, including Canada, England, Northern Ireland and Israel.

Mission/Vision of Lakewood

lakewood church

Vision Paragraph: Lakewood seeks to become a vibrant

community for God growing deeper in faith, knowledge, love

and relationship with Him. We desire to express the spirit of

Jesus through the individual members of the body; through

uplifting public worship and intimate small group fellowship;

and through committed prayer and dedication to God's will. We

strive to offer a welcoming environment for truth-seekers

irrespective of knowledge, experience, and background. We

want to follow God wherever He leads to make a difference in

others' lives by identifying individual talents and preparing

people for kingdom service locally, nationally and globally.

We desire to do this with humility and love giving God the

glory!

Community: God wants me to be a MEMBER of His family--This

is the purpose of fellowship. Following Christ is not just a

matter of believing; it also includes belonging. The

Christian life is not a solo act. God has given us the church

as a spiritual family for our own benefit. Your are members

of God's very own family . . . and you belong in God's

household with every other Christian (Ephesians 2:19).

Loving God: God wants me to be a MAGNIFIER of His name--We

are called to worship God. O Magnify the Lord with me, and

let us exalt His name together (Psalm 34.3). There is an

inborn urge to worship in every human being. If we don't

worship God, we will find a replacement. We may worship our

job, family, money, a sport, or even ourselves. That is why

the very first commandment says. ``Thou shalt have no other

god's before Me.'' (Exodus 20:3)

Loving Others: God wants me to be a MESSENGER of His love--

Once we have been born again, we become messengers of the

Good News to others. It is part of the job description for

every believer. For God was in Christ, restoring the world to

himself, no longer counting men's sins against them but

blotting them out. This is the wonderful message He has given

us to tell others. We are Christ's ambassadors. God is using

us to speak to you: we beg you, as though Christ himself were

here pleading with you, receive the love He offers you--be

reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:19 20).

Loving Others: God wants me to be a MINISTER of His grace--

A responsibility of every Christian is service. God expects

us to use the gifts, talents, and opportunities He gives us

to benefit others. Each one should use whatever gift he has

received to serve others, faithfully administering God's

grace in its various forms (1 Peter 4:10).

Imitating Christ: God wants me to be a MODEL of his

character--The goal of discipleship is becoming just like

Christ. For God knew His people in advance, and He chose them

to become like His Son (Romans 8:29). In 1 Timothy 4:12, Paul

describes specific areas where we are to model the character

of Christ . . . set an example for the believers in speech,

in life, in love, in faith, and in purity. Notice that

maturity is not measured by one's learning but by one's

lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 1 legislative day to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the subject of my 1-minute regarding Pastor Joel Osteen and Co-Pastor Victoria Osteen of the Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas.

I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his untiring and unceasing work and for the reach that he has made to this issue to really touch the hearts and minds of those who believe that education is opportunity and it is something for which we need to plant the seeds for those who are now following forward with their destinies. I'm delighted to be on the floor as well with another leader in education, the Honorable Danny Davis.

I would just say to you that I took the oath. And the whole 4 days when I was in my district, everywhere I went I touched the hearts of young and old when I reported to them that while their children are struggling, working hard trying to get good grades in higher education, and when they in good faith took out loans of about 2.8 percent just a few years back--somewhere between that and 3.4--now within days this is going to double. And we are here fighting in Washington to ensure that the doors of opportunity are not closed.

So I think it is very important. You are absolutely right to take note that the potential, or soon-to-be Republican nominee, for President has recognized the foolishness, unfortunately, of stalling in this House; that we have not simply passed a bipartisan effort, your legislation that I am a cosponsor of, that simply indicates that we will not see the doubling of those interest rates.

I have universities--if I don't call them all--from the University of Houston to Texas Southern University, Rice University, Houston Community College, Lone Star College, Houston Baptist, and St. Thomas in and around the 18th Congressional District, the University of Texas, Texas A&M, and others around the State; and young people who are attempting to achieve the American Dream and individuals who are going back to school. Even though our GIs have the GI Bill, some are extending their degrees and have had to take out loans.

So I rise today to join you and my good friend from Chicago to indicate that I'm going to join the army, if you will, the band of members who truly believes that there is no divide amongst us, Republicans and Democrats, when it comes to educating our children. Many of us are parents. Many of us have seen our children go through college, some having finished, some still in college, and some with young children coming into college. And although we are blessed, many will have to take out loans for higher education, and doctors and lawyers whom we wish for higher education will have to secure those loans. I don't want to be in the midst of a ticking time bomb. I don't want to be the barrier. I want to be the firewall that protects them and allows them to gain an opportunity in this world.

So let me just thank you for allowing me to be on the floor this evening to indicate to my colleagues we speak quietly and softly tonight because we're asking you to join us, my Republican friends. Take the lead and join us so that in a few days--not 67 days--we can finish this up. Let's give them a graduation present. Let's tell every student coming out of high school and every college student that's in college that we are going to be your firewall and give you an opportunity for success in this great country that has always been the country that people

have either come to or people have been proud to be in because of the great opportunity to be what you are achieving or seeking to be.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out against the fallacy that is H.R. 9.

I am always happy to support policy initiatives to stimulate economic growth and job creation and believe a private-public partnership during this time of economic recovery is essential.

Unfortunately, H.R. 9, the so-called Small Business Tax Cut Act, is a broad measure affecting 99.6 percent of all businesses that is not targeted at job creation.

The benefits it provides will be meted out unevenly and in an arbitrary manner, accruing in large measure to the wealthiest taxpayers.

While these facts alone argue for its rejection, this temporary and expensive provision is also the very antithesis of tax reform. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Yet again the Republican tax plan in the form of H.R. 9 would along with the Ryan Republican Budget Plan, serve to dismantle Medicare and instead hand older and disabled people a voucher toward the cost of private insurance. It's not a new or creative idea, and it will actually add more costs to families and to our Nation's bottom line. You cannot have a tax giveaway to a select few businesses while Medicare continues to suffer, ultimately hurting our most vulnerable.

While claiming to ``preserve'' Medicare, the plan would actually imperil the community program and shift much of the costs to the very people it is supposed to help. As private plans aggressively court the healthiest and least costly beneficiaries, the traditional Medicare program would be left with an ever dwindling pool of beneficiaries-- those who are too sick and poor to purchase private insurance with the help of Mr. Ryan's coupon.

In time, Medicare will ``wither on the vine,'' as those who oppose the program have long intended. Like last year's proposal from Mr. Ryan and last week's proposal from Senate Republicans, this plan does nothing to really preserve Medicare or to solve our Nation's skyrocketing healthcare costs.

It only slams those costs onto individuals who can least afford them: older and disabled Americans, while jeopardizing their health coverage, adding profits to corporations, and letting millionaires off the hook.

Similarly, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program is our most important anti-hunger program, with over 46 million Americans in more than 21 million households relying on it to help feed themselves and their families. Yet, by advancing H.R. 9 this Majority takes away money that could be used to shore up this program which serves the truly destitute.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, is the cornerstone of the Nation's nutrition assistance safety net. SNAP touches the lives of over one in seven Americans. Indeed you could say that SNAP saves lives. Everyone's life is not as simple as some on the other side would have us believe--every person who is homeless cannot be fixed with magic dust and self-help policy prescriptions. Life is complicated and fraught with danger and uncertainty.

Lucky are many of us who go home to warm shelter, food, and family. There, but for the grace of God go I.

SNAP benefits are available to most people who meet the financial requirements, and the program serves a broad spectrum of low-income people. In Fiscal Year 2010, SNAP provided about $5.4 billion in food benefits to a monthly average of over 3.6 million people in Texas.

Another pressing issue is the encroaching and massive debt from student loans. In January President Obama stated:

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be

the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in

tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to

stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in

July.

Student debt loan and the looming prospect of a massive interest rate increase is like a stealth tax darkening the horizon of borrowers nationwide. Indeed it is a ticking time bomb for students and families: If Congress doesn't act in 74 days, subsidized Stafford student loans rates will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

In 2007, Congress made an historic investment in higher education when we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Included in this legislation was a provision that reduced the fixed rate on Stafford student loans for undergraduate students. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act lowered subsidized Stafford student loan rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over a four-year period easing the burden on thousands of students and their families.

However, despite the ever-increasing cost of a higher education and the challenging job market graduates face, without Congressional action these rates will double later this year and cost students and families thousands of dollars over time.

In their zeal to avoid picking ``winners and losers,'' the majority has embraced a massive $46 billion tax cut that is being offered in the name of small business but will go to 99.6 percent of all businesses, whatever the value of their assets or the amount of their income and irrespective of the nature or function of their business.

The tax break is available to partnerships of highly paid professionals, including lawyers and lobbyists. It is available to hedge fund and private equity fund managers. By restricting the definition of small business to an employee count and ignoring other relevant factors, such as revenues, H.R. 9 guarantees that the benefit will be available to a host of businesses that are anything but small. For example, many professional sports teams would get the tax break.

H.R. 9 is not targeted at job creation. Any number of measures could have been included in H.R. 9 to limit the availability of the tax benefit to businesses that hire or invest in the United States.

None of these measures was included. There is no requirement that a business receiving the deduction created by H.R. 9 expand employment.

In fact, a business that reduces employment remains eligible for the deduction. Even worse, businesses that reduce their American workforce while expanding overseas still get the tax break. In contrast to measures such as bonus depreciation or expensing, there is no requirement that a business receiving the tax break invest in the United States. And in contrast to measures such as infrastructure spending, this one-time tax cut for the very wealthiest would have a relatively small effect on cumulative economic output.

The benefit provided by H.R. 9 is arbitrary. In the case of small business owners, the same amount of small business income will not always produce the same benefit. Because the benefit is a deduction and not a credit, the value of the benefit increases with income.

In addition, because the size of the benefit can be limited by a taxpayer's taxable income, losses that reduce or eliminate such income, including losses carried forward from prior years, can eliminate the benefit.

Preliminary analyses indicate that H.R. 9 is a $46 billion tax cut disproportionately benefitting the very wealthiest Americans.

Although a distributional analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation is not yet available, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicated that, based on an analysis provided by the Tax Policy Center, approximately ``49 percent of the tax cut provided by H.R. 9 would go to the 0.3 percent of people with incomes exceeding $1 million in 2012; they each would receive an average tax cut of more than $44,000.''

Middle- and low-income families are struggling to recover from the deepest recession in decades; they have lost jobs, homes and retirement security. The Republican Majority for months resisted extending the payroll tax cut benefitting these families. But now, the Majority is rushing to put forward another tax break for the very wealthiest Americans.

Given that this Committee has spent the last year and three months talking about tax reform, perhaps the most striking thing about H.R. 9 is that it is the antithesis of tax reform. The House Republican budget assumes that this Committee will produce a tax reform package with two rate brackets, but it offers no clear indication of how to finance rate reductions that would cost trillions of dollars.

The only hint we have gotten is the vague promise of the House Budget Committee chairman to eliminate what he calls ``tax loopholes.'' But to raise sufficient funds for his tax reform plans, his definition of ``tax loophole'' would have to include provisions related to health, education, home mortgage interest, and pensions.

These are not ``loopholes.'' Rather, in many cases, they are provisions designed to achieve clear economic and social policy goals. Ironically, H.R. 9 would be a new tax expenditure and a temporary one at that. And it would have far less merit than policies, such as the mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion for employer provided healthcare, that now appear to be in the majority's crosshairs.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a measure that takes away from Medicare, the SNAP Program, and dollars that could be used to mitigate the devastating effect of sharply escalating interest rates on Stafford student loan.

Let's reject this bill and move on to real job creation, tax reform and deficit reduction and not the sham version before us this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening because this House Majority seeks to play Freddy Krueger with our social safety net, attacking the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, or food stamps, and ripping families to shreds, under the guise of budget cutting.

This program is our most important anti-hunger program, with over 46 million Americans in more than 21 million households relying on it to help feed themselves and their families

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP is the cornerstone of the Nation's nutrition assistance safety net. SNAP touches the lives of over one in seven Americans. Indeed you could say that SNAP saves lives.

Everyone's life is not as simple as some on the other side would have us believe--every person who is homeless cannot be fixed with magic dust and self-help policy prescriptions. Life is complicated and fraught with danger and uncertainty.

Lucky are many of us who go home to warm shelter, food, and family. There, but for the grace of God go I.

SNAP benefits are available to most people who meet the financial requirements, and the program serves a broad spectrum of low income people. In Fiscal Year 2010, SNAP provided about $5.4 billion dollars in food benefits to a monthly average of over 3.6 million people in Texas.

The program served 55 percent of those eligible for benefits in Texas in 2008. SNAP also has an economic multiplier effect with every $5 in new SNAP benefits generating as much as $9 in total economic activity.

It is a proven fact Mr. Speaker that people who receive SNAP benefits put them to almost immediate use. SNAP beneficiaries are not converting their benefits into convertible bonds or stock options. They spend and help the economy along the way.

The Ryan Republican Budget would force SNAP into an inadequate State- by-State block program. Such a breakdown would make SNAP static and unable to react to a changing economy. This is not an example of a sensible ordering of the fiscal priorities.

When times are tough, SNAP expands to bring assistance where needed. And as the economy improves, SNAP shrinks in size as families are better able to provide for themselves. A static program would not be able to react to such economic changes and Americans would suffer.

The Republican Budget also is asking for SNAP recipients' aid to be 'contingent on work or job training.' SNAP does help many people who are unemployed or underemployed to make ends meet. Let's not make our fiscal and economic policies punitive towards the people who need us most.

But it also helps families with children, the elderly and the disabled. SNAP was created to respond to the economic climate and help the most vulnerable among us, including but not limited to those that have lost their job, avoid hunger.

In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. Additionally, a study conducted in August 2011 by the Food Research and Action Center ranked the 18th Congressional District as having the 33rd highest rate of food hardship in households with children.

According to the Texas Food Bank Network and Baylor University's Texas Hunger Initiative, 700,000 families in Harris County, Texas struggle to provide enough food for their families.

In 2010, there were 46.2 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4 percent of households in the State struggle with food insecurity.

I am committed to preserving essential programs aimed at combating poverty, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home State.

SNAP kept more than 5 million people out of poverty in 2010 in addition to helping feed millions more who were already below the poverty line. About three-quarters of the families aided by the program have children. More than a quarter of the families include seniors or people with disabilities.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, provides benefits to low-income, eligible households on an electronic benefit transfer, EBT, card; benefits can then be exchanged for foods at authorized retailers. SNAP reaches a large share of low-income households. In November 2011, there were 46 million persons in 22 million households benefitting from SNAP.

Federal SNAP law provides two basic pathways for financial eligibility to the program:

(1) meeting federal eligibility requirements, or (2) being automatically or ``categorically'' eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs. Categorical eligibility eliminated the requirement that households who already met financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income program go through another financial eligibility determination in SNAP.

In its traditional form, categorical eligibility conveys SNAP eligibility through the receipt of cash assistance from Supplemental Security Income, SSI, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, block grant, or State-run General Assistance, GA, programs.

However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, States have been able to expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds. That law created TANF to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, program, which was a traditional cash assistance program. TANF is a broad-purpose block grant that finances a wide range of social and human services.

TANF gives States flexibility in meeting its goals, resulting in a wide variation of benefits and services offered among the States. SNAP allows States to convey categorical eligibility based on receipt of a TANF ``benefit,'' not just TANF cash welfare. This provides States with the ability to convey categorical eligibility based on a wide range of benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash assistance typically are available to a broader range of households and at higher levels of income than are TANF cash assistance benefits.

In total, 43 jurisdictions have implemented what the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, has called ``broad-based'' categorical eligibility. These jurisdictions generally make all households with incomes below a State-determined income threshold eligible for SNAP. States do this by providing households with a low-cost TANF-funded benefit or service such as a brochure or referral to an ``800'' number telephone hotline.

There are varying income eligibility thresholds within States that convey ``broad-based'' categorical eligibility, though no State has a gross income limit above 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. In all but three of these jurisdictions, there is no asset test required for SNAP eligibility. Categorically eligible families bypass the regular SNAP asset limits.

However, their net incomes (income after deductions for expenses) must still be low enough to qualify for a SNAP benefit. That is, it is possible to be categorically eligible for SNAP but have net income too high to actually receive a benefit. The exception to this is one- or two-person households that would still receive the minimum benefit.

During the decade of the 2000s, there were a number of proposals to restrict categorical eligibility based on receipt of TANF benefits. These proposals would have limited TANF-based categorical assistance to households receiving TANF-funded cash assistance. The proposal was made by the Bush Administration in its farm bill proposals and several budget submissions. It passed the House in a budget reconciliation bill in 2005 but was not part of that year's final reconciliation package, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109 171).

Mr. Speaker, let's not punish those in need any longer! Help the poor--don't show the dark side of America.