Floor Statements

Would the gentleman yield for just a moment?

Just one simple statement. I couldn't leave the floor.

Just to express our love and affection for Don Payne and just to say that he saved lives because he intruded in places like Africa and Sudan, in Africa and many other places. He saved lives because of his compassion for people, his fight for human rights, and his fight for peace.

Madam Speaker I rise today in order to debate H.R. 4105, ``To apply the countervailing duty provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries,'' would ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue to apply countervailing duty law (CDV) to non-market economies (NME), such as China and Vietnam. Countervailing duties aim to offset the benefits of government subsidies to industries. Anti-dumping (AD) duties apply to goods sold overseas at or below the price in the home country.

As we enter the first full week of spring and trees are regaining their leaves. We are once again faced with finding ways to help strengthen our economy. After years of witnessing a decline in manufacturing, before us this year there has been a revival. This legislation that

would further enhance the economic viability of our manufacturing industries against unfair competition is welcome news.

The measure before us would enable U.S. manufactures to fairly compete with goods which enter our stream of commerce. Goods supplied to the United States from nonmarket economies have a significant market advantage. Those goods receive multiple subsidies from their governments that allow them to be sold at a steeply discounted price in the United States and thereby gain a competitive advantage against products that are unsubsidized and manufactured in the United States.

Just think of a main street which employs hundreds of local workers. The main manufacturing plant on main street supplies both goods and services to the community. When outside goods and manufacturers, from nonmarket economies, compete with main street manufacturers by undercutting prices the result will be that manufacturers on main street will close. American workers will lose jobs and it will cause the death of main streets all over the country.

We must continue to support measures that will establish and ensure a level playing field for American workers and American companies. The issue before us is how to address goods from countries like China and Vietnam that have entered our stream of commerce, and compete with our business but have a significant market advantage because they are heavily subsidized.

I firmly believe in the importance of continuing a balanced trade relationship with China. Trade between the United States and China has expanded dramatically in the years since China acceded to the World Trade Organization in December 2001. In 2009, bilateral trade in goods totaled $366 billion, with U.S. imports from China totaling $296 billion and U.S. exports to China totaling $70 billion.

In my home State of Texas we have also increased our exports of goods to China. In the District I represent, the 18th Congressional District of Texas, we export chemicals, machinery, computers & electronics, fabricated metal products, and primary metal manufacturing. Yet, I can attest that more can be done to ensure that our trading relationship must improve.

Experts agree that the disparity in imports and exports has resulted in a U.S. goods trade deficit with China. In 2009, there was a trade deficit with China for $227 billion in which accounts for 45.3 percent of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit.

In trade in services, the United States runs a surplus with China, with exports to China of $16 billion in 2008 (the latest year for which numbers are available) and imports from China valued at $10 billion.

The United States' bilateral goods trade imbalance with China may be attributed to a variety of factors such as alleged unfair trade practices and their undervalued currency and their impact on the U.S. economy.

Chinese officials, who cite different figures for the bilateral trade deficit provided by the United States, routinely seek to shift some of the blame for the trade deficit to the United States by criticizing U.S. controls on exports of advanced technology. They further argue that the sharp increase in exports to the United States reflects the shifting of production from other countries to China and many ``made- in-China'' products contain components from other countries.

Since 2006, the U.S. government has repeatedly raised concerns about alleged backsliding in China's implementation of commitments it made as part of its 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization. Most prominently the problem of ``excessive trade-distorting government intervention intended to promote or protect China's domestic industries and state-owned enterprises.'' China's inadequate protection of intellectual property rights has also been a major concern. Under the Obama Administration, there have been four cases filed against China with the World Trade Organization, including three in 2010.

Those four cases relate to China's import substitution subsidies in the wind energy sector, its anti-dumping and countervailing duties on grain-oriented electrical steel from the United States, its restrictions on foreign suppliers of electronic payment services, and its restraints on exports of raw materials used in the steel, aluminum, and chemical sectors.

The White House reports, however, that it made progress on some long- standing trade issues with China at the December 2010 meeting of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Washington, D.C.

Currently, there are more than 300 anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders to shield American-made goods, from honey to bedroom furniture, against global competition it deems unfair and damaging to U.S. companies. About half the orders target iron and steel products.

China accounts for a third of all U.S. unfair trade cases, the most of any country, including about 100 anti-dumping and two dozen countervailing duty orders, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The U.S. Commerce Department would be allowed to apply duties to offset government subsidies in nations such as China and Vietnam under this bipartisan bill.

H.R. 4105, overturns the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and preserves the validity of the countervailing duty proceedings against imports from China and Vietnam, beginning in 2006. This would ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue to apply countervailing duty law (CDV) to non-market economies (NME), such as China and Vietnam. Countervailing duties aim to offset the benefits of government subsidies to industries. Anti-dumping (AD) duties apply to goods sold overseas at or below the price in the home country.

The legislation also addresses an adverse World Trade Organization (WTO) finding that there may be ``double remedies'' in situations where countervailing duties are applied to NME exports at the same time that antidumping duties calculated using the so-called ``surrogate value'' methodology are applied to the exports.

As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee it is not without hesitation that I join my colleagues in overturning a court ruling. I believe in the deliberative process from the judiciary and I was pleased that the court entrusted Congress to act.

In 2007, the Department of Commerce began applying countervailing duty laws (CVD). This was after nearly 20 years of not applying CVD laws to import from NME countries. In 2007, Commerce began to impose CVDs to imports from China, a country which it has long been considered to be a NME for the purposes of Anti-dumping /CVD laws.

The legality of applying both CVD/and AD laws to Chinese goods was first tested in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in 2009, when the CIT found that Commerce's approach unreasonable. GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1242 1243 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009).

The CIT ruled that the prospect of a double remedy is likely when CVD duties are imposed at the same time as the NME AD duties. As the CIT explained, ``the NME AD statute was designed to remedy the inability to apply the CVD law to NME countries, so that subsidization of a foreign producer or exporter in a NME country was addressed through the NME AD methodology.''

The CIT instructed Commerce ``. . . to forego the imposition of CVDs on the merchandise at issue or for Commerce to adopt additional policies and procedures to adapt its NME AD and CVD methodologies to account for the imposition of CVD remedies on merchandise from the PRC.'' GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States.

Commerce was unable to find a reasonable methodology to prevent the likely double-counting outcome and, under protest, it complied with the CIT's order not to apply CVDs on imports of tires from China, but appealed the CIT decision.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of International Trade that such countervailing duties could not be collected but did so on different grounds. Without this legislation the Department of Commerce will be required to stop imposing countervailing duties on goods imported from nonmarket economies (NME).

Rather, in affirming the CIT's judgment, the CAFC held more broadly that the legislative history of the U.S. CVD laws, Commerce's longtime practice up to 2007 of not applying CVD law to NMEs, and the CAFC's 1986 opinion in Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States, compel the interpretation that the CVD statute cannot be applied to NME countries. The CAFC reasoned that the earlier interpretation was considered and adopted by Congress, when Congress amended the Trade Act of 1930 in the 1988 Trade Act, and again in 1994 when it reenacted most of CVD law while making changes to conform U.S. law to its international obligations as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Federal Circuit stated:

We thus find that in amending and reenacting the trade laws

in 1988 and 1994, Congress adopted the position that

countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.

Although Commerce has wide discretion in administering

countervailing duty and antidumping law, it cannot exercise

this discretion contrary to congressional intent.

It is a broader ruling from several points of view, which, in practice, may succeed in providing more clarity on the issues than if the CAFC had affirmed GPX by adopting the CIT's rationale. First, the CAFC did not distinguish between NME countries, as Commerce did in 2007 when it found that CVD law can be applied to China. In essence the CAFC's opinion tells Commerce that it cannot have it both ways: where the agency makes a determination that a country is a NME, it does not have authority to assess CVDs on imports from that country. Second, GPX involved an

alleged ``domestic subsidy,'' which generally benefits both domestic and exported goods, as opposed to an ``export subsidy'' which applies only to exports. The CIT's opinion in GPX may have not prevented Commerce from countervailing export subsidies in other cases. However, the CAFC's language does not distinguish between subsidies and holds that ``countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.'' Third, as noted supra, the CAFC did not adopt the CIT's reasoning of double-counting of remedies. The CIT's reasoning left open the possibility that Commerce may come up with a methodology that somehow eliminates double-counting, while imposing both ADs and CVDs on imports from a NME. The CAFC's decision in GPX closed that possibility by explicitly stating that one cannot apply CVD law to a NME country. In short, had the CAFC adopted the CIT's reasoning in GPX, it is possible that some of Commerce's authority to proceed with CVD investigations-- albeit on a much more restricted scale--would have survived. However, the CAFC's decision, once final, will compel Commerce to cease its current CVD practice with respect to countries designated as NMEs.

The problems raised by this decision has been addressed by this legislation. As H.R. 4105 amends the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the imposition of countervailing duties on imports into the United States from a country subsidizing, directly or indirectly, the manufacture, production, or export of merchandise which materially injures a U.S. industry or threatens to.

Declares that merchandise on which countervailing duties must be imposed includes merchandise from a nonmarket country, unless the administering authority cannot identify and measure subsidies provided by the government of the nonmarket economy country (or a public entity within its territory) because the economy of that country is essentially composed of a single entity.

Requires the administering authority to reduce the antidumping duty on a class or kind of merchandise from a nonmarket economy country in cases where: (1) such country (or a public entity within its territory) has provided the merchandise with a countervailable subsidy (other than an export subsidy), (2) the subsidy has reduced the average price of imports of that class or kind of merchandise during the relevant period, and (3) the extent to which the subsidy, in combination with the use of normal value, has increased the weighted average dumping margin for such merchandise can be reasonably estimated.

Requires the administering authority, in such cases, to reduce the antidumping duty by the amount of the increase in the weighted average dumping margin estimated (but not by more than the portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to the countervailable subsidy).

Mr. Chair, I rise today in order to debate H.R. 2842. ``Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act'' would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to permit private entities to develop small hydropower units on all irrigation canals and conduits under the agency's jurisdiction. Under current law, the Bureau or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has jurisdiction over hydropower development at such facilities.

Currently both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation have the authority to manage small conduit hydropower projects in all Bureau of Reclamation irrigation canals and conduits. This bill would give this authority only to the Bureau of Reclamation thereby streamlining regulation. There will be jobs created by this measure, however not enough to be considered a Rural Jobs bill. The American people need a jobs bill.

I would have supported this legislation without hesitation if this bill did not contain a poison pill. As written I am concerned about a provision in the bill that would exempt small conduit hydropower projects from having to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. H.R. 2842 removes the requirement that all small hydropower projects must complete an environmental impact statement unless granted an exception from FERC. Although my colleagues who support this legislation will argue that NEPA compliance for small conduit hydropower is unnecessary and hinders developers from pursuing small conduit hydropower projects. There is a valid and proven counter to this argument.

Currently FERC has a successful licensing process for small conduit hydropower showing that compliance with NEPA need not hinder responsible development. FERC categorically exempts small conduit projects from NEPA. This approach works: from 2006 2010, 13 conduit exemptions were completed in less than a year. Of the 11 conduit exemptions that were issued in 2011, orders regarding the nine conduit exemptions that presented no substantive issues were issued on average 40 days after the comment deadline established in the public notice. We can protect our environment while meeting the needs of rural communities in need of an additional green energy resource.

I will continue to seek ways to improve the nation's hydropower system by encouraging increased generation while improving environmental performance.

Let me be clear, I support hydropower in both large scale and small projects that are developed and operated in a responsible manner that avoids harm to America's precious river resources. Given the very real environmental and social impacts of global climate change--especially on vital freshwater systems--I believe that we should develop new sources of energy that can supplement America's reliance on foreign oil.

However, I also know that the energy that we receive from hydropower if done improperly comes at an enormous cost to the health of our nation's rivers and communities.

The harm caused by any hydropower project can be avoided if hydropower is sited, constructed, and operated in a responsible manner. A few simple changes can make an enormous difference, which is why compliance with NEPA is important.

In the case of larger scale hydropower projects, hydropower operators could change the timing of power generation to mimic a river's natural hydrologic conditions, stabilize lake levels and dam releases to protect riverside land from erosion, provide fish ladders and other measures that protect fish and allow them to pass safely upstream and downstream of dams, restore habitat for fish and wildlife, alter the design and operation of plants to maintain appropriate temperature and oxygen levels in rivers, and provide public access and release water back into rivers so that people can fish, boat, and swim. These types of changes have a miniscule impact on the overall generation of the Nation's hydropower fleet. In fact, an analysis by FERC found that since Congress passed laws in the 1986s to encourage these types of improvements, overall generating capacity has actually increased by 4.1 percent. The benefits to human and natural communities have been immense.

The Bureau of Reclamation was established to construct water works to provide water for irrigation and power for utilities in arid western states. The agency manages a number of facilities as part of larger, multi-purpose reclamation projects serving irrigation, flood control, power supply, and recreation purposes. Overall, these facilities serve approximately 31 million people, delivering a total of approximately 28.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre-foot is enough to cover one acre of land one foot deep, or 325,851 gallons) and making the agency the second largest domestic hydropower producer. H.R. 2842 seeks to utilize these existing irrigation channels/waterways by inserting small conduits to create hydro power.

Hydropower is a clean, renewable, non-emitting source of energy that provides low-cost electricity and helps reduce carbon emissions. It is more efficient than any other form of electricity generation and offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy sources combined.

It accounts for 67 percent of the Nation's total renewable electricity generation. In addition to providing low-cost electricity, multipurpose dams provide water for irrigation, wildlife, recreation and barge transportation and offer flood control benefits.

As part of the New Deal, the Roosevelt Administration sought to bridge the urban-rural divide in access to electricity. In the early 1930s, according to one estimate, 90 percent of Americans in urban areas had access to electric power, while only 10 percent of rural America had access.

The establishment of the Rural Electrification Administration, REA, in 1935 sparked a series of Federal investments that brought power to rural American homes over the coming years. By 1939, the REA had helped to establish more than 400 rural electric cooperatives, which served nearly 300,000 households.

Today, the RUS continues to provide credit and other assistance to help improve electric, water, and telecommunications services in rural areas. For example, between 2002 and 2009, the RUS invested $36 billion in electric systems and $14 billion in water and waste management systems throughout rural America. Small hydropower projects help to address the electricity needs of rural areas in a green way.

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation also provides hydropower, and drinking water and irrigation services to rural America. Today, the Bureau is the Nation's largest wholesaler of water, serving 31 million people, and provides irrigation to one out of five western farmers. This is a very clever manner to use existing water ways and existing technology to create electricity.

Three manufacturers in the Nation build these small conduits. Apparently they are so prevalent that they are available at Home Depot. Again hydropower represents approximately two-thirds of the renewable electricity generation in the United States and is currently providing almost seven percent of the

country's total energy generation. About forty-five percent of all hydropower in the United States is generated at federally-owned facilities. With only three percent of the Nation's approximately eighty thousand federal and non-federal dams currently generating hydropower there is great potential to increase hydropower production. Additional hydropower can be sited, constructed, and operated in a responsible manner to reduce or avoid environmental damages.

I want to thank my distinguished friend for your kindness and generosity in yielding the time and to the Speaker. I want to thank Dr. Christensen for starting us on this journey, and I want to thank the Speaker for being educated by these powerful words of my colleagues.

I do want to say that, if you had to give a tribute biblically to Donald Payne, you would certainly quote from Timothy in saying, ``I fought the good fight.'' I am grateful to also say that Donald Payne had a lot of fun in life. Some of us can trace our friendship to years past, to decades past; but I know that, as the world loves Donald Payne, he loved Newark and New Jersey.

I had the good pleasure of joining him and his friends during the last Congressional Black Caucus. We had a variety of receptions to meet our constituents, and there was nothing but love in that room. I had, I would call it, the humble privilege to visit him at Georgetown Hospital, where his brother and sister were in the room as well as the chief of staff, and to have him smile as some of our colleagues have said. In the course of being in the room, I heard that the former President of South Africa, President Mbeki, was trying to reach him.

There would be a long list of Presidents and former Presidents and others of great renown trying to reach him; but you cannot in any way doubt the fact that in his acceptance and acknowledgment by all of those iconic figures, President Mandela as well, that he as a progressive stood along with the family members he loved, whether it was his son, who was a council member, and his other children or Bill Payne, and epitomized the struggles of a generation of African Americans in Newark and New Jersey in the 1950s and the 1960s, and he was on the front lines of fighting for equal rights out of the North Ward.

Oh, leave it only to Donald Payne to talk about New Jersey politics, and he loved it. He had an iconic presence, but he also had a leadership, boss-man presence--and I say that lovingly--because if you needed something in that area, as my good friends, Brothers Pallone and Pascrell out of that area, knew, no matter who you were in his district who needed something, you could get ahold of Don Payne. He loved the richness of his district and its diversity, but you can be sure that he was fighting for the poor and dispossessed.

Maybe that's what brought him to his affinity and kinship for Africa. One of my predecessors, Mickey Leland, whom Don Payne knew, we always said died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain while trying to feed those who could not feed themselves.

But Don Payne was everywhere, from Ethiopia, to Sudan, to South Africa, to Angola, to the Congo, to Ghana, to Liberia. He was in all of those, if you will, conflicts where he wanted to bring about peace. He counseled Presidents--Republicans and Democrats. I remember Bill Clinton's historic trip, and you can be assured that Donald Payne was at the nexus of drawing him to making that historic trip. I believe, in 1998, he counseled George Bush and others, and he counseled President Obama.

I don't know if many of you know that Donald Payne was a longshoreman who worked on many different places; but when reminded of his work as a longshoreman, he said, I loved the port. I heard a Member talk about that, I believe, but he loved the working person.

Let me just conclude, as I salute him for being the progressive who did not forget the poor as well as being one who could speak eloquently with the leaders of international positions around the world, albeit that he was coach and teacher and council member and ethic freeholder, that I remember

traveling to Africa on occasions, plural. In this instance, what I would say, beyond having known that in Somalia he was almost, in essence, taken down, is that many of you will remember the first Kabila, the father of the present President of the Congo, and you will know that that area has always been in conflict and that Donald Payne never shunned going into conflict.

Two places we went: Angola, when it was still in conflict. Donald Payne said, Well, I know we can meet the President in his castle and office and the place where he is, but I'm going up in the bush, and if you all are with me, we're getting on this little one-propeller plane-- not two propellers--it only had one--and we're going to go up there and meet with the opponent of the President.

We sat with Donald Payne, encouraging this opponent to put down his guns and come and meet with this President, who through Donald Payne had promised peace. I know that man wished that he had answered the call that Donald Payne made. He never left the bush, and he died in that place. I got to see him up close and personal, where no risk of life was too much for him to bring about peace.

As I conclude, let me simply say to the peacemaker, to the intended noble peacemaker, to the man who didn't shun or didn't shy away from a conflict that might have taken his life, to the lover of Newark, to the lover of his family and his children, to the lover of his staff, to the lover of this institution: Don, may you rest in peace. Warrior, leader, hero, God knows that you never stopped working, and you deserve that angel's place in Heaven.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute of the life and service of my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Payne. Noted for his quiet gravitas, progressive issues advocacy and pioneering life story, Congressman Payne along with his older brother Bill Payne defined the struggles of a generation of Newark Blacks who in the 1950s and '60s fought for equal rights out of the North Ward.

By the dawn of the 1970s, the Paynes relocated to the South of Newark, where they built a political base on Bergen Street that served as the launch pad for Mr. Payne's historic campaigns for Congress in the 1980s.

Donald Payne was a champion of the poor and dispossessed not only in Newark but in Africa, notably the Sudan, where he took one of this country's most forceful stands against the genocide he witnessed there. Congressman Payne was once arrested in Washington, D.C., for protesting against the Sudanese government.

As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa for the Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Payne became a leading advocate for international human rights. ``I would be remiss if I did not thank those who are personally responsible for making sure that I know about Africa,'' said then-President Bill Clinton.

After a 2009 trip to Africa, the congressman prepared to depart from Mogadishu when his plane sustained small arms gun fire from the ground, according to CNN. The congressman had earlier that same day discussed the crisis of piracy off the failed state's coast.

Donald Payne grew up in a section of the North Ward known as Doodletown and worked on the docks in his young manhood. ``I love this place,'' he told longshoremen at a 2008 campaign stop at Port Newark. ``I worked down here from 1952 to 1956, on Doremus Avenue, where they used to have about one ship a week, believe me. But we're so glad to see this port come to where it is today.''

At the beginning of their careers, he and his older brother worked in tandem as they sought greater African-American representation within the Newark Democratic Party, with Bill Payne very early gaining a reputation as the aggressive activist and Donald Payne showing skills as a diplomat. Never an obvious self-promoter, Donald Payne as a public person embodied old school qualities of humility and toughness. He seldom sought out a microphone but commanded attention naturally by being a presence in the room.

In the aftermath of the Newark riots, the Payne brothers became the strongest South Ward political brand in the city, using the Bergen Street business district as their most visible base of operations. The congressman scorned conventional polling, preferring instead to gauge his own popularity by the number of beeps on the horn he heard as he walked along his beloved Bergen Street.

He was a former leader of the Congressional Black Caucus. Donald Payne served as a Newark City councilman and as an Essex Freeholder. Congressman Payne was someone who knew presidents and kings but was more comfortable with the man in the street, that's just who he was.

America has lost a noble statesman, New Jersey has lost a brilliant and caring Representative and I have lost a remarkable friend and distinguished colleague. A skilled and compassionate politician, Donald Payne represented his constituents well. An ardent supporter of educational opportunity, he worked to ensure college was within reach for everyone.

Donald worked tirelessly for small business and had a focused passion for Africa. Because of his knowledge and dedication to the issues of human rights and peace--he saved lives all over Africa. He enjoyed the respect of his colleagues; his calm demeanor will be missed. Donald dedicated his life to helping the less fortunate and expanding and protecting human rights everywhere in a strong and determined way. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him. My thoughts and prayers go out to family, friends and constituents at this sorrowful time. The world has suffered a great loss.

The slaughter continues in Syria.

Mr. Speaker, last week I visited the head of Mission at the Syrian Embassy and delivered letters that indicated that Mr. Assad, President Assad must go and that there must be an establishment of safe houses or safe places for women and children and that, at that time, the bodies of those deceased journalists should come out and, as well, that the Red Cross and International Red Cross should be allowed in.

Then there was a protesting and suggesting it was the rebels that weren't allowing the Red Cross in. But we've now heard from a journalist that was able to get out that those journalists were actually murdered. And now, today, we're reading that the Syrian authorities Friday blocked an officially sanctioned Red Cross convoy laden with food and medical supplies from entering a devastated neighborhood in Homs 1 day after the Army overwhelmed the rebel stronghold here after a months-long siege. No rebels, just a Syrian despot, the people who want to kill their own people.

Mr. Assad needs to go. We need to get women and children safe. We need to be able to get justice for the dead journalists, and now the world needs to rise up. I look forward to the Syrian resolution passing, but something must be done.

Mr. Assad, you have to go.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 562, ``Directing the Office of the Historian to compile oral histories from Members of the House of Representatives involved in the historic and annual Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, marches, as well as the civil rights movement in general, for the purposes of expanding or augmenting the historic record for public dissemination and education.''

What happened in Selma 45 years ago, is an opportunity to remember and embrace our history and its evolution. A single day in 1965 would become known as Bloody Sunday. I am proud to serve with Mr. John Lewis who led 600 brave Americans on that day, on a peaceful march for their equal rights to vote. They were met with unspeakable violence and put their lives on the line for the right to vote. This resolution will ensure that future Americans will not forget the sacrifices made by brave, courageous, Americans seeking only to have full participation in our fine Democracy.

I have had the honor of participating in the Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage with Mr.

Lewis. I had the opportunity to see history come alive during my pilgrimage to Birmingham, Montgomery and Selma. I left with further appreciation for all the efforts that African-Americans have accomplished over the years.

The events that took place in Alabama were pivotal in our nation's civil rights movement. Dr. King's ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail,'' the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and the Bloody Sunday march were crucial experiences to America's collective psyche.

Two weeks after Bloody Sunday, under the protection of the Alabama National Guard, Dr. King was able to lead the march successfully, and in August of that same year President Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Dr. King and his committed supporters forced our nation to acknowledge the injustices committed against African- Americans.

This legislation will ensure the 54 mile route, beginning at the Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church in Selma and ending at the State Capitol Building in Montgomery, is never forgotten.

With the support of this body, generations to come can know and appreciate those early steps in the civil rights movement that began the road to making the Constitution of this country extend its rights and protections to all of its citizens.

The painful lessons learned in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma continue to be experienced by minority populations all over the United States. The struggle for political recognition and participation continues not only in the African-American populations, but now in the fast-growing Latino community. In addition, many of the gains that can be traced back to the civil rights era are currently being targeted. We must be ever vigilant to ensure that we do not turn back the clock and instead keep moving forward to protect the rights of minorities in this country.

A long, bitter, and bloody struggle was fought for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that all Americans could enjoy the right to vote, regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Americans died in that fight so that others could achieve what they had been forcefully deprived of for centuries--the ability to walk freely and without fear into the polling place and cast a voting ballot.

Efforts to keep minorities from fully exercising that franchise, however, continue. Indeed, in the past thirty years, we have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters including efforts that were deemed ``Ballot Security'' programs that include the mailing of threatening notices to African-American voters, the carrying of video cameras to monitor polls, the systematic challenging of minority voters at the polls on unlawful grounds, and the hiring of guards and off-duty police officers to intimidate and frighten voters at the polls.

Most Americans take the right to vote for granted. We assume that we can register and vote if we are over 18 and are citizens. Most of us learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil War.

Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, however, the right to vote did not exist in practice for most African Americans. And, until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot.

Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political participation for decades.

Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans. It was with this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to make the right to vote a reality for all Americans.

And the Voting Rights Act has made giant strides toward that goal. Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress.

In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South.

Today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 Members of Congress, the largest number ever. The Act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. And Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.

We must not forget the importance of protecting this hard earned right. Preserving our past and honoring those who put their lives on the line for change is the right step toward ensuring that history does not repeat itself.

Again, I thank Mr. Lewis for his leadership. I thank him for having the courage both 45 years ago and today to be a champion of change.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to the floor to add my appreciation in celebration of H. Res. 562, directing the Office of the Historian to compile oral histories from Members of the House of Representatives involved in the historic and annual Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, marches, and certainly those who started in 1965.

Let me first of all thank the sponsor of the bill, Terri Sewell, and acknowledge that I've had the privilege of marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge for almost two decades with the Faith & Politics organization and John Lewis.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in Marion, Alabama, receiving an award from the Perry County organization with Commissioner Turner on commemorating Jimmie Lee Jackson Day, who was the first person shot who went to a rally that Dr. Martin Luther King held simply to express his right to vote. He was shot trying to protect his mom and his grandmother, dragged out of the place and stomped to death.

Now some 45 years later, we're able to commemorate, but we must recount the stories of those who were there and those who still march today. As we proceed to improve on voting today and end the oppression of voter IDs, it is appropriate to celebrate this resolution and to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge this coming Bloody Sunday.

I want to thank the gentleman from Detroit, with his own august history in the civil rights movement and, as they say, he is no short man when it comes to the work that he has done. More than one that we note him for and thank him for, the hiring of Rosa Parks and the friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King, John Conyers has proceeded with his legislative history from the time of his embracing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and then ongoing, where we have joined on that committee dealing with issues of police brutality, dealing with issues of voter protection, dealing with the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, dealing with the maintaining of the Constitution through one impeachment proceeding for me and two impeachment proceedings for John Conyers, we know from which he has spoken. And beyond a whole litany that I could give in terms of giving rights to people, his dear friend, Harry Belafonte, is about to approach a wonderful birthday. And since I count Mr. Belafonte both hero and friend, I wanted to join briefly for a moment.

Among some other issues that I'm going to discuss is to, again, thank a warrior for peace and justice, and one who--let me just say that he would not say ``sacrifice''--one who wanted to ensure that the movement leaders, Dr. King, Hosea Williams, Andy Young, James Orange, the soldiers in Mississippi and Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and places beyond had the kind of financial and Hollywood structure that they would argue that they were not walking alone.

Harry Belafonte, a significant and monumental talent of music, a boy that hailed from the Caribbean, who came to the United States with style and smoothness of voice, still kicking, still strong, still standing for truth.

We know of his recent vintage that he did not mince words on wars that he thought that we should not be in, but he certainly has not traveled anywhere away from the distance of the journey that Dr. Martin Luther King walked.

As Martin fell at the age of 39 in 1968, Harry Belafonte never gave up the flag and continued that battlefront to ensure that those who could not speak for themselves were heard through his wonderful and sweet, resounding voice, his ability for lyrics, and his acting talent of the many movies that he allowed us to enjoy.

So I'm delighted, Mr. Conyers, to join you in wishing Harry Belafonte a very happy birthday and, again, let him know that he is too long from seeing us. We saw him just recently. But anytime he wants to come to the United States Congress and share with us in our fight for justice, in the desire to pass legislation that makes sense, whether or not it is dealing with the rights of women, whether it is to fight for the overdue passage of the Equal Rights Amendment or to ensure the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act or to make sure we fund the Office of Civil Rights or we ensure that the stamping and trampling on the rights of a 96-year-old grandmother to be able to vote in the 2012 election is now stomped out because of voter ID laws, we want Harry Belafonte to know that we welcome his voice on any of these, and we would argue vigorously that he remains in our hearts and continues to be cherished by America, but also an American hero in the historic role that he plays in our history and in our musical history and the history of civil rights.

So I want to thank you for allowing me to be yielded to as I proceed to utilize a continued part of this Special Order in this hour that I wish to do.

I want to have the appropriate break so that, Mr. Chairman, I think you are well aware that you spent your lifetime fighting for rights for women. We have done a number of legislative initiatives that have passed through the House Judiciary Committee that I've been privileged during the short time that I've been there to be on; certainly, the constant renewal of the rights dealing with violence against women has been imperative, the recognition of the court cases, such as Roe v. Wade, and the issues dealing with employment discrimination.

So it calls for an immediate response to a showman that has a show, ``The Rush Limbaugh Show.'' It calls for a response that is bipartisan, that is humane, that really does not, if you will, pander to the schisms that many in this Congress, but many in America, think we have.

Most people don't realize that when we go home to our district, we are embracing people from all walks of life. Whether it is encountering in our service, whether or not we are engaging with our Chamber, whether or not we are at our schools, we are embracing our constituents. We are there to provide for them.

So I come to the floor just as an American that finds it very difficult that, when there are two points of view, which, in the procedure of the House--if I might explain, when a committee holds a hearing, the majority has the opportunity to select a number of witnesses. In most instances, if it is a panel of four, then the majority selects three witnesses. Courtesy says that you yield to the minority. In the House, it happens to be Democrats. As in Mr. Conyers' Judiciary Committee when he was chairman, they were allowed a witness. Now we're allowed a witness.

In the oversight hearing on the question of dealing with the compromise of the President to ensure no religious institution ever has to engage against their view, which I will fight to the death to ensure that happens, there was a witness proposed by the Democrats of that committee, a young woman law student. The last time I heard, she was a private citizen. She was a law student, accredited or in good standing, of one of the Nation's major law schools, and she was blocked from testifying.

Shortly thereafter, the Democratic Policy and Steering Committee, which I'm a member of, led by Leader Pelosi,

held a hearing and gave this private citizen an opportunity to be heard. She was called before the Democratic Policy and Steering Committee, which is an appropriate vehicle in order to have people heard on her views about the necessity of having access to women's health. That was the framework of her testimony.

There were no accusatory words, as I understand it. There was no blaming. It was a simple, pure testimony of the detriment to blocking women from having access to health care. In fact, we have designated or determined that contraceptives have influenced and impacted the decrease in cervical cancer as addressed by OB/GYNs in this Nation. So, her testimony was a factual testimony on the basis of her experience.

And I will tell you that that happens all the time, Mr. Conyers, when we call witnesses to provide testimony on their own experience. As I understand it, it was a civil proceeding that is now documented for Members to review, and I think that is the process of this House that witnesses are allowed to be in support of a particular position and to be against.

Let me be very frank. Sometimes the hearings get very feisty, but we're always cognizant that we're appreciative of witnesses who are willing to come before us and to, in fact, share their thoughts.

We just had one here in the Judiciary Committee, and I was delighted to see an array of witnesses, and almost to the extent it looked like we had it resolved when one of the faith witnesses said they would have no concern about any person that worked for them that secured access to contraceptives through some other way as long as it did not cause that religious entity to have to be involved. What a simple acknowledgment of how America can resolve things. So it is a resolvable question.

But lo and behold, we look to the airwaves, of which we, the Federal Government, provide, and certainly we know the Fairness Doctrine does not exist, but I might say that on the February 29, 2012, show of Mr. Limbaugh, we understand that he repeatedly used sexually charged, patently offensive, obscene language to malign the character of a courageous young woman, a private citizen not running for anything, in law school, attempting to be a contributing citizen to this country, paying her taxes, graduating. I'm sure she has a family that loves her. She just was willing to accept the call of a committee to do her duty to give testimony in her own words, to provide a life story to an issue that we are grappling with.

So I know I am standing here in the face of the Fairness Doctrine that does not require any media to offer a contravening point. Sometime in the last couple of decades we eliminated the requirement that if you said such-and-such, you needed to bring so-and-so onto the radio or TV to say that. We're still grappling with that because this allows, of course, the maligning, the vile statements, and one cannot answer.

Those of us who are in the kitchen, we know that if you're in the kitchen, you're in the fire. Those of us who are elected, we understand that our task is simply to respond by way of our works and our deeds and to allow the national discourse to come.

But I rise to the floor today because of the vileness of the statements that were made by Mr. Limbaugh--and pardon me for having an enormous cold here.

So, Rush, the statements that you made, I think, are not appropriate to a private citizen who came before a hearing that was called by Members of Congress, asking to secure the appropriate balance and where she was refused in the regular order of the House. Where you're allowed to have witnesses by the majority and witnesses by the minority--it is an accepted process that no one objects to--this young lady was blocked. So the leaders of our House--Leader Pelosi, the Democratic Policy and Steering Committee, of which I am a member and support wholeheartedly--called on this young lady.

If I might, I will just deviate for a moment.

This connects to my morning visit this morning of women who thrive, and I want to acknowledge my full passion for supporting the International Violence Against Women Act that we are fighting to pass. In this morning's breakfast, we heard that one in three women will experience violence in their lifetimes. They will be prostituted; they will be sold; they will be enslaved; they will be beaten; they will be killed.

We have to stop this around the world. In my own jurisdiction, I have seen in the last couple of days and weeks men shoot their children, their wives or whole families. This is in the United States. I remember sitting down with Madeleine Albright on the border of Bangladesh, looking at the freed, recently recaptured, prostitutes who had been beaten and sold by their families for the lack of survival, and these young girls were trying to regain their dignity in life. We cannot tolerate that, so I am committing myself wholeheartedly to the passage of the International Violence Against Women Act.

I would commend Rush Limbaugh to invite us on and talk about constructive ways of helping women. I give him every opportunity to have some guest whom we can call in. I don't think that is possible, but I will challenge all of the women of the House. Let's try to dial that number and see if we can provide some light on this topic of dealing with what women face beyond the caring and having the joy of bearing a child but then sometimes raising them as a single parent and having to have food stamps and having to have children's health insurance or the Affordable Care Act to survive and to raise these wonderful children.

How many have testified, from soldier to President, about a single parent who has brought them this far and who have said, If it weren't for my mother--some will say if it weren't for my single-parent father--I wouldn't be here today. She was a single parent. I just can't imagine why Mr. Limbaugh would carry on with this characterization.

Let me finish on this, Mr. Conyers. It is something that has disturbed me and that reflects on my word of instruction.

I know that we have a schedule for the war in Afghanistan. I cochair the Afghan Caucus, so let me pronounce now my desire for an immediate upsurging, meaning upsurging out--speeding out, expediting--the return of our heroes home. I thank the President for his dinner in honor of the soldiers from Iraq. I have been wearing for a number of months--and I'm not sure if I still have it on. There it is--a yellow ribbon to acknowledge these soldiers who have come home from Iraq, and I look forward to many parades coming forward. But it is time to bring our soldiers home from Iraq, to thank the NATO partnership, and it is time to express outrage. I offer the deepest sympathy.

I have no problem with apologies. I am a grown person who is not diminished by saying, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that a mistake in the channel of instructions and commands allowed Korans to be burned. We all know that they were collected, first of all, because they thought they were communicating dastardly instructions that would harm either those who were the officers over the detention prison or that they were sending messages. We understand that, but there is no reason not to offer an apology. We have sacred documents from the Torah to the Bible to the Koran because there are people in the United States of different faiths. So we have no problem with that.

Yet when we have a government, as much as we try to encourage and to applaud and to support it, that allows the reckless spreading of violence and that the Taliban celebrates by permeating the population with ugliness and rioting and when you shoot point blank my officers of the United States military, enough is enough. There is no reason for me to be able to accept individuals who are there to help build up a society, in my understanding, where they are unarmed, and then you cause violence with four other soldiers. Then there are allegations that food is being poisoned. There are allegations that we can't even walk the streets.

The sadness is that women in Afghanistan have come to me and have said, We can't even walk the streets. Babies--girl children--are killed. Parliamentarians have spoken to me and

have said, I can't go home to my home district.

How would that be for my distinguished colleague, when I yield to Congresswoman Capps or to any of the women, to know that we cannot go home to our districts because we are in fear of being killed by the men in that region?

So I would argue that we have been valiant, that we are heroes, that we have done what we have been called to do. The Commander in Chief has, in fact, brought the demise of Osama bin Laden and other high- dollar targets, and I would believe that it is appropriate that Congress gathers. I am now looking and contemplating a resolution in which we ask for a more expedited return of our soldiers and in which we ask that the President of Afghanistan, in the appropriate way, denounce and call for the end of this violence and that the Taliban be addressed by the Afghan National Security Forces, as we have trained them.

So I would say in my closing remarks that we have much to do. Many women suffer. In this country, we can at least acknowledge that we are civilized and that we respect women and the choices they have to make, that we have respect for the faith that has its own position and that we as a Nation will insist on that firewall; but we will also have access to women's health care. It makes no sense that a talk-show host, who is on the airwaves provided by the American people and by the tax dollars, would go after an innocent law student who simply was called as an American citizen to be heard in the Halls of Congress and who had no other angst but to be able to present her life story.

I conclude, Mr. Conyers, by saying I see that, by the men and women in the United States military, all they have asked to do is to serve their Nation under the orders of the Commander in Chief in Afghanistan. I am now saying to them that I salute them and that it is time to bring our men and women home in dignity, in health, in safety, and with their lives--for their loved ones.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting with leaders who treat women as OB/GYNs from Baylor College of Medicine and from St. Joseph Hospital in Houston, Texas. They acknowledged the importance of access to women's health care.

In a hearing in Judiciary, a very renowned doctor, an OB/GYN, indicated that thousands of women are impacted with respect to cervical cancer by having access to contraceptives and to be able to be treated properly.

Let me be very clear: Now, with the established compromise, no religious institution will have to pay any money. One of the witnesses who happened to be a bishop said, That's fine; I'm not interfering with what some woman does elsewise.

So why do we have this crisis? We have a settlement to resolve--the protection of religious liberty and the protection of women's rights.

May I quickly indicate that just recently I introduced H.R. 83 that has to do with preventing bullying. And with the tragic incidences of the last 48 hours--now three young people dead--it's time again for this House to move again on a bill that deals with best practices to help our schools understand how to help our children.

I look forward to this legislation moving forward. I also look forward to acknowledging that access to women's health saves lives. Let's save lives.

I thank the distinguished chairman and the manager of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, and look forward to joining in supporting this legislation, H.R. 1433.

This is legislation that has been long in coming. It is a bipartisan initiative, and I think it is particularly important, when we speak to our colleagues who are representing the American public, to be able to say that property is valuable, that the Bill of Rights that requires due process before a taking is being reinforced by this legislation.

H.R. 1433 would prohibit a State or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development, or of a property that is used for economic development, within 7 years after that exercise if the State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

Texas has faced a number of incidences, Mr. Speaker. One, in particular, is after the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Although there are different laws dealing with coastal property, I saw the pain in a number of beach owners's faces as their property was condemned, even though they were trying to anxiously save it.

This bill establishes a private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of violation of this act. This helps the little guy--someone who owns property can actually have a remedy to stand up and challenge the taking of their property.

The bill prohibits State immunity in Federal or State court and sets the statute of limitations at 7 years. Although I offered an amendment to extend that to 10 years, I was willing to compromise at 7, as well as requiring the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this act in certain circumstances, but prohibits an action brought later than 7 years following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings.

And maybe as it makes its way through, we'll have an opportunity to expand that 7-year period. These are the efforts of Mr. Sensenbrenner and Congresswoman Waters, along with the rest of us who cosponsored this amendment.

The three amendments I offered to the bill, some of them were accepted. My first amendment requires that a study be conducted to identify the number of minorities versus non-minorities who will be impacted by the act, in addition to the median incomes of those who are mostly highly affected.

My second amendment requires the United States Attorney General to locate and inform members of minority communities if it is determined that the act has a disproportionate impact. Both of those amendments, I believe, were accepted.

I thank the gentleman.

I also offered an amendment to ensure that States are required to pay penalties and interest in cases where they run afoul of this bill.

I am well aware of the needs of local communities and the needs of economic development; but I am glad that this Congress seeks today to stand up on behalf of private property rights and owners. I am delighted that in the course of working in particular with this issue, we have a fair and balanced approach. Let me just give you a very brief example, and I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting racial and ethnic and poor neighborhoods. Now, redlining may not be equated to condemning neighborhoods or eminent domain; but when you don't allow a neighborhood to refurbish itself, to refinance, you are putting it in the line quickly for being a target of eminent domain. A 2004 study estimated that 1,600 African American neighborhoods were destroyed by municipal projects in Los Angeles. In San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for economic redevelopment are Hispanic or Asian owned, despite the fact that only 30 percent of businesses in that area are owned by racial or ethnic minorities.

In Mount Holly Township, New Jersey, officials have targeted for economic development a neighborhood in which the percentage of African American residents, 44 percent, is twice that of the entire township and nearly triple that of Burlington County. Lastly, according to a 1989 study, 90 percent of the 10,000 families displaced by highway projects in Baltimore were African Americans.

In my own home State of Texas, I remember a very well-stocked neighborhood of teachers and various blue collar workers. We called it Third Ward, Riverside, a thriving area. Its schools were schools like E.O. Smith and Jack Yates High School. And in the course of trying to develop a major highway, in fact, that neighborhood was ultimately, in essence, diminished--diminished greatly.

So as growth comes, I understand it, but I think this is an excellent balance. I want economic development. I want to see growth, but I would like it to support and encourage thriving neighborhoods of all backgrounds and diversity.

This legislation will help in doing so, and I believe it will correct decisions made previously and allow Texans, allow Californians, New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Southerners, Northerners, Easterners and Westerners to have a fair balance when the government comes and says it's time to take your property. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 1433. I appreciate this opportunity to explain my support for H.R. 1433, ``Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011.'' First I would like to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who accepted three of the four amendments I offered to H.R. 1433 during the Committee markup.

H.R. 1433 would prohibit a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

In addition, it prohibits the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development. Also, establishes a private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of a violation of this Act. The bill prohibits state immunity in federal or state court and sets the statute of limitations at seven years, as well as requiring the Attorney General, DOJ, to bring an action to enforce this Act in certain circumstances, but prohibits an action brought later than seven years following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings.

This bill has been the product of a tremendous effort by Representative Maxine Waters. I, along, with Representative Waters have worked for nearly a decade on this issue. During Committee markup, I added several changes to this bill that I believe have enhanced this bill.

The three amendments that I have offered to the bill would ensure that both minorities and non-minorities will have additional protections under this measure. My first amendment requires that a study be conducted to identify the number of minorities versus non- minorities who will be impacted by the Act, in addition to the median incomes of those who are most highly affected.

My second amendment requires the United States Attorney General to locate and inform members of minority communities, if it is determined that this Act has a disproportionate impact on them.

My final amendment to this measure will ensure that states are required to pay penalties and interest in cases where they run afoul of this bill. The purpose of my amendment was to ensure that both small businesses and low-income homeowners are protected as well, those who might not have the ability to engage in drawn-out and expensive litigation.

The Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits state and local governments that receive federal economic development funds from using eminent domain to transfer private property from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development.

The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting racial and ethnic minority and poor neighborhoods. A 2004 study estimated that 1,600 African American neighborhoods were destroyed by municipal projects in Los Angeles.

In San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for economic redevelopment are Hispanic or Asian-owned, despite the fact that only 30 percent of businesses in that area are owned by racial or ethnic minorities.

In Mt. Holly Township, New Jersey, officials have targeted for economic redevelopment a neighborhood in which the percentage of African American residents, 44 percent, is twice that of the entire township and nearly triple that of Burlington County.

Lastly, according to a 1989 study 90 percent of the 10,000 families displaced by highway projects in Baltimore were African Americans.

Thousands of Texans, from Houston to San Antonio to El Paso, now live under the threat of eminent domain abuse. These minority home and business owners have well-founded fears that their property may soon be taken from them to make way for private redevelopment projects cooked up by developers and city officials.

The threatened homes and businesses are important parts of functioning communities, many of which have been there since the earliest days of Texas' history as an independent nation. Their only fault is that they are located on land coveted by developers and government officials.

In Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo, she predicted, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.''

Following the decision in Kelo, Texans, and minorities in particular, remain tremendously vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by ambitious cities and developers.

Hours after Kelo was decided, the city of Freeport, Texas, urged its attorneys to redouble their efforts to take a family-owned seafood business for a private marina development project. This so outraged the Texas legislature that Texas became the second state--out of 43 so far--to reform its eminent domain laws.

In El Paso, a neighborhood called El Segundo Barrio (which has been called the ``Ellis Island of the Southwest'') is being targeted by a large consortium of developers and business owners who want to remake the U.S.-Mexico border area for the overwhelming benefit of private parties.

In San Antonio, the city wants to expand its famed River Walk northward again, to be filled with private businesses owned by people other than the current land owners.

In Houston, the threat is everywhere. One little noticed part of the city's light rail plan allows the rail authority to condemn any property within a quarter mile of any light rail station to facilitate something called ``transit-oriented development.''

Municipalities often look for areas with low property values when deciding where to pursue redevelopment projects because it costs the condemning authority less and thus the state or local government gains more, financially, when they replace areas of low property values with those with higher property values.

This abuse can happen anywhere in the United States. Eminent domain abuses affecting racial minorities and those in the relatively low income bracket must be stopped.

My amendment permits judicial review, to determine if this Act has a disproportionate impact on minorities, and for the Attorney General to locate those affected and inform them of their rights.

The displacement of African Americans and urban renewal projects are so intertwined that ``urban renewal'' was often referred to as ``Black Removal.''

There are vast disparities of African Americans or other racial or ethnic minorities that have been removed from their homes due to eminent domain actions are well documented and must continue to be judicially reviewed.

When an area is taken for ``economic development,'' low-income families are driven out of their communities and find that they cannot afford to live in the ``revitalized'' neighborhoods.

The remaining ``affordable'' housing in the area is almost certain to become less so. When the goal is to increase the area's tax base, it only makes sense that the previous low-income residents will not be able to remain in the area.

This is borne out not only by common sense, but also by statistics: one study for the mid-1980s showed that 86 percent of those relocated by an exercise of the eminent domain power were paying more rent at their new residences, with the median rent almost doubling.

I am keenly aware that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see this bill as the reversal of the Kelo decision from an ideologically different window but I hope that this bill can be used as a marker to help support the rights of property owners who do not have access to the ``Big Litigation.''

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Homeland Security Committee and have the privilege of serving on the committee dealing with foreign affairs here in the House.

I rise today to, as usual, offer our deepest sympathy for all of our soldiers that have fallen in battle. But I am particularly outraged at the incidents that are occurring around the unfortunate burning of the Koran--for which our President appropriately extended his apology, as we would want if someone had burned Bibles. But it is outrageous for our soldiers to be in harm's way, for them to lose their life. It is time now for the Afghan national security forces to stand up and be security forces. It's time for President Karzai to indicate that he will not be driven out by the Taliban. And it's time for us not to allow the Taliban again to grip ahold of the Afghan people.

This is a tragic and horrible situation. None of us would have wanted it to occur. But we cannot stand for our soldiers to be in the eye of the storm and be shot for something that they did not do, intentionally or individually.

So I would ask that our soldiers be taken out of harm's way around any Afghan national security forces that we cannot vet and ensure that they are intending to do the right thing. We need to hear from President Karzai in a way that denounces this horrible action. And we must stand up to the Taliban and have a transition out of Afghanistan in which the Afghan national security forces are protecting their people, and they're allowed, in essence, to have a nation that protects women and children and families, and has the adherence to the law that requires human decency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 3630 ``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011.'' The Conference Report extends the 2 percent payroll tax cut, the Medicare SGR ``doc fix'' and various Medicare and Medicaid extenders through the end of the year.

There are currently 160 million workers who will benefit from a payroll tax holiday and millions of unemployed workers in desperate need of an extension of unemployment insurance. In addition it would prevent 170,000 Americans from losing their health coverage. It is in consideration of the millions of Americans that will benefit from this legislation that I cast my vote today.

Although certain improvements have been made to this bill that have made it more palatable in the name of compromise, in comparison to the version offered by House Republicans, I still believe we could have done more.

Instead of a temporary fix to the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR), commonly known as the Doc Fix, we could have had a permanent solution which would have addressed the concerns of doctors across this country and the patients who utilize their services. We cannot continue to rely upon short-term patches that arise every few months. It is time to bring certainty to our system of payment. We must act now--the cost to repeal SGR today would be $300 billion. If we wait five years that cost will double to $600 billion. Without addressing the SGR head on and instead continuing to kick the can down the road, it is only making a flawed system more costly to resolve.

Under this Republican led House measures continue to be offered that are being paid for on the backs of federal workers. These workers are responsible for aiding in crafting the legislation that we put forward in this body. They are responsible for implementing and creating regulations that ensure that our system of governance runs smoothly, that our airways, roadways, ports, and food are safe.

These dedicated civilian employees are paid less than they would be in the private sector. Their reward for these dedicated federal servants is for the Republican led House to use their pay and their benefits as a piggy bank, instead of issuing a surcharge on the wealthiest among us, a simple 1 percent increase in taxes on those who earn over one million a year. Instead, we are targeting the federal worker.

Under Republican pressure the fate of 315 million Americans will be borne by the 2 million federal civilian workers who serve them. To be clear, federal employees will be the only people paying for this bill.

Again, under a Republican led House, Republicans have continued to use federal civilian employees as a piggy bank. Which in many ways is an attack on the fabric of the middle class.

In this Congress alone the federal workforce has already contributed $80 billion to deficit reduction. This was done by freezing their pay, preventing two cost of living increases, and other measures. Which is really code for what a federal employee is making today is less than what she was making two years ago (when you adjust for inflation).

Federal workers are highly skilled, highly trained, and highly educated. We must remember that none of the laws that we pass here today will make a difference without having people around who will implement them.

My Republican colleagues appear to believe that they can continue to target federal workers without repercussions. When we are no longer able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, then we can look to the measure pushed by my Republican colleagues. Although I support many of the provisions in this bill; I must make clear I am concerned with how this bill is constructed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand with IBEW in my district, the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, when they have challenged a company that is in fact doing poor work in our city, so much so that the city electrical inspector had to shut them down.

When are we going to be for our workers and to help them?

I rise today to indicate my support for the payroll tax legislation that just passed. It was, in essence, after long months of negotiation and pleading for the 160 million people to get payroll tax relief and to get those who are unemployed seeking work to get their due in unemployment insurance. It does have the opportunity for 99 weeks for those in districts that are suffering from unemployment.

It doesn't take any money from Medicare, doesn't raise the benefits. And certainly, it doesn't require those onerous burdens of unemployment--GED and drug testing--except in certain circumstances.

But why in the heck did we have to burden our Federal employees by taking the skin off their back to pay for this bill?

Let's respect and know that our Federal employees serve us. Let's get a better policy to be able to help Americans provide for the unemployment, and yet not put the pain and burden on Federal employees.

I oppose that and will continue to oppose that. But I'm glad that there are those who will get payroll tax relief and unemployment relief.

Boone Pickens is right: It makes no sense to export our natural gas when manufacturing is coming back.

I join with Mr. LaTourette for an open rule. This is not a comprehensive rule and, as well, there's no oversight and regulation, and that means no environmental oversight. Minority contracting needs to be in place.

And if you want to do something, look at H.R. 3710, my deficit reduction, job creation, energy security bill. This is a bill that needs to go back to the drawing board and really do, as the President said, an infrastructure bill that will help all Americans, be paid for, and not take pensions off the backs of Federal employees.

With that, Madam Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the Rules for H.R. 7, ``The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012.'' I believe the transportation bill should have been an open rule. This bill is not a comprehensive bill. When Congress spends taxpayer dollars, we are accountable for how it is spent. As written, this measure limits federal government oversight and therefore limits accountability.

I believe, a well-functioning transportation system is critical to the Nation's prosperity. Whether it is by road, aviation, or rail we rely on our transportation system to move people and goods safely. A properly functioning transportation infrastructure will facilitate commerce, attract and retain businesses, and support jobs.

Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.

For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million investment in building public transportation systems creates more than 300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600 more.

Part of the challenge of our transportation system is to ensure that everyone is able to benefit. The GAO would study ways to increase access to the underserved and unrepresented communities, as well as, minority communities. This will help to identify areas that we can work to improve. The GAO would further study how to increase the mobility of the disabled.

Public transportation is important to ensure these communities will not only have access to services, businesses, and the community at large, but will also improve their quality of life.

Public involvement needs to encompass the full range of community interests, yet people underserved by transportation often do not participate. We need to find ways to reach the underserved. They not only have greater difficulty getting to jobs, schools, recreation, and shopping than the population at large, but often they are also unaware of transportation proposals that could dramatically change their lives. Many lack experience with public involvement, even though they have important, unspoken issues that should be heard.

Underserved people include those with special cultural, racial, or ethnic characteristics. Cultural differences sometimes hinder full participation in transportation planning and project development.

People with disabilities find access to transportation more difficult and their ability to participate in public involvement efforts more constrained. People with limited resources often lack both access and time to participate. In addition individuals who have not been adequately educated may not be fully aware either of what transportation services are available or of opportunities to help improve them.

These groups are a rich source of ideas that can improve transportation not only for themselves but also for the entire community. Agencies must assume responsibility for reaching out and including them in the decision-making process--which requires strategic thinking and tailoring public involvement efforts to these communities and their needs. Techniques to reach the underserved are grouped here under two headings:

A thorough study of how this bill will impact cost and jobs. As well as a study on how to improve services to the underserved and under- represented will insure that there is accountability for how we are using government resources.

There is much left to be done in the areas of Transportation in our great Nation. I believe this study is a step in the right direction.

Generally, the same transit agencies operate both rail and a bus system, which improves efficiency by ensuring both Systems complement each other.

For example, transit agencies can design bus routes that collect passengers from outlying neighborhoods and deliver them to rail transit stations.

Congress has always allowed transit systems operating both rail and bus lines to receive bus and bus facility grants, recognizing that bus and rail lines work as part of a complete transit network in large metropolitan areas and that federal policy should support local and regional efforts to maximize the efficiency of transit service. H.R. 7 would reverse this longstanding federal policy.

In Houston, TX alone, the City operates 1,300 buses and 7 miles of rail. Denying access to these funds to major metropolitan areas does not make sense. Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.

In the case of Houston, the light rail system is vital to increase mobility of Houston, Texas' population which is forecasted to grow by an additional 9.4 million people by 2035, a 38.9 percent increase over the projected 2010 levels. The same can be said for many urban areas across our Nation.

Light rail projects and other transportation investments represent the potential to create thousands of jobs, enhanced mobility, and future economic development for the region.

Public transportation is an investment in the truest sense of the word: An outlay today pays out considerable profit down the road. Nationwide, government invests $15.4 billion in public transportation a year. Public transportation generates upwards of $60 billion in economic benefits. Public transportation boosts state and local tax revenues by at least 4 percent and as much as 16 percent.

Some 30,000 people work directly for the public transportation industry, which creates thousands more jobs indirectly through fields ranging from engineering to construction.

For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million investment in building public transportation systems creates more than 300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600 more.

To be sure, public transportation systems are not cheap to build or run; however, public transportation pays for itself several times over. And if a stronger economy is the destination we seek, public transit is the fastest way to get there. These funds could be used to fix buses, bus shelters, and bus facilities.

With the recent uptick in fuel prices more people are opting to ride the bus. In addition, the bus system also is vital resource for the disable and seniors who rely on these services for transportation. The TE program funds projects that build bus shelters. This would encourage even more people to opt for public transportation. Shelters safeguard passengers against the sun, wind, and rain. Texas has heat waves and many other parts of the country have inclement weather. Funding the building of bus shelters may not be a priority for some, but to the people who are standing waiting for the bus it makes a world of difference.

In addition, bus stops are extremely important for people with disabilities. The inaccessibility of bus stops often represents the weak link in the system and can effectively prevent the use of fixed- route service. This can severely hamper bus ridership by disability community, and thereby limit their mobility. Increasing the accessibility of fixed-route service

under the TE program will decrease paratransit costs.

Since 1983, when the Surface Transportation Assistance Act was signed into law, 2.86 cents in motor fuels taxes has been deposited into the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to provide a dedicated stable source of funding for public transportation programs. H.R. 7 eliminates the Mass Transit Account and dedicates that 2.86 cents to highway programs.

The bill moves transit and other public transportation programs into a new ``Alternative Transportation Fund,'' which would be dependent on appropriations from general revenue. Although the bill makes a one-time transfer of $40 billion into the Alternative Transportation Fund to cover funding for those programs through the life of the bill, there is no guarantee for public transportation funding beyond FY 2016. Such a reality would make it difficult, if not impossible, for transit agencies to develop reliable long-term capital plans, and it would leave the future of the program in doubt.

Public transportation agencies around the country are already struggling to maintain current levels of service and keep the system in a state of good repair. Removing federally guaranteed funding could result in a virtual construction and service freeze, the effects of which would be felt by riders, businesses, contractors, manufacturers and suppliers around the country.

Transit agencies may have to take on more debt in order to finance capital projects, and it could result in increased fares for our constituents.

There is no reason to make such a drastic change in how we finance public transportation. Our amendment would restore the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and the 2.86 cents dedicated funding stream for public transportation programs. It would eliminate the Alternative Trust Fund, make the Highway Trust Fund whole, and allow it to once again fund both highways and mass transit.

Fast Facts

Highway and Transit Bill (Or Surface Transportation Bill) (H.R. 7)--

Impact on Jobs

Cuts 550,000 American Jobs. Cuts investments in highways by $15.8 billion from current levels. We know that every $1 billion invested in infrastructure creates an estimated 34,800 jobs. Cuts Highway Investments in 45 states & DC. Reduces highway investments for all but 5 states (Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts Nebraska, Wyoming), neglecting the need to fix our bridges and roads.

Buy America Loopholes. Continues loopholes that allow surface transportation jobs to be outsourced overseas, and fails to extend Buy America protections to all Federal surface transportation programs.

Unstable Funding. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the GOP bill would bankrupt the Highway trust fund by 2016--creating a $78 billion shortfall over 10 years and jeopardizing critical transportation projects and American jobs. Boehner argue the bill doesn't create jobs. Speaker John A. Boehner made the unusual argument that spending money on highway projects under the bill would not create jobs. ``We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs.''

Other Transportation Issues

Undermines Safety. Cuts National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grants, allows companies with poor safety records to be exempted from hazardous material safety requirements, delays the deadline for installing new train systems to automatically prevent train collisions and derailments for passenger rail from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020 and eliminates worker safety for hazmat workers.

Kills Public Transit. Eliminates all of the dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. The bill stops the highway user fee revenues for transit, so that transit will compete with other priorities in the budget. These provisions are opposed by 600 groups--including National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, American Public Transportation Association, League of Conservation Voters, U.S. Steelworkers, U.S. PIRG, and Chamber of Commerce. The bill also fails to provide flexibility to transit systems to use Federal funds to maintain service and transit worker jobs at times of economic crisis. Mandates Privatization in Public Transit & Highways. Incentivizes transit agencies to contract out their bus services, makes private entities eligible to receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants, and mandates private sector participation in local transit planning and for engineering and design services on Federal-aid highway projects.

Jeopardizes Efforts to Make Streets and Roads Safer for Children, Pedestrians, and Bikes. Eliminates efforts to help underwrite local bike paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including the Safe Routes to School program. Weakens Environmental, Public Health, and Safety Protections. Includes sweeping changes that undermine local community involvement and environmental protection in transportation project development, such as delegating environmental and safety reviews--including whether they should be conducted--entirely to state highway agencies, imposing arbitrary deadlines for completing or challenging reviews regardless of project size, and waiving environmental reviews for all projects where the Federal share of the costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of the total project cost regardless of the scope of the project.

Hurts Amtrak. Reduces funding for Amtrak by $308 million, abrogates labor contracts between Amtrak and its food and beverage workers likely costing 2,000 union jobs, and prevents Amtrak from using Federal funds to hire outside counsel to file a lawsuit or defend itself against a passenger rail operator.

Federal Retirement (H.R. 3813)

Cutting Federal Retirement. In an effort to finance the highway bill, the package includes extraneous provisions that take $44 billion out of the pockets of the middle-class--who have already suffered through a pay freeze for 2 years, which contributed approximately $60 billion to deficit reduction. Raising Worker Contributions. Increases the retirement contribution from current federal workers by 1.5 percent. New federal workers would be forced to contribute 3.2 percent more for an annuity that is 40 percent less than existing benefits--with the retirement based on the high five years of salary, instead of the high three years. Changing Benefits Already Earned. Eliminates the annuity supplement payment for federal employees who retire before age 62, throwing into chaos the longstanding retirement plans of middle-class workers who relied on the promise of this benefit and dedicated decades of service to our country. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute has said, ``Benefits already accrued should not be altered. Those benefits have been promised and earned, and the obligation to pay them should be honored.''

Role of Federal Workers. Federal workers support our troops in the battlefield and provide care upon their return, protect our borders, safeguard our food supply, make sure seniors get their Social Security checks, and help hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

Opposition. Opposed by American Federation of Government Employees, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, National Treasury Employees Union, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Association of Government Employees, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and Federal Managers Association.

Further, I believe that more should be done for small businesses owned by women and minorities. It is a shame that the numbers of women and minority owned business competing for these contracts has been decreasing every year. We must reinforce our commitment to women and minority owned business.

The Department of Transportation's DBE program aims to increase participation of small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

Enhanced oversight is critical to ensuring that the objectives of the DBE program are achieved and federal funds are spent appropriately. But the current program lacks a mechanism to enforce that committed spending for DBEs reflects actual spending.

The October 2011 report by GAO highlights both DOT's need for increased oversight and the lack of clarity in determining whether both committed and actual spending are meeting the goals of the DBE program.

Two things need to be addressed to help the DBE program: increased oversight, and the ability to enforce the DBE program requirements.

The program lacks the necessary ``teeth,'' its requirements are often flaunted to the determent of small business owners.

I believe the Secretary of the Department of Transportation should be required to issue regulations providing for strengthening oversight, enforcement, and compliance with DBE spending requirements.

I have offered a bill, H.R. 3710--Deficit Reduction, Job Creation, and Energy Security Act, that I firmly believe will increase jobs, decrease our deficit, and will be great for our economy.

H.R. 3710 will direct the Secretary of Interior to increase the total lease acreage set forth in the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas leasing program for 2012 2017 by an additional 10 percent. This 10 percent increase shall be known as the Deficit Reduction Acreage. As such, the Secretary shall lease 20 percent of the Deficit Reduction Acreage each year from 2012 2017. All proceeds from the Deficit Reduction Acreage shall be deposited into the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund.

For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the first payment coming from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund, all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a period of 2 years. Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund (COSH); and

The principle from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund shall be deposited into the US Treasury and applied directly toward Deficit Reduction.

The COSH fund will establish grants for states (Coastal and Disaster Grant Program and a National Grant Program) for addressing coastal and ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with state and local agencies.

Additionally, the Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act establishes an Office of Onshore and Offshore Energy Employment and Training, and an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. CBO has estimated that this amendment is outside of the 10 year budgetary window, so there is no score.

I think we must carefully consider the bill that I propose. And again I reiterate the importance of having an open rule for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization to ensure that all Members of this Body have an opportunity to address their concerns with this bill.