Floor Statements

It's a pleasure to join the gentleman from California and my colleagues from the great State of Oregon, the great State of Illinois, and the great State of New York. I heard earlier this evening that it's okay to say happy new year up until the end of January, which happens to be today; and I certainly wanted to start the year off right by joining you again and really pleading with our colleagues.

I just want to briefly talk about what my good friend from New York mentioned with regard to reigniting the American Dream, which I am zealously advocating, really, across my State and across the Nation; and I am adding to that: building ladders and removing obstacles.

I also see the work of the gentleman from California as really focusing in on an age-old problem. I want to call up a dear friend who is the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, Chairman Oberstar.

Just a few years ago he watched his own community have a horrific incident that many of us in America continue to be shocked at, the collapsing of a bridge, the literal collapsing of a bridge and, of course, there was loss of life, devastation and fear, and an economic loss for people who could not be connected. That's not the America we know and love.

So why this is so important--and let me just suggest that there are so many variables--there are thousands of soldiers coming home from Iraq who are willing to sacrifice their lives for us, and those who have come back are now seeking opportunity. That's another component of individuals who want to work, although this administration, this Congress has been excellent in veterans preferences and seeking to employ them.

Every one of them will say they don't want a handout. They have been able to do massive work overseas that gives them the skills so they could be engaged in the reconstruction, the infrastructure work of airports, highways, high-speed rail, trains and transit, and we can give them the opportunity of reigniting the American Dream.

We know that what we must do is build on the working class and middle class. We must build on opportunities for young people who may choose a 4-year college, but as the President said last Tuesday, may choose a community college that gets them into job skills. So most economists will say that this is not a time to be, in essence, Scrooge.

When times are hard, you invest in human capital. And as someone who represents one of the largest airports in the country, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, and is also in a community that has Ellington Airfield and Hobby Airport, it is truly key to be able to work on the infrastructure. As someone who comes from the coastal areas--and I want to present to the gentleman my legislation that talks about deficit reduction and restoration of coastal areas using the energy industry-- but looking at it from a positive sense, all dealing with manufacturing, because manufacturing does matter.

Let me just say this in conclusion: Our friends or those who want to speak negatively are absolutely wrong that we don't have the genius of manufacturing. In fact, I can document that factories are coming back to America, that the high cost of labor for our friend and sometimes challenging ally, China, is going up, that the cost of having factories there is difficult, and there are obstacles such that now our American companies who are even thinking of going are looking at the agility of the skills of American workers.

You cannot underestimate the genius of American workers, the enthusiasm of American workers, the willingness to go into factories, the ability to build them, and I take on anyone who has suggested that our logistical or supply chain does not work. Frankly, let some of our military personnel who are now coming back, who are going into civilian life, let them show you how to do a logistical supply chain.

So I believe that manufacturing is here to stay. Just a news clip today talked about an individual who, with tears in his eyes, was talking about bringing back manufacturing of furniture in the Carolinas. I think in this instance it was North Carolina. He was excited. He was emotional about the fact that his father had left him this legacy. He was bringing it back.

Despite some of our friends who are talking about they can't make certain iPhones here in the United States, I frankly believe that our technology sector is alive and well, and that we're going to be building more, and certainly the infrastructure begs out, in tribute to our dear friend, Chairman Oberstar, and many others who have talked for years, as I joined him, and as I join my colleagues, to say that I believe we live in the greatest country in the world. I believe that there is nothing better than reigniting that American Dream, and I believe that once we move the obstacles and build the ladders, we'll be building airports. We'll be talking about high-speed rail.

Thank you to this administration for not abandoning it. We'll be doing the trains, we'll be doing the infrastructure, and we'll be putting people back to work. I can't imagine a better way to start off the new year.

I must leave this in tribute to a pastor's words I heard on Sunday: 2012 will be the year of uncommon favor. That's because we are not going to give up on the American worker and this great Nation.

I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor and allowing me to share with him.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill, add the following:

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 2: Page 5, after line 19, add the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I thank the manager of the bill and rise today to support

So I'd like to say thank you to her and wish her well and to say, as I've said before, she is an American hero because of the courage. Certainly we acknowledge those who lost their lives and those who were wounded on that tragic day, but what a symbol that this Congresswoman represents, this American represents to all who seek a better place.

I ask our colleagues to enthusiastically support H.R. 3801.

We just saw a very moving ceremony to acknowledge our dear friend and colleague, and again, I offer my appreciation of her service. But in the course, we mentioned her staff as well, and I wanted to make sure that I added my appreciation to Congresswoman Giffords' staff.

That leads me to say that we depend upon the staffs of this House and our personal staffs and committee staffs. Not often do we get to know them personally. But I rise today to salute Steve Perkins, who will be retiring, and to thank him for his service to this august body.

To each and every Member, remember that those who serve in this body do not recognize Democrat or Republican; what they recognize is the great service to America.

Mr. Perkins has served this Congress with excellence, commitment, and dedication. He truly should be commended and admired and respected for his service to the Nation. I wish him well in his retirement, with his family, his children, and his grandchildren, and I know that he will continue to be a very special person in the hearts of all of us.

Steve Perkins, we thank you for your service. Thank you for letting us know how much you care about this institution, how much you care about us. Let me say we care about you. Thank you for your service to this Nation and to this great body, the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I came to the floor of the House to challenge the utilization of words because words matter. Candidates who are charging each other with a variety of sins decided to call President Barack Obama, who tonight will give us the State of the Union, the ``food stamp President.''

For many of us who know our history, we might recall that in the 1940s and beyond, there were many who were on government cheese. In fact, many people I know today smile about that government cheese and peanut butter that they were given. They include doctors and lawyers and leaders of this Nation, teachers, people who are expanding opportunities for others.

This Nation is a great country, and we are reminded that many who start from humble beginnings can ascend to the highest office or the barons and the leadership of corporate America. So the negative connotation of ``food stamp President'' is to denigrate those who receive it rather than to suggest that there are opportunities in this Nation that no other country can provide.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about and look forward to the President's State of the Union as he speaks about income equality and challenges us, as a Nation, to come together, to move forward on expanding jobs, such as the President's American Jobs Act. But I raise for thought the problem of how we will come to that point.

I'm looking at an article that suggests that ``Made in the USA'' may be a relic of the bygone. It uses one of our most famous, one of our most imitated companies in the world, Apple, which speaks to the genius of America. I will never step away from acknowledging that we are the inventive, the innovative, the genius, the creative population because we've been given freedom by our Constitution. But when you ask the question why the iPhone is manufactured elsewhere and you hear comments about why the genius of this particular company has not been translated into a number of jobs, why decisions have been made to move manufacturing overseas, and you ask the question where is the corporate social responsibility, for example, and where is the generosity in terms of hiring American workers, well, we know that the international economy is intertwined. Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers even when it wasn't the best financial choice. We call that ``American generosity.'' But I understand the bottom line.

So it is important that we begin to look at the items that the President is talking about, jobs skills training, and to find a way to restore the modern manufacturing that will bring more jobs to America.

Why do these companies move overseas? In this article, it suggests because of the supply chain and the way factories can be put up and put down in these foreign countries. Now, you tell me why we can't do that. I believe we can. It is all about focus and logistics. And tonight, as the President expands on his Kansas speech about how we are a great Nation, I'm looking for ways to end that income inequality, to come together and make sure that those who make much can have the ability to share those dollars but yet still make a grand profit. I want to see us improve our supply chains and logistics. I want to see us get factories up and bring them down.

We restored the American auto industry by commitment, dedication, and sacrifice. At last I heard, General Motors now is the number one manufacturer of automobiles in the world. How did it come about? Because Democrats came together and joined around, with a bipartisan support, the idea that we can create jobs; we can manufacture jobs.

Let me just say this: I will accept the challenge tonight that the President will offer, and I will realize that a food stamp family today providing for their children are the presidents and CEOs and astronauts and inventors of tomorrow. That's the kind of Nation that we are.

I say it always, and I will say it again. ``Food stamp'' is a denigrating term when you say ``food stamp President,'' as if the President does not want to create jobs. We're tired of the buzzwords and innuendo about certain groups, but I believe that we have a way of coming out of this.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time. It is an urgency of now. It is the justice and equality that Martin Luther King and many other great leaders spoke of. It is this mosaic Nation of people from all walks of life that have shown the world we're the greatest Nation in the world. I'm looking forward to pursuing that in the 21st century, building jobs and saying, ``God bless America.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Gabby Giffords, back home to this House, a place that she served ably and is serving ably today, to thank her for her courage and to thank her for accepting the challenge of what an American hero is. Many have called her that; for in the course of this enormous tragedy, she stood tall and still continues to do that today.

I want to thank the medical professionals, the emergency medical professionals, and many in Houston, Texas, TIRR, one of the best renowned rehabilitation hospitals in the world.

But most of all, as Congresswoman Giffords comes back, let us give as a gift, both on behalf of the American people and this Congress, that we can work together to improve the lives of all Americans. That I believe would be her challenge, and that would be her call. As she comes back today, serving the people of Arizona and serving the American people, we want to say: Thank you, Congresswoman, for your courage and for being a model for the American people and challenging us to do the best.

I thank the gentlelady from California for the recognition and also for the leadership.

I might say to my colleagues that whenever we come to the floor of the House to do the people's business it is an important effort, and this motion to instruct is truly the people's business. I want to applaud you for framing the urgency of answering the call of doing what we need to do with respect to 160 million Americans who need payroll tax relief--again, tax cuts for middle class and working Americans, not a discriminatory treatment of only the top 1 percent being able to sing the song ``Oh Happy Day,'' but to allow those who get up every day, some working with their hands, some working with the genius of their minds, and being able to get tax relief from this Congress.

I also know that the American people are looking for immediate relief as it relates to jobs. And I join with my colleague, Chairman Larson of the Democratic Caucus, about the American Jobs Act and the President's initiative on putting teachers and firefighters, police and construction workers to work, creating jobs and cutting taxes to put in the American people's pockets, and, as well, to provide job training and extended unemployment incentives.

But I do raise this question as we look to protect Medicare and, yes, to provide the doctor fix, which is so important to Houston, with the large Texas Medical Center and the large population of seniors. I join with my colleagues to urgently move toward that. But may I make it very clear that unemployment benefits are not a handout. It is not given to people who have not worked. It is given to blue collar workers. It's given to white collar workers. It's given to people who have worked and contributed to this economy. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to suggest in the most

insulting way to give drug tests and to suggest that people need a GED, I can assure you people want to get a GED. But when you talk of the body politic of unemployed workers, 14 million people can't find jobs because there are no jobs to be found, and we are working to create jobs.

So the issue is: Help us pass the American Jobs Act, and help recognize that those who get unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, are Americans who have worked, who deserve this kind of insurance.

I join in passing the payroll tax motion to instruct and the unemployment benefits. Let's do it now.

Mr. Speaker, a gentleman by the name of Andrew Adler located in Atlanta, Georgia, and writing for an Atlanta, Georgia, newspaper offered instructions to the prime minister of Israel on how to protect that great nation. He suggested an attack on Hezbollah and Hamas and an attack on Iran. And then he gave number three: Give the go ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a President deemed unfriendly to the nation of Israel. That President, I need not say, happens to be the President of the United States now. Words matter.

Mr. Adler has been called upon to apologize, and he did. But he has brought shame to Jewish Americans, to Americans and Israel. And, frankly, the latitude in which he thought he could talk about assassinating the President of the United States without in any way a suggestion of, if you will, challenge, is an outrage and disgrace.

I believe in the First Amendment, but words do matter. We should come together and be unified as a Nation, find ways to disagree with each other without raising words that are hostile and devastating. I beg for this Nation's leaders to stop calling names and talk about policies and how to build this Nation up.

I'm outraged, Mr. Adler. An apology is not enough.

I'd like to thank Dr. Christensen, which I enjoy calling her that because she has been of such value and service to this Congress and to this body, the Congressional Black Caucus, and thank her for her leadership in convening this very important discussion on voter protection.

I'm very delighted to be joined, and I thank him very much, by Congressman Bobby Scott, who has served and we are serving on the Judiciary Committee. And I know that he remembers that in about 2006, 2007, after years of rumors of the Voting Rights Act ending, we clarified it by coming together in a bipartisan manner and over months of hearings, convinced a then, I believe, Republican and moving into a Democratic Congress, but a bipartisan Congress, that the Voting Rights Act was needed, and it needed to be reauthorized in certain sections.

And so our stand today is to reinforce that issue. And so I would like to thank, again, Congressman Rangel, who so movingly told of his long journey and walk to support the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Fudge, who has been a champion in her State in Ohio, Congresswoman Lee, and then Congressman Scott, who all bring to the table a personal story about voter protection.

But I must make mention of our friend Congressman John Lewis, who is the epitome of the civil rights movement around the idea of voter protection and enhancement. Many of us are not aware of Mr. Filner, who was one of the Freedom Riders and celebrated the Freedom Riders in the last year, their 50 years. My colleague Congressman Al Green, who led the NAACP in Houston during times when we were under siege as it relates to voting opportunities.

And I remember working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the South in the aftermath in the 1970s of the Voting Rights Act actually going to many States, from North Carolina to South Carolina to Georgia and Alabama, where African Americans were still not registered, had still not had the full impact. I remember walking miles with Prairie View University students to allow the students to vote.

So this is a cause for which we have been on a long journey, and it saddens me that we are here again today fighting for voter protection in the year 2012 as we look to our Presidential elections.

I might offer to my colleagues the words of Barbara Jordan, who could not have come to Congress if it had not been for the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Sitting in the Judiciary Committee she offered these words: ``I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.''

She said that of course during the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon, but really the point was that she felt that the Constitution breathed life, if you will, into the rights of Americans, and the Constitution spoke to the voting rights of African Americans and others through the 14th and 15th Amendments.

But over the years, we had not been protected. And so the Congress, through the leadership and sacrifice of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose monument is magnificent, they passed the Voting Rights Act. The constitutionality was challenged in 1966. It barely got passed. And the Supreme Court said this: Congress has found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting.

This is what they found over the years in the Deep South; that it was constant, it was ongoing because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systemic or systematic resistance to the 15th Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of evil to its victims. That was a landmark case in 1966, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Attorney General of the United States, to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act of 1966.

Here we are now almost 50 years plus where we are fighting this case again, and I might add, in not too friendly a climate. First of all, fraud is offered, and I notice that my colleague mentioned the unfortunate facts or the circumstances in Iowa where one Republican presidential candidate was declared a winner and then now another. And I did not hear voices being raised about whether there was fraud. Maybe it was a miscount, a mistake. But you didn't hear the outrage that we have heard over the seeming increase, or the effort to increase, the votes of poor people and minorities, and in particular Latinos and African Americans.

Might I just say with a sense of pride, the Honorable Barbara Jordan added Texas to the Voting Rights Act coverage by adding language minorities in I believe about 1978.

But the thought that fraud is bad and should be prosecuted, but a photo ID does not prevent voter impersonation, that it doesn't work-- requiring a photo ID amounts to discrimination. Eleven percent of the entire voting-eligible population, 2.1 million, do not have a government-issued photo ID. You're discriminating against them. Twenty- five percent of eligible African American voters do not have a qualified voter ID. A 2006 nationwide study of voting-age citizens by the Brennan

Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law found that African Americans are more than three times as likely as Caucasians to lack a government-issued ID.

You talk to many of our seniors and they were born with midwives. My mother, God rest her soul, we could not, as long as we looked for her birth certificate, could not find it, but she did have a voter registration card. Nationwide, 18 percent of eligible voters over 65 lack an ID. Voter ID laws are costly and add to the deficit. Missouri estimates that the ID law would cost the State over $20 million to implement, and it goes on to say North Carolina, $14 million.

This is a shame on us. This is a pox on our House. And it is a pox on our House because fraud cannot be documented. As my colleague indicated how ironic it is that a student ID, students at State colleges, private colleges, historically black colleges, Hispanic-leaning colleges can't use a credible ID that colleges take great pride or great efforts to secure. Photo ID. Young people who we want to see cherish the democracy of this country can not in fact use their ID. But yet a gun ID can be used.

Just a few weeks ago in the Judiciary Committee--somewhat related--we were trying to pass legislation that says if you have a gun ID in Georgia, you can use your gun permit in another State. We're willing to give all of these rights to those carrying a gun ID, which may in fact jeopardize our law enforcement officers in all of the different States by not knowing who's in there carrying a gun permit.

But yet the sacred and simple act of being able to vote for a person of your choosing causes the ire of so many State legislatures who, after the 2010 election and the misrepresentation that there was fraud in the 2008 election, maybe because we elected the first African American President, or some crisis generated this response, we have this kind of map that shows practically 40 States, it looks like, all but 11, that require photo ID, that photo ID is requested, that photo ID legislation is proposed.

Congresswoman, I ask on what basis have we now taken the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act to do it?

Let me just share these points as I come to a close and ask that we continue the efforts.

I look forward to a voter protection meeting by the Congressional Black Caucus in Houston. The State of Texas has the voter ID law that is now being pre-cleared. I understand that all of my colleagues are in the middle of redistricting, but let me just say this is not in any way promoting Texas, but I believe that we may be the singular case that is going to ascertain the integrity of the Voting Rights Act and voter protection.

Right now Texas is in three courts: the Supreme Court, the District Court of Appeals here in the District of Columbia, and the San Antonio Federal Court. We are fighting on three different levels.

I might say this without any punitive comments intended. We had an interim plan, and this is under the Voting Rights Act, that one person, one vote. And Congresswoman, I think it is important to note that the Voting Rights Act protects all Americans. Its premise is one vote, one person. Its premise is not fraud but opportunity.

So when we have the redistricting and some sections of the Voting Rights Act protect the idea of one person, one vote, we take these cases not for personal promotion, meaning Members of Congress and State legislators, but to ensure the integrity of the vote.

So when the court ruled in San Antonio just briefly that the plan did not work, that the State of Texas wrote and gave us a new plan, the State of Texas went to the Supreme Court--not the individuals trying to protect the right of voters--went to the Supreme Court to stay that plan.

Well, the Supreme Court did render a decision. We're still in the midst of our confusion. But I just have to put this on the record. The Supreme Court assessed us, the ones who did not appeal, $18,000 to pay for printing. For those of us who are lawyers, we are simply questioning in wonderment how you can charge individuals who did not take the case up to the Supreme Court, who were being guided by the Federal Court, who had a plan and assessed us $18,000.

I simply say here is another way that you can not protect voting, because inevitably, those who are on the side of the Voting Rights Act are not rich. We inevitably in many instances are not the State.

It's the State coming against those who are trying to say, ``One vote, one person.'' I bring this up just as I close.

Let me just say that, in the course of the hearings that we had in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we discovered that there were problems with voting across the country. In 2004, nearly 4,500 people reported problems with ballots that were coming to them; 1,000 people reported voting intimidation; 7,000 reported registration problems.

Also, as you well know, the status of voting laws now, meaning the voting ID or voter identification, limits the kind of voter ID you can use. It excludes the most common forms of identification--student IDs, Social Security cards--and they offer no alternatives. There are changes requiring proof of citizenship as a condition for voter registration, limitations or the outright elimination of early voting opportunities, and barriers to first-time voters by suggesting that there is no same-day registration.

So I would simply argue that this is an important Special Order that you have tonight. What I feel in my heart is that we have to educate the public. They have to raise their level of, not anxiety, but of cause, in that they have a cause. They've got to get their marching shoes on again. They've got to get their shoes of being the carriers of justice as those civil rights legends and heroes did. They've got to get like the movie ``The Help'' when those domestics, those people who work for others, walked in the Montgomery Bus Boycott because they were trying to do for others. So I want to thank you for allowing me to share with you this evening.

I also want to indicate that this very fine letter that was sent by Members of Congress to the Attorney General on July 25, 2011, should be upheld; that of these voter ID laws that may suppress the vote, we want to have voter protection by having a vigorous review of all of these laws, and one of them happens to be the voter ID requirement in the State of Texas.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in an opportunity to share and in an opportunity to tell a message to our colleagues that the justice of voting is justice for everyone and that the protection of voting is the protection of voting for everyone.

First, I want to speak to the gentlelady's last comment and say that you have been a champion for the Virgin Islands. I have had the privilege of having several meetings there. They are generous people, they are our neighbors, and so I personally want to say, experiencing and understanding the impact of the loss of a major entity is something many of us have gone through.

In this instance I wanted to say, yes, we will stand with you and be of help. I'm introducing legislation that deals with trying to look at the energy industry in a way to help it grow in a fair way, to be environmentally safe, and I know that you are certainly someone who is a champion of the environment but have found that that business is served economically, and I want to make sure that we have these kinds of industries, and they are not mutually exclusive. I don't have the facts of what has generated this action, but we need to be helpful.

My legislation talks about using the energy industry to also support improving the environment, and I think that creates jobs as well. So I just want to say that I look forward to working with you and thank you for bringing that issue to our attention, because voter protection gives people the opportunity for expressing their views. We know that the opportunity for work and for jobs is crucial as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege.

I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, as well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our Constitution.

I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy.

As a Member of this body, I firmly believe that we must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past few decades, minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called ``Voter ID'' requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century, these efforts continue.

Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2007. This legislation is considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress-there is no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the future.

The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to citizens of all U.S. states.

By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to thwart the efforts of

civil rights activists. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism.

Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to respond in a way that the VRA did.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327- 28:

Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was

inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination

in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and

energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics

invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring

nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth

Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage

of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its

victims.

It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators, government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country.

Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights legislation because they could lose more of the African American and liberal votes.

No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and freedoms. 3 State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are counted.

Let me join with my colleagues to wish some of our distinguished Americans a happy birthday in this month, but more importantly, let me acknowledge and salute both Muhammad Ali and First Lady Michelle Obama in celebrating their birthdays this month.

I've listened to my colleagues speak about the question of job creation, and they're absolutely right. As Democrats, we've come back to do nothing but to ensure the passage of the payroll tax decrease for working Americans and, as well, to be able to provide for jobs for this country and our communities. My constituents have spoken loudly and clearly, so I have several points, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to make today. Some of them wind back to the culture and how we work together.

First of all, I'm hoping that as a member of the Judiciary Committee here in the House we'll have an opportunity to look seriously at the SOPA legislation and find a compromise. I've worked on the issues of piracy from the time late-Chairman Henry Hyde served on that committee, and I am concerned about it. But in this new world of startups and technology that is beyond many times our comprehension, it is important to ensure that we do not falsely or inappropriately shut down sites or stop businesses from thriving. There must be a compromise. I am prepared to be at the table of discussion to save jobs.

The U.S. is losing high-tech jobs to Asia. In fact, the United States lost more than a quarter of its high-tech manufacturing jobs during the past decade as U.S.-based multinational companies placed a growing percentage of their R&D overseas. I am here to fight for that R&D to come back. I, frankly, believe those are the jobs of the 21st century and that it is time for us to fight for those jobs to come back.

Mr. Speaker, we can do many things together. That happens to be one, and I hope to encourage the high-tech industry and others to join me as we proceed with roundtable discussions to see how we can impact all of our communities, those communities that have unemployment at the highest levels. We know that there are jobs in the high-tech industry, not only in the famous Silicon Valley in California, but in places around the Nation. Houston, Texas, is looking with complete and great excitement at the potential of building our biotech and, of course, technology sectors more and more and more. Let's save those jobs.

I want to move to something that is quite contrary to what I've just mentioned, but the reason I started with something on which we could work together is because I'm concerned. In this element of political campaigns, this atmosphere, I have no challenge with the First Amendment and with those who are trying to encourage individuals to vote and to vote for them. But I rise today in the backdrop of the commemoration of Dr. King's birthday, which really speaks to all Americans' hearts.

No matter what your background, Dr. King spoke of peace, nonviolence, and harmony in this country. I love that. I am a product of that. I was educated by way of opportunities that had not been given to my parents. Yet we find candidates like Newt Gingrich who simply want to throw fuel on the fire of racial divide to develop sort of an explosiveness in this country that is unnecessary.

To suggest that President Obama is the ``food stamp President'' has underlying suggestions. To be able to say that the idea of substituting a New York janitor who makes $37,000 and put a bunch of kids to work-- the New York school district is predominantly minority, Latino and African American--is by its very words divisive and destructive. And to insinuate that poor communities and minority children have never seen people get up, go to work and work hard--come to my district and see people getting up in the early morning hours, single parents working hard to create opportunities for their children.

Mr. Gingrich, I know you. You are better than that, and if not, America is better than that. I am incensed by your words.

Mr. Paul, our colleague, another candidate who is running for President, has a series of newsletters that have already been appalling to those of us who cannot understand why racial divisiveness has to be at the core of Presidential politics. Now we understand that there is a comparison in these newsletters about 13-year-old African American boys: that they are wild and unmanageable. If you say that about our children, they will come to believe it.

I am literally appalled that our Presidential politics, Mr. Speaker, has to be grounded in racial divisiveness. Dr. King wants us as a Nation to be unified. I call upon the Presidential candidates to get out of the dungeon and to rise to your higher angels on behalf of the American people--speak of unity not divisiveness. Our troops fight for all of us, and for justice and equality for all.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in saying that our troops will not be forgotten. I continue to wear a yellow ribbon, as we're doing in our community in Houston, in welcoming home the troops from Iraq.

That's why I rise today--to challenge those who are in the midst of the Presidential campaign to be cautious about ill-conceived and ill- spoken words. When one of the candidates, the Governor of Texas, calls the leadership of Turkey ``Islamic terrorists'' and says that Turkey is run by Islamic terrorists, I can assure you that those words are ill- conceived and inappropriate and absolutely wrong.

Turkey is one of the United States' strongest allies. It's a member of NATO, and it is seeking at this time membership in the European Union. There is constant dialogue between our country and Turkey. We are encouraging, of course, Turkey's diplomatic efforts to engage with Israel; and frankly, our troops have benefited from some of the needs taken care of through efforts by Turkey.

So I would just encourage that we not pour fuel and fire together and that we recognize Turkey and others of our allies live in very difficult areas. Therefore, we need to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Check your facts. I don't believe the democratic country of Turkey is run by Islamic terrorists. You're wrong and it is inappropriate.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

I'd like to tell a fairy tale and the true story of the American people. The fairy tale, of course, is why we're here on the floor even today to actually tell a little story to the American people that we are doing something to impact the deficit.

The bill we passed in August, of course, responded to the need to raise

the debt ceiling to pay America's bills. But in order to cajole and drag our friends, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, they did things like cut Pell Grants. They required the joint select committee that did not work to reduce the deficit. And, of course, they wanted us to have these shenanigans on the floor so that the American people could think they're doing their job.

But here's the real story of the American people. First of all, the debt that was increased that we are now dealing with, $1.9 trillion was raised under Ronald Reagan; $1.5 trillion was raised under George Bush; Bill Clinton, $1.4 trillion; and George W. Bush, $6.1 trillion.

What is the raising of the debt ceiling, which I think most Americans care about. It is responding to the debt that is now held by the public. It is doing our job. It is responding to the fact that the public should not burden America not paying her bills. What kind of bills? Debts that are owed to individuals, to our corporations that our friends say are of great friendship to them--banks and insurance companies; but most importantly, pensions, mutual funds. State and local governments will be left holding the bag because today we want to do a few shenanigans.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that the Kaiser Foundation has indicated in my own State that 5.6 million Texans are living in poverty--2.2 million of them children. And 17.4 percent of the households in the State struggle with food insecurity. Not raising the debt ceiling means that the burden falls on those who get up every morning to work. That's a true story of the American people.

What else will happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling? 642,500 jobs will be lost. The gross domestic product will decrease by 1 percent. Unemployment would go up. Every mortgage would increase by $19,175. Stocks would fall. The S&P dropping 6.3 percent. And every 401(k) holder would lose $8,816.

This is the real story of the American people. I want to stand on their side. I want to acknowledge that together as Republicans and Democrats, rather than writing the fairy tale story that you're seeing today, a resolution of disapproval, we can really work together as we have done in years past. 1997--the balanced budget amendment that created the Children's Health Insurance Program, helping children across America to be able to have health insurance. Or get rid of Medicare part D, passed by the past administration and the Republican Congress. Medicare part D, any senior will tell you, is one of the most devastating parts of their budget, causing them to pay three times more for their prescription drugs. We can get rid of that, as the Affordable Care Act did, and we would generate millions and millions of dollars.

Fairy tales are supposed to end with a wonderful ending, something such as never, never again or it ended happily thereafter. Well, let me tell you the true story of the American people. They don't want us on the floor today talking about not paying their bills to them. They want us on the floor right now to create jobs, to bring down the unemployment, to give them payroll tax relief, and to give extension for unemployment for those who are seeking jobs. And they don't want us to deny food stamps to young soldiers whose incomes don't allow them to provide for their families. They want us to get to work. Here I am. I'm ready to get to work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, ``Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code.'' This Joint Resolution is designed to prevent President Obama from raising the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion. Under the agreement reached last summer, which Republicans supported, the President was given the authority to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans are now putting forth a resolution that is a direct contradiction to the agreement which we all felt was the right decision for our country.

Today we are here pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 that this body passed last summer. In the course of our efforts numerous concessions were made to placate Republicans just to do the business of the American people; to pay our bills and ensure that essential services were taken care of for the infirm, the elderly, our children-- in short: the most vulnerable in our society. This Republican led resolution is nothing more than an attempt to obstruct the government; the measure is expected to fail in the Senate. In the end, this measure will be a tremendous waste of both Congressional resources and time.

Mr. Speaker, you would wonder how do you claim victory out of a season that if you are a professional football player does not end in the Super Bowl.

I rise today to congratulate and thank my hometown team of the Houston Texans, a very young franchise that came together and showed their mighty might and kept on plugging until they got into the playoffs and even to the point of meeting the Baltimore Ravens last Sunday.

There are many good things to say about this team; and in the backdrop of the holiday of Dr. Martin Luther King, it is also a tribute to these young men who worked together and showed themselves as brothers, coming from so many diverse backgrounds from around the Nation. Their owner, Bob McNair; their coach, Coach Kubiak; their defense coach, Wade Phillips; General Manager Smith; and some of their stars, like No. 80 and Arian Foster and their young quarterback and many others showed themselves to have good character and good examples for our community.

And, yes, let me thank them for the service they've given to the young kids in Houston, Texas. From the foundation of No. 80 and the many individual acts of kindness, we appreciate the Houston Texans.

So, tonight, you may not be in the Super Bowl, but you are our winner. We thank you for being the kind of young men that are modeling yourselves to be the kind of leaders that middle school boys and girls and others can have as a shining example. Go, Texans. Maybe not this year, but I know you're on your way. But most of all, you have served yourself well in the area and the arena of professional sports. We can truly be proud of you. Congratulations, young men. Do well in the off season, and we're ready for you to come back.

Houston loves you.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore