Floor Statements

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 51: Page 32, line 12, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(decreased by $5,000,000)''.

Page 76, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 52: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation

Madam Speaker, I'm excited about the number of Members who welcome guests to the United States Capitol. It is an important place because it belongs to the American people. I'm delighted that the Poindexter family has joined me.

But many of those people who have traveled have traveled by airplanes and have gone through the Nation's airports.

I am the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee addressing security issues across America; and I am disappointed, but I would like to say a little outraged, that right now the FAA bill is held up on minor issues such as whether or not we'll allow our workers to engage in discussions about their work conditions. It is being held up because the bill cancels FAA and air traffic controllers in small airports and the supplemental support, if you will, the supplemental support that has been given to small airports in rural areas.

It's time to get to work. Our Republican friends need to stop holding up this bill for minor issues so that Americans can fly in safety and security.

I would like to particularly thank the Out of Poverty Caucus: Congresswoman Lee, Congressmen Towns, Conyers, Honda, and a number of other Members who have joined that caucus and all of us who are here on the floor who are members of that caucus and who believe that this could not be a more important time.

A few days ago, I got on the floor to rename the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation that was passed that would cut $6 trillion out of the hearts and needs of the American people. I called it the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the Benefits'' bill because this is not a question of Members who are standing here today, wanting to recklessly spend your money. In fact, we are excited about opportunities that help boost the middle class, but we want to remind our colleagues that there are Americans who are impoverished.

Do you know that there are Americans who are on the front lines-- young soldiers of the ages of 18, 19, 20, and 21 who have come out of places like the Delta in Mississippi or the Fifth Ward in Texas or the Appalachian Mountains or from the urban centers around the Nation--who are suffering from the highest degree of poverty, not poverty that they have generated on themselves?

Yes, there are issues sometimes with legacy poverty: families that have never broken the cycle, who are living in public housing or, even worse, who are living in housing that is not fit to be lived in. Travel in some of the shoes that many of us travel in, and go to places in America where there is no running water.

So we come today to acknowledge the fact that there is poverty in America.

In my own State, the people who are living in poverty rose to 16.3 percent in 2007 and to 17.2 percent in 2009--and we happen to be the second largest State in the Nation. Those are large numbers of individuals. We have the highest number of soldiers in the State of Texas who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom have had to access food stamps. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty. 2.2 million of them are children.

So I stand here today.

Let our eyes rest upon what poverty truly is.

This little one is a symbol of what poverty really is. It is the innocent and those who cannot speak for themselves.

Over 50 percent of the children who are in foster care in Harris County--that is in Texas--happen to be minority children, African American children. I remember my late colleague Mickey Leland was so overwhelmed by the depth of children who were in crisis and in need that he organized something called the ``crisis cradles'' so that, when babies had to be taken out of a distressed home in the middle of the night, they could come to a comforting place. Those babies were in poverty, were in crisis, and they became part of the foster care system. That is a system that needs money, not because they're deadbeats, but because they are innocent children who have come into home situations where women are impoverished, where there may be abuse.

Poverty comes in all forms. 3.9 million residents of Texas rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program. This is all discretionary funding which the $6 trillion would devastate--again, tap dancing around lifting the debt ceiling. President Reagan said to Majority Leader Baker that it would be an incalculable devastating result if, at the time that he was President, the debt ceiling was not raised. By the way, it was raised 17 times.

Does anyone understand that, constitutionally, the debt ceiling may be unconstitutional? The 14th Amendment, section 4--read your Constitution--says that all debt of the United States, public debt, should be recognized.

So just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, we come today to let America know: Should we let this little baby be part of the losers' club or should we let our soldiers and their families and grandmothers and grandfathers be part of the losers' club?

We are standing here today for the impoverished, and we are committed to fighting for them.

I would like to thank my friend from California for managing this time and drawing attention to the millions of Americans living in poverty.

In the coming weeks and months, this Congress will continue to debate the debt ceiling and budget. However, as we discuss cuts, it is imperative that we not lose sight of how funding reductions affect the American people.

CFPB regulations enacted by the bureau are designed to protect the average consumer from fraud and abuse, and prevent financial institutions from employing unfair practices.

In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans throughout the nation living in poverty. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, is that a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year.

Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States' poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth.

In my home state of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, the percentage of people living in poverty rose from 16.3 percent in 2007 to 17.2 percent in 2009. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4 percent of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.

We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services, not when in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment so many rely on Federal benefits to survive.

In April 2011, 3.9 million residents of Texas relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) and other food stamp programs to feed their families.

The Republican budget reforms SNAP benefits into block grants, and caps the amount of Federal funding available to the program, with no guarantee that the allocated funding will be sufficient to meet the demand of low income families struggling with hunger.

The Republican budget also cuts $504 million from the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) Program, which provides nutritious food to struggling mothers and children. The USDA reports that more than 990,000 Texas families rely on WIC for essential nutrition to keep mothers and their children healthy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates changes to Medicare under the Republican budget plan will triple the cost for new beneficiaries by 2030 and increase costs for current recipients, including the 2.9 million people in Texas who received Medicare in 2010.

The Republican proposal will enact damaging changes to Medicaid, threatening healthcare resources for the 60 million people, half of them children, that rely on this program to stay healthy. A block grant for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would increase the cost for states and the low income families who benefit from the program.

Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare under this budget.

Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our Nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs benefitting children and the elderly in order to finance $800 billion in new tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.

Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America.

I firmly believe that all Americans can come together to protect the most vulnerable citizens in the Nation, to provide relief for the poor and the hungry, because 43 million of our fellow countrymen living in poverty, 15 million of them children, is simply unacceptable. Finally, where are the jobs--cutting $6 trillion will not create jobs. I am here to create jobs for the poor and our American families.

I urge every Member in this Chamber to look at what unites us rather than what divides us. We are linked by our compassion, and bound by the fundamental edict of the American dream that says we will strive to provide our children with a better life than we had. We can, and we must reach a compromise that will not cut valuable services from those who need government the most.

I thank my friend, the gentlelady from California.

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

I thank Mr. Frank, and I thank the ranking member, and I thank the managers of this legislation as well.

Mr. Chairman, I have become friends with my two poster pictures here because I do think they symbolize sort of the composite of America. My amendment, I think, focuses on making sure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is something that consumers asked for-- sometimes under the Christmas tree or during the gift-giving season, you get a gift that you may not have asked for, but you know there's a problem or you know you want something, and all of a sudden that gift shows up. That's what the Dodd-Frank bill did with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Now my friends want to defang, derail and delay this very important legislation. The bureau is one of the strongest provisions of the Dodd- Frank bill, and it was created to consolidate the authorities responsible for consumer protection. It is an important bill because, American consumers, you need to have strong protection: credit cards, buying a car, student loans. We're not trying to undermine businesses. We're simply trying to create an even playing field.

My amendment empowers the consumer board and ensures that it will be able to issue the rules that will protect the average financial consumer. The bill that we're speaking of, as written, empowers the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule a consumer victory by a simple majority vote. This will literally turn the authority of the CFPB around and weaken consumer authority.

My amendment restores the two-thirds responsibility, or the two- thirds

vote, that is needed to overrule a good vote for the consumers--a good vote for this nurse who may be buying a car; a good vote for this little one whose parents may be overburdened with credit card debt because they signed on to credit cards with enormous interest rates of which they are unaware; or it may be able to help these military families, many of them suffering because of the sons and daughters, husbands and wives who are overseas--to be able to say to these families, you can get a home without being defrauded.

So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number 4 to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be able to make effective decisions on behalf of the public by restoring the two-thirds majority vote in order for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to overturn a CFPB ruling.

The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is one of the strongest provisions in the Dodd-Frank legislation passed last year. The Bureau was created to consolidate the authorities responsible for consumer protection.

American consumers need a strong independent CFPB to police credit and payment markets and to put consumer protection first. The widespread economic crisis has threatened consumer wealth. The impact has reached consumers worldwide. Many Consumers lost their assets, incomes, and ultimately confidence.

Consolidating these regulatory authorities allowed the bureau to exert its influence and enforce consumer protections. With this newly defined power afforded to the CFPB came a new era of oversight. The CFPB has stopped unfair practices, protected the average consumer from fraud and abuse, and held big business accountable to prevent bailouts at the expense of the taxpayers.

The CFPB's Functions

The CFPB will look out for people as they borrow money or use other financial services by:

Implementing and enforcing Federal consumer financial laws;

Reviewing business practices to ensure that financial services providers are following the law;

Monitoring the marketplace and taking appropriate action to make sure markets work as transparently as they can for consumers; and

Establishing a toll-free consumer hotline and website for complaints and questions about consumer financial products and services.

My amendment empowers the CFPB and ensures that it will be able to issue rules that will protect the average financial consumer. H.R. 1316 as written empowers the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule regulatory measures passed by the CFPB with a simple majority, instead of the two-thirds majority in current law, this change to a majority vote will make it easier to weaken consumer protections for the CFPB. This will literally return control of rules governing financial products back in the hand of the very agencies that were not able to neither foresee nor offset the financial crisis we are currently recovering from. My amendment restores the 2/3's vote to overturn regulations of the CFPB and it restores the rights of the consumer.

A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card procedures and other consumer services.

Allowing the CFPB to set and enforce clear and consistent regulations is a fair and cohesive way to safeguard against the type of practices that contributed directly to the financial meltdown of 2008.

Cities and towns across the nation are still struggling to recover from the collapse of the housing market, and subsequent financial crisis. According to study of 20 metropolitan centers throughout America conducted in 2010 by the National League of Cities, Houston, where I represent the 18th Congressional District is still suffering an unemployment rate of 8.3%, and a foreclosure rate than has risen more than 60% since 2007.

I seek to restore the two-thirds majority needed to overturn a regulation issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to safeguard hardworking Americans from fraudulent practices, and predatory loans. This amendment will protect people like Chris from McKinney, Texas.

Let me just say as I yield to the gentleman, the ranking member and chairman at the time of passage of this bill, I was given a litany of ills that can attack consumers. I'm glad we have this board, and I'm glad that we are looking to restore the two-thirds oversight to protect these individuals and the nurse and the child. I ask support for the amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

My friends are back again, those that we have a great deal of respect for. And I am reminded of my colleague, Congressman Cummings, who mentioned the enormous amount of foreclosures that our military families experience.

Maybe we're not clear on what our new board really does, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let me make it clear. It makes prices clear; it makes terms and conditions clear; it ensures that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant, and understandable by consumers and lenders and military families; it lets consumers shop for the best product of that price; and it helps consumers understand the true cost of a financial transaction. It acts like a cop on the beat for our consumers. The Financial Stability Oversight Board has its role--to review the actions.

But let me tell you what this bill has just done. In the Dodd-Frank bill, it has been a defined time schedule for the review to take place. So if you are, in essence, hanging with a bad foreclosure or some bad actions, this oversight board can review quickly the decision that the consumer board did to protect you. But you know what has happened now? They have given the oversight board an indefinite amount of time. This is in the backdrop of undergraduates carrying record-high credit card balances, $3,173.

What my amendment does--it restores reality. It restores a definitive time, a time certain that the oversight board can review the regulation that has given you relief so that you can benefit from the consumer protection. Is that not a simple premise?

I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number #3 to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment will improve certainty with respect to Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) regulations by restoring current time limits in which the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) must review and act on a petition to overrule a CFPB regulation, and restores a provision allowing a petition to expire if the FSOC fails to act within 45 days of the filing of the petition or upon expiration of a temporary stay.

Under my amendment the FSOC chair may stay the effectiveness of a regulation at the request of a single FSOC member for 90 days. If the FSOC chair does not stay the rule, the FSOC must vote within 45 days of the date the petition is filed. If the FSOC stays the rule, the vote must be taken before the stay elapses. If a vote is not taken within these time frames, the petition is deemed to have been dismissed. This is a basic and reasoned approach to ensure that rules issued by the CFPB are reviewed in a timely fashion by the FSOC and will not result in an endless delay and an endless issuance of stays which would thereby render any CFPB rule ineffective.

Providing the FSOC with unlimited time to review CFPB regulations is yet another way in which this legislation undermines the authority of the CFPB and the necessity for consumer protection standards.

CFPB regulations enacted by the bureau are designed to protect the average consumer from fraud and abuse, and prevent financial institutions from employing unfair practices. This legislation would allow the Financial Stability Oversight Council to review regulatory measures passed by the CFPB without any time constraints. Under H.R. 1315, the FSOC can avoid making decisions, suspending CFPB regulations in the process, providing the FSOC with a method to circumvent the authority of the CFPB without being held accountable.

A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card procedures and other consumer services.

The collapse of the housing market in 2008, and the financial crisis that followed proved how intertwined our financial system is. When securities collapse, due to failing mortgages, credit becomes scarce and companies lay employees off. Losing a job and prolonged unemployment can lead to the loss of one's home. In order to truly safeguard against the irresponsible practices that led to the financial crisis of 2008, we need an agency, such as the CFPB, to ensure that consumers are protected.

It will protect consumers like Charles, who was forced to seek a loan from a small, private lending company he had never heard of. The company required a cosigner for the loan, and stipulated the cosigner had assets worth far more than the loan.

When Charles defaulted on the loan, the company went after his cosigner and his assets from the successful small business he owned. Despite efforts to modify the loan based on Charles' unexpected economic circumstances, the lender targeted his cosigner, resulting in devastating effects to his credit rating.

The predatory loan company went as far as to assign Charles a new loan to cover his debt, using the same cosigner, despite knowing that Charles had no way to pay either of the loans, effectively ruining the credit of both Charles and his cosigner.

If the FSOC is able to indefinitely delay the implementation of CFPB rulings, it greatly reduces the effectiveness of the bureau, and weakens the Dodd-Frank mechanism for consumer protection. We need this Bureau to safeguard the interests of consumers like George, a disabled veteran from Texas, whose doctor helped him apply for loan discharge, under the Disability Act.

A 100% disabled veteran, extenuating circumstances caused George to default on his loan; regardless, his request for loan discharge was denied. As a result of being denied a discharge, George, a registered nurse was not able to renew his nursing license. Which left George without a nursing license and thereby without a license he lost his ability to maintain a nursing position. A job as a nurse would have allowed George to have an income in order to pay back the loan. George found himself in a viscous cycle. George, a man who has honorably served his nation. A man who was wounded in battle . . . that George now a man who cannot pay his loan, cannot attain a license, and cannot find a high paying position. If George was educated on the consequences' of taking out a loan . . . he might have made a different choice. The Bureau gives financial consumers a frame of reference before agreeing to often confusing and convoluted loan schemes.

The CFPB would also prevent predatory companies from taking advantage of people like Carol. One day, while cleaning her home, Carol received a phone call from a debt management company. This company told Carol that they would be able to get her creditors to lower their interest rates, which would allow Carol to pay off her credit card, mortgage and car loan debt in a shorter frame of time.

Carol was told she would save at least $2,500 and would save much more. Carol was skeptical, especially when she heard the price was $499, but the salesperson assured Carol she would see lower interest rates within the first 30 days of the program and that these

savings would more than cover the fee. The company kept the initial fee, and drove her further into debt by doing nothing to attempt to find solutions to pay her existing debt. She had fallen victim to a scam.

I offer this amendment to ensure that the CFPB exists to enforce regulations to protect consumers, rather than an ineffective body that is used as a tool for political grandstanding. If we are serious about providing the American people with a protection mechanism, we must do so by way of action, not by telling the public what they want to hear.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have great respect for my friend from West Virginia, but I'm so glad she said 90 days. My friends, that is 3 months. They want to take away 90 days and put it forever. Almost like Dorothy, we're going to the Wizard of Oz, land of Oz, forever and ever and ever.

And so individuals like Michelle, whose home was damaged during the hurricane, who got costly repairs but had wage cuts and then found that their house might be in foreclosure, they sent a company $1,400. The company told them there was nothing they could do and they were foreclosed on. The Bureau, being able to protect them from that now, has oversight over positive regulation, and that oversight to review it or to eliminate it goes on and on and on while Michelle and her husband walk the streets.

Or Jacob, who wanted to just come as a retired mechanic to buy a CD. He wanted to speak to a financial advisor. He was talked into buying a $3,000 up-front fee. The man he talked to wasn't even in the bank. He only made $25,000. He wound up losing $12,000. They want Jacob to wait forever and ever and ever.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

I'm asking my colleagues to support this amendment, which restores a 3-month review. There are people in America that don't even know what their interest rates are on their credit card. The Consumer Protection Bureau will help that. We need oversight that is refined and defined to be able to protect the consumer.

With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Republican friends jumped for joy when they passed a draconian bill that would cut $6 trillion and jeopardize a lifeline for millions of Americans, and that is Social Security. We have all been referring to a President that endeared himself to this whole country, President Reagan. His letter to Senator Baker said: The Nation can ill-afford to allow such a result. The risk, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: The Senate must vote to raise the debt ceiling--in 1983 when the country was much smaller.

But what do we face here? Frivolous activity like Republican freshmen who, in their manner of affect, showing disrespect for the Office of the President. One Member said: ``I have a challenge for the President. I dare him, I double dare him to even think about cutting Social Security.'' What about the Member? Should he be dared to not cut Social Security? The Republican vote yesterday already cut Social Security. And you've just cut Social Security as Republican freshmen. Why don't we engage in negotiation and let the approach be negotiation and resolution--not obstruction. Why don't we engage in negotiation and work together as a Nation, as the American people want? I would like a little more respect from my colleagues for the President of the United States, President Barack Obama.

I thank the gentleman. And I want to associate myself with his very detailed and well-stated opening statement on this legislation.

I think the premise should be that all of us agree on the importance of the FAA. I have served as the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and now serve as its ranking member. Through that timeframe, I have seen the overlapping need to view particularly FAA's work and particularly air traffic controller work as part of both the safety and security of this Nation.

I remind my colleagues of the activist role that air traffic controllers in particular took during 9/11. During the massiveness of confusion and the loss of the destination or the placing of three of our major airlines and planes that were flying in, airplanes, the air traffic controller was really a team that was on the first response, if you will. So their work is enormously important.

And my colleague mentioned some numbers that I think are extremely important: $1.3 trillion is what we find as the revenue in the airline industry, 11\1/2\ million jobs, a 75 percent increase in employees within 20 years and 1 billion in the next decade. I want to say that this means that we have a great obligation to protect the American traveling public.

I also want to associate myself with the idea of not protecting our small airports and disadvantaging those airports by this legislation. And again I assume Chairman Rockefeller's comments play to that as well.

But I had offered an amendment that was sent to the Senate to establish a mandate that at the top 20 United States airports there should be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high-volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times.

Mr. Speaker, we engaged with the conference committee very diligently. We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep or being locked out of the control tower or, for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times.

Now, I know that air traffic controllers reflect the diversity of America and the various ills and concerns. We also know they have long concentrated hours and it's a difficult job. Just recently there was a question of whether or not an air traffic controller was inebriated on the job, whether he drank on the job or he came to the job, he or she, with this condition. But if that was the case and there was one air traffic controller there, there's zero. If that was the case and there were two, then there was one.

I thank the gentleman.

I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer and much more secure.

The American passenger has value. Those dear souls who lost their lives on 9/11 who were not exposed to this concept of terrorism had value. The American passenger is entitled to safety and security. Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives, babies, family members, businesspersons, associates, colleagues. They're American passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and security, I believe we need more than what is presently moving in this bill that has not come to the floor, and I believe we should move on with the conferees to be appointed because, as I said, I sent my language to the initial negotiation. We need to move on so there's an opportunity for us to work this idea.

But this is more than a study. We don't need another study. We have already seen the mishaps. On 9/11 we discovered the value and importance of these particular workers, and we now have discovered the problem.

I ask my colleagues to raise the question and to question this rule and this bill, or this extension, because we are putting our American passengers in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider yet another extension for FAA programs, I rise today to discuss a key issue that I urge the conferees on the FAA Reauthorization bill to consider.

Prior to H.R. 658 being sent to the Senate, I offered an amendment to establish a mandate that at the top 20 U.S. airports, there shall be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times. This is a matter of national security.

We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep, or being locked out of the control tower, or for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times.

I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer.

The American Passenger has value. The American Passenger is entitled to Safety and Security.

Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives and babies. They are American Passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and security we must insist that Air Traffic Controllers are vigilant. To ensure their vigilance we must set reasonable minimum standards.

After 9-11, we discovered the vital importance of protecting our domestic airspace. Air Traffic Controllers are part of the front line of defense to protect the ensure the safety of our air space. If they lose contact with a plane, they can alert authorities. If an Air Traffic Controller at a major domestic and international airport is asleep at the wheel who will make that call?

It is unfair to put the lives of American passengers at high volume airports at ANY time in the hands of one individual, who may at some point be incapacitated. Even pilots have co-pilots. What if the Controller fell ill? What then? What would you tell those passengers on the plane? Hope for the best? We need to provide the support that Air Traffic Controllers need in addition to the responsibility.

This language I support creates a mandate, that at all times there must be a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during hours of airfield operation. I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty overnight at National Airport. However, the Secretary's action simply evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, most airports operate 24 hours a day with two controllers in the tower for the midnight-to-6 a.m. shift. The operative word is ``most'', we must act to create a uniform nationwide standard, verifiable and enforceable by the FAA. Again, safety and security are mutually needed to protect the public. This mandate of 2 air traffic controllers on duty at the top 20 airports is vital to America's National Security.

I urge the conferees to adopt this important provision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the epidemic across America of voter suppression and requiring voter ID.

Do you realize that in almost every election in my own State of Texas there has been discrimination, intimidation to voters? Where we used to be able to use a birth certificate, a utility bill, government check, paycheck, and other documents, now we cannot because someone suggests that someone will steal someone's birth certificate to impersonate a voter. I don't think that's right.

What we need now is to eliminate the poll tax of the 21st century. Barbara Jordan recognized that voting is a right, not a privilege, and she stood in the gap to ensure that Texas was covered by the Voting Rights Act. Barbara Jordan would not be here today if we had the voter intimidation that we're seeing growing across America.

Eliminate voter intimidation by elimination of the oppressive voter ID requirement by returning to the standard and acceptable requirements such as birth certificates, current utility bill, government check which provide the protection to protect the vote so that seniors and others will not be stopped from voting.

Introduction

Good morning Members of Congress, Congressional Black Caucus Members. Today, we address an issue that disturbs the very foundation of our Nation; the right of each and every citizen to participate in electing their representatives in government. Enshrined in our Constitution by our Nation's founders, this fundamental right is the linchpin of our democracy.

Unfortunately, the right to vote was not recognized for all people in this country at its inception. Indeed, for the several decades after the signing of the Constitution, the right to vote belonged to white men who owned property alone.

Through a long-fought effort by dedicated activists, courageous legislators and judges, and with the gradual evolution of public sentiment, the voting franchise was extended by law to all white men, non-white men, women, native Americans, and then finally, to all citizens over the age of 18.

However, even though the right to vote was legally recognized for all citizens of age, there have always been sinister efforts to suppress the vote of certain citizens who were guaranteed the right to vote by the Constitution.

Through poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, intimidation and outright violence, voter suppression remained an agenda by those who do not believe in the principle of one person, one vote, and who seek to keep certain groups from participating in our democracy.

Voter ID

Voter photo identification legislation a recent phenomenon and the latest tactic of the voter suppression agenda. Only a decade ago, in any of our 50 states, a voter could set out on election Tuesday and be permitted to vote in his or her respective state without being required to present a photo ID to election officials

Alarmingly, since that time, 15 states have adopted photo ID requirements for voting. In fact, at least 34 states have introduced legislation requiring voters to produce photo IDs at the voting booth in this year alone. Seven states, including my home state of Texas, have adopted the strictest form of voter photo ID legislation with the fewest exceptions.

This raises the question: what caused these states to, after more than two centuries of holding elections without photo ID requirements, impose such a burden on voters? Proponents of these laws argue that voter identification fraud is an epidemic in America, while there has been little documented evidence. Voter impersonation fraud occurs when one person votes using the identity of another.

In order to obtain a state-issued photo ID valid under these statues, states often charge fees. Moreover the documents used for proof of identity in order to obtain photo IDs, such as birth certificates and social security cards, also cost money. When added together, along with transportation costs, the amount of money required to obtain an acceptable form of identification can be substantial for a citizen who lacks the financial means to do so.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, a Supreme Court case decided in 1966, outlawed the Jim Crow requirement that a citizen pay a poll tax in order to be allowed to vote in an election. (Majority Opinion by Justice Douglas)

In its decision, the Court said--quote--``We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.''

However, with voter photo ID requirements, those who would suppress the rights of citizens to vote would have vote a way to implement a backdoor poll tax. Voters without valid, non-expired state or federal government

issued identification documents will be burdened with the expenses of obtaining one of those prescribed forms of ID.

Because of the state's so-called ``rational basis'' for requiring photo identification in order to vote, Indiana's state photo ID law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Crawford in 2008.

The effects of such a ruling are unduly discriminatory and target specific groups of voters: low income voters, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, disabled voters, and college students. I will leave you to guess which party has been behind the concerted and overzealous efforts by state legislatures and governors to push these discriminatory bills.

Eleven percent of the population, or roughly 21 million people, do not have a government-issued photo identification document.

Nationwide, depending on the state, African-Americans are 2 or 3 times as likely as their white counterparts to lack government-issued photo identification. Nearly a fifth of our seniors do not have government-issued photo IDs.

We must remember that voting is a right under our Constitution, not a privilege. We must prevent this effort to turn back the hands of time in order to prevent eligible voters from exercising their Constitutional rights.

Texas

Now, I am sad to report that my home state of Texas has been the latest victim of the systematic effort to suppress votes all around America. In late May, Governor Rick Perry signed into law the Texas iteration of voter photo identification legislation, which was based upon the extremely restrictive Indiana photo ID law.

The history and current state of discriminatory voter suppression in Texas is so pervasive that any substantive change to its election law must be submitted by preclearance to the Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This makes Texas one of the 9 states in our country that must submit election law alterations, such as photo ID requirements, to the Department of Justice before the changes are permitted to take effect. The law is set to take effect in January next year.

Currently, Texas election law allows voters to use their birth certificate, a current utility bill, a government check, a paycheck, official mail addressed to them, and other documents in lieu of a driver's license issued by the state or a U.S. passport. These documents have long been sufficient in the state of Texas to prove one's identity for the purposes of voting.

However, once the new law takes effect, those alternative forms of identification will be unavailable to citizens of Texas. In fact, Texan voters will be unable to use their birth certificate, which is issued by the State of Texas, in order to vote.

Now, this fact is particularly revealing, especially in light of the purported reason for passing voter photo identification legislation, which is to combat a ``supposed'' widespread problem of voter impersonation fraud.

If we are to accept their argument that the voter photo ID laws are for the purpose of preventing voter impersonation fraud, then why not continue to allow people to use birth certificates? By banning citizens from using their state-issued birth certificates, we are required to believe the ridiculous and unfounded notion of people stealing other people's birth certificates in order to show up at an election to vote! Where is the sense in that? I don't know about you, but I have never heard a single case in which a person stole someone else's birth certificate and then showed up at the polls and voted as that person.

No, the fact that birth certificates were removed from Texas election law as a permissible form of identification reveals that voter impersonation fraud is merely a pretextual argument; a guise under which the real purpose of suppressing the votes of certain people can be achieved. That is something for which we cannot stand.

However, while a birth certificate is no longer good enough to prove your identity for the purpose of voting in the State of Texas, ``coincidentally'', the new law does allow voters to use concealed handgun licenses in order to be permitted to cast their ballots.

There is no doubt that the Texas Voter ID law was specifically crafted with the intent to impose new obligations on the rights of certain Texans to vote, while attempting to preserve the rights of other citizens they believe to be predisposed to voting a certain way.

This is wrong in the State of Texas, and it is wrong in America.

Conclusion

In the Harper Supreme Court case, Justice Douglas closed his majority opinion with these words: ``Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.''

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining, please.

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman. And I yield now to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Fudge and let me make a commitment to the American people that you can be assured that these Members of Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Tri-Caucus, will stand in the gap to prevent elections from being stolen and your fundamental birthright of voting from being stolen. That is justice, and we will be fighting for justice.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

I am just overwhelmed with the words ``breathtakingly arrogant policies.'' I am literally shocked, and let me tell you why.

When you want to understand, my Republican friends, why we're in the position we're in, what about the 37.5 percent of the debt being the Bush-era tax cuts of which this bill and any of your negotiations don't in any way suggest revenue?--which the American people understand.

Arrogant policies by the President? The Recovery and Reinvestment was only 5.2 percent, creating 3 million jobs. Let me say that again: 3 million jobs. The economic downturn came about with the Iraq war and others.

So, today, my friends come on the floor of the House with the Cut, Cap, and Balance. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me suggest to you that the amendments that were put in the bill have destroyed any sense of balance to the balanced budget amendment.

I have a new name for the bill, the bill which tap dances around the question of revenue and lifting the debt ceiling, which was done 60-plus times over America's lifetime with Reagan, Carter, President Bush and President Bush, and Clinton. So it's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the benefits bill.'' The losers are seniors and young people and those who need Social Security and those

who are disabled. Then, finally, instead of the balanced budget amendment, it is the bust the benefits of those who are in need and of the young people who are looking forward to a prosperous future and expanded opportunities in this Nation.

What do we need?--not the Cut, Cap, and Balance. It in no way invests in America. It in no way ends the tax loopholes that are part of our increasing debt. It will block the United States Congress from closing the loopholes of those who make billions of dollars every 3 months. We need innovation, infrastructure and education. That equals jobs.

Parents, I don't want to see the end of your children's opportunities by closing elementary and high schools and by disallowing them from going to college. That is what this bill is--not to cut, not to cap, not to balance. It's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the Benefits of the American People bill.'' Let me suggest to you that these are the losers of this bill. Don't support a bill that will cause the American people to lose the American Dream.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560, the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011,'' which attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by authorizing an increase in the debt limit while implementing spending cuts, caps on future spending, and requiring an amendment to the Constitution. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit, I cannot support a bill that is a clear attempt to enact the policies embedded in the Republican budget resolution and to then enshrine the Republican budget in our Nation's Constitution.

This bill should be called the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' It tap dances around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a responsible manner to pay our Nation's debt obligations. Our Nation will be joining the losers club by threatening to eliminate important social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell grants. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to focus on job creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our children, seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow our Nation in the future. H.R. 2560 has earned the name the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' I will call it that from this point forward, because that is what it is . . . when something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck . . . Call it a duck!!!! This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences!

I stand here today to state firmly that increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. They know that the ``Tap Dance Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' is not a realistic proposal.

The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised.

This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.

Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund.

If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question.

Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors.

Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on.

Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens.

As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market.

Republicans are attempting to place into our constitution the requirement that we balance the budget every year. In reality, achieving a balanced budget is not something that should automatically be required every year. For example, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending. A constitutional amendment requiring us to cut spending to match revenue every year would limit our ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance.

As it stands, H.J. Res. 1 requires spending cuts even deeper than those in this bill; in fact, it requires that spending be cut to the levels in the Republican Study Committee budget, levels that were so extreme that fewer than half of House Republicans voted for that budget. Finally, requiring a two-thirds vote to approve revenue increases creates a barrier to fixing inequities in our tax code by protecting more than $1 trillion in spending through the tax code-- spending that often benefits special interests, like owners of corporate jets--and well-to-do Americans.

H.R. 2560 cuts $111 billion in FY 2012, places firm caps on future spending, and is contingent upon House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

H.R. 2560, is yet another attempt to enact the policies that Republicans approved with their budget resolution this spring--to end the Medicare guarantee while continuing tax breaks for special interests and the wealthy. It requires immediate and steep spending cuts starting this October that will put more Americans out of work while the country is still recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression. It caps total spending--including mandatory spending programs, such as unemployment benefits, that are designed to grow when the economy is bad--for fiscal years 2013-2021 at lower percentages of the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP).

While it is clear that the country cannot continue on an unsustainable fiscal path, the bill limits spending to a percentage of GDP that the country has rarely achieved in the past. For example, the bill limits total outlays to 19.7 percent of GDP in 2018; outlays were at or below that level in only 12 of the last 43 years (from 1997 through 2004, and from 1969 through 1972).

Enforces the Republican budget resolution by limiting total federal outlays--including Social Security and Medicare--at the Republican budget's percentage of GDP in fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Automatic sequestration again would occur if the levels are breached. More immediately.

H.R. 2560 requires passage of a specific type of a so-called ``balanced budget'' constitutional amendment by both the House and the Senate before the debt limit can be increased. This new hurdle makes it even harder for Congress to increase the debt limit by August 2, which it must do to avoid fiscal calamity and higher interest costs for consumers and the government alike.

I thank the distinguished member of the Budget Committee as well for the great work that he has been doing.

As I listened to my friends discuss this question of being responsible, I want to at least announce breaking news that our friends in the other body have come up with a semi-solution on revenue and on the question of how we would cut. They are seeking to be responsible; and today in this body, we are not.

I heard a tutorial about the green light and the red light, which, as a Member, you understand green is ``yes'' and ``no'' comes up red. What the red will mean is to stop the insanity, to stop the loss of our moral compass, the responsibility to pay America's bills. What the green light will mean is that America, in fact, would not be paying the bills of our families. We wouldn't be paying Social Security; interest rates would spike; the U.S. dollar would decline; and our credit would literally go out the door. Being without responsibility is what we are planning to do. Then we will lose the ability to pay for the Medicare of American Seniors and would no longer keep America's hospital's open and doctors paid.

So don't be fooled by the green light tutorial. We, frankly, are going to lose our way. We'll close hospitals. We won't have the ability to provide for our seniors, and these are the very persons that my colleagues over here believe that they are helping. But the main point that I want to emphasize very quickly is that the Constitution of the United States already says that the validity of the public debt of the United States in the 14th Amendment, section 4, shall not be questioned.

Let me tell you today that a balanced budget amendment will destroy the United States, and it will not allow us to pay for those in need. Tap dance, losers' club, bust the benefits. That's what this bill is. Tap dance, losers club, and bust the benefits. That is what will happen to all of us. Americans like the friends and families of our military personnel will suffer.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard celebration just a few minutes ago regarding the passage of the Cut, Cap, and Balance that really should be named the Tap Dance, Establishing the Losers Club for Americans, and the Busting of Benefits for Americans bill, because what we are doing is tap dancing around the responsibility of this Congress to in fact raise the debt limit as we have done 60 times.

And, of course, we are establishing losers by the very fact that interest rates will go up, Social Security and other benefits, Medicare will be gone, U.S. credit will be downgraded and the Chamber of Commerce and hundreds of businesses will in fact be begging for us to lift the debt ceiling.

But, more importantly, we will cause America's lack of paying her bills to hurt families and businesses. And let me introduce you to the losers. Now that this bill has passed, welcome to the losers: soldiers and their families, their grandparents and mothers and fathers who are back here in this country while they are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today we just voted H.R. 2650 to in fact establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. What a shame. What a shame.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 33, ``The Church Plan Investment Clarification Act.'' This legislation will allow church pension plans to participate in collective trusts.

Collective trusts allow pension plans to combine assets to invest in various stock and non stock options. This provides pension plans an opportunity to diversify investment portfolios, while sharing risks and transaction costs with other pension plans.

Under current law, thousands of church pension plans are denied participation in collective trusts, rendering them unable to pool their assets and reap the benefits of collective buying power. Many churches, as a result, experience difficulties and incur expenses when diversifying pension plan investments.

I support the Church Plan Investment Clarifications Act to amend the Securities Act of 1933. Amending current securities legislation will broaden the existing exemption to collective trusts to include church pension plans. This bill will clarify that clergy and lay workers are able to invest in collective trusts, despite their unique tax status. The Act affords church pension plans the same securities law treatment that is extended to governmental plans.

Churches provide invaluable services to our communities. Across the Nation, church pension plans will benefit from this bipartisan bill, including churches in Houston, Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District. Churches such as the Bellfort Seventh Day Adventist Church, New Light Christian Church and the Community of Faith Church. This legislation will be of great significance to the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, the St. John Missionary Baptist Church on Dowling, the Brooks Hollow Baptist Church, and Houses of worship throughout our community and Nation.

These faith institutions in Houston, as well as throughout the country, will no longer have to individually bear the burden of high fees on investment transactions for their retirement plans. The clergy and lay workers that will benefit from this legislation have spent their entire careers serving others. The least we can offer in return is the opportunity for these pension plans to pool their resources in order to decrease costs associated with funding their retirement plans.

This bill is also supported by The Church Alliance, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the YMCA Retirement Fund, the Church Pension Group, and others. I thank my friend from Illinois for sponsoring this important legislation, and urge my colleagues to work together to pass the Church Plan Investment Clarification Act.

Madam Speaker, flying in today, our plane was delayed. I didn't have the opportunity to advance my support for H.R. 33, the Church Plan Investment Clarification Act of 2011. I want to acknowledge the sponsorship of Congresswoman Biggert and indicate that under current law thousands of church pension plans are denied participation in collective trusts, rendering them unable to pull their assets or reap the benefits of collective buying power. Many churches, as a result, experience difficulties and incur expenses when diversifying pension plans.

Our churches, our houses of worship provide invaluable service, and many of those in my own community--the Bellfort Seventh Day Adventist Church, the New Life Christian Church, Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, St. John Missionary Baptist Church on Dowling, Brookhollow, and many others, work throughout our community. We are blessed to have Lakewood Church in our community, as well, that works very hard, a church leadership that I've known for many, many years.

So this bill has been supported by the Church Alliance, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the YMCA Retirement Fund, the Church Pension Group, and others. And I thank my friend from Illinois, as I said. Churches do missionary work. Their workers need to have the ability to have their pensions.

And I close by saying there are those suffering in Kenya, they are dying, the Somalians who left because of the devastation of the drought, and I know our faith community wants us to do something about it.

I would like to thank the manager and chairwoman of this particular hour, sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, and for those of us who care, along with many of our members in the Congressional Black Caucus and in this Congress, I think it is important to note for our colleagues that there are many Members who truly believe in their heart that we can find a common path, a bipartisan path, and are in angst, if you will, because they want to represent their constituents in the best way possible in what seems to be the tyranny, in some instances, of the majority.

Frankly, I do believe in the democratic process. I believe that if you are a victor in elections, you have the right to define your agenda and to present it to the American people. But there's some instances where the American people call upon us to have those agendas set aside so that we can work for America.

So I want to thank the gentlelady for her great work on the Affordable Care Act. We are beginning to see many who never had access to health care begin to be, if you will, the beneficiaries of preventative care, the parity with mental health issues, more health professionals that we work so hard on in the Congressional Black Caucus, and of course, access to health care for those with preexisting disease.

But I want to talk tonight to reiterate some points that were made about the double-digit unemployment among African Americans and the 36 percent unemployment among youth and just make the point to the American people, to my colleagues, that no jobs bill has been put forward by our Republican friends, absolutely no job bill. This is now July 18. A supermajority is on the other side. They could do so much alone, without any votes from Democrats. Democrats have been pushing for a jobs bill.

The Congressional Black Caucus will be leaving out in a couple of weeks to visit cities all over America to not only say we care but to talk about jobs. This summer we were going to close city pools and community centers in Houston, with temperatures of 100, 105 degrees. I felt if we couldn't find public moneys, let's work to find private moneys. We were able to open over 10 to 15 community centers and pools in my congressional district.

For me it was being able to find resources, meaning that some came forward to give the resources, but, more importantly, it created jobs for youth who could be, if you will, lifeguards. As I visited these pools and talked to young people who would not have had a job, obviously a small measure, but to at least acknowledge the desperation that we have for jobs. As we go out as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we'll be embracing corporate leadership and others to have job fairs so that individuals can have it. Just a summer or two ago, I had a job fair in the teeming heat and thousands showed up, so much so that people were lined around the block.

Americans want to work. And in a bipartisan partnership, wouldn't it have been just great for Republican colleagues, no matter whether they're a tea party or no party, to come together and say the first act that we will engage in will be creating jobs. And out of that job creation comes growth. We've done a great job under President Obama, and we in the Democratic Party have done a great job. We've actually been creating private sector jobs every single month, and as well we did create 3 million jobs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment. That should be very clear.

And the loss of numbers or the bump in unemployment is, as our colleague indicated, for all of America, was because public sector jobs were being willy-nilly dispensed with--front liners, first responders, sanitation workers, teachers, firefighters, ambulance drivers--all over America by Republican Governors. They laid the people off en masse. In many instances, they didn't need to. There could have been ways to work it out. But they laid

them off en masse, and that gave the bump to the unemployment.

But where does that lead us today? And what I want to focus on is the fact that I want to make it very clear that members of the Congressional Black Caucus have supported many bipartisan efforts to turn our economy right side up. We have worked on infrastructure issues. We have supported transportation legislation to fix America's bridges, highways, dams, because we know how important it is. We have helped resolve our budgetary issues, our revenue issues. We have voted in unison in a bipartisan way for some legislation that may not have been in total agreement with many of our views but we did it for America. We voted for a balanced budget amendment that generated the Children's Health Insurance Program. And we need to continue to discuss this, where we are today, because we need to help the American people. And I've heard the concerns of my constituents.

Today, I was at an announcement of the use of neighborhood stabilization funds, where we work with Habitat for Humanity and open the door of houses for those who weren't ever able to have a house. Oh, you should have seen the excitement of those families. But the seniors there were asking me: Are we going to get our Social Security check?

You can't go anywhere in your district where people are not up in fury. They want to know how we can get this done.

I think it's important to note a little bit of history. Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the Federal Government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I and the growth of this Nation, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements. That's where this came from. This is not a Democratic idea. This is not the idea of President Barack Obama.

To address this need, the debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the Federal Government to be the umbrella on a rainy day, to come to the aid of Americans during emergencies, to be able to address the question of war and peace. This wasn't something we developed just to agitate Members who believe they are the fiscal hawks of all time, even more so than President Reagan, who understood that the government had certain roles.

Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress increased it over a hundred times. In fact, it was raised 10 times in the past decade, which includes the era of President George Bush and the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February of 2010, and it did so with the idea that we were working together.

We understand that we are at $14-plus trillion. There's no one who is happy with a growing debt. But many economists will tell you that a deficit is sometimes important to take care of a country's people. Who knows what is going on in Japan right now because they need to take care of their people. They need to ensure that those who are impacted by the tsunami and the earthquake and the nuclear implosion can be taken care of--the sick people, the displaced people. And when I say not knowing what's going on, we know that they are growing a deficit.

But our country is not like Portugal and Greece, and economists that we listened to 2 weeks ago said on the record that this Nation is not broke. Let me say it again, Americans. Don't be intimidated and frightened to believe that America is broke. We can solve this problem. The way in which we are able to address it, the assets that we have, will allow us to extend the cuts over a 12-year period. Every reasoned economist in America says you cannot cut our spending overnight; you cannot cut it. So Congress is entirely within its right to be thoughtful on this issue of the debt.

And it is also important to note that what makes us so strong is we have something called United States Treasury bonds, which have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or an investor can make. And other countries, including Americans, buy Treasury bonds. Our children are given Treasury bonds. For foreign nations and investors purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. This is constitutionally worded.

And so my friends who are drawn to the tea party are suggesting that we go straight to the brink. But when you go to the brink, as my colleague has said, you begin to shake the markets. They begin to shudder. And the impact comes to the hardworking American who has been so fiscally responsible that they have put away savings for their children's college, savings for themselves if they retire. They have been dutiful. They have been respectful. But what we will do is force this market to get so shaky that those savings may be jeopardized.

How can we do this--the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Tea Party? If it's a registered party or a group of people, if there are members who have come here wearing the banner, they can do nothing more than adhere to that.

So we are here on the floor tonight to look for compromise and reason and to say, in turn, with the proceeds from the bonds that the Federal Government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. That's us, the United States.

Let me remind everyone we have the largest economy in the world. America is not broke. We have to do better. We have to extend our cuts. We have to balance over a period of time, almost like a household, where they begin to try to analyze what they'll be able to pay and what they'll have to cut out. You've heard families say, We've stopped going out as much as we've gone out. There are unemployed persons who have to make more devastating cuts and go into their savings. That's why I say: Where is the jobs bill that the Republicans are supposed to put on the floor of the House? Where are the jobs? Somebody used to say in an advertisement: ``Where's the beef?''

So this week, my friends, we're going to be spending a whole week addressing the question of a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance. Before I just address to you who will be hurt on Cut, Cap, and Balance--it's a balanced budget amendment that came out of the Judiciary Committee of which I'm a member--I just want you to know that every State can stand up here and say that, but I want to put it on the record that it has come to my attention that:

Social Security beneficiaries in Texas, 3,440,442, likely will be impacted. The total number of Social Security beneficiaries in Harris County--that's where Houston, Texas is, which is the fourth largest city in the Nation and is a very diverse city--is 429,760, which might include SSI, which is for those who are in need of moneys because of their children or they're disabled. There are 780,000 seniors and individuals with disabilities in the metro area who are currently enrolled in Medicare--the lifeline of our seniors--and there are currently 145,000 individuals in the district, the 18th Congressional District, who are on Medicaid. It's interesting to note that the Medicaid issue has not even been discussed.

So here we have a week of Cut, Cap, and Balance. Frankly, the Treasury bond is in jeopardy. The marketplace of innocent, hardworking Americans who have saved and invested in those bonds, who owe nations around the world, who bought what they thought was a rock-solid investment are now teetering because we're willing to take this week to discuss a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance, which the President of the United States has already indicated that he intends to veto, and there's a question of whether or not the Senate will even address this bill. So we will spend our time wasting and debating so that someone can get a political mark.

Let me express my understanding of Members who need a political mark: I voted for a bill that will never pass and could never be a useful tool in the United States. You can go home, as you bang your chest, and suggest, I showed them. I told them what it was. I voted for the Cut, Cap, and Balance.

By the way, there is no doubt that this will possibly pass, because Republicans have a supermajority, but do you know what this is? This is playing political chicken. Who will blink? We have never played political chicken

with the raising of the debt ceiling. We have never put the American people in this jeopardy. We didn't do it to Ronald Reagan. We didn't do it to Jimmy Carter. We didn't do it to the first George Bush, a distinguished Texan. We didn't do it to President, as I said, Carter. We didn't do it to President Clinton. We didn't do it to President Bush, who was just in office, but here we are with President Barack Obama now at a time that we think we have to do this. This is based upon an ideological view that does not look to the American people.

So let me tell you who is hurt in all of this so that we can understand real people are involved. I'll just call this ``working Americans'' and this little one who will represent millions of children across America. This is who this will impact.

In the State of Texas, our Governor has already cut $4 billion from education. He actually took the stimulus money that was supposed to be for education. Governor Rick Perry decided to just snatch the moneys away and put it in a rainy day fund. It looks good when you're going to run for higher office to show off that you saved money. You haven't saved any money. You took the money out of the children's mouths. You're closing schools. You're closing school districts. You're taking away teachers. You're building up the class sizes. You're making our country second and third class in education while other countries are moving forward. So that's who we'll hurt.

Just take this little one who is not yet in school. This is a hardworking nurse, who represents working Americans. This is who will be hurt because, on the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill, though they say they are protecting Medicaid, Medicare and others, you're going to find out that we literally are not going to be able to run this country. My colleague came from Missouri. Everybody saw the tragedy of Joplin, Missouri. So the Cut, Cap, and Balance is going to hurt them. I'm going to call this the ``Tap Dance bill'' because they're going to be tap dancing around all the people who are going to be hurt.

Next who is going to be hurt are our military families. Now, they say that they're taking care of veterans' benefits, but this is active duty military. They need to be paid. They say they have classified or taken out the security. Well, have they taken out the grandmammas of these soldiers and their wives? Have they taken out the parents of these soldiers and their wives who need Medicare and Social Security? Have they taken out the sisters and brothers who need student loans? No.

So they're tap dancing around the fact that they say they're not hurting these people. It's not the Cap bill. It's the ``Tap Dance bill.'' That's what it's going to be. Then, rather than the Cut and Cap bill, they're going to organize the ``Losers' Club of America.'' We're going to open up a losers' club with what is going to go on on the floor tomorrow. The ``Losers' Club'' will be the American people-- children, seniors, college students, the jobs that we want to make through the infrastructure. How many people have driven on freeways and bridges and hit potholes? It's because America's infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.

So very quickly let me just say that, as these poster boards take their own life, the ``Losers' Club'' tomorrow is going to pronounce that we will be giving gifts to millionaires. They'll get $200,000 because the bill tomorrow is worse than the Republican budget. So the millionaires will get $200,000. Remember what I said. They call it the Cut, Cap, and Balance. I'm calling it the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust bill.'' So we're going to give millionaires $200,000 a year while seniors will be paying an extra $6,000 a year for their Medicare because it will bust Medicare as we know it.

Now, how did we get to where we are today? Why are we in this false status where people are saying, ``Don't raise the debt limit''?

We brought it on ourselves. The Republicans were in charge when the Bush tax cuts came in, and they never wanted to have it expire. That was a big fight when we came in and when the President came in. That was a big fight. Out of compromise, he said, Let's be fair. So you can see the Bush tax cuts are 37 percent of our debt--37 percent. So, to talk about why we're here, look at what the Republicans have done. Then you have the Iraq war--11 percent. So it's interesting that now they're going to be fiscally responsible, yet they're the cause of the debt.

Let me finish by just saying that I am glad to be here with the Congressional Black Caucus. I want to rename the bill as the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the American People bill''--bust the safety net for America. I want to thank the gentlelady by simply saying that I love this country, and I believe we can come together.

I have great respect for my colleagues who have a different view, but what I beg of them to do is to take the Constitution and cherish it like we all do. As to that opening part that says, ``we the people,'' we are now calling on Republicans and Democrats and members of the Tea Party who are in this Congress to be part of the ``we the people.'' Let us not in a frivolous manner take up the floor time that it is going to take to work on a bill that will never be signed and take it away from the resolution of the debt ceiling, which then causes the markets to go in a tailspin. I want to save the American people, and I, frankly, believe that we have the right to do so.

I will simply close by saying to you: Martin King, whose monument will open in just a few weeks, gave us a wonderful challenge--the time that he asked this Nation to believe in his dream.

And he gave us the further challenge of the night before his death. He indicated that he had been to the mountaintop, and he looked out and saw the Promised Land, an opportunity for all of us, no matter who we were, to have an equal opportunity in this country and to respect views but always look for the greater good.

But he said that he as a person, he didn't think that he would get to the Promised Land, but he knew that we as a people, we as Americans, would get to the Promised Land some day. I still believe in that dream and in that charge. And I am asking for my colleagues to work with us to be able to do that--this time on behalf of the American people.

I thank the gentlelady.

I want to thank her so very much for her leadership but I wanted to-- when I said the bust, I want to equate it to the balanced budget amendment. That is what this Cap, Cut, and Balance is; it is a balanced budget amendment.

But let me be very clear, because you said something very important. The balanced budget amendment, if it was passed, would virtually guarantee that future budgets would cut and end Medicare as well as drastically cut Medicaid, just like the Republican budget. The balanced budget amendment takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate to pass. It is almost impossible for it to pass.

And we are not like States where States do balance but they only have to take care of their State.

So in Joplin, Missouri, the floods, the tornadoes--and let me finish on this.

We served on Homeland Security. We have seen the death of Mr. Karzai's brother, his very close aide. We have seen Pakistani police officers shot down in a massacre by the Taliban. This is a very serious climate of terrorism in this world.

And the tragedy, the backdrop of 9/11 where we had to bail out the airlines, where we had to rebuild New York and other places, that is a responsibility of America. That's why there is a Federal Government. And if we are to play with this through the Cap, Cut, and Balance, the balanced budget amendment, we will be the tap dance, we will be the losers club, and we will bust the rights of Americans to call upon their Federal Government when they are in need.

This is not a time to play with the lives of Americans. I believe that we are ready to compromise but not to engage in frivolity when it is serious and when we have to do what the American people need us to do.

I am very glad to be with the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands tonight, but I couldn't leave the podium without emphasizing that homeland security cannot be undermined and diminished. It is extremely important and does well to serve and secure the American people. Let's do right by the American people.

Madam Speaker, I intended to vote ``aye'' on

the Schiff amendment on yesterday, July 14, 2011, to the Energy and Water bill that was under consideration. I incorrectly voted ``no.''