Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4876 settles a lawsuit between the Jicarilla Apache tribe and the county of Rio Arriba in the State of New Mexico. In 1987, the tribe challenged the validity of a county road located on land owned by the Apache tribe. In 2003, the tribe and the county entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims that were raised in the lawsuit. Accordingly, H.R. 4876 ratifies this settlement agreement and authorizes the conveyance of a portion of the Apache reservation to the county. Changes to the exterior boundary of the reservation will be made accordingly. As a result, this long-standing, nearly 20-year-old lawsuit will be resolved. I urge support for the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4876) to ratify a conveyance of a portion of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation to Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico, pursuant to the settlement of litigation between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico, to authorize issuance of a patent for said lands, and to change the exterior boundary of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation accordingly, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 56) to establish the Rio Grande Natural Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2430) to amend the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to provide for implementation of recommendations of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study, as amended.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We do thank not only Senator DeWine for his work on this but also Mr. Kildee from Michigan and also not only was our friend from Wisconsin a tremendous asset in being quarterback of the congressional team last week, but his quarterbacking this legislation through. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 2430 is an important piece of conservation legislation which would extend the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990. S. 2430 continues the coordination between the numerous management entities, Federal, local, regional, State and tribal, involved in the Great Lakes region. In addition, the bill will continue the efforts to improve and restore fish and wildlife resources and important habitat areas. S. 2430 is sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine, and I commend the senator for his tireless leadership on behalf of the Great Lakes region and, in particular, his Ohio constituents. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I also urge support for this and would thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. But I can't recognize my dear friend from Oklahoma without commenting that he has also got Texas ties that we are proud of. Madam Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5690 simply makes a technical correction to section 305 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. The Act provided for a land exchange between the Ouachita National Forest and private lands but did not establish the new boundaries for the National Forest. This bill remedies the problem by adjusting the National Forest boundary and also allowing future land management adjustments to proceed without the continuing need for future boundary adjustments. I urge support for this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5690) to adjust the boundaries of the Ouachita National Forest in the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina, the gentlelady, Ms. Foxx. Thank you for yielding and thank you for the time you have taken tonight to talk about our national security issues. As always, you are most impressive. If someone didn't know before, they might know, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlelady from North Carolina is a teacher, is an educator, and then, of course, got forced to being president of a school. But, anyway, from someone who bore that great title of teacher, it is an honor. Mr. Speaker, there are so many people in our country that want to blame America first. They think America is the cause for so much of the ills in the world, when the fact is that this is the Nation that has brought about freedom all over the world. We have some people in the world say America is a bunch of imperialists, when the fact is no nation in the history of the world has helped so many countries obtain the right to rule themselves. If we were imperialists, France certainly wouldn't be speaking French anymore. Germany wouldn't be speaking German anymore. Countries around the world, including in the Middle East, would not be speaking their native tongues. They would be speaking English. But that is because we are about freedom and allowing people to reach their God-given potentials. I started something last week, and it continues this week, and that is, although there are those who seek to blame America first, and we have had people that have stood right here on this floor, a former Marine accusing Marines of being cold-blooded killers and the military covering things up without a trial, without a charge being made. It just seems with all the blame going around and being made that we need to recognize those who were willing to do what Jesus himself said, which was show the greatest love. As he said, greater love hath no man, no one, than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Certainly he would know. But the U.S. military has been faced with tremendous challenges since September 11, 2001. Fortunately, we are blessed to have an exceptional fighting force that is full of troops that are ready and eager to rise to the challenge. As an example, and this is what I started last week, every day we are in session I want to recognize someone who has received one of our Nation's highest honors and what they have done. This is the America that the world should acknowledge. This is the America that this body should acknowledge, the true heroes who put others above self. That is the example of Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester. She made history last year when she was the first female soldier to receive the Silver Star since World War II and became the first female ever to be cited for close combat. The Silver Star, as many of you may know, is awarded for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force. On March 20, 2005, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester was serving in the 617th Military Police Company. It is a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Kentucky. Her squad was shadowing a supply convoy south of Baghdad near Salman Pak when about 50 insurgents ambushed the convoy. Sergeant Hester's squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Sergeant Hester herself led her team through what is known as the ``kill zone'' and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade launcher rounds. Sergeant Hester and her squad leader, Staff Sergeant Timothy Nein, then cleared two trenches, at which time she killed three insurgents with her own M- 4 rifle. Her actions saved the lives of numerous convoy members. When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded and one was captured. Many, many Americans were saved in the process. Sergeant Hester was only 23 years of age at the time of her action. She was born in 1982 in Bowling Green, Kentucky, later moved to Nashville, Tennessee, and she joined the National Guard in April of 2001. These are the people that we need to honor and recognize, and cease playing the blame game. We would encourage all of our colleagues to begin looking for the good, because, as Abraham Lincoln said, if you look for the good in people, you truly will find it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for the great good she is doing.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate your calling attention to so many of these important issues. We have heard today that there is an agreement between the White House and the Senate on the issue of interrogation. It has amazed me, Mr. Speaker, that so many people that work here in the Capitol, most of them down at the other end, have not understood what really goes on. You would have thought, especially someone who had been a POW, would understand what people like my hero, former POW Sam Johnson, understands, that, as he has pointed out to me, Korea signed on to the Geneva Convention, Vietnam signed on to the Geneva Convention, they did not observe it at all. Yet we had people in this Capitol saying, gee, we have got to be careful because it might cause mistreatment of our troops. All you got to do is look around, look at the news, read the news. Our troops have been, are being, mistreated. When you stick a knife and cut the guy's throat and head as he is screaming, that is not somebody that observes the Geneva Accords. We don't do that kind of thing. We never have, never will. But we are in a war for our survival. One of the things that has probably amazed my friends on this side of the aisle is we have heard even from a former marine lambasting current active duty marines as being cold-blooded killers, as saying the Defense Department is all engaged in this coverup. They need to give credit where credit is due. I spent 4 years in the Army, and I can tell you having visited troops around different spots in the globe and the country, we have the best fighting forces, men and women, ever in our history; and they deserve better treatment than they have been getting. Oh, yes, we hear, oh, we support our troops, and in the same breath turn around and lambaste them. So if it would be permissible, I would like to pay tribute to one more. I did this last night, a man that won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery and heroism. I would like to pay tribute right now to another gentleman. I have been asking for information on people that won our Nation's highest awards, to pay tribute, as a contrast to what some of our friends across the aisle have done in lambasting and criticizing so unfairly our troops. Tonight, I would like to recognize another true American hero. On October 28, 2005, Dallas native Captain Joshua Glover was presented this Nation's third highest award for valor in combat, the Silver Star Medal. The 2001 Naval Academy graduate received his award in Washington, D.C. from the commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael Hagee. Glover received the award for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as 81mm mortar platoon commander with Weapons Company and quick reaction force platoon commander, 1st Marine Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on April 13, 2004, in Fallujah. That morning, First Lieutenant Josh Glover led and directed his platoon through enemy lines to recover classified material from a downed CH-53 helicopter. As the sun came up, they started receiving incoming fire, including a mortar fire explosion that created three casualties. With wounded marines, Glover got permission to return to base. On the way back, the convoy ran into between 30 and 40 insurgents hiding in reeds, irrigation ditches and standing by the road firing from the hip. As they plowed on, one of the Humvees was hit, wounding several more marines, which also included one fatality. Running on flat tires, the convoy made its way back to base, only to be sent out again 7 hours later. Despite losing one of their own that morning, Lieutenant Glover's marines were ready to go again under his command. About 15 marines were trapped behind enemy lines after insurgents hit their amphibious vehicle with several rocket-propelled grenades, killing one marine and wounding two others. Under heavy insurgent fire, a rocket-propelled grenade, or an RPG, was shot at Glover's vehicle at close-range and thankfully missed. Glover and his marines found themselves up against a company-sized Iraqi force along the enemy's main line of resistance where as stated in the Silver Star citation: ``He repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire as he engaged enemy targets at point-blank range while directing the rifle platoon's relief and coordinating recovery operations.'' Ultimately, Lieutenant Glover and his marines fought their way through to the marines trapped and were able to get them and the slain marine's body out. When asked about the war, Lieutenant Glover humbly diverted attention away from himself and said, ``I received this award because of something we did as a platoon. I am really proud of what we accomplished that day.'' He said, ``When you are in combat, I think you do it for your fellow marines. You know you got 60 reasons why you have got to do it well.'' While the battle for which Glover was awarded was a success, he feels the enormity of the price that was paid. ``I lost a marine that day, as did another unit in the battalion. We cannot separate the victory from the loss, and I think we need to do our best to make them and their families proud.'' In addition to the Silver Star, Captain Glover has also received two Purple Hearts, a Navy Achievement Medal and a Navy Commendation Medal, both with combat distinguishing device for valor. He served three tours in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand here tonight and share this story of heroism, bravery and humility. Josh Glover, like so many others fighting alongside him, represent the best of the best. That is the kind of story America needs to hear, not predetermined judgment of our fine troops. They deserve our support, not just in lip service that, oh yes, we support the troops, but are they ever a bunch of cold- blooded killers. That is not support. That is both condemnation and hypocrisy. So it is an honor to stand here with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and pay tribute to our troops. They are not only protecting freedom, they are spreading freedom, and we ought to thank God for them, as we do, and thank God for our freedom, thank God for our liberty, and thank God for the opportunity all of us have to serve.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there are some that come before this body, come to this floor and like to play the blame America first. Let us play the blame game, blame America first. We have had people come here, and even a former marine came to this floor and called Active Duty marines cold-blooded killers who had not been tried, who had not been even charged, and, as I understand it, not even charged today, accused people of coverups. There is so much good in the United States military services. It deserves to be addressed. The members of our military deserve accolades. Having spent 4 years in the United States Army, I can tell you that these members serving now are some of the best that have ever served in the United States armed services. So rather than blame America first, as so many want to do, I thought it would be more appropriate to come to the floor and talk about heroes of our American military, people of whom we are proud. Now, you are going to end up hearing me do this quite a bit from here on. We have asked for information from the Department of Defense about people who have won honors for their heroic acts, and so I want to present to you tonight about Sergeant First Class Paul Smith. He served with Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia, during the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. On April 4, 2003, Sergeant Smith was setting up a temporary enemy prisoner of war holding area during the seizure of Saddam International Airport when his unit came under attack. Smith kept his soldiers focused during the fight while engaging the Iraqi force of around 100 men with his M16, one hand grenade, and an AT4 antiarmor weapon. At one point in the battle, Sergeant Smith manned a .50-caliber machine gun in the exposed turret of a damaged M113 armored personnel carrier and began firing at the main force of the enemy. He fired about 400 rounds of ammunition, which gave his soldiers time to regroup, time to mount an attack of their own. And when the shooting stopped, the Iraqi force had been defeated. Unfortunately, that was not before Sergeant Smith suffered an enemy bullet to the head. Two years to the day later, Sergeant First Class Paul Smith's 11- year-old son David was presented this Nation's highest honor, his father's Medal of Honor, by President Bush. The President did not fall short on recognizing the significance of Sergeant Smith's heroic actions. He said, ``Sergeant Smith gave his all for his men. Five days later Baghdad fell, and the Iraqi people were liberated. We count ourselves blessed that we have soldiers like Sergeant Smith.'' Jesus said, ``Greater love hath no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.'' Sergeant First Class Paul Smith laid down his life for all of his men, for his country, and we are the better for it. May God bless Sergeant Smith, his soul, his family, his soldiers. And may God continue to bless America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. There are many now who want to blame our current President and the Secretary of Defense or the prior President and his hapless administration for the brutal 9/11 attacks. There were certainly things that could have been done better over the last 30 years, but playing the blame game now can cause us to lose sight of the following truth: No U.S. President destroyed our buildings on 9/11. No Secretary of Defense killed innocent people on 9/11. Those acts of hatred were committed by terrorists, by jihadists who want to destroy, pure and simple, our way of life. An example on September 11, a brilliant mathematician from Tyler, Texas, Brian Jack, was a Ph.D., worked for the Department of Defense. He, ironically that day, left and did not go to the Pentagon. He went and got on an airplane. Yet evil, terrible men hijacked that airplane and flew it and crashed it into the very spot where he would have been working, killing him. That, my friends, was an act of war. We should not be blaming any American for it. Brian, and all of those who died that horrible day, deserved better. We need to unite now. We need to recognize that terrorist Islamic extremists killed Americans and are at war with us. We must weigh into that and blame them, go after them and not each other. Bashing our leaders, instead of showing our brutal enemies our steadfast resolve, is truly the hobgoblin of little minds. That is putting the desire for a new Speaker or other leaders above pursuit of our mutual and destructive enemy. Our protectors deserve to be honored, not slandered. They deserve to have people come to this very floor of the House of Representatives and rave about every medal won, about every good deed, about every life saved by our servicemembers and not verbally abuse themselves. Remember September 11, the feelings you had that day. Most of us did not see the first plane crash, but we were horrified to see a second plane crash and then to see the results of a plane flying into the Pentagon, and then to hear about a missing plane over Pennsylvania. We began to see what looked like clothing falling off the top of the tower, the Twin Towers, and then we realized to our horror, O Father God, there are people in those clothes. Then we wept to realize the true depth and the destruction occurring. At the end of that day, no one believed we would go 5 years without having another act of terror. Do you remember the day after September 11? Do you remember when so many of us came together and held hands and prayed and sang praises. That is the America that will defeat our foes. But you remember that day, September 12, there were Euro Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, these were all, we were just Americans. There were no hyphenated Americans. That is the America I want for my children and their children. That is the America that will defeat all foes, foreign and domestic, and that is what will allow God to continue to bless America

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 5 minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we hear people across the aisle talk about, gee, a rubber-stamp Congress. Well, I can point to you, that is the reason there is no immigration or border bill right now is because this is not a rubber-stamp Congress. The President wants some things that we simply cannot provide. But when we talk about the allegations about Republicans or the President shredding the Constitution, let me tell you, he does not shred the Constitution. He has sworn to protect it, and I am proud that people who want to destroy the way of life that we have in this country, people that believe that freedom and democracy and self- government is a terrible thing, they think that that leads to debauchery and degradation, and therefore, you need some holy ayatollah that tells you everything you can or cannot do, that sends women back to being chattels as they never should have been but still are in some areas of the world, that is what they want to do to this country. They want to destroy people. They want to kill us, and we have a President that understands that. Now, across the aisle we have some folks who want to be part of the blame America first crowd. They want you to know, gee, we are so bad, we are so terrible, look at Abu Ghraib. I asked my good friend Sam Johnson that serves here in the Congress what he thought about if he had been given a choice between the absolute horror that he went through in the North Vietnam prison compared to what happened at Abu Ghraib. It was a no-brainer. What happened there was abuse. The people have gone to prison. They have been punished. What happened to American prisoners in North Vietnam, North Korea, what happened to American prisoners among those killers, those just blood-sucking, killing democracy, wanting to destroy people, terrorists, jihadists, cutting our people's heads off with dull instruments on camera, and that is who you want to embrace? There are even some people here in Washington that before Saddam went down, he flew over there. Never mind that Saddam was a murdering, blood-sucking thief who killed thousands and thousands. We go over and embrace Saddam and then come back and call our President the one in the wrong? My goodness, the blame America first crowd. Those who want to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for the terrorist acts have missed the whole point. Since 1979 there has been a war going on. We just did not know it. We had a President then who allowed an act of war under international law, the attack of our embassy in Iran, to go unpunished, and for over a year, all we did was beg them to please release our hostages. It sent a bad message. We were hit again in 1983 with the barracks. We were hit all through the 1990s with acts of war, including the first attack on our own continent at the World Trade Center in 1993. What did the Democratic administration and Democratic Congress do? Well, they wanted to prosecute them in civil court here in America instead of treating it as an act of war. This President understands we are in war. Now we have a Supreme Court that has expressed concerns about Guantanamo. I went to Guantanamo, and having been a judge and chief justice, I have toured a lot of prisons. That was the nicest prison I have ever visited where the prisoners are being kept. But you know what we noticed? We were told do not let the prisoners hear you because they will think you are with the Red Cross or somebody. One of the people with us, and they heard somebody there and they started all of sudden going from laughing and being giddy and funny between themselves to, oh, please help me, I am being tortured and all this baloney. Well, they are playing to the crowds. That was obvious. I would submit if the Supreme Court is all that concerned, we need to put that hurricane fence back around the Supreme Court building that was there during construction recently and move those people from Abu Ghraib so they can watch them directly and they can look out their windows, maybe let them use their restroom facilities so they can supervise more closely what this administration is trying to protect us from. You cannot blame President Bush and Rumsfeld for the current terrorist attacks unless you are squarely willing to put the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration because that is when it was planned, that was when it was prepared and almost completed, and then it carried over and was finished during this administration. This President saw it for what it was, an act of war that had to be addressed. The price for liberty, as our forefathers said, is eternal vigilance. We cannot keep blaming America first, as our friends across the aisle want to do. We have to recognize, as this President and this Secretary of Defense has, we are in a war against us, and we finally have an administration that recognizes that and is out to protect us and protect the Constitution. Thank God for this democracy and those protecting it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard recently from our friends across the aisle that supposedly George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are responsible for the terrorist attacks that have been going on. If you believe George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are responsible for the terrorist attacks that are occurring, then you have to absolutely believe that Bill Clinton caused 9/11. There is no other choice, because we know unequivocally that the planning for 9/11 occurred during the 1990s when Bill Clinton was President. Though Bill Clinton may have been guilty of many things, he was not guilty of bringing about this kind of horror. Yet, they plotted and planned while he was President. If you look at the areas and causes for which Bill Clinton committed troops, it was generally to help Muslims. He was the most friendly President to Palestinians in history. He did nothing to deserve 9/11 being plotted during his presidency. Yet it was. So, the current President understands that we are in a war for our survival and we cannot walk away from it. The terrorists want to take us back to the Dark Ages. This is a fight we cannot walk away from unless we are prepared to go to the Dark Ages. Thank God for George Bush and Don Rumsfeld. They understand that since our first attack in 1979, we are in a war for survival.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the concern about the Constitution is certainly worthwhile, but when it says very clearly Article III, section 2, that in all other cases except those specified or mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make, it also allows us to set the jurisdictions of the local courts. So, clearly, this is something that is constitutional to take up. As an old judge and a former chief justice of an appellate court, those things are important to us. Our friend from New York indicated that it seems like some of us do not have much faith in the Supreme Court, and he is right, some of us do not. I would submit to you that while they are lingering under this infirmity or disability of being prepositionally challenged, that this is a good issue to take up and to remove jurisdiction on. For example, in the 10th amendment it says all the things not specified are reserved to the States and to the people. The Supreme Court seems to think that means reserved from the States and from the people. They are prepositionally challenged. They think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. There is so much rewriting of history, the separation of church and state. It is not in the Constitution. That is in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists about not specifying a specific denomination, and at the same time Madison wrote the first amendment, Jefferson wrote those words in a letter, they came to church, a nondenominational Christian church, right down the hall in Statuary Hall. For about 60 years there was a church down there. So the question before us is, is this an issue we want to remove from the Supreme Court's consideration until they remove or are able to overcome the disability of being prepositionally challenged? I certainly think it is.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that we were trying to propose some time back when this was about to first come up because I felt like, as we all know, there is racial discrimination and it still goes on. We need to fix it. And I thought my amendment should apply across the board. But the reason I have not continued to push that, and after a number of sleepless nights of reading cases, I believe Mr. Norwood's language is better. It is a misnomer to say his applies across every jurisdiction. It will only apply to jurisdictions where there is racial disparity and discrimination. Why shouldn't we want to eliminate those? The big elephant in the room that people seem to be unwilling to notice is, there is an emerging equal protection argument here that could destroy the whole Voting Rights Act, and that is, you are having States here and jurisdictions that have discrimination who are going to ram this down on areas who have improved so dramatically they are better off than some of those doing the cramming down on them. That is going to raise an equal protection issue that puts the whole act in jeopardy.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the leadership for making this amendment in order. It is a simple amendment. It just changes the reauthorization period so that it comes up again for review in 2016 rather than in 2032. The Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, and at that point the original framers and drafters of this important act had it authorized for 5 years. In 1970 Congress extended it for another 5 years. They realized the importance of constant review of this important act. And then they adjusted the coverage at that point since the evidence showed that there was ongoing and new discrimination. Then in 1975 Congress extended the act for 7 more years. It appears that Congress was getting a little more lazy in their obligation to continually monitor this act. So in 1982 Congress amended the act by providing that Congress ``reconsider'' the administrative provisions of the act in 1997 and the provisions expire in 2007. So even as lazy as they got, they still said we had better review this, reconsider it in 15 years. So we went from 5 years to another 5 years to 7 years and then to 15 with reauthorization at 25. And now this bill proposes another 25. My amendment would simply shorten that period to 10 years from now because I believe there is empirical evidence that shows that this act needs to be reviewed much more often. The Supreme Court has unequivocally established that they will regularly change the playing field and regularly change the rules. Two recent independent studies have found the following to be true: that in Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina, States covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, African Americans now are registered to vote at higher rates than Caucasians. In Texas and Arizona, States that come under the Voting Rights Act in 1975, and although there are still gaps in Caucasian and Latino voter participation, the gaps are smaller than in the noncovered States such as California and New Mexico, which have a comparable Latino population. And then, finally, in States covered by section 5, the percentage of African American elected officials is actually much higher than in nonsection 5 States even where there is a higher African American population. That shows that this does need to be relooked at. I would actually prefer to do like the original framers proposed, and actually did, and have it reviewed in 5 years and then the next in 5 years. But I am also realistic. I realize that a 5-year would not pass and actually it does not get us past considering the next census data; so we are proposing 10 years from now. Mr. Chairman, we need to review this act again sooner than 2032 to be sure that the Voting Rights Act of all individuals are being protected and if the formula needs to be readjusted in 2016 so that areas experiencing racial disparities in voting can fix those problems, and even then you would have a 10-year history that would satisfy all this concern I keep hearing about constitutionality of changing things. If there are additional areas where there are increased racial disparities, they need to be addressed. Some should even be addressed now, but indications are that some jurisdictions that are in need of section 5 protection will refuse to fall under the act while cramming it down again in areas that are actually in better racial condition regarding racial disparity. This, of course, again, risks constitutional issues of equal protection, all of which point to a need for review in far less than 25 years. I would also like to finish by saying that this is far too important a piece of civil rights legislation not to force reconsideration before 2032. The right to vote is a lynch pin of our Republican form of government. Its protections should not be rejected or neglected for 25 years. I still look forward to the day when we can actually live Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream where individuals are actually judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. The Voting Rights Act has done a great deal of good. It has. Why would we neglect our responsibility to continue to monitor and to get it right, make it better, rather than making it punitive and neglected for too many years? I do have grave concerns. And I understand your position is you think this is a poison pill. You think we are trying to do something that may create problems for the Voting Rights Act vote. I can assure you that is not the intent here. It has done some good. I would like to continue to see it do good. But I am telling you, you are raising issues by not addressing it more often. So until we have the dream Martin Luther King had, then we should not neglect our obligation to monitor and reconsider what the initial drafters saw as a temporary measure for 5 years. And I thank you for the ability to come before the floor. I appreciate the Rules Committee. I appreciate the chairman's pushing such an important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.