Hakeem Jeffries

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for his very astute observations. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on this Special Order?

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Representative Horsford. And as was noted earlier, the CBC believes that there are children all across America, in many inner-city communities, certainly in the neighborhoods that I represent back home in Brooklyn and places like Bedford-Stuyvesant and east New York and parts of Coney Island, where the public school system has failed them for decades, generation after generation after generation subjected to a broken public school system, from a very early point, all the way through high school. And unless we invest in turning these broken systems around, we're essentially at risk of dooming young people to life sentences of disadvantage and despair. That's why the CBC supports the President's proposal in his budget to invest an additional $75 billion over a 10- year period, as Representative Horsford indicated, in early childhood education to make sure that we give every American child the opportunity to be successful by putting them on an even plane with those who get the benefit of a first-rate public or private school education. I want to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, another dynamic member of the freshman class, Representative Donald Payne, Jr., who was a leader on education issues prior to arriving in the Congress, and he's continued to demonstrate leadership in this area and in other areas moving forward.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank Representative Scott. We both sit on the Judiciary Committee, and in the context of our service on the Judiciary Committee, we will be presented with an opportunity to deal with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Already two hearings have been held on this matter. One of the issues that has consistently come up is the need to increase the number of H-1B visas for highly skilled immigrants in the STEM field--science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The technology-and-innovation economy and sector in this country have taken off, and there are actually opportunities. Some estimate approximately 20 percent of the workforce has openings in the technology-and-innovation sector that many would like to see filled by opening up the opportunities for highly skilled immigrants. It's an approach that I think shares bipartisan support. But, simultaneously, many of us believe that, as a country, we must also invest in STEM education for our children and our young people to make sure that, moving forward, they have the opportunity to develop careers in the STEM fields in a manner that will benefit themselves, their families, their communities and, by extension, the country. And so before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, I believe that Representative Horsford had an observation or two to make in the area of the need to invest in STEM education.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentleman from the Silver State for those very astute observations. As Representative Horsford has pointed out, a budget essentially is a choice and a pathway forward that people in this Chamber are making decisions on based on what they see as best for America. And the Republican budget that was passed by this House, as Representative Horsford has indicated, in total would cut $168 billion in spending on higher education. That's a value choice, to walk away from young people in America, young people who already are being saddled with in excess of $1 trillion in debt in total. Now, what else does that budget do? Well, it says that we're going to take the top tax rate, which is 39.6 for millionaires and billionaires, the wealthiest and the well off, and we want to slash that tax rate down to 25 percent. So we're going to cut education spending for, among other reasons, to cut further the taxes paid by the wealthy and the well off in this country. That is a choice that is bad for America. It's bad for the middle class. It's bad for working families, and it's bad for our future. We have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, an expert in all matters pertaining to the budget in this Congress, among other things. Representative Bobby Scott is an expert on the CBC budget, in the budgets that have come out of this House of Representatives, and it is my honor and privilege to now yield to him.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your recognition. Under ordinary circumstances, I would stand before you today as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, where for the next 60 minutes the CBC would speak directly to the American people about an issue of significance that the country is confronting. However, today, as a result of the extraordinary events that occurred a few hours ago in Boston, Massachusetts, there is no issue that is more significant than standing with the people who participated in the marathon, those runners and those observers and those first responders, who were victimized earlier today. As President Barack Obama mentioned, this is a moment where we're not Democrats or Independents or Republicans; we're Americans. We're not Blacks, Whites, Latinos, or Asians; we're one today. And as representatives from 43 different Congressional districts across the country, the CBC would like simply to extend our thoughts and our prayers to the family members of those who died earlier today. We want to extend our great sympathies and our best wishes to those who were victimized, and we are praying for full and complete recovery. We also, of course, want to extend our thanks and our heartfelt gratitude to those first responders who, once again, demonstrated courage under fire and bravery in the face of dangers that were seen and unforeseen. Now, America is a great country, and whatever is revealed about the attacks that took place earlier today, we're confident that we have the resolve to continue to move forward as strong as we always have been. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and throughout World War II, Americans demonstrated great resolve. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, in the face of the possibility of nuclear catastrophe, Americans demonstrated great resolve. In the face of the uncertainty that followed the horrific Oklahoma City bombings, Americans demonstrated great resolve. And of course in my home city, the great city of New York, and all across this country in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, America demonstrated great resolve this time. No matter what the circumstances reveal about who was behind what took place earlier today, we're confident that America will continue to show tremendous resolve. Our spirit will not be broken. We're confident that law enforcement will identify those responsible for what took place earlier today and bring them to justice. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his leadership. We are at a fork in the road and there are two stark choices. The Democratic plan promotes progress for the many; the Republican plan promotes prosperity for the few. The Democratic plan will put Americans back to work; the Republican plan will put Americans out of work. The Democratic plan takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction; the Republican plan will balance the budget on the backs of children and working families and seniors and the sick and the afflicted. Whenever we make that observation, our friends on the other side say that we are trying to scare the American people by communicating misinformation. It's a very cute observation, but it has no factual basis. Let's just check the record. The Republican plan cuts higher education spending by $168 billion. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality. The Republican plan embraces $85 billion in random sequestration cuts that will cost the economy 750,000 jobs. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality. The Republican plan will cut spending on Medicaid by $810 billion--a program, by the way, that disproportionately benefits poor children, seniors, and the disabled. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality. The Republican plan will turn Medicare into a voucher program, but because that voucher will not keep up with the cost of health care inflation, it will deny beneficiaries what they are receiving today. That's not a scare tactic. That's reality. And that is why the Republican plan is designed to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society, and it should be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, this is decision time in America. We are at a fork in the road, and we have an opportunity to go in either one of two directions. In one direction, the Democratic approach, we can take a balanced approach to dealing with the economic situation that we find ourselves in and our deficit. The other direction, the GOP approach, is to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable amongst us. The Democratic plan will put Americans back to work. The Republican plan will put Americans out of work. It's decision time in America. We can go in one of two different directions. Now, a balanced approach to deficit reduction has at least four elements to it: First, invest in the American economy. Second, increase revenues by closing corporate loopholes that are unfair, unreasonable, and unnecessary. Third, we can reduce expenditures in a manner that is sensitive to the fragile nature of our economic recovery. We must reduce expenditures in a way that recognizes we still have a long way to go in order to recover, and the meat-cleaver approach advocated by my friends on the other side of the aisle will not make the decision better; it will just make the situation worse. Lastly, the Democratic approach, the balanced approach, stands up for important social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that have nothing to do with the economic situation that we find ourselves in right now. Why should we invest in the American economy? Well, we don't have an immediate deficit crisis in America right now. We've cut $2.5 trillion from our deficit over the last several years; and we're prepared, on this side of the aisle, to reasonably do more. But don't overhype the problem. In fact, objective economists have indicated we don't have an immediate deficit problem in America right now. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has conceded that we don't have an immediate deficit crisis in America right now. Just on Sunday, the chairman of the Budget Committee acknowledged that we don't have an immediate deficit crisis in America right now. That's why we're pursuing a balanced approach. What we do have is a jobs crisis. Over the last 4 years, under the leadership of President Obama, we have come a long way, almost 6 million private sector jobs added. But we still, of course, have a long way to go. Let's just look at the landscape. Corporate profits are way up. The stock market is way up. The productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet unemployment remains stubbornly high, and consumer demand remains stagnant. That's why the Democratic approach is to invest in our economy, invest in education, invest in job training, invest in transportation and infrastructure, invest in research and development, invest in technology and innovation, invest in the things that will continue to make America a leader in the 21st century. If you invest in our economy, then you will increase jobs for the American worker. If you increase the jobs available to the American worker, consumer demand will increase. If consumer demand increases, the economy will grow; and if the economy grows, the deficit will decline, and so, too, will our debt as a percentage of GDP. This is decision time in America; and, clearly, the best decision that we can make is a balanced approach to dealing with our economic problems today.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, for his leadership in co-anchoring the CBC Special Order and for giving me the opportunity to lay out as best I can the contrasting visions as represented by the CBC budget--and we're thankful for the leadership of Representative Bobby Scott in that regard--and the GOP budget. We're at a crossroads in America, a fork in the road, and we can go in one of two different directions. And one direction is a compassionate path, as set forth by the Congressional Black Caucus. The other direction is a more regressive, mean-spirited path, as set forth by the GOP budget. The CBC budget is designed to create progress for the greatest number of people possible here in America. The GOP budget endorses the view of prosperity for the few. The CBC budget takes a balanced approach to dealing with the economic situation that we find ourselves in here in America. The GOP budget balances the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society. The CBC budget will create jobs for Americans. The GOP budget will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. These are two very different visions for where we need to go here in America. A balanced approach has four different elements. First, invest in the American economy. Second, raise revenue by closing corporate loopholes that are unfair, unjust, and in many instances, unconscionable--tax breaks for corporate jets, tax subsidies for big oil companies that are making record profits, tax incentives for American companies to ship our jobs overseas. The CBC budget will close these wasteful corporate loopholes. Third, we look for savings by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse; and we take this approach because of the sensitive nature of our fragile economic recovery. You can't just cut the budget with a meat cleaver without hurting the American people. And, lastly, the CBC balanced approach stands up for important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that have nothing to do with the economic mess that we find ourselves in right now. We don't have a short-term deficit crisis in America. That's what the independent objective economists have concluded. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has acknowledged we don't have a short-term deficit crisis. The chairman of the Budget Committee just yesterday acknowledged that we don't have a short-term deficit crisis. We've gained 6 million jobs over the last 4-plus years, but we still have a long way to go. We've got a jobs crisis. Now, corporate profits are way up, the stock market is way up, the productivity of the American worker is way up, but the reality is consumer demand remains stagnant. That's why we have to invest in the American economy, invest in transportation and infrastructure, research and development, invest in technology and innovation, education and job training, as the CBC budget compassionately does. Now, the other budget balances itself on the backs of the poor, children, senior citizens, working families, and the middle class. Now, they'll say we're trying to put forth misinformation to scare the American people. That's a cute observation, but it has no factual basis. The GOP budget cuts Medicaid by $810 billion. That's not a scare tactic; that's reality. The GOP budget voucherizes Medicare so that in the future the health care costs wouldn't be covered by this voucher program in the manner that it is right now. That's not a scare tactic; that's reality. The GOP budget cuts spending on higher education by $168 billion. That's not a scare tactic; that's reality. That's why we are putting forth a compassionate budget to put the American people back to work.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to stand here today as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus to participate one more time as an anchor for the CBC Special Order today on the subject of the impact of sequestration on the American people. As we know, on Friday, the sequestration took effect, automatic spending cuts of a significant painful amount that will be experienced by the American people all across the land. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it's something that was avoidable had there been a willingness to try and find common ground. There are many of us who believe that the most appropriate approach would have been to try and find a balanced resolution involving tax reform and revenue and attempting to identify where reasonable spending adjustments could have been made. But instead of all parties trying to come together to find a balanced resolution to the problem that we find ourselves in, there are some in this Chamber who seem committed to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society, balancing the budget on the backs of children and seniors, pregnant women, Superstorm Sandy victims, public housing residents, or national security. I'm just hopeful that as we move forward that we can find the capacity, find the ability, find the courage to come together to seek out common ground so we can resolve this sequestration matter and move forward supporting the economy in the manner that will be the healthiest for the greatest number of Americans possible. I'm pleased today that we've been joined by several distinguished members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the chairperson of the CBC, to whom I yield as much time as she may consume, the Honorable Marcia Fudge, who has been a tremendous leader on so many issues on behalf of working families and the middle class and seniors all across this country.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congresswoman Fudge. I now yield to the Congresswoman from the Golden State, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. The economic recovery, as you pointed out, is still in an extremely fragile state. Many of those most vulnerable Americans who were adversely impacted by the recession still have not been made whole in any way, shape, or form. Sequestration is an $85 billion shock to the system. It may begin as a slow burn, but it is going to sear over time. It is going to hurt our most vulnerable Americans, as has been detailed in congressional district after congressional district after congressional district all across this country. It is irresponsible for us to even have allowed it to get to this point, which is why we are advocating for everyone to come to the table to find common ground. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Because we are in a divided government, it is unreasonable to simply say ``no revenues.'' So as a result of this hardened position, we find ourselves in the midst of this sequestration. We've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, my good friend, Congressman Donald Payne, to whom I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for pointing several things out, but particularly for making it clear that we have already made significant progress under this administration, in partnership with this side of the aisle, as we have attempted to move forward over the last several years as it relates to deficit reduction. I believe that we've cut approximately $2.5 trillion--done--as it relates to deficit reduction. While certainly we're open to trying to figure out how to move forward in the best possible way as it relates to the economy, an $85 billion shock to the system over the next several months and approximately $1 trillion over the next 10 years is harmful as it relates to the ability to move the economy forward. We are thankful that we have been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna Christensen.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Congresswoman Christensen, thank you very much. I think it's important to emphasize a point that you just made as it relates to what we should be doing to jump-start the economy. We should be investing in the American economy, attempting to grow it so we can create prosperity for the greatest number of people possible, not using sequestration, which is a blunt instrument, to beat the economy and give it a pounding when it is already is in an extremely fragile state. We know that objective economists have said that sequestration will have an impact of 750,000 lost jobs. We can't afford that at this moment. We urge our colleagues to come back to the negotiating table. I'm pleased that we've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congressman Davis, for your leadership and for your eloquence in laying out, in a very clear, concise, and articulate fashion, the problems with sequestration that we are forced now to confront here in America as a result of the irresponsibility of some in this Chamber. I'm pleased that we've been joined by my distinguished co-anchor, the gentleman from Nevada, the Silver State, Steven Horsford. I now yield to Representative Horsford.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congressman Horsford. I think what is important, as it relates to the moment we find ourselves in right now in America, is that there are some who make the argument that the reason why the sequestration cuts perhaps were acceptable is because we've got to do something to deal with our out- of-control spending problem--I believe that's the phraseology that is often used--that we have here in America. And certainly when you think about the debt number that we have, $16 trillion, it strikes you as an extremely troubling situation. And then of course we've had debates back and forth as it relates to the debt ceiling and suggestions from some in this Chamber that the President's effort to raise the debt ceiling is evidence of his willingness to be irresponsible as it relates to the economy. What's interesting, of course, is that the debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle that's designed to give the administration the ability to spend more. The debt ceiling is a backward-looking vehicle designed to give President Obama at this moment the ability to pay for bills that this Congress has already incurred. And so when we talk about the notion that there is a spending problem in America, let's be accurate with what really is at issue. And the reality is that many of the bills that we've already incurred, that Americans are forced to pay for and borrow in order to meet our obligations, these were debts incurred by the prior administration. In fact, this chart illustrates the dynamic that we find ourselves in as it relates to where we really are in America and how we got here. Under the prior administration of George W. Bush, we had two significant tax cuts that were not paid for in 2001 and 2003 that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and the well off. We had an unjustified war in Iraq that cost Americans in lives and in treasure and that contributed significantly to the deficit and our need to raise and borrow additional debt. And then, of course, we had the collapse of the economy. It cost America, by some estimates, $22 trillion in lost wealth, homeownership, and economic productivity. And as a result of the collapse of the economy, which took place under the prior administration--many argue they were sleeping at the switch and allowed some in Wall Street to engage in reckless behavior--we were forced to bail out some of the largest financial institutions in this country, which added to our financial burden here in America. And then when the administration came in, inherited a train wreck, in order to stimulate the economy we incurred some additional financial responsibility. And so when you look at this chart, you can see what the projected debt is as a result of things that occurred in the prior administration as a proportion of GDP. This is a dangerously high number. But we are at this point where the debt has increased relative to our GDP because of things that happened in the prior administration. And, in fact, if you look at the bottom of the chart, you see what the debt would be, much lower, as a proportion of GDP, had those things not occurred. So when you talk about the need to get spending under control, let's be intellectually honest. Because when we're not, you lay out a scenario: Well, it's because of Social Security that we're in this situation. That's not the case. Well, it's because of Medicare and entitlements that we're in this situation. That's not the case. Well, it's because of Medicaid, and we have all of these takers--so-called takers--in our economy. That's not the case. Two wars, one of which was completely unjustified, the other of which it's not clear whether it was prosecuted in the manner it could have been because we were distracted in Iraq; two enormous tax cuts that benefited the wealthy and the well off disproportionately; the collapse of the economy; a subsequent Wall Street bailout; and then the need for an economic stimulus package explains why we are where we are right now. And so the sequestration is an irrational, irresponsible, illegitimate reaction to the reason why we are in this place. And that's why, Congressman Horsford, we are arguing for a balanced approach to our economic reality, the one that we confront right now. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank you for highlighting some of the impacts that are going to take place in your district in Nevada. If I might ask, Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on our Special Order?

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I represent the Eighth Congressional District in New York. It was one of the districts that was hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy that struck on October 29. The people of the Eighth Congressional District--neighborhoods like Canarsie and Coney Island, Sea Gate, Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, Mill Basin, folks who are in coastal communities along the Atlantic Ocean or who live near the Jamaica Bay--lost their homes, experienced significant damage, were displaced, lost property that can never be recovered. They were victimized on October 29, and then this Congress attempted to come together to provide swift and immediate relief--as is our responsibility to do when Americans have been hit with disaster. A $60 billion aid package was passed in the Senate. Although there was a promise for a vote in 2012, it didn't happen. At the 11th hour, it was yanked because there were some who were arguing--again, in the name of alleged fiscal responsibility--that we should be considering offsets. Americans in need, desperate, but we should be considering offsets, unprecedented in the history of America's response to a tragedy. Then, thankfully, in January, we came together. Common sense prevailed and we were able to pass that robust $60 billion package. But now we've victimized those who were impacted by Superstorm Sandy in a district that I represent--and others in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut--for a third time because in this sequestration, $2.5 billion in superstorm aid relief has been cut. That's just one of the examples of how sequestration will impact folks in my congressional district and all across the country, which is why we've been arguing for a balanced response. The other thing that I'd note: I was in Brooklyn a few days ago and had a meeting with public housing leaders. The New York City Public Housing Authority, which presides over public housing units in New York City--the largest such public authority related to public housing in the country--will experience a $190 million cut as a result of sequestration. There are already residents of public housing in my district and all across the city of New York dealing with inhumane conditions right now--mold infestation, broken elevators, rat infestation, the inability to get repairs done on a timely basis, violence at levels that should not be tolerated. And instead of cutting almost $200 million from the Public Housing Authority in New York, we should be investing more. Madam Speaker, we're hopeful that we can arrive at a place where common sense will prevail and we can move forward to keep America moving forward in a reasonable way. I yield to my colleague from Nevada to close.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. President, I now--excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished Member from Maryland, our whip, Mr. Hoyer. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JEFFRIES. Let me first just thank the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, my good friend and colleague, Representative Steven Horsford, for anchoring this CBC Special Order. I also, of course, want to thank Chairwoman Marcia Fudge for the tremendous leadership that she has continued to provide and, of course, to our whip, Steny Hoyer, for his eloquence and his leadership on this and many other issues on behalf of this great country of ours. It is my honor and my privilege to co-anchor this CBC Special Order, this ``hour of power,'' so to speak, where members of the Congressional Black Caucus have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people today on an issue of great importance as it relates to the integrity of our democracy. There's no more fundamental issue to preserving the integrity of the great democracy that we have here in America than the right to vote. The right to vote is something that should be cherished, something that should be protected, something that should be respected. But the right to vote has not always been treated in this fashion in this Republic of ours. During the founding of this country, we know, of course, that African Americans were largely excluded from being able to participate in our democracy as a result of the conditions of their enslavement. In 1869, this Congress came together and sent to the States for ratification the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment that was designed to remedy the situation related to the failure to meaningfully include African Americans in our democracy. It was designed to provide constitutional protection to limit the ability of States to disenfranchise individuals on the basis of race, color, or prior conditions of servitude. Yet we understand that for about 100 years subsequent to the passage and ratification of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, it was largely evaded in many parts of America as a result of legislative schemes that were devised to prohibit or limit the ability of African Americans and other communities of color to participate in our democracy. These legislative schemes took many forms. Some have already called their names--poll taxes, ``grandfather clauses'' and literacy tests--legislative schemes devised to limit the ability of African Americans and others to participate in this glorious democracy of ours. A large part of it took place in the Deep South, but there were instances of this all over America. Mr. Speaker, that is why the Congress came back in the midst of the turbulent era of the 1960s and passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which included a section 5 preclearance provision that was designed to require those covered jurisdictions, or jurisdictions of all or parts of 16 States, to get approval from either the Department of Justice or a three-judge Federal Court panel here in Washington, D.C., whenever any of these jurisdictions sought to change a law with respect to voting. The rationale for this section 5 preclearance requirement was because, in these covered jurisdictions, there was a history of discrimination as it related to the franchise, deliberate schemes designed to limit the ability of American citizens to participate in our democracy; and as a result of this history, the section 5 preclearance requirement was put into place. And it has worked. Over close to five decades that it has been in effect, it is perhaps the most successful piece of civil rights legislation that this Congress has passed. Now, as a result of its success, there are some who have contended that it is no longer a relevant provision of law, and that when the Congress came together in bipartisan fashion in 2006 to reauthorize this provision, that this body, the House of Representatives and the Senate, which passed the reauthorization 98 to 0, Democrats and Republicans, the contention is that this body exceeded its constitutional authority because section 5 allegedly, according to the defenders of disenfranchisement, is no longer relevant. Now, in the aftermath of Barack Obama's historic election in 2008, there was a Supreme Court case involving Austin, Texas, I believe, in 2009 that was heard just a few months after his inauguration. And part of the argument that was made in that Supreme Court case by those who sought to invalidate section 5's preclearance requirement was that, as a result of this historic election of Barack Obama, race seems no longer to be an issue in America, and they pointed to the elevation of Barack Obama to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, of course, that was an extremely important moment in the history of our Republic. It was a substantial step forward. But the reality is that the election of Barack Obama has also served to illustrate that in America there's still some issues of race that we've got to confront. It's interesting, because if you look at the election of Presidents since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it's unprecedented in the aftermath of President Obama's election to have seen the level of voter suppression laws and efforts that we were forced to confront in this country. These efforts presumably are based on the thin claim that those who are advancing these laws are trying to guard against fraud. No evidence of fraud, but those who are advancing these voter suppression laws are attempting to guard against fraud. When you look at the record, what's fascinating is that when Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, there was no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. He was reelected in 1972, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. And then Jimmy Carter is elected in 1976, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. And then Ronald Reagan is elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. George H.W. Bush elected in 1988, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. Bill Clinton elected in 1992, reelected in 1996 and no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. George W. Bush elected, some would argue under questionable circumstances given the dynamics in the great State of Florida, but again, no explosion of concern related for alleged fraud. The same was true in 2004, notwithstanding some concerns in the great State of Ohio, no explosion of concern for alleged fraud. Yet Barack Obama is elected in 2008, and all of a sudden in the aftermath of this historic election there's an outbreak of concern, a pandemic of anxiety as it relates to the fraud that allegedly is taking place in America. And so, as this chart illustrates--it is a wonderful chart that was prepared by the Brennan Center for Justice in my home State of New York, connected to my alma mater, New York University. It illustrates that since 2001, 41 States introduced 180 restrictive laws. Those States are illustrated by the red on the map. Parenthetically, a curious choice of colors, but those States are illustrated by the red on the map. Forty-one States introduced 180 restrictive laws. And then you have 34 States introduced photo identification requirements; 17 States introduced proof of citizenship requirements; 16 States introduced bills to limit registration; and nine States introduced bills to limit or reduce early voting periods--unprecedented in the history of our democracy. I just went through the election of several Presidents who were inaugurated post the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but, for some reason, the American people are smart enough to draw cause and effect when this President was elected. We had an outbreak of concern related to alleged fraud. Now, thankfully, the Voting Rights Act in section 5 was in place to do something about it. I just talked about the fact that there were 41 States that introduced some form of voter restrictions. On this map, we see that as of October in 2012 there were 25 laws and two executive actions that were passed in a total of 19 States. A large amount of this activity, as you can see on this map, Mr. Speaker, took place in the Deep South and in Texas, States that are largely covered by the section 5 preclearance requirements. Let me just pause parenthetically and note that what's also interesting is that there were two States, Iowa and Florida, that in the past had executed through executive order reforms designed to allow those who as a result of the criminal justice system had had their ability to vote taken away from them restored through a process that had been put in place; but in the aftermath of the election of President Obama, what we saw is that in Iowa and in Florida--those two States--through executive order, they repealed those positive steps forward to make it almost impossible for those who had brushes with the law to ever be able to reengage in the ability to participate in American democracy. These were laws that were passed. Yet, because of the section 5 preclearance requirement, not all of these laws actually were able to take effect. That's an important point as it relates to the continuing relevance of section 5's preclearance requirement. As of October 2012, approximately 12 courts either halted or blunted--they pushed back-- some of those laws that States had attempted to enact. Perhaps the most relevant example of why section 5 continues to be relevant is due to what took place in the Lone Star State, the great State of Texas, when the legislature passed what would have been the most restrictive voter identification law in the country. It would have prohibited potential voters from presenting student college identifications; they were deemed in this law as invalid. It would have prevented voters from presenting State government identification; IDs that were actually issued by the State of Texas would not have been valid under this law. I find it interesting, particularly in light of the current debate that we're having related to how we deal with gun violence in America, that one of the forms of ID that actually would have been accepted was a license that allowed an individual to carry a concealed handgun permit. This was too much to accept for the Justice Department and for those who in good conscience seek to defend our democracy, and because Texas is a covered jurisdiction, it had to be presented for preclearance by the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel, and it was rejected. So this law, though passed, never took effect. The same thing happened in Alabama. The same thing happened in South Carolina. There is a law that was passed by the State of Florida that is under consideration. So, as a result, even though many objectively believed it was designed to suppress the vote, it did not take effect in advance of the 2012 election because it was under review by the Department of Justice and their preclearance requirement. Mr. Speaker, in America, certainly we have come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go. Jim Crow may be dead, but he has still got some nieces and nephews who are alive and well; and until every single descendant of Mr. Jim Crow's is dead and buried, we in the Congressional Black Caucus believe that the section 5 preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act remains as relevant today as it was when it was passed in 1965.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Horsford. I think you hit on a very important point that should be reemphasized in the context of this debate. Every single reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act section 5 was signed into law by a Republican President. And so in 1970, the reauthorization was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. In 1975, it was President Gerald Ford. In 1982, it was Ronald Reagan. And in 2006, it was George Bush. It was the current House majority, held in different form, but when Republicans were in charge of the Chamber, they allowed the reauthorization to move forward through the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. Now this may seem strange in the current poisonous environment of Washington that we exist in right now, but there was significant cooperation, tremendous leadership shown by the then- chairperson and the ranking member, John Conyers. It passed in the House of Representatives 390-33. It's also interesting to note historically that prior to this year, every time section 5 and the Voting Rights Act has been used to address alleged concerns with redistricting, which traditionally takes place 2 years after the completion of the census, when it was used by the Justice Department to block or modify redistricting reforms or changes prior to the Obama administration, on every other occasion since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 it was a Republican Justice Department charged with the responsibility of addressing concerns with redistricting and the problem of racial gerrymandering. It was the Nixon Justice Department in 1972. It was the Reagan Justice Department in 1982. It was the George H.W. Bush Justice Department in 1992. It was the George W. Bush Justice Department in 2002. And so the history of section 5 and the Voting Rights Act is a glorious one, not just as it relates to the preservation of our democracy, addressing the need to make sure that every American, regardless of race or color, has the capacity to participate in a meaningful way, but it's been traditionally viewed and executed through a bipartisan lens. We're hopeful that when the Supreme Court takes up oral argument on this matter in 2 days, that they will evaluate it on the merits and give due deference to Congress, which has consistently reauthorized it pursuant to its power under article I of the Constitution as well as the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. There really is no case to be made that it should be declared invalid. I believe we've illustrated time after time how it's been used to protect the integrity of our democracy, and we're hopeful that at some point down the road, it will no longer be necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, that moment has not arrived in America as of today.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for her very pointed observations on a variety of different issues concerning the comprehensive immigration reform issue. I would just like to amplify for a moment one point that was made as it relates to the significance of the diversity visa lottery program. It's a program that in its conception is designed to make sure that immigrants from underrepresented parts of the world have an opportunity to come to America and participate in the American Dream. And in the context of this diversity visa lottery program, approximately 20 percent of the African immigrants who are here in this country are here as a result of participating in that program. It has been an instrumental vehicle for ensuring diversity as it relates to the presence of immigrants from the African continent, who by the way, statistics have shown, tend to be more educated in their attainment of college degrees than any other immigrant group. As a result, they are very much contributing to moving the society forward. And for that reason I believe it will be important for the CBC to continue to stand up for this program as we move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, and so I thank the gentlelady for those observations.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congresswoman Clarke, for those very eloquent and thoughtful remarks. The Congressional Black Caucus consists of 42 members representing a variety of communities all across this great Nation. We've been joined today by two Representatives from the Lone Star State, one of whom, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, has distinguished herself in many different areas, but has been a thought leader in the area of comprehensive immigration reform. She is currently the ranking member on the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Border and Maritime Security, and also is a senior member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the important Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. We're thankful that she's been a long- time champion of a fair and humane immigration system, and I yield the floor to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.