Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King amendment. This amendment would prohibit the application and payment of prevailing wages provided under the Davis-Bacon Act for funds expended on construction projects in this bill. Davis-Bacon sets wage and benefit standards for federally assisted construction projects to ensure that contractors compete on the quality of their work, not by undercutting wage levels in local communities. Negating the application of wage laws, as the King amendment proposes to do, often leads to shoddy construction and substantial cost overruns. This is not said to insult the sponsor of the amendment. The fact is that the census construction data shows that the value added per worker in States with prevailing wage laws is 13 to 15 percent higher than in States without prevailing wage laws. Additionally, studies conducted by the University of Utah have found that repealing the prevailing wage has led to the reduction or elimination of apprenticeship programs. Mr. Chairman, this is National Apprenticeship Week. We should be promoting the participation in apprenticeship programs, not taking up measures that would negatively impact this critical job training tool. Under prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the basis of who can best train, equip, and manage construction crews, not on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable workforce either locally or by importing labor from somewhere else. Historically, Mr. Chairman, there has been bipartisan opposition to repealing or suspending the Davis-Bacon Act in infrastructure programs. Let's continue that bipartisan tradition on prevailing wages by voting ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, this is a fairly simple amendment that I offer with my Virginia colleague, Randy Forbes. It simply encourages the use of modeling and simulation technology in designing and analyzing federally funded transportation projects so that those projects can be most efficient and save money in the process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for organizing this Special Order so that we can talk about many aspects of the criminal justice system. You have asked us to talk about the militarization of communities, also what we can do to improve policing and the problem of mass incarceration. On the term of militarizing the communities, there was an amendment offered a few months ago that would have prevented the Department of Defense from giving local police departments certain military equipment. I think it is important to read what was actually in the legislation because some thought that handguns and ammunition was what we were talking about. Actually, the amendment goes into great length specifically about what would be prohibited if that amendment passed to help reduce the militarization of our communities. The Department of Defense has a program where they will give surplus equipment to local communities, and the limitation was that none of these transfers could include aircraft, including drones; armored vehicles; grenade launchers; silencers; toxicological agents, including chemical agents and biological agents; launch vehicles; guided missiles; ballistic missiles; rockets; torpedoes; bombs; mines; or nuclear weapons. Those are the only things that would be barred if this amendment had passed, not handguns and ammunition or other things that local police departments could actually use. But what local police department needs nuclear weapons or torpedoes? We are not talking about the large, sophisticated police forces. This is the kind of stuff that was being given to police departments that you might think of when you think of Andy Griffith and Barney Fife. What do they need with a tank? In one of the local incidents when they had a tank come out, it was pointed out that the people trying to drive the tank hadn't been trained on the tank. Can you just imagine hearing from inside, ``Where are the brakes? Where are the brakes?'' If you need a military response, the appropriate thing to do would be to call in the National Guard. Then you have the military performing the military functions. I think there is a lot that we can do to restrict this kind of equipment going to our local police departments. A lot has been said about policing. We can discuss the problem of policing. We all know that the vast, overwhelming majority of police officers risk their lives on our behalf and do an excellent job. But whenever you get to describe what the problem is, we know what the solution is going to be, and that is to make sure that there is a consensus growing that we need body cameras so we can know exactly what happened and police training so that police can be properly trained on things like how to avoid profiling, how to avoid discrimination, and treating one group different from the other. Implicit bias is what it is called. There is a lot you can do in training, and we need to make sure we have funding for that training. But in terms of mass incarceration, that is where we really need a lot of work. As the chairman mentioned, we have 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's prisoners. In most countries, for every 100,000 population, they lock up 50 to 200 people per 100,000. The United States locks up over 700 per 100,000. We are well into the first place. There is nobody close. That number is particularly egregious because there have been recent studies that have suggested that anything over 500 per 100,000 is actually counterproductive. You have got so many people in jail. You have so many families being raised with their parents in prison. Young people are being raised without their parents. You have so many people with felony records having trouble finding jobs. You are wasting so much money that anything over about 500 per 100,000 is counterproductive. We are at 700 and some per 100,000. The African American incarceration rate is in the thousands. That is just wasted money. That is what Texas found when they were looking a few years ago at an appropriations request of $2 billion needed to keep up with all the slogans and sound bites that they had codified in terms of keeping up with the mass incarceration in Texas, $2 billion in construction. And somebody said, ``Well, if you actually make a better choice, if you invested some of that money in prevention, early intervention, and rehabilitation, you might not have to spend all $2 billion.'' That is what they did. They intelligently invested in evidence-based programs, programs studied and known to reduce crime, not just sound like they reduce crime, but actually known to reduce crime, evidence- based policies of prevention, early intervention, and rehabilitation, and they found that they didn't need to build any new prisons. In fact, they were able to close some of the prisons that they had. Over 30 States have figured out that they can reduce crime and save money by reducing mass incarceration. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there are people that think slogans and sound bites are good, and that is how we got in the mess we are in now. The chairman mentioned the school-to-prison pipeline. I like to refer to it as the Children's Defense Fund does, as the cradle-to-prison pipeline, because that suggests that there are things all the way along the line that we are not doing that help construct this pipeline that ends up with--at present estimates, one out of three African American boys born today will end up in prison. We can do better than that if we make the appropriate investments all the way through from early childhood education to after-school programs, a continuum of services, to make sure that they create the cradle-to-college-and-career pipeline and not the cradle-to-prison pipeline. That includes investments that have been studied, evidence based, and we know they work. There is a lot you can do in terms of criminal justice reform, but if you do it right, it has to be comprehensive. That means you start with prevention and early intervention, make sure you are making those investments so fewer young people are getting in trouble. Then you have to do police training. We know that good police training can improve policing and, also, reduce crime. Body cameras can eliminate a lot of problems. Last year we passed the Death in Custody Reporting Act, which requires reporting from local police of anybody that dies in their custody in prison, in jail, or in the process of arrest, so we know what is going on around the country. As you have the debate, you can debate from a point of view of facts, not just in allegations when people don't know exactly what the facts are. We can make sure that the police training is there. You can have diversion to make sure that people who are arrested might not have to spend--the only people you need pretrial in jail are those that need to be in jail. You don't want to have unnecessary people serving time and losing their jobs in the process. You need a continuum of services, drug courts which can address the underlying problem rather than just convict them, lock them up, they come back, same thing, come back, back and forth. If you deal with the underlying problem in a drug court, you can have a situation where they are diverted from prison and, also, much less likely to commit a crime in the future. One of the major factors in over-incarceration are the mandatory minimums. We need to have significant reductions in mandatory minimum sentencing to make sure they only apply to a small portion of real, legitimate kingpins, not to girlfriends and people on the periphery that may have gotten caught up in a conspiracy. Once you get into prison, make sure that it is for rehabilitation, not for just warehousing, so you are much less likely to commit a crime when you come out. You have to fund the second chance programs. All of this is part of the SAFE Justice Act, which has the added benefit that, because of the significant reductions in mandatory minimums, there will be savings. The Department of Justice is able to redirect the savings into the prevention, early intervention programs, the drug courts, the body cameras and everything else. So everything in the program is paid for by reducing incarceration. This legislation has the support of a lot of different organizations, liberal and conservative, because everybody knows that, if it is enacted, we will reduce crime and save money. So we know what to do. It is just a matter of making sure we have the political will to do the right thing, to deal with mass incarceration by making the right choice, not the slogans and sound bites, but the evidence-based approach that will actually reduce crime and save money. We can do it. There is legislation pending. There are a lot of different bills, but we need to make sure that the comprehensive approach is reflected in whatever comes to the floor. So I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for bringing us together so we can discuss the militarization of our communities, the solutions for policing, which would include training and body cameras and how we can effectively reduce mass incarceration. We know what to do, and the solutions save more money than they cost. So thank you very much for the opportunity to present that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Well, it doesn't matter which bill moves. The question is whatever moves ought to have the elements of prevention and early intervention, ought to have diversion, and if you only deal with sentencing in the Federal system, you are not dealing with mass incarceration in the United States. The Federal system only has 10 percent of the prisoners. So if you just eliminated the Federal system, you are only talking about 10 percent reduction in incarceration. You have to do something about mass incarceration at the State level. So when you just talk about sentencing reform, if you reduce a mandatory minimum for 25 to 15 years, the first 15 years, that has no effect, because they will serve the first 15 years, then gradually you will have an effect. If you want an effect, you need to have prevention programs so fewer people are coming into prison, diversion programs so those who are arrested can be diverted from prison, dealt with effectively in drug court so they are much less likely to commit a crime again so that you can reduce crime and save money. You have to make sure you have meaningful mandatory minimum reforms because that is one of the major drivers of the overincarceration. When people are in prison, you have to make sure you have the funding for the programs to make sure they don't come back. And once in the community, the second chance programs that have been very effective need to be funded. We know what to do; it is just a matter of getting it done. It doesn't matter whose bill passes; it is just whatever passes ought to have those elements.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. There are 30 States that have reduced crime and saved money. Texas was one of the first because they were looking at a $2 billion appropriation request to keep up with the slogans and sound bites that they had enacted in mass incarceration. At the rate they were going, they needed $2 billion in prison construction. They decided instead to invest it in prevention programs so fewer kids were getting in trouble; early intervention programs so that once people got in a little trouble, they wouldn't get in worse trouble; and rehabilitation in prisons so that as people got out, they were less likely to come back. They found that they not only didn't have to spend any of the $2 billion building prisons, they were able to close some of the prisons they had. Texas is a red State, and they called their initiative ``Right on Crime.'' Using the word ``right'' in both words is correct, and from the political right. So you had conservatives investing their money appropriately, reducing crime, and saving money.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The second chance idea is that people who get out of prison ought to be supported. The little money you spend on support pales in consideration to what usually happens. They get out, they can't find a job, they can't do anything, and they are right back into prison at $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year. If you spend a little bit of money supporting them, they might not come back. One of the elements the President talked about today is the ``ban the box.'' When you fill out an application, there is a little box, ``Have you ever been convicted of a felony?'' If you check the box, that is the end of the interview. What the ban the box is suggesting is don't talk about the criminal record at first. Go through the process so you can present your credentials. Then, at the end of the process, they can discuss criminal record, but not at the beginning. You will find that many people, the conviction is so far past. Studies have shown that after a few years, if you have got a clean record, the chance of you committing a crime isn't any higher than the general population. So if it is a 15-year-old nonviolent offense, well, maybe it is not relevant; and maybe your credentials are so much better than everybody else's that you are the right person for the job, but you never would have had the opportunity to present your credentials if you had to check the box. So all around the country, cities, States, and businesses are eliminating that box to check, talking to people and seeing if they are actually qualified for the job, and those that are qualified can get the job. Obviously, some violations, if you have got an embezzlement charge and you are trying to get a job in a bank, or child molestation at a daycare center, you know, but a lot of them, if it is a 20-year- old marijuana possession charge or something like that, compared to your credentials, compared to everybody else head and shoulders, well, people can overlook a 20-year-old conviction. You never would have gotten to that point if you had to check the box. That is why the ban the box campaign is so important.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for all of her strong work in criminal justice. She has been fighting since she first got here. That is certainly appreciated and has made quite a difference. As you have indicated, this is a moment when adversarial groups and Members of Congress, liberal and conservative, have come to a consensus that we need to reform the criminal justice system. The Safe Justice Act that I mentioned is led by Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, a Republican, and has Republican and Democratic support. There are bills in the House and the Senate with bipartisan support. If we are going to have this moment where everyone is in agreement, we need to make sure that we do everything we possibly can. I thank you for organizing this Special Order so that we can make criminal justice reform a reality.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Watson Coleman for all of her work, particularly the work she has done in New Jersey when she was in the State legislature and now in Congress. I want to thank the Congressional caucus for holding this Special Order on the Working Families Agenda. Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, they have held hearing after hearing to make it harder for workers to form a union, they have attempted over 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they have been giving tax cuts to the wealthy, and all that time they have been wasting millions of dollars on the Benghazi Committee. Enough is enough. The American people deserve better. We know that families across America are struggling to make ends meet. Today I am calling on my colleagues across the aisle to get to work on the responsible solutions that hardworking Americans want and need, solutions that would boost wages, help workers achieve a better balance between work and family, and level the playing field so all workers can get a fair shot at success. This is the Working Families Agenda. This agenda would help workers like India Ford, who is from my district. During the Working Families Day of Action yesterday, she spoke to Members about how she worked nights and weekends for nearly a dozen years in the restaurant industry. As a single mom, this meant not being home for her child to help her with her homework, missing PTA meetings, and not being able to spend time with her daughter before she went to bed. Finally, she got a new job at a new restaurant with a manager who offered to give her a schedule that worked for her family. And do you know what she did? She selected the lunch shift. This simple change was profound because now she is at home with her daughter at night. She is able to attend school events and able to help with homework. But basic protections like fair schedules and paid sick leaves shouldn't depend on winning the boss lottery. They should be fundamental rights of every American. Today workers are more productive than ever, but it has been a long time since most people got a raise. We need to pass legislation to raise the minimum wage. We also need to improve the National Labor Relations Act because, when workers try to organize and form a union to negotiate for a fair share, more than one-third of the time somebody gets fired during the organizational drive. It is time to strengthen the National Labor Relations Act so that employers might think twice before they retaliate. That is what the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy, or the WAGE Act, would do. We need to help workers better balance work and family. We need Federal paid sick days and paid family and medical leave laws, which 80 percent of the public supports. Workers need flexible schedules, schedules that work. It is also past time that we level the playing field so that all working families have a fair shot. It is shameful that, in 2015, discrimination still shuts many workers out of good-paying jobs. No family should live in fear of a breadwinner being fired for being gay, but Federal law still does not provide explicit workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Working people deserve more than just a paycheck. They deserve a decent life. It is time to rewrite the rules to make the economy work for everybody. Democrats stand ready to take up responsible solutions, like the Working Families Agenda, to boost wages, help workers balance family and work, and level the playing field by eliminating discrimination so that everybody has a fair shot. In honor of National Work and Family Month, on Thursday, we will introduce a resolution calling on Congress to hold hearings and votes on the Working Families Agenda. We already have 90 cosponsors on the resolution, and we won't stop there. For as long as it takes, we will continue to call on our colleagues across the aisle to take up the responsible policies that will help people make a better life for themselves and their families. Again, I want to thank Mrs. Watson Coleman and the Congressional Progressive Caucus for coordinating this Special Order hour and thank all of my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus who are standing up for working families.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1090, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act. This bill puts an effective end to the Department of Labor's responsible effort to modernize a fiduciary standard under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, that was implemented 40 years ago. As we all know, our country's retirement savings landscape has changed significantly since that time. Forty years ago, the majority of retirement assets were held in defined benefit plans and managed by professionals. Forty years ago, employer-based 401(k) plans did not exist and IRAs had just been established. Today, Americans have more than $12 trillion invested in 401(k) plans and IRAs, and they have to make their own financial decisions. Many workers and their families don't have the expertise in managing investment portfolios and so they often have to rely on financial advisers to help them save for retirement. While many of those advisers do right by their clients, others do not. There is a lot of different financial products that Americans can purchase. Some have extremely high fees, while comparable products--and perhaps even better ones--have lower fees. This current standard allows for unscrupulous advisers to give conflicted advice and push a financial product from which they will reap a bigger profit even if the product is not in the best interest of their client. It is individuals with modest retirement savings--many of our constituents--who stand to lose the most from receiving conflicted advice. National Public Radio recently conducted a series that in part highlighted how Americans are losing billions of dollars every year out of their retirement accounts because they are paying excessive fees. As a hypothetical example, NPR cited a person who invests $10,000 and that investment makes a 7 percent return every year. Over 40 years, that investment would be worth almost $150,000. But if you have invested in a fund that charges a 2-percent annual fee, now you have cut the return down from 7 percent down to 5 percent. Over 40 years, your investment would be worth about $70,000, not almost $150,000. That is, obviously, a big difference, and that is the kind of insidious erosion of retirement savings that the Department is working to end with their rule. Since April, the Department of Labor has been engaged in this necessary rulemaking process. The Department has informed us that over that time, it provided the American public a total of 164 days to submit comments; they conducted 4 full days of public hearings; and convened over 100 meetings. That total doesn't account for meetings they have held with Members of Congress. Now the Department is completing its work on the rule and is taking into account the thousands of comments it received. Here in Congress, we should just let them finish their job. Millions of Americans rely on financial advisers for advice on how to protect their hard-earned retirement savings, and it is about time that we ensure that those Americans are provided advice consistent with their best interest, not with what would ultimately be in the best interest and profit for the adviser. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, the House will take yet another vote on the Affordable Care Act. More specifically today, we will vote on whether or not we want to support a budget reconciliation process that will seek to take away health insurance from millions of Americans--but this isn't a new exercise. In the past 5 years, the House has voted about 60 times to repeal or to undermine the law. There have been multiple lawsuits filed, and countless attacks have been mounted--all with the same goal of turning the clock backwards on the progress we have made. Before Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs were skyrocketing. That was before the Affordable Care Act. In the months before we passed the bill, there were months during which 14,000 people a day were losing their health insurance. Women were routinely charged more for insurance than men. If you had a preexisting condition, you may not have been able to get insurance at all; or if you lost your job or wanted a new business and had a preexisting condition, you were just out of luck. We made great progress in improving a system that didn't work for American families, and as a result of the ACA, more than 17 million uninsured Americans have gained health insurance. Today, young Americans can stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. If you have a preexisting condition, you can get healthcare insurance at the standard rate; so, if you want to change jobs or start a business or start a family, you have healthcare options even if you have a preexisting condition. Further, the healthcare cost growth has slowed, resulting in the lowest annual increase in healthcare spending in at least 50 years. It is clear that the Affordable Care Act is working, and it is even clearer that we should not revert back to the way things were before the ACA when those with preexisting conditions couldn't get health insurance, when young people had few or no coverage options, and when, of course, the costs were skyrocketing. Once again, we are considering a bill that dismantles the law without any credible alternative to ensure that millions of Americans won't, once again, be left out in the cold; so I urge my colleagues to protect healthcare insurance by opposing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters, one from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees of the AFL-CIO, another from the AFL-CIO, and another one from America's Essential Hospitals.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield any remaining time left to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I am opposed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. I rise to speak in support of the Democratic motion to recommit that would protect the civil rights of students at schools that receive vouchers by requiring the schools to certify that they provide each student with all applicable civil rights protections. The D.C. voucher program calls into question multiple Federal civil rights protections and turns a blind eye to the government-funded discrimination. For example, religious schools that accept vouchers are permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring, a violation of traditional principles prohibiting discrimination based on religion when using Federal money. The fact is that most religious schools are part of a ministry of the sponsoring church, and these schools either cannot or will not separate the religious content from their academic programs. So it is impossible to prevent a publicly funded voucher program for paying for these institutions' religious activities and education. Furthermore, schools that accept vouchers are allowed to discriminate based on gender in admissions, a violation of the principles of title IX. In addition to the discrimination based on religion or sex, the D.C. voucher program also raises serious concerns about the civil rights of students with disabilities. IDEA requires that schools that receive Federal IDEA funds provide appropriate education to all students with disabilities, but at least one study found that the schools that accept D.C. vouchers serve students with disabilities at a much lower rate than public schools. Failing to meet the needs of students with disabilities is just one of the shortcomings of the D.C. voucher program, but another issue is the performance of the school. A 2010 Department of Education report concluded that the use of a voucher had no statistically significant impact on overall student achievement in math or reading. Additional studies found that students from schools in need of improvement have shown no improvement in math or reading due to the voucher program. Furthermore, participating in the voucher program had no impact on student safety, satisfaction, motivation, or engagement. Mr. Speaker, many of those who actually won a voucher cannot use them because the voucher does not cover the full cost of attending a private or religious school. As a result, many who win a voucher find that they cannot use it because they can't afford the remaining cost of the education. So studies have confirmed that fewer than 25 percent of the students who use the vouchers are from schools that were ``in need of improvement.'' The D.C. voucher program fails on all counts. It violates principles of traditional civil rights laws, it makes no improvement on student achievement, and it fails to reach the very children it was designed to help. Our public schools need more funding, not less. Rather than funnel taxpayer funding to private or religious schools that lack civil rights protections and fail to meet the goals of helping the right students, we should focus our efforts on initiatives that will result in overall improvement of the educational system for all of our students. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our children by supporting this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity to speak in honor of the recently departed Congressman William Donlon ``Don'' Edwards, a civil rights champion, supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, defender of the Constitution. I am proud to say that, as a freshman in Congress, I had the honor to serve with Congressman Edwards on the Committee on the Judiciary. I would just like to say a few words about his work on that committee. Congressman Edwards was the living embodiment of the phrase ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' the words etched above the main entrance of the United States Supreme Court Building. When he arrived to Congress in 1963, he noted: ``11 States in the Old South practiced apartheid. There was a House Un-American Activities Committee. And the FBI was out of control threatening individual liberties.'' As a freshman, he wasted no time adapting to his new role in Congress because he recalled that, when he arrived on Capitol Hill, ``Black people couldn't vote in large parts of the country, and if they did, they'd get hanged.'' After visiting the American South where his son Leonard worked to register African Americans to vote, he wrote a letter to Dr. Martin Luther King, telling him that he understood ``the absolute necessity for the immediate passage'' of the Civil Rights Act, and he told Dr. King that ``we stand ready to support your efforts here in Washington.'' With that, he proceeded to work to secure the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He rose quickly to the rank of chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights in 1971. In that capacity, he took on major issues, such as the Equal Rights Amendment, which fell just three States short of ratification. Congressman Edwards said, ``It is the irresistible impulse of government to assume more power. My role has been to say no.'' That statement perfectly captures his drive to eliminate the House Un- American Activities Committee in 1975 and his disapproval of President Nixon's unauthorized use of government agencies to harass political opponents. Congressman Edwards worked tirelessly to gain the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, the Fair Housing Amendments Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He successfully fought to extend the Voting Rights Act in 1982 over the objections of President Reagan, who wanted to end the Justice Department's preclearance power. At the time, Congressman Edwards said simply, ``If you can't vote, you are not a real citizen.'' Unfortunately, in 2013, the Supreme Court essentially struck down the Justice Department's preclearance powers under the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County v. Holder decision. When Congressman Edwards retired in 1994, the late Republican Congressman and former chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, said this of Congressman Edwards: ``He is relentlessly liberal, but that's not a vice. The battle for the fullest expression of civil liberties is losing a general, not a foot soldier.'' Mr. Speaker, I was honored to serve, although briefly, with this great general who battled for equal justice and equal rights.