Unfinished Business: CBC to Republican Leadership--Do Your Job

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and good friend from the Third Congressional District (Mrs. Beatty). She is always elegant, eloquent, and effervescent, an erudite, anchor of the CBC Special Order who has made us all proud in the manner in which she has conducted herself on behalf of the people that she represents, as well as the entire Congressional Black Caucus and, of course, the class of 2012.

Once again, it is my honor and my privilege to stand on the House floor and participate in the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order hour where for 60 minutes we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about issues of great significance. I can think of no more profound moment by which we need to address the people throughout this country, who we are privileged to represent, than in the aftermath of the most recent election.

I think it is important first to reflect upon the fact that in this country we already have made significant progress over the last 8 years. A lot of folks--some of our friends on the other side of the aisle--they don't want to acknowledge that fact. The reality of the situation quantitatively is very different.

Under 8 years of George W. Bush, this country lost 650,000 jobs. In almost 8 years of Barack Obama, we have gained more than 15 million private-sector jobs, 79 consecutive months of private-sector job creation. The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars under the Presidency of Barack Obama.
When President Barack Obama came into office, the unemployment rate was at 10 percent. Now, it is at 5 percent. When Barack Obama took office, the stock market was at 6,000. Now it is over 18,000. More than 20 million Americans who were previously uninsured now have health coverage, and more than 300 million Americans don't have to worry about being denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition, all as a result of the Presidency of Barack Obama. I could go on and on, but America is a better place today because of the 44th President of the United States of America.

Of course, now we find ourselves in a situation where we have to continue to address the issues of great importance to the American people. In this democratic republic, time marches on. As Abraham Lincoln once referenced, we are in a constant march toward a more perfect union.

So the question, of course, is: Well, what are some of the issues where we can find common ground here today?

In the aftermath of one of the most divisive elections in our Nation's history, let me suggest that there are a few CBC priorities where some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle seemingly should take interest in addressing.

The first thing, of course, relates to poverty. Despite what we have heard from the President-elect throughout the campaign, poverty is not simply an inner-city problem. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty is a testament to the fact that so many folks who live in great cities like Columbus are incredibly professional, built wonderful lives, pursued the American Dream.

Poverty is not an inner-city problem; it is an American problem. In fact, a majority of persistently poor counties in this country-- parenthetically, that is defined as counties where 20 percent or more of the population has lived below the poverty line for 30 or more years--are represented by House Republicans. I don't know if the President-elect realizes that.

So poverty and making sure that every single person in America has an opportunity to pursue the American Dream isn't a Democratic issue or a CBC issue. It is an American issue. Maybe we can figure out a way collectively to deal with this problem because it doesn't just impact the people I represent back home in Brooklyn.

The second issue that I think we can find common ground on, hopefully, is criminal justice reform. The House Judiciary Committee has already passed bipartisan legislation unanimously to deal with our unjust sentencing laws, as well as to make sure that everyone has an opportunity for a second chance in life once they have paid their debt to society.

There has been great cooperation from many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, leaders on criminal justice reform, people like Jason Chaffetz, Trey Gowdy, and Raul Labrador. These are people where there may be issues that we don't have a lot in common, but who recognize, along with a whole host of other folks, that we have an overcriminalization problem in America when we have 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of the world's incarcerated individuals.

We incarcerate more people in this country than any other country in the world. And if you take China and Russia's population combined, it is in excess of a billion individuals. Yet, we incarcerate more than those two countries put together.

I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I think that dealing with mass incarceration in America fits squarely within your philosophical approach to a whole bunch of things. I am not asking you to become a Progressive Democrat.

Fiscal Conservatives should object to the fact that we spend 80- billion-plus dollars a year wasting economic resources, opportunity, and human capital, as States in places like Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana have done, not blue States like New York or California; red States who recognize that the fiscally conservative thing to do without sacrificing public safety is to deal with overcriminalization in America.

I would also suggest that many of my friends, Christian Conservatives--I am a Conservative, I guess, in the sense that I am a proud member of the Cornerstone Baptist Church. I don't know what the distinction is, but Christian Conservatives, I guess, is the lingo and the language that is often used--all of us who believe in some form of religion, particularly those, of course, who define themselves as Christian Conservatives should embrace the notion that you should have a second chance in life. Because theologically underpinning your religious beliefs is the notion of redemption, that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, with the exception of one person who has walked this Earth. And once you pay your debt to society, you shouldn't have a permanent scarlet letter that prohibits you from being able to experience the American Dream.

So I think criminal justice reform fits squarely within the philosophy of my fiscal Conservative friends, my Christian Conservative friends. I would also suggest that my Libertarian friends, as Rand Paul and Raul Labrador have already illustrated, should also object to the mass incarceration problem that we have got in America.

I understand you don't like overtaxation. We can argue about what is the appropriate rate. I understand you don't like overregulation. This is all about government overreach. You should have a problem with overcriminalization because there is no area where the government can do more damage than when they have the ability to take away your life or your liberty.

So we stand here as members of the CBC talking about unfinished business, not urging you to cross over and adopt our philosophy. Adopt your philosophy and apply it to criminal justice reform.

The last issue I would suggest as we talk about unfinished business is the notion of the Voting Rights Act having been decimated. I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that this should be a partisan issue. If there is a Republican advantage, let's be honest, that is why we don't want to do anything to fix it. Because when you look at the proud history of the Voting Rights Act, it has always been bipartisan in nature. It would not have passed this Congress without support from moderate Republicans in the House and in the Senate. That is a fact. There were Members of the Democratic Party, so-called Dixiecrats, that opposed it with everything they had. It would not be law today without Republicans.
Every time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized, it was signed back into law by a Republican President: 1970, Richard Nixon. 1975, Gerald Ford. 1982, Ronald Reagan. 2006, George W. Bush.

We are not asking you on the House floor to act like Progressive Democrats. Just act like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who recognized that voting rights is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; it is an American issue.

So, with that, I would just conclude by saying this: It would be a mistake for my friends on the other side of the aisle to interpret too much from this election. I am trying to figure out what exactly is the mandate when it appears that more than 2 million Americans will have supported, in terms of the popular vote margin, the candidate who lost. And it was a mistake when others interpreted too much from an electoral college victory. Hubert Humphrey won the popular vote in 1968. The electoral college sent us Richard Nixon, and we got Watergate. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and I think there was too much of a mandate interpretation. We got two failed wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

So the question is: Are you going to learn from recent history or are you just going to celebrate this unexpected victory where you lost the popular vote? I would suggest let's just find common ground, maybe on some of the areas that we have laid out here today.

We are not asking you to change your philosophy, change your ideology; but in areas like poverty where you have got just as much at stake based on your constituents as we do, or criminal justice reform where your philosophy is consistent with dealing with mass incarceration and overcriminalization in America, or the Voting Rights Act, which has a proud bipartisan history, let's start there and see what we can do as it relates to addressing the business of the American people as we go into the next Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source