equal protection.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 439-40, 105 S.Ct. at 3254. The State cites no case which holds that these levels of scrutiny define the limits of Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. In our holding with respect to the ADA, moreover, we follow Congress’s own determination of its powers. In enacting the ADA, Congress announced that it was acting-pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment powers. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4). Although “the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of power which it undertakes to exercise,” Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138, 144, 68 S.Ct. 421, 424, 92 L.Ed. 596 (1948), we give great deference to congressional statements. See, e.g., Wilson-Jones v. Caviness, 99 F.3d 203, 210 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), amended on other grounds, 107 F.3d 358 (6th
holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that the retaliation provision of title vii is an adequate exercise of congress authority under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that a clear indication from congress is the simplest way to show that a statute is enacted under the fourteenth amendment recognizing that facially neutral statute may contravene the fourteenth amendment if enacted with discriminatory purpose