[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 91 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5143-H5207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT
REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 910 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 9.
{time} 1132
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 9) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with Mr. LaHood in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
H.R. 9 amends and reauthorizes the Voting Rights Act for an
additional 25 years, several provisions of which will expire on August
6, 2007, unless Congress acts to renew them.
I was proud to lead Republican efforts to renew expiring provisions
of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and I am pleased to have authored
this important legislation to do the same thing a quarter century
later.
The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to address our country's
ignoble history of racial discrimination and to ensure that the rights
enunciated in our Constitution become a practical reality for all.
Since its 1965 enactment, the VRA has been reauthorized in 1970,
1975, 1982, and 1992, each time with strong bipartisan support. The
right to vote is fundamental in our system of government, and the
importance of voting rights is reflected by the fact that they are
protected by five separate amendments to the Constitution, including
the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendment.
However, history reveals that certain States and localities have not
always been faithful to the rights and protections guaranteed by the
Constitution, and some have tried to disenfranchise African American
and other minority voters through means ranging from violence and
intimidation to subtle changes in voting rules. As a result, many
minorities were unable to fully participate in the political process
for nearly a century after the end of the Civil War.
The VRA has dramatically reduced these discriminatory practices and
transformed our Nation's electoral process and makeup of our Federal,
State, and local governments. Since its enactment, the VRA has been
instrumental in remedying past injustices by ensuring that States and
jurisdictions with a history of discrimination address and correct
those abuses, and, in some instances, stopping them from happening in
the first place.
Section 5 prohibits States with documented histories of racial
discrimination in voting from changing election practices and processes
without first submitting the changes to the Department of Justice or
the District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 5 has helped
ensure minority citizens in these covered jurisdictions to have an
equal opportunity to participate in the political process.
As a result of section 5 and other provisions of the Voting Rights
Act, minority participation and elections as well as the number of
minorities serving in elected positions has increased significantly,
and many of our colleagues who are here today are personal embodiments
of those changes.
Last summer, I along with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers
and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Watt pledged to have the VRA's
temporary provisions reauthorized for an additional 25 years. Over the
last 7 months, the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution examined the
VRA in great detail, focusing on those provisions set to expire in
2007.
In addition to gathering evidence of ongoing discriminatory conduct,
the subcommittee examined the impact that two Supreme Court decisions,
the Bossier II and Georgia v. Ashcroft decisions, have had on section
5's ability to protect minorities from discriminatory voting changes
particularly in State and congressional redistricting initiatives.
Based upon the committee's record, and let me put the books of the
hearings of this committee's record on the table, it is one of the most
extensive considerations of any piece of legislation that the United
States Congress has dealt with in the 27\1/2\ years that I have been
honored to serve as a Member of this body. All of this is a part of the
record that the Committee on the Constitution headed by Mr. Chabot of
Ohio has assembled to show the need for the reauthorization of the
Voting Rights Act.
H.R. 9 includes language that makes it clear that a voting change
motivated by any discriminatory purpose cannot be precleared, and
clarifies that the purpose of the preclearance requirements is to
protect the ability of minority citizens to elect their preferred
candidates of choice. These changes restore section 5 to its original
purpose, enabling it to better protect minority voters.
In addition, H.R. 9 reauthorizes section 203 for an additional 25
years, ensuring that legal, taxpaying, language-impaired citizens are
assisted in exercising their right to vote. And, in my opinion, this is
particularly important in elections where ballot questions are
submitted to the voters. The committee record that formed the basis for
this legislation demonstrates that, while the VRA has been successful
in
[[Page H5144]]
protecting minority voters who are historically disenfranchised in
certain parts of the country, our work is not yet complete. Racial
discrimination in the electoral process continues to exist and
threatens to undermine the progress that has been made over the last 40
years.
In fact, the extensive record of continued abuse compiled by the
committee over the last year, which I have put on the table here today,
echoes that which preceded congressional reauthorization of the VRA in
1982, and which led me to make the following observations during the
committee's consideration of the VRA reauthorization legislation then:
``Testimony is quite clear that this act has been the most successful
civil rights act that has ever been passed by the Congress of the
United States. The overwhelming preponderance of the testimony was that
the Voting Rights Act has worked. It has provided the franchise to
numerous people who were denied the right to vote for one reason or
another. It has provided a dramatic increase in the number of minority-
elected officials in covered jurisdictions. I think that very clearly
demonstrates the need for an extension. The hearings also very clearly
showed that the creativity of the human mind is unlimited when it comes
to proposing election law changes that are designed to prevent people
from voting.''
By extending the VRA for an additional 25 years, H.R. 9 ensures that
the gains made by minorities are not jeopardized. Like the preceding
reauthorization efforts, this bill has strong support from Republicans
and Democrats alike, including that of Speaker Hastert and Minority
Leader Pelosi. H.R. 9 is also supported by many prominent religious and
civil rights organizations.
Mr. Chairman, among the keepsakes of my public service that I most
cherish is one of the signing pens President Ronald Reagan used when
enacting the 1982 Voting Rights Amendments into law. When considering
their vote on the legislation now before the House, I would urge my
colleagues to reflect upon President Reagan's eloquent remarks on this
occasion:
``Yes, there are differences over how to attain the equality we seek
for all our people. And sometimes amidst all the overblown rhetoric,
the differences seem to be bigger than they are. But actions speak
louder than words. This legislation proves our unbending commitment to
voting rights. It also proves that differences can be settled in a
spirit of good will and good faith.
As I've said before, the right to vote is the crown jewel of American
liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. The legislation
that I'm signing demonstrates America's commitment to preserving this
essential right. I'm proud of the Congress for passing this
legislation, and I'm proud to be able to sign it.'' Ronald Reagan, in
August of 1982.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand here with my colleagues, as I did
then, to ensure that voting rights remain protected for an additional
25 years. Let Congress again make America proud by passing this
historical and vital legislation without amendment.
Remarks on Signing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982
June 29, 1982.--Well, I am pleased today to sign the
legislation extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Citizens must have complete confidence in the sanctity of
their right to vote, and that's what this legislation is all
about. It provides confidence that constitutional guarantees
are being upheld and that no vote counts more than another.
To so many of our people--our Americans of Mexican descent,
our black Americans--this measure is as important
symbolically as it is practically. It says to every
individual, ``Your vote is equal; your vote is meaningful;
your vote is your constitutional right.''
I've pledged that as long as I'm in a position to uphold
the Constitution, no barrier will come between our citizens
and the voting booth. And this bill is a vital part of
fulfilling that pledge.
This act ensures equal access to the political process for
all our citizens. It securely protects the right to vote
while strengthening the safeguards against representation by
forced quota. The legislation also extends those special
provisions applicable to certain States and localities, while
at the same time providing an opportunity for the
jurisdictions to bail out from the special provisions when
appropriate. In addition, the bill extends for 10 years the
protections for language minorities.
President Eisenhower said, ``The future of the Republic is
in the hands of the American voter.'' Well, with this law, we
make sure the vote stays in the hands of every American.
Let me say how grateful I am to these gentlemen up here,
the Members of the House and Senate from both sides of the
aisle, and particularly those on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, for getting this bipartisan legislation to my
desk.
Yes, there are differences over how to attain the equality
we seek for all our people. And sometimes amidst all the
overblown rhetoric, the differences tend to seem bigger than
they are. But actions speak louder than words. This
legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights.
It also proves that differences can be settled in a spirit of
good will and good faith.
In this connection, let me also thank all the other
organizations and individuals--many who are here today--who
worked for this bill. As I've said before, the right to vote
is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see
its luster diminished.
The legislation that I'm signing is the longest extension
of the act since its enactment and demonstrates America's
commitment to preserving this essential right. I'm proud of
the Congress for passing this legislation. I'm proud to be
able to sign it.
And without saying anything further, I'm going to do that
right now.
[At this point, the President signed the bill.]
It's done.
Note: The President spoke at 12:15 p.m. at the signing
ceremony in the East Room at the White House.
____
Statement of Administration Policy, July 13, 2006
H.R. 9--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
The Administration is strongly committed to renewing the
Voting Rights Act, and therefore supports House passage of
H.R. 9. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most significant
pieces of civil rights legislation in the Nation's history,
and the President has directed the full power and resources
of the Justice Department to protect each citizen's right to
vote and to preserve the integrity of the Nation's voting
process. The Administration is pleased the House is taking
action to renew this important legislation. The
Administration supports the legislative intent of H.R. 9 to
overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Georgia v.
Ashcroft and its 2000 decision in Reno v. Bossier Parish
School Board.
____
Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights,
May 3, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest,
largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition,
we write to express our strong support for H.R. 9, The Fannie
Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights
Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. LCCR deeply
appreciates your leadership and the leadership of
Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mel Watt (D-NC) in
sponsoring this important legislation. H.R. 9 is critical to
ensuring the continued protection of the right to vote for
all Americans.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is considered by many to be our
nation's most effective civil rights law. Congress enacted
the VRA in direct response to evidence of significant and
pervasive discrimination taking place across the country,
including the use of literacy tests, poll taxes,
intimidation, threats, and violence. By outlawing the tests
and devices that prevented minorities from voting, the VRA
put teeth into the 15th Amendment's guarantee that no citizen
can be denied the right to vote because of the color of his
or her skin. The VRA was initially passed in 1965 and has
been renewed four times by bipartisan majorities in the U.S.
House, and signed into law by both Republican and Democratic
presidents. In the 41 years since its initial passage, the
VRA has enfranchised millions of racial, ethnic, and language
minority citizens by eliminating discriminatory practices and
removing other barriers to their political participation. In
doing so, the VRA has empowered minority voters and has
helped to desegregate legislative bodies at all levels of
government.
Throughout the 109th Congress, during ten oversight
hearings that considered the ongoing need for the VRA, the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution found
significant evidence that barriers to equal minority voter
participation remain. The oversight hearings examined three
of the VRA's key provisions that are set to expire in August
of 2007: Section 5, which requires that certain jurisdictions
with a history of discrimination in voting obtain federal
approval prior to making any changes affecting voting, thus
preventing the implementation of discriminatory practices;
Section 203, which requires certain jurisdictions to provide
language assistance to citizens who are limited-English
proficient; and Sections 6 through 9, which authorize the
federal government to send observers to monitor elections for
compliance with the VRA.
[[Page H5145]]
The evidence gathered by the subcommittee revealed
continuing and persistent discrimination in jurisdictions
covered by Section 5 and Section 203 of the VRA. The
oversight hearings found that a second generation of
discrimination has emerged that serves to abridge or deny
minorities their equal voting rights. Jurisdictions continue
to attempt to implement discriminatory electoral procedures
on matters such as methods of election, annexations, and
polling place changes, as well as through redistricting
conducted with the purpose or the effect of denying
minorities equal access to the political process. Likewise,
the oversight hearings demonstrated that citizens are often
denied access to VRA-mandated language assistance and, as a
result, the opportunity to cast an informed ballot.
H.R. 9 is a direct response to the evidence of
discrimination that was gathered by the subcommittee. It
addresses this compelling record by renewing the VRA's
temporary provisions for 25 years. The bill reauthorizes and
restores Section 5 to its original congressional intent,
which has been undermined by the Supreme Court in Reno v.
Bossier Parish II and Georgia v. Ashcroft. The Bossier fix
restores the ability of the Attorney General, under Section 5
of the Act, to block implementation of voting changes
motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The Georgia fix
clarifies that Section 5 is intended to protect the ability
of minority citizens to elect their candidates of choice.
Section 203 is being renewed to continue to provide language-
minority citizens with equal access to voting, using more
frequently-updated coverage determinations based on the
American Community Survey Census data. The bill also keeps
the federal observer provisions in place, and authorizes
recovery of expert witness fees in lawsuits brought to
enforce the VRA.
The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy and
the VRA provides the legal basis to protect this right for
all Americans. We know that you are committed to timely
Congressional action to renew and restore this vital law and
we commend you for your leadership in introducing and
sponsoring The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments
Act of 2006. If you or your staff has any further questions,
please feel free to contact Nancy Zirkin, LCCR Deputy
Director, or Julie Fernandes, LCCR Senior Counsel, at (202)
466-3311.
Sincerely,
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
9to5, National Association of Working Women.
A. Phillip Randolph Institute.
AARP.
Advancement Project.
American Association of People with Disabilities.
American Association of University Women.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
American Federation of Government Employees.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
American Foundation for the Blind.
American Jewish Committee.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Americans for Democratic Action.
Anti-Defamation League.
Asian American Justice Center.
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote).
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
Center for Civic Participation.
Common Cause.
Community Service Society.
Cuban American National Council (CNC).
Demos: A Network of Ideas and Action.
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
FairVote.
Federally Employed Women.
Feminist Majority.
Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Gamaliel National Clergy Caucus.
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America.
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.
Human Rights Campaign.
International Association of Official Human Rights
Agencies.
Japanese American Citizens League.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Jewish Labor Committee.
Korean American Resource and Cultural Center (KRCC).
Korean Resource Center (KRC).
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
League of United Latin American Citizens.
League of Women Voters of the United States.
Legal Momentum.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees.
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
National Association of Human Rights Workers.
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund.
National Association of Neighborhoods.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
National Congress of American Indians.
National Congress of Black Women.
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of La Raza.
National Council of Negro Women, Inc.
National Education Association.
National Fair Housing Alliance.
National Federation of Filipino American Associations.
National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce.
National Institute for Latino Policy.
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium
(NAKASEC).
National Low Income Housing Coalition.
National Organization for Women (NOW).
National Partnership for Women & Families.
National Puerto Rican Coalition.
National Urban League.
National Voting Rights Institute.
National Women's Law Center.
Native American Rights Fund.
NETWORK: A Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Organization of Chinese Americans.
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
National.
People For the American Way.
Poverty & Race Research Action Council.
Presbyterian Church (USA).
Project Equality.
Protestants for the Common Good.
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
RainbowPUSH.
Service Employees International Union.
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC).
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.
The Interfaith Alliance.
The Massachusetts Latino Political Organization.
The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
United Auto Workers.
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society.
United Steelworkers.
William C. Velasquez Institute.
YKASEC--Empowering the Korean American Community.
YWCA USA.
____
Laborers' International Union
of North America,
July 11, 2006.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 700,000 members of
the Laborers' International Union of North America, I
strongly urge you to support the reauthorization of the 1965
Voting Rights Act. Failure to pass a clean reauthorization of
this key civil rights legislation will remove critical
protections which protect voters from discrimination and
disenfranchisement.
The House Judiciary Committee, passed the reauthorization
with strong bipartisan support. By passing this clean
extension of the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments
Act of 2006, H.R. 9'' the House will be safeguarding voters'
rights.
It is especially important that the House retain language
which ensures that states and counties get federal approval
before changing election laws and procedures, to provide
language assistance to citizens, and provisions which protect
the Attorney General's authority to monitor and observe
elections. Renewal of these vital pieces of the Voting Rights
Act is necessary to protect minority voting and to allow full
participation by minorities in the voting process.
In order to protect the rights of all voters, we urge you
to support a clean reauthorization of H.R. 9, and to oppose
any amendments that might weaken the bill's historical
protections by allowing discriminatory practices to occur or
by putting up political barriers at the voting booths.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
Terence M. O'Sullivan,
General President.
____
Department of Social
Development and World Peace,
Washington, DC, June 12, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to urge prompt action on
the House floor for HR 9 The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks,
and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 2006. This important legislation was
reported to the House by the Judiciary Committee under the
leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner with overwhelming
bipartisan support. As a co-sponsor of the bill, you know
that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act is necessary to
preserve and protect the right to vote for all Americans.
[[Page H5146]]
Under your leadership this vital legislation can be brought
to a timely vote in the House of Representatives.
The Catholic bishops have a longstanding commitment to
civil rights, including the right to vote. ``No Catholic with
a good Christian conscience can fail to recognize the rights
of all citizens to vote,'' wrote the Administrative Board of
the National Catholic Welfare Conference (predecessor of the
USCCB) in 1963. Portions of the Voting Rights Act were last
renewed in 1992, with the support of the USCCB. The USCCB has
continually emphasized the importance of voting and the right
and responsibility of each citizen to vote, and has
encouraged dioceses, parishes and other Catholic institutions
to participate in non-partisan voting registration efforts.
The right to vote is essential to our democracy and HR 9
protects this right. I know that you are committed to timely
Congressional action to renew and restore this vital law and
I commend you for your leadership in co-sponsoring The Fannie
Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights
Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Please use
every resource to bring the bill up for consideration in the
House of Representatives as soon as possible.
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio,
Bishop of Brooklyn,
Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee.
____
June 21, 2006.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: I
write today to express my strong support for a clean
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I urge you to
oppose both amendments that will be offered to the bill on
the floor today. Those amendments would weaken the Voting
Rights Act and take it away from its original purpose and
intent.
This bill, appropriately named to honor civil rights
legends Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King,
is a powerful statement of America's continuing resolve to
put racial discrimination on the ash heap of history.
The Voting Rights Act is a national treasure. It is the
cornerstone of civil rights legislation. This law has been,
historically, the product of broad bipartisan support. You
deserve to be commended for once again facilitating broad
consensus through hard work, research of the facts, and a
spirit of unity.
It is vital that the bipartisan consensus achieved by the
Judiciary Committee be preserved as this legislation is
considered in the House today. I strongly urge all Members to
support the work of the Committee and this carefully crafted,
bipartisan bill.
Sincerely,
J.C. Watts, Jr.
____
June 6, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf
of the undersigned organizations and our members nationwide,
we write to urge expedited consideration of legislation to
reauthorize expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 5, Section 203 and Sections 6 through 9 of that Act
help protect the right of every eligible citizen to vote
without discrimination. These safeguards must not be
permitted to expire and reauthorization is a key legislative
priority for our organizations during the 109th Congress.
The Voting Rights Act is rightly considered one of our
nation's most effective civil rights laws and has
strengthened the protections of the Fifteenth Amendment of
the Constitution. In the 41 years since its initial passage,
the Voting Rights Act has enfranchised millions of racial,
ethnic, and language minority citizens by breaking down
barriers to their political participation. It has helped to
build inclusive communities by ensuring that all citizens
have an opportunity to participate equally in the electoral
process.
Three key provisions of the Voting Rights Act are set to
expire on August 6, 2007. Section 5 requires jurisdictions
that previously maintained a voting test or device that
coincided with low voter registration and turnout to
``preclear'' changes in their voting practices or procedures
with the U.S. Department of Justice. Section 203 requires
jurisdictions with a concentration of Native American,
Alaskan Native, Asian, or Hispanic voters with limited
English proficiency to provide language assistance; and
Sections 6-9 authorize the U.S. Attorney General to appoint
federal election observers to document and deter unlawful
conduct.
These sections have had the cumulative effect of reducing
and preventing racial and language discrimination against a
significant number of citizens and have helped increase
minority participation in elections for candidates at all
levels of government. While substantial progress has been
made since passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it has
not yet resulted in the elimination of voting discrimination.
Congress must renew the enforcement provisions of the Voting
Rights Act.
Enforcement alone, however, is insufficient to fully
protect minority voters from discrimination and promote
access to the electoral process. Achieving the purposes of
the Voting Rights Act requires an ongoing partnership among
all levels of government and investment of resources to fully
integrate minority voters into our electoral process and
break down barriers to participation. This is not an
exclusive duty of state and local officials; the federal
government should provide necessary funding and technical
assistance to assist states, counties and cities in improving
the effectiveness of outreach and assistance to minority
voters and to assist in meeting the needs of all voters who
require assistance to participate in our democracy.
We urge you to promptly renew the expiring provisions of
the Voting Rights Act. Further, we look forward to working
with you and other members of Congress as well as the
Election Assistance Commission and the U.S. Department of
Justice in an ongoing commitment to improving participation
in our democratic process and meeting the needs of minority
voters.
We thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
Council of State Governments, Jim Brown, 202-624-5460/
[email protected].
National Conference of State Legislatures, Susan Frederick,
202-624-3566/[email protected].
National Association of Secretaries of State, Leslie
Reynolds, 202-624-3525/[email protected].
National Association of Counties, Alysoun McLaughlin, 202-
942-4254/[email protected].
National League of Cities, Jimmy Gomez, 202-626-3101/
[email protected].
U.S. Conference of Mayors, Larry Jones, 202-861-6709/
[email protected].
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a historic debate that the
world is watching.
If I might just take a moment to stroll down memory lane, it was on
January 7, 1965, that I was administered the oath of office to the
House of Representatives. It was on February 9, 1965 that we debated
the Voter Rights Act of 1965. And I pulled up some of the hearings and
my modest participation in that.
Strewn throughout the Congressional Record of February 9, 1965, are
the names of Lyndon Johnson, President; Speaker John McCormack of the
House of Representatives; Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, and I am the only Member of the House who has the proud
distinction of having been on the Committee on the Judiciary at the
time we considered this very historic piece of legislation.
So I take this time to thank three people. One is the chairman of
this committee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, for whom I am very
grateful for the cooperation that brought us together in a way we would
have never come together before in the original bill and in 1970, 1975,
1982, and 1992. We worked out an agreement with the House leadership,
both sides of the aisle, in a very important way.
{time} 1145
And then I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt), who is a member of that committee, but more so as the chairman
of the Congressional Black Caucus for the great job that he did.
Chairman of the subcommittee Chabot from Ohio did a wonderful job in
holding 12 hearings, with 47 witnesses; and Mr. Nadler, the ranking
member there; and many other Members who took time to come to the
committee to participate, to listen to the hearings, and frequently
participate in the interrogation of these witnesses.
In addition, the chairman of this committee and myself have gone
before the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring to them the large amount
of work that we have produced here. And so I come into the well with
these memoirs and experiences making me feel very proud about what we
are about to do today.
And though there is much to celebrate, efforts to suppress or dilute
minority votes, let's face it, are still all too common. I am proud of
the progress we have made, but the record shows that we haven't reached
a point where the particular provisions in the act should be allowed to
lapse, as some few may have you believe, and that is what we are going
to be debating about today.
[[Page H5147]]
With respect to section 5 and the covered jurisdictions, and that
trigger in section 4 that the gentleman from Georgia is adamant about
expanding, we found continuing patterns of discrimination in voting as
evidenced by adverse section 2 findings, section 5 objections, and
withdrawals of section 5 submissions after requests for more
information from the Department of Justice. And I just hope we can get
the Department of Justice to more forcefully intervene into some of the
cases that have been piling up.
Now, with respect to section 203, we received substantial testimony
from the advocacy community and the Department of Justice, supported by
the litigation record, that language minorities remain victims of
discrimination in voting. That is not hard to figure out why. It is
hard enough for us English speakers to figure out what is on these
ballots, much less to ask people who are very new and still
assimilating to the language. Sure, they speak English, but they need
help. And if they do, we find it is not costly for them to get the
assistance that we have provided under the law.
We found in 1982 a straight reauthorization of the act would not be
sufficient to protect the rights of minority voters. Several Supreme
Court cases have had the effect of clouding the scope of section 5
coverage, and so we have amended the act to restore its vitality. We
correct Reno v. Bossier by once again allowing the Justice Department
to block voting changes that had an unconstitutional discriminatory
purpose. Thanks to the Committee on the Judiciary for having the
testimony that made it clear that this had to be done.
We have clarified Georgia v. Ashcroft, making it clear that influence
districts are not a substitute for the section 5 districts where the
minorities have an ability to elect candidates of their choice.
These amendments are critical to the restoration of the Voting Rights
Act, and so we urge your support for the bill reported by the Congress.
And we want you to know that we have carefully considered in the
committee the four amendments that have been added over and above the
collective work and agreement of Members of both sides of the aisle. Do
not accept any of these amendments.
I beg you, in the tradition and spirit of those in the Congress that
have gone before us to fight for civil rights, who fought for the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the tens of
thousands of people in civil rights organizations, many who have
suffered, and there will never be a record in the Congress about it,
but a lot of pain and suffering has been the price of us coming this
far. We cannot afford to go back at this point.
So I urge my colleagues to make this a day of distinguished
continuation of American history for the rights of every citizen to
cast his ballot as a voter so that the Voting Rights Act remains the
crown jewel of constitutional democracy of this country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Voting Rights Act authorization. I will be inserting for the Record
a letter from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Tim Kaine,
supporting the act as written.
It is an unfortunate fact of our history that there were once
entrenched practices that served to deny minorities their franchise.
Such systematic discrimination cannot stand in a country founded on the
promise of freedom and equal protection under the law.
Some argue that those times have passed, that there is no need to
reauthorize the law. But the committee held over a dozen hearings on
this and found out that there are still discriminatory practices around
the country. Forty-one years ago, I thought our predecessors in the
Congress put this issue to rest. They determined this legislation was
the best method by which to ensure the one-man, one-vote principle
would be a reality.
Much has been said about the onerous nature of certain provisions of
section 5. My State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in its entirety, is
covered by section 5 in the original Voting Rights Act. But we are also
the only State to have jurisdictions that have exercised their right to
bail out under section 5.
In order to bail out, a jurisdiction must have been in full
compliance with the preclearance requirements for 10 years. It can have
no test or device to discriminate on the basis of race, color,
language, or minority status, and no lawsuit against the jurisdiction
alleging voter discrimination can be pending. Eleven jurisdictions,
some of which are in my district, have bailed out successfully. More
jurisdictions should and will follow suit. I have been assured by civil
rights leaders they will support bailouts where appropriate, where
jurisdictions can meet the basic requirement.
I would like to note that the justification for the continuing of
this act is not based solely on old data, that, in fact, hearings have
been held; and I think the record is complete showing the continued
need for this.
Section 5 is important because it is still being used today to
prevent changes in the law which would adversely affect minorities. In
fact, section 5 has been used more since 1982 than it was used before
1982. We have come a long way in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in
America generally, but that doesn't mean there still isn't more work to
be done.
I congratulate the chairmen and the ranking members for working on
this very bipartisan bill and urge its support.
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Office of the Governor,
Richmond, VA, July 12, 2006.
Hon. Tom Davis,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Davis: I am writing to express my strong
support for S. 2703 and H.R. 9, the Senate and House versions
of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
Unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is as necessary
today as it was when Congress enacted it. The VRA continues
today to serve to protect and guard against discriminatory
practices in elections and protects the rights of minority
voters. While the nation has dramatically changed over the
years, instances of discrimination still exist.
Section 5 of the VRA requires jurisdictions with a history
of discrimination to have their voting laws and regulations
pre-approved (or ``pre-cleared'') by the federal government
or a federal court before they may be changed. In my
experience as Mayor of Richmond as in my positions with state
government, I have found that the preclearance requirements
are not onerous, and in fact provide a useful venue for
public input into significant changes in election law.
The VRA's minority language provisions serve to remove
language as a barrier to political participation, and to
prevent voting discrimination against law-abiding, productive
members of society. Section 203 does this by requiring
certain jurisdictions provide language assistance to citizens
who are not yet fully proficient in English when voting.
While no jurisdictions in Virginia yet meet the statistical
thresholds set out in Section 203, by 2010 Arlington,
Alexandria, or Fairfax County may meet one or more of these
formulas. Arlington and Fairfax County, with their
considerably significant Spanish populations, already
voluntarily provide voter information in Spanish. This is
especially important for individuals wishing to make informed
voting decisions on bond referendums and constitutional
amendments. The Virginia State Board of Elections also works
with the Virginia Press Service to provide the explanations
of the Constitutional Amendments to all minority newspapers
in the state. The SBE also recommends that the papers publish
the explanations in the language of their constituencies.
Please vote to reauthorize the VRA, including Sections 5
and 203, without amendment, when it comes to the floor. Let
us work together, both federally and within the Commonwealth,
to continue to protect the rights of all voters.
Sincerely,
Timothy M. Kaine,
Governor.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) for 7 minutes, but I must point out that not only
as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus during the more than
1 year we have been working on the legislation, he was also an able
member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary
Committee. And for those two reasons, we are deeply grateful to the
contributions that he has made that has brought us to the floor today.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who deserve
special thanks and accolades today, but I want to point out three of
them who are in our midst.
[[Page H5148]]
First, I want to commend the efforts of Representative John Lewis,
now a Member of Congress, who shed his blood on Bloody Sunday so that
the original 1965 Voting Rights Act would be passed.
I want to pay special recognition to my good friend and ranking
member, John Conyers, who in 1965 was here, in 1970 during the first
renewal, in 1975, 1982, and 1992 he was here. And we suspect 25 years
from now he will be here for the next renewal of the Voting Rights Act,
if in fact it is required.
I want to pay an extra special thanks to the chairman of our
committee, Representative James Sensenbrenner, who I believe will go
down in history as a warrior who supported, defended, extended, and
made real our democracy in this country, and he deserves our supreme
thanks.
I rise today in unwavering support of H.R. 9. The bill is the product
of a long-term, thoughtful, and thorough bipartisan deliberation that
carefully weighed the competing concerns and considerations that have
engulfed debate on the Voting Rights Act since its inception. The act
has been extended on four occasions, making it arguably the most
carefully reviewed civil rights measure in our Nation's history.
H.R. 9 continues that practice of careful review, accompanied by
extensive record evidence in support of its provisions. I am proud to
have been a part of the bipartisan coalition that crafted this
legislation and believe that it strengthens the very foundation of our
democracy.
H.R. 9 restores the Voting Rights Act to its original intent to
secure and protect the rights of minority citizens to participate
equally in voting. The bill bars voting changes that have the purpose
of discriminating against minority citizens, and it restores the
ability of minority communities to elect candidates who share their
values and represent their interests as originally intended by
Congress.
Now, there are those who argue that the Voting Rights Act has
outlived its usefulness, that it is outdated, and that it unfairly
punishes covered jurisdictions for past sins. Yet I stand here today as
living proof of both the effectiveness of and the continuing need for
the Voting Rights Act.
I stand here on the shoulders, in the aftermath and in the history of
George H. White, who rose on the floor of Congress in 1901, January 29,
as the last African American in the Congress of the United States after
Reconstruction when he said, ``This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the
Negroes' temporary farewell to American Congress; but let me say,
Phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again.'' And he was
right. But it took a long time.
You need to understand that that was not delivered in a vacuum.
Listen to what happened leading up to that election. In Halifax, the
registered Republican vote was 345, and the total registered vote of
the township was 539. But when the count was announced, it stood 990
Democrats to 41 Republicans, 492 more Democratic votes counted than
were registered in that city.
{time} 1200
There was discrimination taking place, and I am the witness to it.
The Voting Rights Act had been in effect just shy of 30 years in 1992
when I and former colleague Eva Clayton became the first African
Americans elected to Congress from the State of North Carolina since
George H. White delivered that speech in 1901. Put plainly, nearly
three decades elapsed after the passage of the Voting Rights Act before
the impact of the Voting Rights Act became real in North Carolina.
We should be clear: although the successes of the Voting Rights Act
have been substantial, they have not been fast and they have not been
furious. Rather, the successes have been gradual and of very recent
origin.
Now is not the time to jettison the expiring provisions that have
been instrumental to the success we applaud today. In a Nation such as
ours, we should want and encourage more Americans to vote, not fewer.
The Voting Rights Act and the renewal and restoration contained in
H.R. 9 facilitate those very goals. By breaking down entrenched
barriers to voter equity, this bill invites, inspires, and protects
racial and language minority citizens' full and equal participation in
the governance of our Nation. We must not fear that participation; we
must embrace and celebrate it instead.
Upon the introduction of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, President
Lyndon Johnson noted that the Voting Rights Act is like no other piece
of civil rights legislation because ``every American citizen must have
an equal right to vote.'' ``About this,'' he said, ``there can and
should be no argument.''
Make no mistake, voting is democracy's most fundamental right.
Undermining the right to vote is a fundamental wrong, one that must be
eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, a Congress with far fewer African Americans, Latinos,
and Asians Americans passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because the
right to vote had been denied for too long. Congress made a moral
decision that it was the right thing to do for our democracy. It is
time for us to reaffirm that decision by passing H.R. 9 without
amendment today in this House. I ask my colleagues to stand up and make
a moral statement that democracy lives in the United States of America.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the chairman of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who held all of these hearings to
show why this legislation is necessary, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Conyers for their leadership in getting us to where we
are today.
Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is one of the most fundamental and
essential rights that we have as citizens. Free, prosperous nations
like ours can't exist without ensuring the right of every citizen to
vote. It is the cornerstone of democracy and the centerpiece of the
Constitution.
Clearly, the right to vote is important to all of us, regardless of
our race, religion, or ethnicity. This is reflected in the protection
afforded by the 15th amendment which states: ``The rights of citizens
of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.''
To protect these rights, our government must ensure that elections in
the country reflect the will of the people. The Voting Rights Act is an
important part of that guarantee.
The Voting Rights Act is now 40 years old. It is viewed as one of the
most significant pieces of legislation to address voting rights. It was
enacted after the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, erupted in
violence, and that march is now referred to as Bloody Sunday.
President Johnson then pledged to address the issue, and 5 months
later the Voting Rights Act was adopted by the Congress of the United
States. In his address to Congress, President Johnson stated: ``The
Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of
his race or color. We have all sworn an oath before God to support and
defend the Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath.''
As elected officials of this body, we must now act again to continue
to uphold that duty and ensure that the protections guaranteed in the
Constitution are afforded to all citizens regardless of skin color.
For that reason, we have given this issue more time and more
attention than any single issue since I became chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee 6 years
ago.
Starting in October last year, the Subcommittee on the Constitution
held 12 hearings and heard testimony from 47 witnesses to examine the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and we generated more than
12,000 pages of testimony. Our goal was to be flexible, fair,
inclusive, and perhaps most importantly, bipartisan, because as Mr.
Conyers eloquently stated near the end of our hearings, civil rights
need not be a partisan issue.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that we examined in great deal
each of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act currently set
to expire. The extensive testimony from a large number of diverse
organizations demonstrated a clear need to reauthorize the Voting
Rights Act.
With regard to section 5 and section 203, we held multiple hearings
to ensure that all of the relevant issues were
[[Page H5149]]
examined and that they were also addressed. This past March, we held
another hearing to incorporate into the record a series of State and
national reports that provided additional documentation about the
continuing need for the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions.
Today, we have before us H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, the product of the
Committee on the Judiciary's work over the last 8 months.
I would like to thank my colleagues and those organizations who have
worked with us from the start for their dedication to get us where we
are today. Without a commitment by all interested parties to openness
and cooperation, we would not be in a position to reauthorize this
historic legislation.
As has been stated, H.R. 9 extends the temporary provisions of the
Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years. In addition, the
legislation makes changes to certain provisions, including restoring
the original purpose of section 5. In reauthorizing the temporary
provisions, the committee heard from several witnesses who testified
about voter discrimination in covered jurisdictions.
It is also important to take a minute to touch on the constitutional
questions regarding the reauthorizations of the temporary provisions.
The Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach and later in the City
of Rome v. United States upheld Congress's broad authority under
section 2 of the 15th amendment to use the temporary provisions to
address the problem of racial discrimination in voting in certain
jurisdictions. With H.R. 9, Congress is simply using its authority
under section 2 to ensure that every citizen in this country has the
right to vote.
In addition to reauthorizing, the committee found it necessary to
make certain changes to ensure that the provisions of the Voting Rights
Act remain effective. For example, testimony received by the committee
indicates that Federal examiners have not been used in the last 20
years, but Federal observers continue to provide vital oversight. H.R.
9 strikes the Federal examiner provision while retaining the authority
of the Attorney General to assign Federal observers to cover
jurisdictions over the next 25 years.
In addition, H.R. 9 provides for the recovery of expert costs as part
of the attorneys' fees. This change brings the Voting Rights Act in
line with current civil rights laws, which already allow for the
recovery of such costs.
H.R. 9 also seeks to restore the original purpose to section 5.
Beginning in 2000, the Supreme Court in Reno v. Bossier Parish, and
later in 2003, in the case of Georgia v. Ashcroft, issued decisions
that significantly altered section 5. H.R. 9 clarifies Congress's
original intent with regard to section 5.
Mr. Chairman, as we continue to face threats from terrorists bent on
destroying democracy in the free world, every Member of Congress and
every freedom-loving person in the world recognizes the power of the
right to vote. Again and again, we have seen how people are forced to
live in countries without democracy and without freedom. That is why
our commitment to self-government, freedom, and liberty continues to
set an example for the rest of the world. That is why our efforts to
continue to protect every citizen's right to vote are so important, and
that is why we must support the legislation which is before us today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization for 25 years and against any of the
amendments, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which I
have cosponsored.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 seeks to ensure that all
Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity, language spoken, or
disability--have the right and the opportunity to vote. The VRA seeks
to implement the guarantee of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which was adopted by Congress and the states after the
Civil War during Reconstruction.
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified 136 years ago,
provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' For
nearly a century thereafter despite this clear language, millions of
minorities were denied full participation in the electoral process
through the notorious Jim Crow laws. Not until Congress enacted the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 did this country begin to genuinely fulfill
its commitment to this most fundamental right.
Today, over 40 years after President Lyndon Johnson gathered with
prominent civil rights leaders to sign the Act into law the VRA
continues to play a critical role in guaranteeing that every American
may enter the polls and have their vote count.
This country has come a long way since the original enactment of the
VRA. In many of the districts and states that had previously blocked
African-Americans from the polls, African-Americans and whites now vote
in nearly equal numbers. The great-grandchildren of slaves now hold
elected offices across the country.
Our work, though, is not complete. Committee testimony on this bill
reminded us that efforts to disenfranchise remain. While the most
egregious impediments to full voting have been eliminated, many more
subtle, yet still insidious impediments remain. The VRA ensures our
vigilance towards continued efforts to disenfranchise minority voters.
In the last few elections in Maryland, for example, minority voters
have continued to face intimidation and fraud, and poll workers have
improperly turned away voters and refused to let them cast provisional
ballots For example, in 2002 flyers were distributed in some African-
American neighborhoods in Baltimore City urging people to vote on the
wrong day, and warning them to pay parking tickets and overdue rent
before they tried to vote.
While the VRA was born in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the
Act has evolved with our society through regular amendments and
renewals. In 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992, the VRA was amended and
extended. Each renewal by Congress was a confirmation of the continued
need and effectiveness of the VRA's tools.
Today, this Congress again uses it power to enforce the 15th
Amendment. We must renew the VRA to continue to protect the rights of
minority voters.
The reauthorization of the VRA properly extends scrutiny in the form
of federal examiners and observers who watch over the operations of
elections around the country, while providing for the termination of
examiners where appropriate. Examiners and observers have studied and
monitored the mechanics of thousands of elections to ensure that
legitimate votes are counted and eligible voters are not turned away.
Reauthorization facilitates continued enforcement of Section 4
``preclearance'' procedures that review changes to election law to
ensure that such changes do not adversely effect minorities.
Preclearance creates a procedure to ensure that election law changes
and redistricting do not discriminate against minority voters.
Preclearance provides an added level of protection in jurisdictions
where election laws had previously been abused. I am pleased that this
legislation overturns two recent Supreme Court decisions that weakened
the preclearance provisions of the VRA.
I will oppose any amendments calling for a new formula for Section 4
preclearance procedures. The applicability of the VRA does not need to
be recalculated by the Congress. The original formula for determining
which states and municipalities are covered by Section 4 has functioned
well for 40 years. More importantly, the criteria for ``bailing out''
of Section 4 is reasoned, precise, and attainable. The law allows for
states to graduate from the VRA's constraints when clear evidence is
offered that the state or municipality retains no lingering
obstructions to electoral participation by minority voters.
Finally, reauthorization promotes access to the polls by limited-
English speakers. It is crucial that new citizens be afforded all the
rights and privileges of the Constitution. Citizens with limited-
English speaking abilities should not be disenfranchised.
In Maryland, for example, the bilingual provisions of the VRA are
absolutely critical. In 2002, in Montgomery County, Maryland, the
County Board of Elections received notice that recent demographic data
regarding the growth of the Hispanic population indicated the county
would need to abide by Section 203 of the VRA. The election staff
complied with the VRA and converted signs, documents, and ballots to be
bilingual. Many of Montgomery County's 122,000 Hispanic residents
benefited from the assistance. In the future, other language minorities
in Maryland (such as Asian-Americans) may need the assistance the VRA
prescribes.
I will also oppose efforts to reauthorize this law for less than the
full 25 years. I urge my
[[Page H5150]]
colleagues to vote in favor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act
of 2006.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, who has worked in an indefatigable manner to bring us to
this point on the legislation with no amendments, and I am very proud
of the service he has given the committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we will vote on the most fundamental
of American values, the right to cast a meaningful vote in a free and
fair election. We have declared to the world that this is what we stand
for. It is what we have insisted other nations do. We have made great
progress, but that work is not finished.
It is impossible to review the record without concluding that the
Voting Rights Act is responsible for much of that progress, and that it
is still necessary and will be for the foreseeable future.
Section 5 is not, as some would argue, a punishment but a remedy. It
protects voters from being disenfranchised. It is in place because
local governments have a long history of disenfranchising Americans
that continues right up to the present time, as the shameful attempts
by the States of Georgia and Texas to restrict voting participation,
which had to be knocked down by the Federal courts as recently as
yesterday, clearly shows.
This makes particularly unfortunate attempts led by some Members from
those States to restrict the reach of section 5, and I say that as a
representative of New York City, which is also covered by section 5,
and should be.
Some would eliminate the English language voting assistance
provisions of section 203. The same arguments used to justify literacy
tests in prior years are now being recycled to exclude American
citizens with limited English proficiency.
I urge my colleagues not to allow a small group to drag this Nation
back to the days of Jim Crow voting. If we are to be a beacon of
democracy to the world, then we must stand by our own values.
I urge my colleagues to reject these divisive amendments. Do not
water down the Voting Rights Act; do not turn our backs on one of the
glory pages of this House. Reenact the Voting Rights Act without
watering it down.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has a proud and
important legacy in my home State of Georgia and across the United
States. With minor changes that would modernize the Voting Rights Act
and better reflect the reality of what is happening in the 21st
century, I would be joining many of my colleagues in voting ``yes''
today.
But the bill we have before us is fatally flawed. This rewrite is
outdated, unfair, and unconstitutional. I cannot support it in its
current form.
This rewrite treats Georgia as if nothing changed in the past 41
years. In other words, this rewrite seems based on the assumption that
the Voting Rights Act hasn't worked.
As a Georgian who is proud of our tremendous progress and proud of
our current record of equality, I am here to report to my colleagues in
the House that the Voting Rights Act has worked in my State, and now it
is time to modernize the law to deal with the problems of today, not
yesteryear.
Mr. Chairman, it is true when the Voting Rights Act was first passed
in 1965 Georgia needed Federal intervention to correct decades of
discrimination.
Now, 41 years later, Georgia's record on voter equality can stand up
against any other State in the Union. Today, black Georgians are
registered to vote at higher percentages than white Georgians, and
black Georgians go to the polls in higher percentages than white
Georgians. One-third of our state-wide elected officials are African
Americans, including our attorney general and the chief justice of our
Supreme Court. Plus, African American representation in the State
legislature closely mirrors their representation in Georgia's
population.
But don't just take my word for it on Georgia's progress. Listen to
this ringing endorsement from my colleague from Georgia, Congressman
John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement. Under oath in Federal
court 5 years ago, Congressman Lewis testified: ``There has been a
transformation. It's a different State, it's a different political
climate, it's a different political environment. It's altogether a
different world we live in. We've come a great distance. It's not just
in Georgia, but in the American South, I think people are preparing to
lay down the burden of race.''
If he said that under oath, sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, why is he telling the House something different today?
The reason he was under oath was because he was testifying in front of
the Department of Justice that it was okay for the majority-minority
districts in Georgia to be diluted, in direct violation of the Voter
Rights Act.
{time} 1215
My other friend from Georgia, Congressman Scott, voted for that.
Though it defies common sense, this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act
gives no consideration to any changes that may have occurred since the
first law was passed in 1965.
The House is voting today to keep my State in the penalty box for 25
years based on the actions of the people who are now dead. By the end
of this renewal, Georgia will have been treated by Federal law as a bad
actor for 66 years, Mr. Chairman. To put that in perspective, 66 years
ago, FDR was in his second term, and the Japanese were more than a year
away from bombing Pearl Harbor.
By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, Congress is
declaring from on high that States with voting problems 40 years ago
can simply never be forgiven, that Georgians must eternally wear the
scarlet letter because of the actions of their grandparents and great-
grandparents. We have repented, and we have reformed, and now, as
Fannie Lou Hamer famously said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and
tired.''
Lastly, this renewal is unconstitutional. In 1966, the Supreme Court
of the United States ruled that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the
section that singles out certain States for Federal oversight, was
constitutional only because it was narrowly tailored to fix a specific
problem and temporary. You don't have to have a law school degree to
know that this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act fails both of those
tests. At 41 years, we are already way past temporary. And the
application of section 5 is now arbitrary because this House cannot
present evidence of extraordinary continuing State-sponsored
discrimination in the covered States that is different from the rest of
the Nation.
As such, section 5 has served its purpose and is no longer an
appropriate remedy in light of today's new voting problems.
The Voting Rights Act represents a grand trophy of great
accomplishment for Congress, but after 41 years, the trophy needs
dusting. We could have given the trophy a new shine for a new century,
but sadly, that didn't happen.
And still this bill states explicitly that my constituents cannot be
trusted to act in good faith without Federal supervision. That
assertion is as ignorant as it is insulting. I cannot and will not
support a bill that is outdated, unfair and unconstitutional.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend and to my
colleague from the State of Georgia, it is true that years ago I said
that we are in the process of laying down the burden of race. But it is
not down yet and we are not asleep yet.
The Voting Rights Act was good and necessary in 1965 and it is still
good and necessary today. So don't misquote me. Don't take my words out
of context.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous
consent request to the delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.
Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9,
to reauthorize the expiring provision of the
[[Page H5151]]
Voting Rights Act for another 25 years and in opposition to all
amendments.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important pieces of
legislation ever passed by this body because it seeks to fulfill the
promise of our democracy--the right of every citizen to vote; a promise
which sadly today remains unfulfilled. Since the Voting Rights Act was
passed 41 years ago, millions of minority voters were guaranteed a
chance to make their voices heard in State, Federal and local elections
across the country.
Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary
Committee held more than 10 oversight hearings and assembled over
12,000 pages of testimony, documentary evidence and appendices from
over 60 groups and individuals, including several Members of Congress
on the continuing need for the expiring provisions of the VRA.
The committee requested, received, and incorporated into its hearing
record two comprehensive reports that have been compiled by NGOs that
have expertise in voting rights litigation which extensively documented
the extent to which discrimination against minorities in voting has and
continues to occur.
Mr. Chairman, my constituents in the Virgin Islands hold dear their
right to vote as citizens of the United States.
While we have only been able to elect our own local Governors and
representative to Congress since 1970 and 1972 respectively, we have
been electing members of local legislative council and later
legislature for more than 100 years.
Preventing Americans from voting because of race, color, or ethnic
origin is repugnant to the democratic process and should always be
rejected. I am proud to be able to stand here today on the shoulders of
Fannie Lou Haner, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King and the other leaders
of the struggle to ensure that all Americans have the right, to urge
all of my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 9 and to oppose all of
the amendments which will weaken the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), an eminent member of the Judiciary Committee, who
has done great work on the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years since its
passage, the Voting Rights Act has guaranteed millions of minority
voters the right to vote. As the Supreme Court noted in 1964, ``Other
rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is
undermined.''
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has been effective in eliminating
schemes and barriers to the ballot box. But several key provisions of
the act are scheduled to expire in 2007. This bill will reauthorize
those important provisions. One is section 5, preclearance. It is
crucial because it prevents election changes in covered jurisdictions
from going into effect before being precleared by the Justice
Department as being free from discrimination.
If preclearance expires, an illegal scheme could help somebody win
elections. That person would be able to serve until the victims of
discrimination come up with the money to file a lawsuit. And then, when
the scheme is thrown out, the perpetrator of that crime will get to run
with all the advantages of incumbency when they run for reelection.
Because of preclearance, illegal plans never go into effect.
All of the States are not covered by section 5, but States which are
covered got covered the old-fashioned way, they earned it. They were
found to have had a history of implementing barriers and schemes that
were effective in denying minorities the right to vote.
Present law has a bailout provision which our hearing record
demonstrates works for those who are no longer discriminating.
Another important provision to be reauthorized is section 203
regarding language. It works. When language assistance is available,
more people vote. It applies only in jurisdictions when there are
enough voters to actually affect an election, so it is important where
it applies. The cost of implementation is negligible.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act works to ensure the right to
vote. We should pass H.R. 9 without amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott), who was permitted to sit in on the proceedings in
the Judiciary Committee in the House on the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Westmoreland just very
cleverly and deceitfully tried to intone and misuse the words and the
actions of two of his colleagues from Georgia, John Lewis and myself.
It is very important to say that while Georgia has made great
progress, I am living example of it, being elected from a district in
Georgia that was only 37.6 percent African American. No question about
it.
But when you tell the truth, Mr. Westmoreland, tell the truth right.
Here is the truth of Georgia: Since 1982, Georgia trails only Texas and
Alabama in the number of successful section 5 cases, 17, brought
against Georgia for failing to submit voting changes for approval to
the Department of Justice.
Since 1982, not since 1965, since 1982, Georgia has had 83 section 5
objections to discriminatory voting practices, the fourth highest total
of all jurisdictions.
Since 1982, Georgia has withdrawn the submission of 38 discriminatory
voting practices to the Department of Justice after it became apparent
that the Department was going to object. Since 1982, the Justice
Department has deployed Federal observers to 55 times in Georgia.
If there is any State that needs a continuation of the Voting Rights
Act, it is Georgia.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members to abide by the time limits
and heed the gavel.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), an important member on the
development of the Voting Rights Act that is before the floor.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise today to stand tall for
the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Chairman and Members, as an African American woman Member of
Congress, I consider it my profound and welcome duty to use my voice
and my vote to continue the struggle of the civil rights movement to
guarantee the right to vote to African Americans and all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult time explaining to African Americans
all over this country why the Congress of the United States has to
continue to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The answer to that
question is sad but simple and true. Discrimination.
America, we stand before you today reauthorizing the Voting Rights
Act because we have to continue to have safeguards in law to prevent
cities, counties, States and other jurisdictions from devising laws,
practices, tricks and procedures that impede the right to vote by
minorities in this country.
One may ask, what laws and tricks are you alluding to?
Mr. Chairman, in the past, the tricks were poll taxes, literacy tests
and voter intimidation. Today, and throughout the years, the laws and
tricks have changed but the game is the same: Deny and prevent
minorities from exercising the power of selection of candidates and
laws by any means necessary.
What are some of these tactics being used today in some jurisdictions
in America? Oh, they are tactics like, in Georgia, create the need for
an identification card that you have to pay for that is only issued by
the State.
In Florida, create databases identifying people as felons, people who
have never ever been arrested before, change voting rights laws so that
you create at-large districts instead of districts where minorities can
be elected from. Minority candidates get elected by districts, and when
you create these at-large districts, you eliminate the possibility of
their getting elected. Place uniformed guards at polling places to
intimidate voters. The list goes on and on.
The Voting Rights Act will guarantee preclearance of these attempted
discriminatory acts and, hopefully, deny these kinds of actions.
I ask my colleagues, don't disrespect the civil rights movement.
Don't dishonor us. Pass this voting rights reauthorization bill and
show the world that America is sincere about democracy.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight how H.R. 9 could
more effectively address the current landscape of voter participation
in this
[[Page H5152]]
country. And I want to point out to my colleague, Mr. Scott, my good
friend from Georgia, that the Federal observers that he mentioned are
actually removed in this bill.
So while the bill may seem sufficient to Members from States that
will not be affected by this legislation, I feel compelled to highlight
how the standards of this bill can be improved.
In the 1980 city of Rome, Georgia v. United States decision, the
Supreme Court reviewed the equal protection objections to the Voting
Rights Act as raised by the city of Rome, which is in Georgia's 11th
district, my district. While the Court did recognize the inherent
inequity of applying section 5 restrictions to some, but not all
States, the Court cited lagging African American voter registration and
participation in elective office as sufficient justification to uphold
the Voting Rights Act, despite concerns of equal protection violations
for the States, because at the time the Voting Rights Act was
considered a temporary law.
Well, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier in this debate, Georgia
has come a long way in the past 40 years. In 2000, 66.3 percent of
black Georgians were registered to vote, compared to 59.3 of white
Georgians; 51.6 percent of black Georgians turned out to vote in the
2000 election, compared to 48.3 percent of white Georgians.
We have gone from 30 African American elected officials in 1970 to
582 in 2000. We have four African Americans in Congress, three African
American supreme court justices, including the chief justice, and two
African Americans elected as statewide constitutional officers,
attorney general and labor commissioner.
Since the Supreme Court's ruling in the City of Rome v. United
States, Georgia has met the standards laid out by the Court, and as Mr.
Westmoreland says, should not be penalized because of voter
participation in 1964.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
temporarily while my colleague has stepped away.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chair of the Hispanic Caucus.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise as chair of the 21-member
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and call for the reauthorization of the
Voting Rights Act.
This bill is about protecting the most basic and significant civil
rights for all American citizens, the right to vote. I call on this
House to pass the bill.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who is a member of the Hispanic
Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
urge my colleagues to oppose all four of today's amendments and pass a
clean Voting Rights Act reauthorization.
The four amendments that have been made in order are poison pills. If
the two irrational section 5 amendments pass, the VRA's coverage
formula would be repealed, and the Department of Justice will spend its
time conducting studies in jurisdictions with no discrimination,
instead of actively fighting discrimination in jurisdictions with
ongoing voting rights violations.
{time} 1230
If the mean-spirited section 203 amendment passes, eligible voting-
age citizens will be deprived of language assistance and lose the
chance to cast an informed, accurate vote for the candidate of their
choice.
If the Gohmert amendment passes, jurisdictions will wait out their
obligations to end discrimination under the VRA rather than comply with
the VRA, which will result in the same kind of widespread noncompliance
with the VRA that we sought in the late 1970s.
All of these amendments are inconsistent with the spirit and the
intent of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act protects the
most fundamental right in a democracy, the right to vote; and it is our
most powerful tool to help ensure that no American citizen is subject
to discrimination at the polls. The Voting Rights Act plays a critical
role in fulfilling the promise of American democracy. It has given
voice to minority communities, and without it, many black, Hispanic,
and Asian American leaders would not be holding elected office today.
Passing this bill will also honor the sacrifices of the men and women
who died and suffered injuries fighting for equality during the civil
rights movement.
That is why reauthorization of H.R. 9 has the support of Republicans
and Democrats, Senators and House Representatives, businesses, civil
rights groups, editorial boards, and grass-roots organizations around
the country.
Let us pass H.R. 9 clean by opposing all four amendments offered
today and voting ``yes'' on final passage.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear, I
believe every citizen of this country should be able to vote
unencumbered. I believe, actually, that the Voting Rights Act has been
and is a good thing and it should be reauthorized. I nor anybody I know
is trying to do away with section 5, though I continue to hear it over
and over again.
Mr. Chairman, today we battle a phantom that has haunted this Chamber
since the day, probably, it was first built. It has stalked us since
before we were a Nation. It poured the curse of slavery on our infant
Republic. It fed the flames of regional conflict until we suffered the
most devastating war in our history. It gave birth to segregation, poll
taxes, and literacy tests.
This specter embodies what is perhaps our Nation's original sin:
discrimination. It has dunned us with a moral debt that maybe can never
be fully paid. I pray that is not the case. But then again, maybe it is
only waiting for a generation with the courage to exorcise that demon
out of our hearts and out of this land.
Our forebears, in spite of their many blessings that they left us,
failed this challenge. They had the chance with Dred Scott and instead
decided that slaves were not human beings. They had a second chance
with Jim Crow, but instead built a segregated society.
Today, we have a rare chance, and I mean rare, to revisit the
fundamental issue, discrimination, that our predecessors avoided
dealing with.
Discrimination is the creation of laws or systems that deny a person
the same rights enjoyed by their fellow human beings, not because of
what they do but because of who they are. In 1965 that meant white
people in many areas of this country, and especially in my beloved
South, set up legal hurdles that kept people of color from voting. Not
because of what they did, but simply because of who they were.
The Voting Rights Act, passed by this House in 1965, stopped that
practice. It did so by temporarily denying the voters of my State and
others their constitutional right to determine election practices
without Federal interference.
This harsh measure, known as section 5 oversight, was not
discrimination. It was not laid on these jurisdictions because of who
they were, but because of what they did. Now, this is a profound point.
Forty years later there is not a single member of my State legislature
who served in 1964, particularly the Democrats, under those
discriminatory laws. Seventy percent of today's Georgians did not live
in Georgia in 1964. They are either dead or have moved away under these
discriminatory laws. They were either unborn or have since moved
perhaps somewhere else.
Yet H.R. 9 would leave all these people, who have committed no wrong,
with diminished election rights. Not because of what they do, but
because of who they are. This is blatant discrimination based on
nothing more than where we live.
All who dwell on a particular type of soil, section 5 soil, now have
their constitutional rights curtailed. Is the Earth beneath our feet
guilty of the crimes of man? Does it then condemn all who trod on our
soil? That is the contention of H.R. 9, as it ravages the rights of the
innocent, those whose only offense is in where they live.
Unlike H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act did not condemn the righteous
with the wicked. It reserved its penalties only for those jurisdictions
where offenses
[[Page H5153]]
had occurred and only until those injustices were corrected. It was not
a life sentence and certainly not a sentence on those yet unborn.
Georgia now outperforms the Nation, outperforms the Nation, in every
area of black voting: turnout, registration, the success rate of black
candidates in our State. Yet H.R. 9 turns a blind eye to these facts
and seeks to let the innocent continue their punishment for another
quarter of a century.
Mr. Chairman, either we restore their voting rights to equality, or
the Supreme Court will be forced to do it for us. And the Court will do
so in ways far more damaging to section 5 than any reasonable amendment
that I am going to bring later today that we could devise.
The days of allowing the ghost of the past to discriminate against
the living are and should be coming to an end. Our choice today is
whether it will end through carefully crafted amendments or will it be
through the judicial act. All we are trying to do is change section 5
so that every citizen in this country, whether you are from Tennessee,
whether you are from Wisconsin, have the same equal rights that
minorities in Georgia have.
And when you get time, look at these maps. On the right it shows you
everybody that is in white is not under section 5. If you are in a
color, you are under section 5. Everybody on the map on the left covers
39 States that actually have been guilty of section 4 of the Voting
Rights Act. I do not understand how you can go home and you can say you
are all for equal rights, fair rights, protections for voters in
Georgia, but it is not all right to have those same protections in
Tennessee or in Arkansas or in Wisconsin or Ohio. What is wrong with
looking at the whole Nation? Everybody is not going to go under it.
Everybody is not going to break section 5 formula. But others are
besides just us. And on that map Georgia stays under section 5, and I
hate it. I wish we were not. Ten counties might get out, but they can
only get out for 4 years. The Attorney General is going to be requested
to look at it every 4 years and all across the country, including Ohio
and including Florida. What is wrong with that? I fail to understand
why anybody would find fault.
You say that we have had so many objections, meaning Georgia. I
promise you an objection does not automatically mean discrimination. We
have had five objections since 2000. One of them came from a majority
black city council, and it was thrown out. That puts us in the penalty
box for another 10 years.
Let me quote what my good friend John Lewis said in an affidavit:
The State (Georgia) is not the same State it was. It's not
the same State that it was in 1965 or in 1975 or even in 1980
or 1990. We have changed. We have come a great distance. I
think that it's not just in Georgia but in the American
South. I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of
race.
Clearly John is proud of Georgia's progress, as am I.
Congressman Lewis is not alone in recognizing progress.
Here's how my State's African American Attorney General Thurbert
Baker testified before a Federal three judge panel in 2001.
The State's (Georgia) racial and political experience in
recent years is radically different than it was 10 or 20
years ago, and that is exemplified on every level of politics
from statewide elections on down. The election history for
legislative offices in the Georgia House, Senate, and the
United States Congress reflect a high level of success of
African American candidates.
But this is more critical. The Judiciary Committee record seems to
show that the problems that do continue to exist occur across the
Nation, not just the States in the covered jurisdictions.
So why isn't the Judiciary Committee going after these current
potential violations instead of dwelling on those from four decades
ago?
Since 1965, there have been 83 Department of Justice objections
raised to voting changes in Georgia.
And here's a critical point for the record--a DOJ objection does not
equal guilt.
DOJ itself withdrew 14 of those 83 objections.
When my State tried to satisfy one of those objections in drawing
congressional districts, the district lines demanded by DOJ objection
were then thrown out by the Supreme Court. So objection does not equal
violation.
Fifty-five of the 83 objections were in the first 10 years as the act
was being implemented, leaving 28 objections between 1975 and now.
Only seven objections have been stated since 2000, well within
national averages. And again, an objection is not a violation.
It's now been 40 years since the Voting Rights Act took effect.
Georgia has a higher percentage of black elected officials than the
overwhelming majority of States not included in Section 5 Federal
oversight.
Yet the Federal oversight continues.
Nationwide, there are 9,101 black elected officials. Blacks make up
11.4 percent of voters, and 1.8 percent of elected officials.
In contrast, Georgia has 611 black elected officials. Blacks make up
26.6 percent of our population, and 9.3 percent of elected officials.
That's more than double the level of black representation of the
Nation as a whole.
Black elected officials make up 20 percent of our State House and
Senate members, and 30 percent of our members to the U.S. House.
Georgia has a black Attorney General, elected by voters statewide.
Georgia has a black Supreme Court Justice.
Georgia and the South now lead the Nation in civil rights
achievements, putting to shame the record of those States who continue
to point their hypocritical fingers at the grave of Bull Connor.
Yet Georgia remains on the Federal oversight list, while States with
a fraction of our percentage of black elected officials per capita
remain oversight free.
If Georgia remains on that list without modification, then the
majority of the people of a State, who have committed no offense to
minority voter rights, whose legislators have committed no offense to
minority voter rights, whose State has one of the highest levels of
minority elected officials in the Nation, will have their State's
constitutional right to determine political boundaries and election
rules usurped without justification.
That's a clear-cut violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it's voter
discrimination against every Georgian.
Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming were included
in 1970, but successfully filed ``bailout'' lawsuits that allowed them
to get off the list, because no one had a political reason to object.
To successfully file a bailout, the State must prove that during the
past 10 years no scheme such as poll taxes or literacy tests have been
used; all changes affecting voting have been reviewed prior to their
implementation; no change has been the subject of an objection by the
Attorney General or the District of Columbia district court; there have
been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination;
there are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and
Federal examiners have not been assigned.
As can easily be seen, a simple accusation will keep a State off the
bailout list for 10 years at a time.
DOJ can file an objection, then withdraw it, and that's all that's
necessary to keep Georgia under Section 5 another 10 years.
There must be a more lawful means for the citizens of Georgia to
regain voting rights equality with the rest of America.
Later today I will bring an amendment to ensure that all Americans
will have equal protection under the Voting Rights Act.
Under this amendment, minority voters nationwide will have access to
the same Section 5 protections, if there has been a violation of their
rights.
At the same time, all voters across America will be treated the same
if there has been no violation in the last 12 years.
With this amendment, the Voting Rights Act will be restored to its
original intent--to end unjust discrimination in Voting Rights, for all
Americans.
This amendment provides lawful means to win release from Section 5,
while expanding minority voting rights protections nationally.
It is the only commonsense solution to avoiding a constitutional
challenge.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I say to the gentleman that when we rise in the House, it is my
intention to introduce for the Record a copy of the decision that was
entered yesterday in the State of Georgia that declared recent actions
unconstitutional. Perhaps he will be convinced that this is not the
history of the past but today.
[[Page H5154]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.001
[[Page H5155]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.002
[[Page H5156]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.003
[[Page H5157]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.004
[[Page H5158]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY06.005
[[Page H5159]]
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, today I hope that I will have
an opportunity to stand on the other side of the aisle as we debate
this historic initiative of America. It is initiative of America
because, as I hold the Constitution in my hand, I want my good friend
from Georgia, Dr. Norwood, to understand that, in fact, what we are
doing is creating opportunities for all Americans and by oversight we
enhance his constituents and all others who have been discriminated
against.
The preamble to the Constitution includes that we have organized this
Nation for a more perfect Union, for the general welfare and the
blessings of liberty. As my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Watt)
just said, whom I owe a great debt of gratitude, along with John
Conyers, Bobby Scott, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the whole Judiciary
Committee for rendering a bipartisan initiative, in fact, today there
are still violations that warrant the oversight of the Voting Rights
Act.
We understand that without Mr. Norwood's amendment there are 36
States already covered. And why are they covered? They are not covered
on our whim, on our political whim, or on whether we are Republican or
Democrat. They are covered because of documentation that discrimination
exists. That is what the Voting Rights Act is all about.
Mr. Norwood and others know these four amendments, which should be
opposed and defeated, because of the thousands of pages of evidence, if
we pass an amendment like Mr. Norwood's, Mr. Westmoreland's, Mr.
King's, and Mr. Gohmert's, that under the Constitution the Supreme
Court will render them unconstitutional for many reasons, because there
is no evidence, no documentation shown during the thousand of pages of
hearings. So it is important to maintain an unrestricted section 5, one
that allows oversight of discrimination under an unfettered section 5
that allows oversight to occur if voting changes generate
discrimination against anyone in the covered areas.
So I would simply ask in the name of Fannie Lou Hamer, in the names
of Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, in the name of John Lewis, and
those who lost their lives, like Viola Liuzzo, the three civil rights
workers; and in the name of Jualita Jackson and Valrie Bennett, who
fled Florida as young teenagers in the 1940's my aunt and mother, in
their name we must pass the Voting Rights Act without amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I rise in proud
support of H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006.'' Had I and several of my colleagues not heeded the requests of
the bipartisan leadership of the Committee and the House, there might
be an amendment to the bill adding the name of our colleague, John
Lewis of Georgia, to the pantheon of civil rights giants listed in the
short title.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation.
For millions of Americans, and many of us on this Committee, the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil
and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was
possible to accomplish extraordinary things.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, which we will vote to
reauthorize today was enacted to remedy a history of discrimination in
certain areas of the country. Presented with a record of systematic
defiance by certain States and jurisdictions that could not be overcome
by litigation, this Congress--led by President Lyndon Johnson, from my
own home state of Texas--took the steps necessary to stop it. It is
instructive to recall the words of President Johnson when he proposed
the Voting Rights Act to the Congress in 1965:
Rarely are we met with a challenge . . . to the values and
the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue
of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue . .
. the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong--
deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right
to vote in this country.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, represents our country and this
Congress at its best because it matches our words to deeds, our actions
to our values. And, as is usually the case, when America acts
consistent with its highest values, success follows.
Without exaggeration, the Voting Rights Act has been one of the most
effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. In 1964, there were
only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including
just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were
elected anywhere in the South. Today there are more than 9,100 black
elected officials, including 43 Members of Congress, the largest number
ever. The act has opened the political process for many of the
approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and
appointed nationwide, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27
of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have
historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation
also have benefited greatly.
Mr. Chairman, I hail from the great State of Texas, the Lone Star
State. A State that, sadly, had one of the most egregious records of
voting discrimination against racial and language minorities. Texas is
one of the Voting Rights Act's ``covered jurisdictions.'' In all of its
history, I am only one of three African-American women from Texas to
serve in the Congress of the United States, and one of only two to sit
on this famed committee. I hold the seat once held by the late Barbara
Jordan, who won her seat thanks to the Voting Rights Act.
From her perch on this committee, Barbara Jordan once said:
I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not
overstate the solemness that I feel right now. My faith in
the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.
I sit here today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a beneficiary
of the Voting Rights Act. My faith in the Constitution and the Voting
Rights Act too is whole, it is complete, it is total. I would be
breaking faith with those who risked all and gave all to secure for my
generation the right to vote if I did not do all I can to strengthen
the Voting Rights Act so that it will forever keep open doors that shut
out so many for so long.
August 6, 2006, will mark the 41st anniversary of the Voting Rights
Act, and a year from then several of act's most important elements will
expire, including: Section 5 preclearance for covered jurisdictions
(see tables 2 and 3); Sections 203 and 4(f)4, which require bilingual
election materials assistance for limited English proficient language
minorities (see table 1); and Sections 6-9; authorizing the U.S.
Attorney General to appoint examiners and send federal observers to
monitor elections.
Congress has extended Section 5 coverage three times: in 1970 (for 5
years), in 1975 (for 7 years) and in 1982 (for 25 years). The language
minority protections of Section 203 and Section 4(f)(4) were adopted in
1975 and extended and amended in 1982 and again in 1992. Despite these
past extensions, there is no guarantee that the expiring elements of
the VRA will be renewed again in 2007. In fact, recent history suggests
that it is likely to be a difficult legislative fight.
The problem is simple. Equal opportunity in voting still does not
exist in many places. Discrimination on the basis of race and language
still denies many Americans their basic democratic rights. Although
such discrimination today is more subtle than it used to be, it must
still be remedied to ensure the healthy functioning of our democracy.
Although the principle behind the Voting Rights Act is simple--to
eliminate discrimination in voting--the mechanisms by which this goal
is achieved are not. Some parts of the law are permanent, while others
are set to expire. Some provisions affect every State while others are
more geographically targeted. Elements of the law can apply to an
entire State or only a handful of counties within a particular State.
And some provisions can be enforced in court through private lawsuits
while others are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
But the underlying purpose of the act is clear--to extend the
franchise to all citizens regardless of race, color, national origin,
or membership in a language minority group.
I urge my colleague to vote for the bill and reject all amendments. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the Judiciary.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. Watt, for
yielding.
I urge my colleagues to support the renewal of the historic Voting
Rights Act today and vote for the bill that came out of the Judiciary
Committee without amendment.
I am very proud of the work we did on that committee on a bipartisan
basis and want to commend the bipartisan leadership of the full
committee,
[[Page H5160]]
the subcommittee, and Mr. Watt for his leadership.
On March 15, 1965, after years of struggle culminating in Bloody
Sunday, where our colleague John Lewis so bravely marched, President
Lyndon Johnson came to this very place and, from the podium behind me,
called upon the Congress and the Nation and said to us all we shall
overcome; we as a Nation shall overcome years of discrimination and
efforts to throw obstacles in the way of African Americans and other
minorities from exercising their constitutional right to vote and
exercising their right to fully participate in this great democracy of
ours.
We have come a long way as a Nation, but we have a long way to go to
really overcome, as President Johnson called upon us to do.
The evidence before the Judiciary Committee was absolutely clear that
serious problems in discrimination remain. The testimony made it clear
that section 5 preclearance has been used more between 1982 and 2005
than between the years 1965 and 1982. The evidence showed that since
1982 the Department of Justice has objected to more than 700
discriminatory voting changes that have been enacted by the covered
jurisdictions. The evidence showed that the covered jurisdictions
withdrew an additional 200 proposed changes from section 5 review and
an additional 600 voting changes were revised to ensure
nondiscriminatory impact.
Anyone who says that we do not continue to need the Voting Rights Act
is dead wrong.
{time} 1245
In addition, there were many other findings.
We have a long way to go, Mr. Chairman, to achieve a more perfect
Union. I urge my colleagues to adopt the bill that came out of the
Judiciary Committee, without amendment.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members who are controlling time
that, at some point, if Members do not abide by time, the chair may
have to adjust the time charged to account for it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a distinguished member of
the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Voting
Rights Act and urge my colleagues to pass it today, clean, without
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to represent one of the more diverse
districts in America today. My neighbors came to Massachusetts from all
of the nations of Europe, Southeast Asia, West Africa, Latin America,
French Canada and the Caribbean.
In Massachusetts, the Voting Rights Act remains a necessary tool to
ensure that people are able to participate in our democracy. In fact,
it is because of the Voting Rights Act that many of my Asian American
neighbors can challenge voting procedures and get multilingual ballots.
It is simple. The availability of multilingual ballots mean more
people will vote. Cities that have added multilingual ballots have seen
double-digit increases from those benefited populations. What more
could one ask from a functioning democracy than a higher participation
of people voting?
By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act without amendment, America
will do more than honor its legacy. We will also ensure our future, and
to do anything less than a clean reauthorization insults the hard work
and bloodshed that brought us to where we are today.
Today, we have an opportunity to honor great men and women who have
dedicated their lives to making America great: Dr. King, Coretta Scott
King, Rosa Parks and our esteemed colleague, my friend, John Lewis.
Let us reauthorize the Voting Rights Act without these terrible
amendments.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and recall that he was originally
a member of the House Judiciary Committee and served with great
distinction on it.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and
John Conyers for working together and making all Members of this House
so proud to show what we can do when we do work in a bipartisan way.
I also want to thank Chairman Watt for the work that he has done with
the Congressional Black Caucus, and beyond, to make certain that the
commitments that have been made by the leadership of this House were
kept.
We all know that there are parts of the history of this great
Republic, slavery, the stigma of slavery, prejudice, that we all abhor;
but we also know that this great body not too long ago passed a
Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen, men who gave up their
lives and put themselves at risk in order to make certain the world was
safe for democracy. At the time, many of these people could not vote
and their mothers could not vote and their families could not vote.
So there comes a time where certain people have the courage to stand
up for it, and John Lewis was one. I think we all should get together
and say that we could not march with them, but we could reaffirm the
commitment that they made.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Dr. Price) for purposes of a colloquy.
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to engage
in a very short colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Do you agree with me that nothing in this legislation should be
construed to allow the Supreme Court to say who is or who is not a
minority community's candidate of choice simply because of a
candidate's party affiliation?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree with that.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the chairman for his perspective and I
thank him for his good work on this.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to observe that the leader of
the present civil rights movement and a friend that worked in the
organization of Dr. Martin Luther King is in the balcony today, the
Reverend Jesse Jackson; and I am so pleased that he is watching over
this activity.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) who has worked as an activist and as a legislator
in California, as well as the leader of the Progressive Caucus in the
House of Representatives.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Mr. Conyers for his leadership
and for yielding and also to Chairman Sensenbrenner and to Congressman
Watt, our chair of the Black Caucus, for your leadership in ensuring
that the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act did not become a
Democratic or a Republican issue but an American issue.
The right to vote is the heart and soul of our democracy, and I
vividly remember the days of Jim Crow and segregation, the poll tax,
the humiliation and degradation of African Americans not so long ago.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed just 1 year after I graduated
from high school, and while much progress has been made, voter
suppression and voter intimidation continues.
There is no way I would be standing here on this floor as a Member of
Congress had it not been for the bloodshed and the sacrifices and the
deaths of so many, including our own great warrior, Congressman John
Lewis, in fighting for the right of all Americans to vote.
So, in the spirit and memory of Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and
Coretta Scott King, let us pass this bipartisan legislation without any
amendments so that America can be true to its ideal of liberty and
justice for all.
Today, let us let the world know that we do practice what we preach
and that we stand for democracy here at home. And I want to thank
Congressmen Conyers, Watt and Sensenbrenner again for making this an
American issue.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I
[[Page H5161]]
want to clear up several misconceptions, I think, that have occurred
here.
First of all is, we are concerned in my State and some of the ones
who spoke about the continuation of section 5, which requires
preclearance. This bill, as all bills, have certain findings of fact,
and I want to address some of those findings of fact.
The first one is based on the fact that there were hundreds of
objections interposed as one of the conclusions that justifies the
extension. The American Enterprise Institute says that the raw numbers
on objections are insufficient to measure support for reauthorization.
They give the statistics, and the statistics are that from 1982 to
2005, out of the 105,000-plus objections, 0.7 percent received
objections in the covered States. From 1996 to 2005, out of 54,000-
plus, only 0.15 percent drew objections.
The second finding is that the number of requests for declaratory
judgments justifies extension. That same study concludes that those are
so small as to be insignificant.
The third finding is that of continued filing of section 2 cases
originating in covered jurisdictions. The University of Michigan Law
School report shows that since 1982 more lawsuits filed under section 2
ending with the determination of liability have occurred in noncovered
jurisdictions than in covered ones; and the example being, in 1990 more
court findings of section 2 violations occurred in New York or
Pennsylvania than in South Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is something that if we are
going to make findings of fact they ought to be true findings of fact,
and just because the bill says they are the facts does not necessarily
make them so.
We are proud in our State and we have worked across party lines and
across racial lines; and the latest study that is cited in one of the
reports is from the 2000 voter year in Georgia. In Georgia, 66.3
percent of eligible blacks were registered to vote. Only 59.3 percent
whites were registered to vote, a 7 percent plus on those who are
black. On voter turnout in Georgia in that election cycle, 51.6 percent
of black voters voted; only 48.3 percent of white voters voted. So we
have made substantial progress.
The right of extension of section 5 for preclearance that requires
that you get Justice Department approval just to annex a piece of
property into a municipality, just to move a voting precinct from one
place to another place, requires preclearance. I would suggest that
this is not appropriate.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act coverage formula and the
provisions that it triggers have been upheld by the Supreme Court on
multiple occasions and not just in 1966. The Supreme Court in 1980 in
Rome v. United States, and later in 1999 in Lopez v. Monterey County,
upheld the constitutionality of section 5.
In particular, in the city of Rome, the court looked at the House
Judiciary Committee's finding that ``the recent objections entered by
the Attorney General to section 5 submissions clearly bespeak the
continuing need to this particular preclearance mechanism.''
Now, there have been objections that have been interposed to
submissions that have been made in Georgia since 2000, and that is why
we have to have the formula that is in section 5 and the preclearance
provisions in section 5 which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could we be advised how much time remains
on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 11
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has
8 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Voting Rights Act is informed by past
history, by recent events and by current needs.
As one who grew up, watched his mother in 1963 study and struggle to
try and pass the literacy test there, which she had to try and remember
as best she could the Presidents in order, to recite the Preamble to
the Constitution, and to compute her age to the year, the month and the
day, as one who witnessed that, you know how important this act was to
folks back then and how the legacy of discrimination still obtains in
our present provisions today.
When you see our State legislature in Louisiana every year pass
election laws that are discriminatory, that meet objections by the
Justice Department, you know the need for this act continues.
As we just saw with Hurricane Katrina, so many of our people,
displaced back home, who struggled to get back and to have their right
to vote expressed and who met objection at almost every corner of that
being done, you know the need for this act continues.
So I urge my colleagues to vote to support this act, without
amendments, and get it passed now because the struggle does continue.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a distinguished Member.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I wish my colleagues from Georgia
understood something very fundamental about this Voting Rights Act. It
is not a burden on the South. It is not some scourge or tool of
oppression against the South. It has been a liberator for people, black
and white; and I wish my colleagues from Georgia understood this basic
truth that all the children who are here understand today.
There were Barack Obamas in the old South. There were Mel Watts in
the old South. There were Bobby Scotts in the old South. There were
Jesse Jacksons that lived in the South in the 1930s. But their talent
was not allowed to breathe until this act was passed.
It gave all kinds of people of genius and brilliance and talent a
chance to be elected to office. That is the legacy that we celebrate
here today.
So I urge all of us to join Mr. Sensenbrenner in this bipartisan
statement today that the Voting Rights Act belongs to all Americans,
black and white, Democratic and Republican, and everyone who believes
that merit ought to determine who holds office in this country.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act,
without amendment.
Our values, our freedom, and our democracy are based on the idea that
every eligible American citizen has the right to vote, and they also
have the right to expect that their votes will be counted.
It was only 40 years ago that minorities lived under the oppression
of Jim Crow, and we still do. I have spent most of my time in the last
2 weeks working on redistricting, where the Supreme Court just ruled,
or a little over 2 weeks ago, that it violated the Voting Rights Act.
So, 2 weeks ago, not only the Attorney General, but the attorney
general of Texas as well, had to move in for Prairie View A&M students
to be able to vote, because the DA did not want them to vote for fear
they would not elect the right persons.
We do still have a problem and we do need this Voting Rights Act.
It was only 40 years ago that minorities lived under the oppression
of Jim Crow. As a result, millions of Americans were unable to fairly
participate in our democracy.
The Voting Rights Act changed the face of this Nation.
In this battle for the most basic of rights, many heroic Americans
were imprisoned, beaten, or even killed in the name of freedom and
justice.
The Voting Rights Act was not and never will be about special
rights--it is about equal rights.
We have made amazing progress over the past 40 years. However,
progress does not mean that we stop trying.
We cannot and must not give up until every American citizen has the
access and opportunity to vote--regardless of their skin color,
ethnicity, or language ability.
There are still thousands of cases of voter intimidation and
discrimination reported at every election.
[[Page H5162]]
Minorities continue to face an uphill battle of misinformation over
polling locations, the purging of voter rolls, scare tactics, and
inaccessible voting locations.
Prior to the 2004 elections, students at Prairie View A&M were told
they could no longer register to vote in Waller County, TX.
The fear was that the 8,000 students at this historically black
college may elect someone the local district attorney didn't want.
This change in voter registration was not precleared by the
Department of Justice, and was ultimately overturned by the Texas
attorney general and the Department of Justice.
This is just one example of why we still need the Voting Rights Act.
Now is the time to reauthorize this historic cornerstone of civil
rights. It is imperative to our rights, our freedom and our democracy.
{time} 1300
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute
to the distinguished minority leader from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, last August I had the honor
to march in Atlanta in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the
Voting Rights Act, joining our colleagues Congressman Lewis, the
Reverend Jesse Jackson and so many other leaders.
I took with me the commitment of more than 200 House Democrats that
we would vote 100 percent to reauthorize and strengthen this landmark
legislation. And we stand by that commitment today. In May, I was proud
to join Speaker Hastert and the Senate leaders, Senator Frist and
Senator Reid, to march down the steps of the Capitol and reaffirm our
commitment to passing this legislation to strengthen and reauthorize
the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years.
Today, we have the opportunity, indeed the privilege, to honor that
bipartisan commitment. In that spirit, I wish to acknowledge the
steadfast leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr.
Sensenbrenner; Mr. Conyers, thank you for your leadership, the two of
you for working together; and the extraordinary leadership of
Congressman Mel Watt, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a
member of the Judiciary Committee, who helped cobble together this
compromise with his persistent, persistent leadership. Thank you, Mr.
Watt.
I also salute the Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Grace
Napolitano, and the Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus, Congressman Mike Honda, for their leadership. Of course, as
with so many of our colleagues, we are very privileged to acknowledge
Congressman John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress. Voting rights
and civil rights in America are possible because of his courage and
personal sacrifice and that of so many of our brave Americans who
fought for the cause of freedom and justice.
This was an epic moral struggle in our country, and it remains our
moral imperative to remove obstacles to voting and to representation
for all. Among the other brave Americans are three extraordinary women.
It is fitting that this legislation is named for Rosa Parks, for
Coretta Scott King and for Fannie Lou Hamer. These women were constant
in their pursuit of voting rights.
Rosa Parks ignited the Montgomery bus boycott. Fannie Lou Hamer
electrified the 1964 Democratic Convention where she said, ``I am sick
and tired of being sick and tired'' and was successful in getting her
African American delegates recognized at the delegation.
Coretta Scott King was the keeper of the flame and one of our
Nation's greatest civil rights leaders in her own right.
Forty years ago, in one of our Nation's finest hours, we came
together to give teeth to the 15th amendment to overcome bigotry and
injustice and to secure the fundamental right to vote. With the passage
of the Voting Rights Act, we said that we would no longer tolerate any
of the nefarious methods such as poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather
clauses, and brutal violence that had been used to deny African
Americans and other minority citizens the right to vote.
Within months of the Voting Rights Act's passage, a quarter of a
million new African American voters had been registered. A quarter of a
million new voices that had been silenced could finally be heard. They,
along with millions to follow, changed the world with a vision of
justice, equality, and opportunity for all.
We see its impact in the Halls of Congress: 81 African American,
Latino, Asian and Native American Members. We all know that America is
at its best when our remarkable diversity is represented in our Halls
of power. We also know that we still have a great distance to go in
order to live up to our Nation's ideals of equality and opportunity.
That is why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary, and that is why
any amendments to weaken it must be rejected. I urge our colleagues to
vote ``no'' on changing preclearance provisions, diminishing language
assistance, and shortening the authorization period.
Make no mistake, the 10-year limitation on key VRA provisions
seriously undermines its effectiveness.
We are all familiar with the, ``I Have a Dream'' speech of Dr. Martin
Luther King, the march on Washington nearly 43 years ago. One part of
the speech that I love that is not as frequently quoted as the ``I have
a dream'' part, though, is he said in that speech: ``We have come to
this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This
is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the
tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make justice a
reality for all of God's children.''
We today must reject gradualism by voting ``no'' on the amendment to
make this reauthorization period 10 years. Any diminishment of the
Voting Rights Act is a diminishment of our democracy. In America, the
right to vote must never, ever be compromised. We must not rest until
the expiring sections of the Voting Rights Act are strengthened and
reauthorized. This is our solemn pledge and obligation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could you confirm that we on this side
have 7 minutes remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who has worked with the committee in a very
generous way.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to extend my personal thanks to the
chairmen for their work to bring this bill to the floor. As one of the
original cosponsors, this today is a signal across the world. I
represent the city of Philadelphia where the Constitution was written.
It was clear then and stated that we needed to work towards a more
perfect Union.
The work that began when this bill was passed into law in 1965, and
as it has been reauthorized on a number of occasions, today we again
signal to the world that we continue to work towards a more perfect
Union. As we promote democracy around the world, this is an opportunity
for us to further secure it here at home.
I want to thank my colleagues as we dismiss these amendments and move
to final passage later on today and thank the Congress because today we
truly do represent the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute
my neighbor and colleague from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the
renewal of the Voting Rights Act.
Unfortunately, this great American struggle is not over. We have seen
voters denied their rights in recent elections as they have been
incorrectly purged from lists, their absentee votes not counted, and
voting machine integrity and security not assured.
Ohioans have raised countless questions about today's new electronic
voting systems, their flawed security, their lack of transparency,
their reliability and, yes, their very integrity. Who controls the
security codes in these machines? How do we ensure that local boards of
election and judges at the precinct level are empowered to properly
count votes and not the voting machine companies who know more about
those machines and how to program them than the people conducting the
elections themselves?
Strong efforts have been made in Ohio to curb the authoritarianism of
our Secretary of State, Kenneth
[[Page H5163]]
Blackwell, as he has purged people from lists in our State in
particular precincts where voters are heavily minority.
Mr. Chairman, we must pass the Voting Rights Act in its stronger
form. The struggle is not over. As Reverend Joseph Lowery reminds us,
keep hope alive, extend the Voting Rights Act.
I am in strong support of the passage of the Voting Rights Act to
protect the ability of all citizens, particularly minorities, to vote.
Unfortunately, this struggle is not over. We have seen voters denied
their rights in several recent elections as voters have been
incorrectly purged from lists, their absentee votes not counted, and
voting machine integrity not assured.
Ohioans have raised countless questions about today's new electronic
voting systems, their flawed security, their lack of transparency,
their reliability, and yes, their very integrity. Who controls the
security code for the machines? How do we assure that local Boards of
Elections and judges at the precinct level are empowered to properly
count votes and not the voting machine companies who know more about
those machines and how to program them than the people conducting the
elections.
Strong efforts were made by Ohio's Legislature to mandate voter
verifiable paper trails on election machines, over the objections of
Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Chairing the Bush campaign
in Ohio, he opposed this standard. Blackwell also steered and limited
the voting machine vendors from which local election authorities could
choose, and imposed voter registration standards that were confusing
and ridiculous. Voters of Ohio ended up challenging his capricious
rulings in federal court on the day of the last Presidential election.
He even tried to inject more confusion into the process by specifying
the ``weight of paper'' used for voter registration forms when his own
office was not using that kind of paper. His goal was clear: to create
more confusion on election day by churning the electorate in key
precincts to diminish turnout.
Congress passed the Help America Vote Act following the 2000
elections to fix these kinds of heavy-handed tactics and the mess
America witnessed with the hanging chad ballots in Florida.
Unfortunately, the bill did not mandate standards for the new
equipment. To this day, and I believe purposefully by the Republican
majority, no federal agency assures standards for voting technology on
which localities can depend.
Voting rights stand at the top of our liberty pillar. We must pass
this Voting Rights Act in its strongest form and restore America's
trust in elections by ensuring their legitimacy and making them tamper-
proof.
Mr. Chairman, before closing I would like to repeat a call that has
been made by countless leaders of the civil rights movement including
the Reverend Joseph Lowery, ``Keep hope alive: Extend the Voting Rights
Act.''
[From the New York Times, July 7, 2006]
Don't Dismantle the Voting Rights Act
(By Luci Baines Johnson and Lynda Johnson Robb)
The Voting Rights Act, signed into law on Aug. 6, 1965, by
our father, President Lyndon Johnson, opened the political
process to millions of Americans. The law was born amid the
struggle for voting rights in Selma and Montgomery, Ala.,
which the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called ``a shining
moment in the conscience of man.'' By eliminating barriers,
including poll taxes and literacy tests, that had long
prevented members of minority groups from voting, the act
became a keystone of civil rights in the United States.
Now, crucial provisions of this legislation are in
jeopardy. Last month, Congress seemed set to renew expiring
sections intended to prevent voter discrimination based on
race or language proficiency. Instead, a group of House
lawmakers opposed to those sections succeeded in derailing
their considerations.
The Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination in voting
everywhere in the country. But it has a special provision,
Section 5, intended for regions with persistent histories of
discrimination. These states and localities must have their
election plans approved by the Justice Department.
Since the act was last renewed, in 1982, the federal
government has objected to hundreds of proposed changes in
state and local voting laws on the basis of their
discriminatory impact. In recent years, proposed election
changes in Georgia, Texas and other states were blocked
because they violated the act.
Yet states and localities are not subject to Section 5
forever. In order to gain exemption, they need only meet a
set of clear standards proving that they have been in
compliance with the law for 10 years and have not tried to
discriminate against minority voters. In Virginia, for
example, eight counties and three cities have been exempted
from Section 5.
Another section of the act, Section 203, which Congress
added in 1975, mandates language assistance in certain
jurisdictions to promote voting by citizens with limited
proficiency in English. There are now 466 such jurisdictions
in 31 states.
No one disputes that our nation has come a long way since
the Voting Rights Act was first signed into law. But while it
would be nice to think we don't need this legislation
anymore, we do. We still struggle with the legacy of
institutionalized racism. If either of the act's two sections
under attack is weakened or allowed to expire, the door will
be opened to a new round of discriminatory practices.
The reauthorization stalled in Congress is called the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Were
he alive today, we believe President Johnson would be honored
to have this bill named after such remarkable women. Its
passage would be a fitting tribute to their collective
efforts to expand the scope of civil rights and citizenship.
In his own era, our father faced powerful opposition to the
Voting Rights Act, including from members of his own party.
Nonetheless, he pushed forward with the legislation because
he knew it was desperately needed. It was the right thing to
do then. It still is.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to engage
in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Section 5 of H.R. 9 contains a sentence that states: ``The purpose of
subsection B of this section is to protect the ability of such citizens
to elect their preferred candidates of choice.''
Is it your understanding that this language in the text of the
committee report that accompanies this legislation is consistent with
the understanding that the purpose of this section of H.R. 9 is to
ensure that no voting procedure changes will be made that will lead to
a retrogression of the position of racial or language minorities with
respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, and
that this determination shall be made without consideration of
political party control or influence in any elective body?
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is
certainly my understanding, as you have indicated, in 1976 in Beer v.
United States, the Supreme Court held that, when a voting change is
made in which a minority group's ability to elect candidates of choice
to office is diminished, section 5 requires the denial of preclearance.
That was the retrogression analysis on which the court, the
Department of Justice, and minority voters relied for 30 years. Is it
the gentleman from Wisconsin's understanding that it is this standard
that H.R. 9 seeks to restore to section 5?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Yes, that is my
understanding.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of
Homeland Security from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
Passage of the Voting Rights Act has allowed millions of minorities
the constitutional right to vote in Federal elections. One of the
people for whom this bill is named is Fannie Lou Hamer. Fannie Lou
Hamer was born, lived, and died in the trenches of Mississippi's Second
Congressional District.
Her history and involvement in voting education and voter
participation include people like me, who stand before you as the
highest-ranking African American elected official in the State of
Mississippi, an opportunity that would not have been possible without
the passage of the act.
Had this act been in place, my father, who died in 1963, would have
been a registered voter. Had this act been in place, my mother, a
college graduate, would not have had to take three literacy tests to
become a registered voter. As influential policymakers, it is our
obligation to look beyond what is good and support the reauthorization
of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago I
stood on this floor in support of this
[[Page H5164]]
bill. I worked with both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and
the ranking member at that time not only on this bill, but on the
Martin Luther King holiday and on the fair housing legislation. I am
very proud of that activity.
I rise in support of the bill that is on the floor. But I will rise
in support of several of the amendments as well. I want to make several
comments on this. One is, as a Catholic, I believe in the immaculate
conception, but there is only one that I am aware of and that is not
this bill.
The suggestion that we cannot look at this bill and look at any
carefully tailored amendments I think is an erroneous one. I had a
simple amendment that I offered before the Rules Committee. I had no
objection; in fact, it was considered to be the least objectionable, if
objectionable at all, but I was told if we adopted my amendment it
would upset a carefully crafted delicate balance.
{time} 1315
My amendment was simply to allow three counties in California and one
township in New Hampshire to bail out, as we used to call the
provision, because they had gotten in because of a curious historical
moment. That is, in 1972, at the height of the build-up of the Vietnam
war we had large numbers of people at military installations; we had
three counties in California that had military installations. Those
people who were there were counted for purposes of the census, many of
them didn't vote there because they voted in their home states or their
home districts, and those counties have been caught in this
preclearance ever since. It just seems a matter of fairness to allow
them out, and yet there was no opportunity to provide that.
And the reason I bring that up is this: If you look at the Supreme
Court decisions, the Federal Court decisions on this, they have said
this law is constitutional only so long as it is congruent, that is,
related to the State-sponsored discrimination for which there is
historical record. And that it is proportionate to the damage done,
both of those things, and my fear is that if we don't craft legislation
that recognizes that, we don't give evidence of the fact that we
crafted it, the Supreme Court could say that perhaps we haven't done
the job, and then this extraordinary remedy in section 5 is no longer
valid.
Why is it extraordinary? Because it is an extraordinary imposition on
a jurisdiction to say that they have to have any decision they make
precleared by those at the Justice Department. But the Court has said,
as long as you have those two things, congruency and proportionality,
they will allow it. That is why I have some question about extending it
for a full 25 years.
Back in 1982, I think there was ample reason for us to extend it for
25 years. You would still have a sense of a temporary nature. But to do
it now, I think does call into question whether we are following what
the courts have told us.
So all I would say is, I hope Members, while supporting the
underlying legislation, will look at each amendment and see whether it
helps undergird the constitutionality of this worthy bill that has done
great things. But let's make sure we continue to carefully tailor it to
the circumstances before us.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rahm Emanuel.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the reauthorization of
the Voting Rights Act. The true test of a democracy is the ability of
all of its citizens to contribute to the decisions and actions of their
government. When the American circle of democracy is widened, the
democracy is strengthened. In addition, its moral voice at home and
abroad becomes clear and unambiguous.
For nearly 200 years, this Nation failed to live up to the test,
excluding voters on the basis of race, gender, and property. The 14th
and 19th amendments to the Constitution removed those restrictions from
the law of the land, but discrimination against African Americans
persisted in many parts of the country.
In 1965, this House witnessed one of its finest moments when Members
of both parties rejected party labels and acted as Americans, joining
together to declare that literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and poll
taxes would no longer be allowed to intimidate American citizens from
exercising their right to vote.
Getting this bill passed required decades of effort by dedicated
activists who risked their lives. I am proud that this bill recognizes
the names of those heroes such as Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and
Coretta Scott King. The voting rights of all Americans are no less
important today than they were in 1965. Working together, as our
predecessors did, we can confront these challenges and continue to
fight for liberty and justice for all.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to invite John Lewis, the
conscience of the Congress, the gentleman from Georgia, the remaining
time on our side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, before the Voting Rights Act was
passed in 1965, all across the American South very few African
Americans were registered to vote. Men and women of color stood in
unmovable lines. In Lowndes County, Alabama, between Selma and
Montgomery, more than 80 percent of that county was African American,
but not a single African American was registered to vote.
Many people were harassed, jailed, beaten, and some were even shot
and killed. I cannot forget that in 1964, three young men that I knew,
James Cheney, Mickey Schwerner, and Andy Goodman, two were white, one
was black, they went out to investigate the burning of a church, a
church that was to be used to prepare people to pass the so-called
literacy test. These three young men were arrested, jailed, they were
taken from the jail by the sheriff and his deputy, beaten, shot, and
killed. They were killed for trying to help people become participants
in the democratic process.
During that dark period in our recent past, black men and women who
were teachers in public schools, colleges and university professors
were told that they could not read well enough and they failed their
so-called literacy test. On one occasion a would-be voter was asked to
name the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. On another occasion, a
person was asked to count the number of jelly beans in a jar.
Yes, we have made some progress. We have come a distance. We are no
longer met with bullwhips, fire hoses, and violence when we attempt to
register and vote. But the sad fact is, the sad truth is discrimination
still exists, and that is why we still need the Voting Rights Act. And
we must not go back to the dark path.
We cannot separate the debate today from our history and the past we
have traveled. When we marched from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, it was
dangerous. It was a matter of life and death. I was beaten, I had a
concussion at the bridge. I almost died. I gave blood, but some of my
colleagues gave their very lives.
We must pass this act without any amendment. It is the right thing to
do, not just for us, but for generations yet unborn. When historians
pick up their pens and write about this period, let it be said that
those of us in the Congress in 2006, we did the right thing, and our
forefathers and our foremothers would be very proud of us.
Let us pass a clean bill without any amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, following the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Lewis) is always a very tough act, but I would like to reiterate
what he so eloquently said. We need the Voting Rights Act, and we need
the Voting Rights Act because in the last 25 years the covered
jurisdictions have not come clean.
Let's look at Georgia. Since 1982, there have been 91 objections, 91
objections submitted by the Department of Justice. And since 2002,
there have been seven voting rule changes that were withdrawn by the
State because of DOJ objections.
Texas, 105 objections imposed by DOJ since 1982, and 14 voting rule
proposals were withdrawn by the State because
[[Page H5165]]
of voting rights concerns in the last 4 years.
Mississippi, 112 objections since 1982, and Federal observers have
been sent to this State 14 times to monitor elections since 2002, most
recently last year.
Louisiana, 96 objection since 1982, eight Department of Justice
objections to voting rules have been lodged since 2002, most recently
in 2005, and 10 voting rule proposals withdrawn by the State in the
last 4 years.
South Carolina, 73 objections since 1982.
North Carolina in the covered jurisdictions, 45 objections since
1982.
And Alabama, 46 objections, and Federal observers have been assigned
to the State 65 times since 2000 to monitor elections.
Arizona, 17 objections since 2002, and Federal observers have been
assigned to that State 380 times since 2000 to monitor elections,
including 107 since 2004.
Now, I think these figures ought to make it very clear that we need
this bill, and we need this bill without any of the four amendments
that are about ready to be offered.
And, finally, before we get into the debate on the amendments, I
would like to offer my thanks to the staff people who have helped put
together this record, Paul Taylor, the chief counsel of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution; Kim Betz, the subcommittee counsel;
Stephanie Moore, the Democratic counsel to the Committee on Judiciary
and counsel to Mr. Watt; and, most particularly, Philip Kiko, who is
chief of staff and general counsel of the committee, who is part of the
institutional memory, because he helped me get the Voting Rights Act
extension passed and signed in 1982.
We put in the work on this, we have done the hearings, the record is
replete. We need this law extended, and we need it extended for 25
years. Vote ``yes'' on the bill, ``no'' on the amendments, and let's go
down in history as the House that did the right thing.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I am honored to have an
opportunity to vote for H.R. 9, a bipartisan bill which makes important
changes to the Voting Rights Act and extends otherwise expiring
provisions for another 25 years.
As we reaffirm the Voting Rights Act today, it is worth remembering
where we were before its historic initial passage. During the end of
the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, State and local
governments, particularly in the South, used multiple schemes to deny
minorities, mainly African-Americans, the ability to register and
meaningfully vote. These insidious methods included poll taxes,
property requirements, literacy tests, residency requirements, the
changing of election systems, and the redrawing of municipal
boundaries.
The real beginning of the end of this disenfranchisement was the
enactment of the initial Voting Rights Act of 1965, courageously passed
by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. As
applied to certain States and jurisdictions, among other provisions, it
prohibited literacy tests, authorized the sending of Federal examiners
and observers to make sure people could register and vote, and required
changes in election laws or systems be approved by the Federal
Government to ensure minorities were protected.
Over the years the Voting Rights Act has been extended and improved
numerous times. Congress expanded its protections to cover language
minorities, required elections services, in certain circumstances, to
be provided in a language other than English, and overruled the 1980
Supreme Court case of City of Mobile v. Bolden, allowing plaintiffs to
prove violations of voting rights laws by showing a discriminatory
effect as opposed to requiring a showing of discriminatory intent.
The results of the Voting Rights Act have been dramatic. The
registration of African-American voters in the 11 States of the former
Confederacy increased from 43.1 percent in 1964 to 62.0 percent in
1968. The gap between African-American and White registration rates
shrank as well across much of the South. For example, in Mississippi
this gap decreased from 63.2 percentage points in March 1965 to 6.3
percentage points in 1988.
Having a meaningful opportunity to exercise one's right to vote is no
longer simply an abstract idea we talk about, but is instead a goal we
strive to achieve for all. The evidence shows it is a mark we are
increasingly meeting and all Americans should be proud of what we have
been able to accomplish. As we celebrate our progress, however, it is
important to remember that challenges remain.
Whether it is because of outdated election machinery or long lines at
the polls, many people still find it difficult to vote. Too often these
impediments are faced disproportionally by minorities and low-income
citizens. The Federal Government must continue the role it started in
earnest back in 1965, and continued through the Help America Vote Act
of 2002, of working to ensure that all Americas are free to exercise
their right to vote. Through its involvement and commitment of
resources, I know we will succeed.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful that Americans were once
routinely denied the ability to vote on account of their skin color.
All Americans should celebrate the Voting Rights Act's role in
vindicating the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote free of
racial discrimination. Therefore, I was hoping I could support
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. However, I cannot support
H.R. 9 because it extends the unfunded bilingual ballots mandate.
I had joined with my colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, in supporting an
amendment to strike the bilingual ballot mandate, which was
unfortunately rejected by this House. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact
that a person must demonstrate a basic command of the English language
before becoming a citizen, Congress is continuing to force States to
provide ballots in languages other than English. If a knowledge of
English is important enough to be a precondition of citizenship, then
why should we force States to facilitate voting in languages other than
English?
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to deny any American
citizens the ability to vote. Contrary to the claims of its opponents,
Mr. King's amendment does not deny any American the ability to vote.
Under Mr. King's amendment, Americans will still have a legal right to
bring translators to the polls to assist them in voting, and States
could still choose to print bilingual ballots if the King amendment
passes. All the King amendment did is repeal a costly Federal mandate.
In conclusion, while I recognize the continuing need for protection
of voting rights, I cannot support this bill before us since it extends
the costly and divisive bilingual ballot mandate.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Voting
Rights Reauthorization Act. It was once said that ``a majority has no
right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of
rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by
majorities.'' The amendments offered today by the majority seek to do
precisely that; oppress the voting rights of minorities all over
America to fairly and freely vote in elections.
While I am pleased to see this important, critical, and bipartisan
bill brought to the floor, I am disheartened to see amendments offered
that would weaken the core of H.R. 9 and would take a step backward in
the fight for equality.
Since the birth of our Nation, no other right has been more important
than having the ability to vote. Unfortunately, as history has shown,
the denial of this right to minorities is a scar on our system of
democracy. The passage of the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965
broke down barriers that stood in the way of African-Americans and
minorities to vote, and we must pass H.R. 9, without the gutting
amendments, to ensure that these barriers of discrimination,
intimidation, and inequality will never be built again. Just as the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave voice to millions of African American
and minority men and women, H.R. 9 will ensure that voice for millions
more in generations to come.
H.R. 9 would renew provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that
protect minority voters in States and districts that have a documented
history of voter suppression. It would extend the provisions of this
bill for an additional 25 years, require the U.S. Attorney General to
send Federal observers to monitor elections to make sure that eligible
African-American and other minority voters are permitted to vote, it
would extend bilingual requirements, and it would prohibit the use of
any kind of test or devices to deny an individual the right to vote.
Each and every Member of the House has the unique opportunity today
to continue the work of the great civil rights leaders of the past,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou
Hammer, and our own John Lewis, to overcome the ghosts of oppression
and fight for a new day of equality and respect for every individual.
I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to vote for H.R. 9 and
oppose all amendments.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
This historic legislation, first signed into law by President Johnson
in 1965, has eliminated the most blatant forms of discrimination in
voting practices and continues to send a strong message that American
voters of all races
[[Page H5166]]
have the full support and enforcement of the United States Government
behind them when they exercise a basic democratic right.
Contrary to the arguments of those that believe this law is no longer
necessary, the extensive hearing record that accompanies this
legislation proves that the need is as great as ever. In Georgia alone,
91 objections to voting practices have been processed by the Department
of Justice since 1982, including 4 objections since 2002, preventing
discriminatory voting changes from being enacted.
Indeed, additional action is necessary to guarantee the right to
vote. Congress has failed to address the more subtle forms of
discrimination that plague our voting system and were on full display
in the last two presidential elections. The right to vote doesn't mean
much to an individual who has to wait in a 3-hour line to cast a ballot
or who has a hostile election worker deny their right to a provisional
ballot. Nor is the right to vote honored when votes mysteriously
disappear and can't be accounted for in a recount because there is no
paper trail.
In 14 States, felons are denied the right to vote even after they
serve their sentences. I sincerely doubt the public would support a law
prohibiting felons from freely practicing their religion after
completing their prison terms. Yet we deny an equally fundamental right
to millions of Americans who may have written a bad check or been
convicted of a minor drug offense.
These issues are just as threatening to our democracy as poll taxes
and voter intimidation, and so today cannot be viewed as the capstone,
but rather the foundation, of our efforts to guarantee the right to
vote.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support civil rights and the
constitutional right of each and every individual to vote unimpeded by
government or any other entity. Regrettably, however, this piece of
legislation is deeply flawed and offers a disincentive for many States
to continue on the path to voting equality. Let me explain why.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act helped rid the voting process of
structural discrimination against minority voters--in every State and
every region. Provisions such as section 2 of the act bar the dilution
of minority voting rights anywhere in the United States. The VRA also
includes a formula to impose increased scrutiny on election-related
decisions in certain States or counties. These jurisdictions--all or
part of 15 States covering most of the South and my State of Arizona--
are required to ``preclear'' every election change with the U.S.
Department of Justice, everything from decennial redistricting to
simply moving a polling place. The Department of Justice is tasked with
determining whether election changes would diminish minority voting
rights.
Today, 41 years later, the VRA's preclearance provision still relies
on the formula derived from 1964 election data. The legislation before
the House today does not update the formula to include more recent
electoral data, nor does it modify the formula in recognition of the
accomplishments of States since that time. This portion of the VRA
simply does not reflect America's changing demographics or the progress
our society has made over the last 40 years. States, particularly
``section 5'' States, have worked tirelessly to ensure that
discrimination has no place in the voting process, yet the legislation
before us continues to single out these States for unique and
extraordinary scrutiny and it imposes no additional scrutiny on States
that have impaired minority voting rights in the past since 1964.
Neither is fair.
While not perfect, I would support an extension of the existing VRA.
However, the bill on the floor today includes new requirements that
minority groups must have the ability to elect ``preferred candidates
of choice.'' The Department of Justice will somehow have to determine
what constitutes a ``preferred candidate of choice''--potentially
concluding that a minority candidate must be of a particular party.
Expecting the Department of Justice or courts to determine the
``preferred candidate of choice'' invites electoral disaster. Prominent
VRA experts, including former Solicitor General of the United States
Theodore Olson, have concluded that this bill may result in the
Department of Justice requiring district lines be drawn to benefit a
particular party, politicizing redistricting and the VRA in a
particularly egregious fashion.
The original bill theoretically allows jurisdictions to bailout of
section 5 coverage. However, no State has ever been able to do so. If
we want to encourage States to get out from under section 5
``preclearance'' we must give them incentive to do so. Under the
current criteria, no State will ever be able to get off the list.
Equality in the voting process is of utmost importance to me and I
believe it is vital to protect minority rights. For this reason, I
voted against an amendment that would strip the bill of its
multilingual ballot provisions. Whether an individual is Hispanic,
Navajo, or of any other background, he or she should be able to seek
help when it comes to casting their vote.
Mr. Chairman, the right to vote, unimpeded, is a constitutional right
for all citizens of the United States and should be protected. However,
this act does not recognize the great progress that has been achieved
over the past 40 years. This is a bill trapped in time; and for that
reason, I ask you to join me in voting against H.R. 9 in its current
form.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 marked a turning point in our Nation's history. The statute has
succeeded in combating the voting disenfranchisement that was an ugly
stain on our Nation's democratic ideals.
While there is no doubt that the Voting Rights Act was necessary when
enacted, some of the bill's provisions have turned into a costly
financial burden for States affected by the law. The bilingual ballot
provisions come at a tremendous social cost as well, contradicting the
requirement that immigrants develop English language skills in order to
become naturalized as citizens.
As our Nation is founded on the influences of a wide range of ideas
and cultures, the ability to share and use these ideas is facilitated
by a common language--the English language. By encouraging national
unity on this front we help to avoid the deep divisions which help keep
certain regions of the world in turmoil.
Concerns about the Voting Rights Act are not limited to the South,
nor are they limited to the preclearance provisions or bilingual
ballots. The 1982 reauthorization of the law amended the act to define
discrimination in terms of results rather than in terms of intent,
raising serious constitutional concerns. Because of the way some courts
have interpreted the Voting Rights Act, the law meant to safeguard the
democratic process has become a catalyst for costly litigation for
uncertain benefit.
My views on this and other portions of the Voting Rights Act are
eloquently stated in an article by Roger Clegg, ``Revise Before
Reauthorizing,'' which I hereby submit for the Record.
The Voting Rights Act has a long record of service to our democracy
and much of it should remain in place. I am compelled to support the
measure in order to combat the pockets of discrimination that remain in
our Nation. I do, however, urge our House leaders to work with the
Senate to rectify the law's shortcomings as it moves through the
legislative process.
Revise Before Reauthorizing
(By Robert Clegg)
August 6 marks the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights
Act, and several provisions of the law are up for
reauthorization in 2007. In a recent address to the NAACP's
annual convention, House Judiciary Committee chairman James
Sensenbrenner (R., Wisc.) endorsed an across-the-board
reauthorization. He shouldn't have. While much of the act
should stay in place, there are five major problems with it
as currently written and interpreted.
First of all, it is bad to define ``discrimination'' in
terms of results (i.e., whether racial proportionality is
achieved) rather than in terms of intent (i.e., whether an
action is taken because of race). The Voting Rights Act used
to mean the latter, but in 1982 was amended to include the
former as well.
As a result, a state that adopts a neutral rule, without
discriminatory animus, and applies it evenhandedly can still
be in violation of the Voting Rights Act if the Justice
Department or a federal judge finds that the rule ``results''
in one race being better off than another and there is not a
strong enough state interest in the rule.
For instance, suppose that a state decides that it wants to
allow voter registration over the Internet, in addition to
other ways of registering. There is nothing about race in the
new procedure, no evidence that it was adopted with an eye
toward helping one race more than another, and no evidence
that it is being implemented in a discriminatory way. But
suppose that more whites, proportionately, use the procedure
than blacks. The state is therefore vulnerable to a claim
that its new procedure ``results'' in racial discrimination
in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
So, the act should be changed back to its pre-1982
language, to require a showing of actual racial
discrimination--that people are being treated differently
because of race.
Second, the Voting Rights Act now requires--or, more
accurately, has been interpreted to require--the maintenance
and even the creation of racially defined districts. This is
a bad thing. One would think that our civil-rights laws would
be designed to end discrimination, with the happy byproduct
of facilitating integration. Instead, the Voting Rights Act
encourages racial gerrymandering, which is both
discriminatory and leads to segregation.
Ironically, the Supreme Court made clear in a series of
decisions in the 1990s that the Constitution itself does not
allow racial gerrymandering, meaning the creation of
districts to serve racial constituencies. (Where race is used
as a means to achieve politically gerrymandered districts,
the Court has been more forgiving; in other words, it is one
thing when the state figures that blacks are
[[Page H5167]]
likely to vote Democratic and therefore zigs and zags to take
this political fact of life into account--assuming that race
is the best proxy for voting behavior available--but
something else if the zigging and zagging is to create a
black-controlled district for the very reason that the
state wants a black-controlled district.) Yet much of the
jurisprudence of the Voting Rights Act now requires
exactly that kind of gerrymandering. Under Section 2 of
the act, majority-minority districts must be drawn if the
three-part test set out by the Supreme Court's 1986
decision in Thornburg v. Gingles is met, absent unusual
circumstances; under Section 5, if a majority-minority
district existed once, it--or some similar racial
``edge''--must be preserved in perpetuity.
So, the law should be amended to make clear that there is
no requirement that districts be drawn with the racial bottom
line in mind--and, indeed, that such racial gerrymandering is
in fact illegal.
Third, the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by the courts
literally denies the equal protection of the law--that is, it
provides legal guarantees to some racial groups that it
denies to others. A minority group may be entitled to have a
racially gerrymandered district, or be protected against
racial gerrymandering that favors other groups; at the same
time, other groups are not entitled to gerrymander, and
indeed may lack protection against gerrymandering that hurts
them. No racial group should be guaranteed safe districts or
influence districts or some combination thereof unless other
groups are given the same guarantee--and it is impossible to
do so (and it is, in any event, a bad idea to encourage such
racial obsession).
So, the act should be amended to make clear that it
guarantees nothing for one racial group that it does not
guarantee for all racial groups.
Fourth, in many circumstances the Voting Rights Act
currently requires that ballots be made available in
languages other than English--an odd provision, since the
ability to speak English is generally required for
naturalized citizens, and citizenship is generally required
for voters. The provision does, however, remove another
incentive for being fluent in English, which is the last
thing the government should be doing. This provision in the
act should be removed.
Finally, the whole mechanism requiring some jurisdictions
to ask, ``Mother, may I?'' of the federal government before
making any change in voting practices and procedures needs to
be rethought. We should not continue to have such a ``pre-
clearance'' mechanism at all, and in any event surely the
current law--which singles out parts of the South and just a
few districts elsewhere, notably in New York City and
California--is out of date. This mechanism was considered
``emergency'' legislation when it was passed 40 years ago:
Does it really make sense now to have a different law for
Texas versus Arkansas, or Maryland versus Virginia, or New
Mexico versus Arizona? This provision of the act needs to be
removed or, at least, rewritten, so that troublesome
districts are more fairly identified.
Celebrate the Voting Rights Act--but not without updating
it for the 21st century.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
reauthorization of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I am
proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, known as the
VRA.
The VRA was first enacted in 1965. Since the passage of the VRA, many
discriminatory practices and barriers to political participation have
been eliminated, enfranchising millions of racial, ethnic, and language
minority citizens.
Sadly, in spite of these advances, this landmark legislation is still
needed today. The fact remains that hate groups continue to exist in
this country and unscrupulous politicians, for their own political
advantage, continue efforts to disenfranchise vulnerable voters.
Just last month, on June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in GI Forum
v. Texas that a 2003 redistricting plan in Texas Congressional District
23 violated the voting rights of Latino voters. The Supreme Court
ruling was a resounding affirmation of the need for the Voting Rights
Act.
The National Commission on the Voting Rights Act recently released a
report which highlighted a troubling pattern of voter discrimination
against minority citizens across the nation. Without a clean
reauthorization of the VRA, key provisions that protect against these
abuses will expire in 2007.
One key provision that will expire is Section 203. Voting
instructions and ballot information can be confusing even for the
native-born, fluent in English. Section 203 ensures that tax-paying
American citizens, who are not fluent English speakers, receive the
language assistance they need in order to participate in the election
process through well-informed choices. The ability to vote in an
informed way will also encourage greater voter participation.
Another key provision set to expire in 2007 is section 5. Section 5
requires certain states, with a history of discriminatory practices, to
get permission from the Justice Department prior to changing their
election process. This is a necessary safeguard against the potential
disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters living in these States.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act continues to be as relevant today
as it was in 1965. While the discrimination existing today may take a
different form than that of 1965, the fact remains it still exists in
2006.
The Voting Rights Act is an important deterrent and protection
against the disenfranchisement of thousands of American citizens.
As the model of Democracy for the world, we cannot afford to lose one
of the fundamental expressions of our democracy--open, free and
unencumbered elections. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
effort to renew the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I support the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa
Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization in
hopes that it will be a vehicle for true comprehensive election reform
on a national level.
More than 40 years ago the Voting Rights Act was enacted as a direct
response to purposeful discrimination that denied many Americans,
mostly African American, equal voting rights. Currently only 16 States
are covered. I am disappointed that we have not broadened our scope and
our vision.
Currently Georgia is considering changes to its voter registration
which will fall disproportional on its African American citizens who
have long suffered discriminatory practices.
This further proves that discrimination is alive and well in today's
society. We must keep the faith with the civil rights struggle. There
are a number of demographics, such as low income citizens, who are
still targeted by those who shamelessly continue to manipulate the
system.
Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years is
questionable considering the changes that should be made to address the
political manipulation seen in recent years in elections through
redistricting and with voting machines.
For instance, in Texas a politically driven redistricting between
censuses altered the political dynamic of a geographic area and its
voters. any professionals in the Justice Department were convinced that
the Tom DeLay driven scheme had serious problems but were overridden by
the political appointees who were their bosses. In Ohio, during the
last Presidential election, inner-city voters had to deal with a
purposeful lack of voting machines that led to lines that were hours
long. The fact that these issues are not being addressed by this
legislation shows its shortcomings and the need for further reform.
We should take a principled stand to make our election process work
better for the American public. We need elections that are fair, where
every vote is counted, and people have equal access to the polls.
Without addressing these concerns this vote is largely a symbolic
effort that does little to change the overall distrust with the
election process. I hope it improves during the next steps of the
legislative process.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9--bipartisan
legislation to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in
opposition to the King amendment.
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King--together with
thousands of other Americans--fought tirelessly to vanquish
discrimination and exclusion.
I recall their sacrifice for my colleagues, along with the
observation of Dr. King during his 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage to
Washington:
``All types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent the
Negroes from becoming registered voters,'' Dr. King declared. ``The
denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest
mandates of our democratic tradition.''
Unfortunately, our nation still needs the protections that the VRA
provides--I cite the states of Georgia, Ohio, and Florida as recent
examples that represent the betrayal to which Dr. King refers.
Mr. Chairman, the four amendments approved by the Rules Committee are
poison pills for the VRA. All four diminish the right to vote, are
constitutionally unsound and violate the intent of the act. This
amendment is no exception.
I urge my colleagues to vote to reauthorize the VRA--without the
poison pill amendments.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 upholds the
promise made in 1776 that all citizens are created equal. This historic
legislation reaffirms the principles of equal opportunity and treatment
for which so many were willing to shed their blood or give their lives
during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
Last year, I had the honor of joining civil rights leader Congressman
John Lewis from Georgia on a congressional pilgrimage to visit the
historic sites of the civil rights movement and retrace parts of the
1965 Voting Rights March in Alabama. During the trip, we commemorated
the 40-year anniversary of the march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the
site of the violent attack on voting rights demonstrators known as
Bloody Sunday.
[[Page H5168]]
We remember the events of the civil right movement in this country,
not only to honor the courage, sacrifice, and accomplishments of those
like John Lewis but also to rededicate ourselves to their ongoing work:
the pursuit of justice, love, tolerance, and human rights in our
country and throughout the world. Their cause must be our cause today.
As long as the power of America's diversity is diminished by acts of
discrimination and violence because of race, sex, religion, age or
sexual orientation, we must still overcome.
And deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome. In the words of
Dr. Martin Luther King: ``Human progress never rolls on the wheels of
inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to
be co-workers with God.'' As long as we move forward as one Nation,
united in our common goals, we can cross any bridge; we can overcome
any challenge.
The guarantee that all American citizens have a right to be full
participants in our democracy is a fundamental American right. It is
important that we live up to our nation's ideals of equality and
opportunity for all and reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act today.
It is also my belief that we should make the act permanent, rather than
reauthorizing it for short periods.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 9
``The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' I am proud to
support this legislation and the bipartisan efforts that have brought
it to the floor today.
The renewal of these key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is
a critical opportunity to provide continued oversight and reform to our
election system. This legislation will ensure that minority voters who
have been disenfranchised in the past will not run the risk of facing
such hurdles in the future. Though the Fifteenth Amendment of our
Constitution guarantees the right of all citizens to vote free of
discrimination, it is important that these provisions of the Voting
Rights Act are renewed so as to clarify and expand this fundamental
American right.
In addition to its importance on a national stage the beneficial
effects of the Voting Rights Act have been felt locally in the Tampa
Bay area, which I represent. In 1992, as a result of a Section 5
objection to Florida's reapportionment plan, the state created a new
majority-minority state senate district in the Hillsborough County
area. This new seat was created to account for the more than 40.1
percent of African American and Hispanic members of the voting age
population in the area. Prior to this change, the legislative record
shows that the redistricting had been undertaken with the intention of
protecting the white incumbent.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 9, the Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization, and ensuring that the right to vote is
protected for generations to come.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, The Voting Rights Act was established to
end decades of oppressive tactics used to deny millions of African-
Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans from exercising their
right to vote. Forty years later, it is clear that the Voting Rights
Act was one of the most necessary and effective civil rights laws ever
enacted. Without it, America would be a very different place.
While great progress has been made since 1965, much work is left to
be done. There are still people out there who want to suppress the vote
of certain groups and this legislation will make sure no voter is
disenfranchised. It will take more than 40 years of the Voting Rights
Act to undo more than 100 years of Jim Crow.
Prior to the law's enactment, members of certain communities faced
countless impediments to voting such as poll taxes, harassment,
intimidation, and even violence when attempting to participate in
elections. It is important to remember that these shameful tactics were
not exclusive to the South, but common throughout the entire United
States.
Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, there are more than 9,000 African
American elected officials in the United States today, as opposed to
only 1,479 in 1970. These numbers would have been unthinkable 40 years
ago.
In order for democracy to thrive, everyone must have the right to
vote, regardless of race, religion, or income. It is not only the
responsibility of every American to vote, but also to ensure everyone
is allowed to exercise to participate in the electoral process.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 worked, and Congress must allow it to
continue to work for future generations.
Mr. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.''
Today we are reauthorizing critical components of the Voting Rights
Act that will ensure that all citizens can carry out the fundamental
right to vote and have the opportunity to elect their candidate of
choice.
I know there has been push back from certain colleagues about certain
provisions, such as the language assistance provision. I wanted to
remind everyone that these are all U.S. citizens that are helped by
this provision and a majority of the people who will benefit from these
language assistance services are native born citizens.
It's not only citizens of Spanish-speaking heritage or Asian
Americans, we are also talking about American Indians and Alaskan
natives. These are people whose ancestors were here long before yours
or mine and deserve every assistance possible when it comes to voting.
Today, as we consider the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act,
let us reflect on our ancestors and those who dedicated their lives
toward civil rights causes, such as Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks,
Coretta Scott King and her husband Dr. Martin Luther King.
Dr. King led the symbolic voting rights march from Selma, Alabama to
the capital city of Montgomery, which motivated Lyndon Johnson to push
Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Some of the provisions
in the Voting Rights Act itself were first outlined in a March 14, 1965
article in The New York Times written by Dr. King.
In his speech after the Selma to Montgomery March, Dr. Martin Luther
King said:
Let us march on ballot boxes, march on ballot boxes until
race-baiters disappear from the political arena. Let us march
on ballot boxes until we send to our city councils, state
legislatures, and the U.S. Congressmen (and women) who will
not fear to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly [with thy
God]. Let us march on ballot boxes until brotherhood (and
sisterhood) becomes more than a meaningless word in our
opening prayer.
The Voting Rights Act empowers us to confront the deceitful tactics
used to undermine minority voters.
The Voting Rights Act empowers us to seek justice and support the
policies in which we believe.
The Voting Rights Act empowers us to achieve the true definition of
democracy, and ensure that every American has the right to vote.
In memory of the many great civil rights leaders that have passed on
and in unity with many of the great ones to come, I urge my colleagues
to pass the Voting Rights Act and reject any amendments that undermine
this monumental bill.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Throughout my career in
public service, I have fought to protect Americans' most fundamental
right--the right to vote. As the secretary of state of Rhode Island, I
worked to ensure the accuracy of our elections and to guarantee that
all eligible voters were able to cast a ballot. I have the most
profound respect for the great Americans who came before us and who
worked tirelessly to fight injustice in our electoral system. We honor
their service and their sacrifice today by reauthorizing the Voting
Rights Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important
legislation.
The Voting Rights Act has proven extremely effective in expanding the
freedom to vote to citizens who had previously been disenfrachised,
and, as a result, minorities have been able to participate in elections
at record levels. However, while we have made significant progress,
recent cases of voter intimidation and discrimination demonstrate that
we have more to accomplish. We need to reauthorize this landmark
legislation so that we may build on past progress.
The Voting Rights Act's strength lies in its mandate that states not
use tests of any kind to determine a citizen's eligibility to vote, and
in its requirement that states with a history of unfair voting
practices obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws
that may have a discriminatory effect. I am deeply disturbed that a
vocal contingent of Republicans wants to weaken this bipartisan
legislation by gutting the very provisions that have made the Voting
Rights Act one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in our
history. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments we will
consider today and to support final passage of H.R. 9 so that we may
continue to protect the most precious right of Americans--the right to
vote.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, ``We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal.''
``It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.''
Mr. Chairman, those two sentences sum up my concerns with this bill.
The first comes from the Declaration of Independence; the second from
Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in League of United Latin American
Citizens et al. v. Perry, a case about this very Act.
We should be moving closer to that American ideal of God-given
equality before the law, rather than ``divvying us up by race'' for
another 25 years, as this bill would do.
[[Page H5169]]
To have different levels of scrutiny apply to various states, based
on judgments made 40 years ago that are no longer accurate or
justified, is wrong. There is simply no reason to believe that Texas
requires more Federal supervision of voting than does Ohio or Florida
or any other State. The same standard should apply equally to each
person across the country, regardless of where he or she lives.
I am anxious for the day when race and skin color is as irrelevant to
voting as is hair color. Unfortunately, this bill pushes that day 25
years further away.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the
opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the Extension Voting
Rights Act of 1965 and the enormously positive impact it has had on our
Nation. I am very gratified to know the strong support for
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and appreciate your leadership
on this important issue.
The importance and necessity of the Voting Rights Act cannot be
overemphasized. We have learned through experience what a difference
the vote makes to us. In 1964, the year before President Johnson signed
the Act into law there were only 300 African American elected officials
in the entire country. Today, there are more than 9,100 black elected
officials including 43 members of Congress.
Let me be clear: expanding the opportunity to vote in America goes
far beyond simply ensuring that minority voters have a voice or that
African American politicians get elected. The Voting Rights Act has
enhanced the lives of all Americans, not just Black Americans, not just
minorities. By opening up the political process, the Voting Rights Act
has made available a broader pool of political talent, greatly
improving the quality of representation for all voters. Just as
important, the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in moving
America closer to its true promise and, thus, has significantly
benefited every single American, regardless of their race, economic
status, national origin or political party.
I've heard it suggested that the Voting Rights Acts--or certain key
provisions--need not be reauthorized because its very success has
rendered it obsolete. This is a fallacy--and I urge you in the
strongest possible terms not to fall for it. The Voting Rights Act must
be reauthorized because it works!
African Americans in the South were prevented from voting by a
battery of tactics--poll taxes, literacy tests that were for blacks
only, and the crudest forms of intimidation. From the Southwest to some
urban areas in the Northeast and Midwest, Latinos were discourage from
voting by subtler but also effective techniques that exploited the
vulnerabilities of low-income newcomers, for whom English was a second
language. Both groups were also the targets of districting designed to
dilute their ability to elect officials of their own choosing--a
fundamental freedom that all too many Americans take for granted.
That is why it is so important that the Congress renew all three
provisions that are set to expire: Section 5, which requires a federal
approval for proposed changes in voting or election procedures in areas
with a history of discrimination; Section 203, which requires some
jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to voters who
are not literate or fluent in English; and the portions of Section 6-9
of the Act which authorize the federal government to send federal
election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by
Section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority
voters at the polls.
I am gratified at the degree of support--on both sides of the aisle--
for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I urge you to also
recognize the continued need for preclearance and other special
provisions that are so necessary for the continued progress we must
make as a nation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
We stand here today with a historic opportunity to improve and renew
one of the greatest advancements in the history of our American
Democracy.
In 1965, in a direct response to evidence of pervasive discrimination
taking place across the country, including the use of literacy tests,
poll taxes, intimidation, threats and violence, Congress enacted the
Voting Rights Act. Since 1965, we have come a long way towards breaking
down the many entrenched barriers to minority participation, but
exhaustive hearings and testimony have clearly indicated that more can
and must be done.
Opponents of this legislation make the false presumption that the
Voting Rights Act has accomplished its goals and is therefore no longer
necessary. Yet since its last reauthorization in 1982, the Department
of Justice--under the Voting Rights Act--has objected to over 1,000
proposed changes to voting laws because they would have denied equal
access to the political process.
Other Members would eliminate Section 203, which provides voters with
language assistance at the ballot box. The current law requiring
bilingual voting assistance was enacted because Congress found evidence
of blatant discrimination against non-English-speaking voters. Many
American citizens are proficient in English, but may not be able to
fully comprehend the complex legal wording in ballot initiatives. It is
important to remember that there are American citizens who can speak
English, but not read it. Bilingual assistance is necessary to ensure
that these citizens are not left out of the political process.
Today four amendments have been offered which seek to severely weaken
and undermine the Voting Rights Act. These amendments seek to turn back
the clock on the advancements made since 1965 in the enfranchisement
and participation of minority voters. Let me be clear, I oppose any
attempt to water down the Voting Rights Act, and will oppose each and
every one of these damaging amendments.
Back in the early 1970s, I worked together with Congressman John
Lewis--who was one of thousands to risk his life to challenge the
discriminatory voting practices of the time--registering voters in
Mississippi. Since then, our country has made substantial strides in
expanding and ensuring the right to vote for all American citizens, yet
discrimination still exists. Cases remain where absentee votes are
deliberately ignored, voters continue to be unjustly purged from voter
rolls, and problems with electronic voting machines persist.
Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act is absolutely essential as we
continue to work for complete equality in the voting process. I truly
believe that the Voting Rights Act is the most effective civil rights
law ever enacted, and I strongly support its passage without amendment.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9,
the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights
Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. This legislation is an
important recommitment of our dedication to the principle that all
United States citizens, regardless of race, have equal opportunity to
cast their vote in our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, The Voting Rights Act, and civil rights in general,
have always been a part of Republican legislative history. During the
152 year history of the Republican Party, we have not wavered in our
fight for the freedom of individuals. Our party played a significant
role in bringing an end to slavery, worked diligently to extend the
right to vote to all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, gender or
creed, led the civil rights legislation of the 60's, and, today, is
continuing to advance the cause of freedom around the world.
In 1866, Republicans in Congress passed the nation's first ever Civil
Rights Act. Three years later, in 1869, Republicans proposed a
constitutional amendment, guaranteeing minorities the right to vote.
Ninety-eight percent of Republicans voted for this amendment, which led
to its passage and inclusion as the 15th amendment to our Constitution.
Continuing the Republican legacy of advancing individuals civil
rights, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen, from my home state of Illinois,
was responsible, more than any other individual, for the passage of the
1964 Civil Rights Act. His leadership paved the way for its passage and
the enormous support from Republicans for this Act carried over into
1965, when a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the
Voting Rights Act than did their Democratic colleagues.
H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, will
extend and revise the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to enhance the intended
purpose of protecting the constitutional right of all citizens to vote
and, in effect, their right to actively participate in the governing of
our county. This bill protects the ability of all citizens to elect
their preferred candidate by prohibiting discriminatory voting
qualifications and prerequisites. By supporting this bill, we are not
only defending the rights of U.S. citizens, we are adding to our
country's long history of protecting liberty and freedom.
I believe it is imperative that this legislation garner the strong
support of the entire House of Representatives. The Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 carries on the legacy of its
1965 predecessor and creates greater safeguards for all American
voters.
I would like to thank our distinguished Speaker, the gentleman from
Illinois, for his leadership on this legislation and for bringing it to
a vote on the floor. I urge all my colleagues to protect our citizens,
and our constitution, by voting in favor of this legislation.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9. The
Voting Rights Act is one of our nation's most effective and essential
civil rights laws.
[[Page H5170]]
Since enacted in 1965, this law has been reauthorized 4 times--each
time with bipartisan support. Today, I hope that we will reaffirm our
bipartisan, national commitment to voting rights for all Americans.
I would like to salute the efforts of Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Conyers for their tireless efforts to produce a
bipartisan reauthorization bill. The right to vote is for all
Americans--it is not a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support
the underlying bill and to reject any amendments that would weaken the
protections afforded under the Voting Rights Act.
One amendment that would turn the clock back on voting rights is the
Amendment being offered by Mr. King of Iowa that would strike Sec. 203
of the act, which provides language assistance for voters who need it.
Striking this section is a strike to the heart of the Voting Rights Act
allowing for discrimination against voters based on language. It is a
backdoor attempt to reestablish a literacy test for voting.
Let us, together, pledge to fight barriers to voting. Let us say
never again to the days of literacy tests, poll taxes, and intimidation
and threats to voters.
Let us, together, ensure that minority communities will not have
their votes diluted, costing them real representation in elected
positions.
The Voting Rights Act protects our democracy. Its legacy of success
is indisputable. In my own state of Texas, we went from 563 elected
Hispanics in 1973 to 2,137 in 2005. The number of Hispanic elected to
Congress from Texas doubled between 1984 and 2005. Yet these gains
could be undone without the on-going protection of the Voting Rights
Act.
The Voting Rights Act is about securing and protecting our democracy.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 9 as it was
reported out of committee.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the
Voting Rights Act. All of us are grateful for those sacrifices which
forced America to bring equality and justice to all and we must
continue to uphold the basic principles and sentiments embodied in the
Voting Rights Act.
The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed that racism and its
bitter legacy would never again disenfranchise any citizen by closing
the polls. The failure to ensure voting rights regardless of race or
national origin was a national shame, which was finally addressed and
corrected in this historic bill.
Over the last 41 years, progress continues to be made in ensuring all
citizens have the right to vote. However, the past two presidential
election involved vote-related controversies, which led to significant
numbers of voters unable to vote or unable to have their votes counted.
These instances make clear the Voting Rights Act is still necessary and
much needed. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 9 because we, as Americans, must
preserve and defend our most basic right and liberty--the right to have
our voices heard through voting.
Mr. Chairman there is no civil rights legislation more important or
effective than the Voting Rights Act. We cannot and should not return
to the days before 1965. We need to extend the expiring provisions of
the Voting Rights Act. I support H.R. 9 and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Voting Rights Act and urge this House to decisively reauthorize
this legislation for another 25 years. The Voting Rights Act has been
reauthorized and upheld for more than four decades, and today we must
act to ensure that the provisions set to expire next year remain in
effect and continue to protect the sacred right to vote.
The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights
initiatives ever enacted, protecting minority voters from
discrimination, and ensuring for all Americans, the right to vote in a
fair and equal voting process. This bill was necessary when it was
passed in 1965 and it is necessary today. It continues to work
effectively to combat discrimination and its reauthorization will make
certain that the gains that have been achieved for minority voters are
not rolled back. Clearly we have come a long way, but as recently as
yesterday a U.S. District Court blocked the enforcement of a
controversial voter I.D. law, which would have required the
presentation of state-issued photo identification prior to casting your
ballot. In the last decade Georgia and several other southern states
have continued to experience problems with race-based redistricting and
government reorganization. These laws may not be as egregious as the
challenges of the past, but they are no less discriminatory and
reinforce the need for federal monitoring to protect minority rights.
Before I was elected to Congress in 1992, my area of Georgia had only
been represented by an African American once in its history; it was for
less than three months in 1870 and 1871. Jefferson Long was the first
black Member of Congress from Georgia and only the second nationwide.
It took 121 years and the passage of the Voting Rights Act before
another African American was elected. This bill is vital to ensuring
that minority voices are heard in our nation's capital and at every
other level of government.
Indeed only a few short years before Jefferson Long's service in
Congress, Georgians elected their first African American state
legislators. The election of 1868 was the first in which African
Americans in Georgia could participate in the electoral process through
voting or running for office. It was hotly debated in the Georgia
General Assembly whether or not the Constitution guaranteed African
Americans the right to run for office, or simply to vote. Despite this
debate, 33 African Americans were elected to the legislature in 1868
and began their service that summer--they were outnumbered four to one
in the body by their white colleagues. They endured taunting and
torment in the newspapers and on the Floor of the General Assembly. The
legislature voted along color lines and expelled the black members of
the General Assembly--the 33 were booted from the floor.
One of them--Henry McNeal Turner--said, ``You may drive us out, but
you will light a torch never to be put out.'' Another, Tunis Campbell,
journeyed from Atlanta to Washington and asked the new President,
Ulysses S. Grant, to intercede. Grant and the Congress did the right
thing and ordered the Georgia legislature to readmit the expelled
legislators and all 33 reclaimed their seats in Atlanta. But, by the
turn of the 20th century, the devices of Jim Crow--the poll tax,
literacy tests, whites-only primaries, and others--had forced each and
every black representative out of office. In 1976, while I was in the
General Assembly myself, the black legislators caucus donated a statue
to commemorate the centennial of their ordeal.
Today, in Washington, DC, we are called to remember Turner's call--we
must not let the torch go out. The Voting Rights Act brings electoral
law out of the dark and promises that the discrimination and
intimidation that plagued voting in the past will not be tolerated in
the present. The reauthorization of this bill will renew that promise
to our children and our grandchildren. We should not, we must not, and
we cannot allow it to be extinguished. We must extend the Voting Rights
Act today--without amendment!
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have been active in the struggle for
civil rights since my teenage years. In 1961, I joined the first
Freedom Rides to desegregate transportation facilities in our Southern
States--and was arrested and imprisoned for several months in
Mississippi. In 1965, I joined our colleague, John Lewis, as he led the
famous march from Selma to Montgomery, AL. This led directly to
Congressional passage of the Voting Rights Act. Since then, I have not
forgotten my long standing beliefs and have consistently fought to
uphold civil and human rights for every person in the United States.
The Voting Rights Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in
1970, 1975, and 1982, stands as the most successful piece of civil
rights legislation ever. The Act codifies and effectuates the 15th
Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the Nation, no person
shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. In
addition, the Act contains several special provisions that impose even
more stringent requirements in certain jurisdictions throughout the
country, including the requirement to provide bilingual assistance to
language minority voters.
This Act marked the first successful Federal oversight of changes to
election procedures in jurisdictions that had a poor record of
respecting minority voting rights in the past. These ``special
provisions'' are set to expire in 2007. Therefore, the Voting Rights
Act must pass in its entirety, without amendment.
At this time, when our country has staked much of its international
reputation on the ability to spread democracy and free elections to
troubled regions across the globe, the importance of keeping this Act
in legislation with its special provisions is very vital. I urge my
colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and
reject all amendments.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise today in opposition to
H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights
Act provides important guidelines to ensure the integrity of elections,
yet the legislation before us chooses to reauthorize this Act with 30
year old information. I simply cannot vote to sentence Alabama to an
additional 25 years under the foot of the Justice Department without
just cause.
I am disappointed that the House chose not to update the 1965 Voting
Rights Act when it reauthorized the measure. The whole debate was cast
as either you're for the Voting Rights Act or you're not. There was no
attention paid to the fact that the Act's formulas are out of date and
place the Act itself at risk of constitutional challenge. As a result,
states like Alabama continue to be punished for wrongs committed 40
years ago and the same criteria will remain in effect for another 25
years, through 2032.
[[Page H5171]]
Furthermore, I also oppose the Voting Rights Act's mandate that
States provide bilingual ballots to non-English speaking voters. This
provision serves only to impede the assimilation of non-English
speakers into our society.
The Voting Rights Act remains locked in a time-warp reflecting the
voting realities of 1964, not 2006. The very constitutionality of the
Voting Rights Act may be in question. The Supreme Court found more than
30 years ago that the Act's formula, which is based on the 1964, 1968
and 1972 presidential election voting data, was constitutional because
it is was temporary and narrowly tailored to address a specific
problem. Thirty years have since passed calling into question the basis
of this ruling.
``I supported an amendment to update the formula used to determine
which jurisdictions are required to obtain Federal ``pre-clearance''
before changing voting procedures,'' said Everett. ``The formula would
be updated to reflect voting participation in the most recent three
presidential elections as a basis for Federal pre-clearance instead of
decades old data.''
I also voted for an amendment to strike the provision in the Voting
Rights Act requiring States to provide bilingual ballots.
It must be stated that efforts to reform the Voting Rights Act are
not designed to weaken its effectiveness in protecting minority voting
rights. These rights will continue to be protected. Reforming the
Voting Rights Act is necessary to ensure that it reflects our current
society.
Alabama has made tremendous progress in the area of voter
participation due in large part to the Voting Rights Act. Out of the 50
States, it is second only to Mississippi in the total number of African
Americans holding public office. As recently as 2004, African Americans
and Caucasians in Alabama were registered to vote in equal numbers.
Unfortunately, the Voting Rights Act remains focused on a core group
of southern States which have long complied with its Federal mandate.
Modernizing the Voting Rights Act would enable Alabama and other
southern states to be properly evaluated on recent voter participation
data. It also would help identify recent voter registration problems in
other areas of the country that are currently hidden due to the
antiquated formulas of the Voting Rights Act.
The provisions of the Voting Rights Act don't actually expire until
2007. Accordingly, Congress has time to go back to the drawing board
and create legislation that would actually update and strengthen the
Voting Rights Act. Modernizing the Voting Rights Act both serves the
public interest and protects the constitutionality of the law.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I came to the House floor today with every
desire--every hope in my heart--to vote for extending the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
Unfortunately, later this afternoon when the vote is actually called,
even after several amendments that in my view would improve it have
been voted on and, in all likelihood, voted down--it will be with a
heavy heart--but a clear conscious--that I must vote against the
underlying bill.
Please allow me to explain.
Mr. Chairman, there are 160 members of this House who are attorneys
by training. Some were judges and have ruled on the merits of the law;
others were distinguished members of the bar in their hometowns and
communities before they were elected to Congress.
All, I am certain, are more qualified than I am--as I am not an
attorney--to look at the Voting Rights Act of 1965--and its subsequent
extensions over the years--and argue with more authority and legal
knowledge the pros and cons of Section 2 or Section 4 or Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act, or whether or not Ashcroft v. Georgia should or
should not remain a factor as new congressional district lines are
drawn in the coming decades.
Likewise, every one of us here in this body comes to Congress with
some degree of political acumen and understanding.
Many of our colleagues were former legislators back home; we have
former governors and secretaries of state, former political science
professors who once taught the subject in the classroom, even a former
wrestling coach who serves today with great distinction as our Speaker.
Every person in this room is as qualified as I am--many are probably
more so to peer into the proverbial ``crystal ball'' we all wish we had
and try to guess whether by passing this extension, we'll be making our
country a ``little more red'' or a ``little more blue.''
Let's be honest, Mr. Chairman, for many in this hallowed chamber,
that is what this vote today is all about.
But while I am neither an attorney who has mastered Constitutional
law nor a political expert who has extraordinary vision, I believe it
is safe to say that I am the only member of this body who was born in
Selma, AL, arguably one of the most significant sites in our Nation's
struggle to advance the civil rights of all Americans.
As a child of the South born in the late 1950s, it is fair to say
that I watched the Civil Rights Movement unfold before my very eyes.
No, I would never pretend to fully understand as a boy what men like
my colleague and friend, Congressman John Lewis, went through to
advance the cause of racial justice.
There is not another member of this body for whom I have greater
respect or hold in higher regard than John Lewis, who, himself, is an
Alabama native.
While I was a child watching the Civil Rights Movement progress, he
was a young man helping to make it all happen.
And seemingly without malice in his heart, he turned the other cheek
time and time again, even as Bull Conner, Jim Clark and others beat
him, jailed him, spit on him, cursed him and did everything in their
might to break his spirit and determination.
That, Mr. Chairman, is one reason why I have such a heavy burden with
this vote.
Let me be clear about one thing: although many of our forefathers did
not believe so at the time, the original Civil Rights Act of 1965 was
necessary medicine to remedy an age-old ill and we Republicans can be
proud--extremely proud--of the lead role our party played in its
passage and enactment.
In 1965, racial discrimination was real--especially at the ballot
box. In my birthplace of Selma, just over 2 percent of the registered
voters were listed as African-American--even though the town of 30,000
people was over 57 percent black.
I remember hearing my parents talk about the numerous injustices that
were taking place all over the South . . . of having a separate section
for young blacks to watch a movie in the Alco Theater in Camden where I
grew up, of having ``Colored'' water fountains at the Wilcox County
Courthouse and other symbols--some large, some small--but all of which
were intended to divide our country based almost solely on the color of
a person's skin.
Mr. Chairman, today we can say with certainty that the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 was needed and it worked. It did what it was intended to
do. And in more ways than we can innumerate, we can thank God that it
has changed our country for the better.
The Alabama I grew up in--in the 1960s--is a far cry from the Alabama
I am privileged to represent here in this great body today.
Isn't it fitting that the first African-American female to serve our
country as secretary of state is none other than a daughter of
Birmingham, a lady who, as a little girl, knew the four other children
who were tragically killed when a bomb exploded on Sunday, September
15, 1963, exposing the face of evil that reared its ugly head at the
16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.
Not a day passes when I am not so extremely proud to know that
whether on the world stage, where there is so much strife and division,
or coming back to help victims of Hurricane Katrina in her home State,
Dr. Condeleeza Rice is a person of the highest moral standing, of the
greatest integrity and is a shining example to us all.
Mr. Chairman, 50 years after she had been arrested simply for
refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery to a white man,
wasn't it appropriate for our Nation's capitol--this majestic building
recognized around the world as a symbol of hope and freedom--to bestow
its highest honor by allowing the body of Mrs. Rosa Parks, a former
seamstress who went on to become the ``mother of the Civil Rights
Movement,'' to lie in state for the Nation--and the world--to mourn her
passing?
But, you see, Mr. Chairman, by extending the very provisions that
were so necessary and needed in the 1960s--and by imposing for another
25 years the sanctions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on a
region of the country that has changed--and has changed for the
better--what we are doing today is merely celebrating the success of
the Selma to Montgomery march without acknowledging that the march for
justice should continue.
It should continue to Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia
Counties in Florida, where many of our colleagues and even more
Americans believe with all their hearts that the presidential election
of 2000 was stolen by the Supreme Court and a few hundred hanging
chads.
If the prescription for suppressing the voting rights of African-
Americans and other minorities who were disenfranchised in the South in
the 1960s worked--and it did--then why are we not continuing the march
for equality and justice for the citizens in Milwaukee and Chicago and
Cleveland and the other great cities of our country who, in recent
elections, have protested that their right to vote was compromised and
their voice in this great democracy was intimidated?
The Alabama of today can boast the fact that there are more African-
American elected officials in Alabama than any other state in the
nation. That's quite a statement, Mr. Speaker,
[[Page H5172]]
a statement of real progress over the past 40 years. I count many of
these men and women as my close friends and partners as, together, we
are working to build a better State and region for our children and
grandchildren, regardless of the color of their skin.
One person, in particular, whom I count as just such a partner is my
friend and colleague, Congressman Artur Davis. On several occasions,
Artur and I have held joint town meetings in Clarke County, a county
that we both represent, as well as shared the stage in other Alabama
cities talking about the progress our home State has made in recent
years.
Without a doubt, Artur represents the very best Alabama has to offer;
he is not only a rising star on the Democrat side of the aisle, but he
is truly a leader whose vision and voice this Nation can benefit from.
Regretfully, on this issue, Artur and I respectfully disagree with
each other.
He believes that it would be unconstitutional to make Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act apply to the entire Nation. I, on the other hand,
believe if it is unconstitutional for Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act to apply to the rest of the Nation, then it might well be
unconstitutional for it to continue to apply only to those States that
were placed under it more than 40 years ago.
Last year, my hometown, Mobile, added a chapter to the rich history
of progress that has come our way on this long and often-painful
journey in that we elected our first African-American mayor, even
though the majority of our citizens and the majority of the registered
voters in Mobile are Caucasian.
As Mayor Sam Jones said on election night, ``we are too busy to be
divided,'' but Mayor Jones' victory should tell us all that Dr. King's
vision of an America where his ``four children will one day live in a
Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by
the content of their character,'' that America is more real today, Mr.
Speaker, than ever before.
Are we where we need to be?
Have we completed our journey?
Of course not.
But make no mistake, discrimination does not stop at a State line
and, sadly, it knows no boundaries. And that is precisely why, Mr.
Speaker, I cannot vote for this particular extension of the Voting
Rights Act because, at least in my humble opinion, it continues to
pretend that the only vestiges of racism and discrimination exist in
the nine states and the few other selected counties throughout the
country that were originally covered.
And assuming that the four amendments that have been ruled in order--
those by Mr. Norwood of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert of Texas, Mr. King of Iowa
and Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia--assuming these four amendments all
fail, and they most likely will--then what we have left is nothing but
a hollow gesture.
It is true that some of our colleagues will most likely march to the
microphone later today to declare this as a significant victory but, in
all reality, it is nothing more than a very regretful missed
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I wish with all of my heart that we had spent as much
time over the past few months working to expand to the entire Nation
the precious right of freedom and the privilege of voting without fear
or retribution.
I regret that we were not able to be bold enough to say to the
southern States which have shown so much progress that, after 40 years
of advancement, we are now ready to move forward and give those areas
where the sins of our fathers are no longer committed an opportunity to
come out from under the burden of crawling to the U.S. Justice
Department, on bended knee, and asking for its blessing to continue on
the march for equality.
I truly lament the fact that, as our great Nation is in the midst of
an important national debate, one that is focused on how we secure our
borders and deal with the all-important matter of having between 11 and
20 million people who are in this country illegally, I can only wish
that we had been courageous enough to say, ``if you want to become a
citizen of this country and enjoy the many benefits that come with that
citizenship, then you need to learn English--which is our national
language--and you need to become a full-fledged participant in what has
made--and continues to make--us different from almost every other
country in the world and that is our right to participate in free
elections and self-governance.''
Mr. Chairman, you see for me to cast a vote for this extension is
asking me to condemn my beloved Alabama to another 25 years of being
punished for mistakes that are no longer being made.
I know in my heart that the drumbeat for justice must continue and
the battle for equality is long from over. I know more progress can be
made--and will be made--in the coming months and years.
But I also believe, with every ounce of my being, that this bill will
have to pass without my support. For the real opportunity to empower
people--and bring credibility to the process that we hold so dear--that
opportunity is one that could have been but will not be.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong
support of H.R. 9 the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, and urge all
of my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.
As a representative democracy the most precious right afforded to our
citizens is the right to vote. Unfortunately, we are all aware that for
most of America's existence this instrumental right was denied to
African Americans. And while the passage of the 15th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution in 1868 ensured all American men the right to vote,
true equality for all voters was not achieved for another century with
the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. This not only guaranteed
the fundamental rights of minority voters but provided the necessary
enforcement mechanisms to make sure that any American who wanted to
exercise their right to vote would be able to.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 truly transformed our
Nation and helped make the dream of freedom a reality. The Voting
Rights Act has subsequently been renewed four times, in 1970, 1975,
1982 and most recently in 1992. Despite the success of the 1965 Act,
obstacles still exist which prevent minority voters from exercising
their full and unfettered franchise, including unauthorized
redistricting and last minute changing of poll locations. Because of
these and other concerns about full and fair access to the polls for
minority voters in this country, the Voting Rights Act continues to
need to be renewed.
The legislation before us today reauthorizes three key enforcement
provisions of the Voting Rights Act which have been essential to
eliminating and deterring voting discrimination and preventing the
denial of access to the ballot box. While progress on these crucial
areas of voting protection has been made, it is clear from the
mountains of evidence that the House Judiciary Committee received
during its extensive hearings on this legislation that an ongoing and
persistent level of discrimination still exists in our country
necessitating the renewal of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Chairman, in my home State of California, perhaps one of the most
diverse states in the Nation, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act will
continue to ensure that the citizens of California can exercise their
right to cast a fully informed vote. Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act will require 28 of the State's 58 counties to provide the necessary
language assistance so that over 1.5 million voters at the polls are
able to comprehend the ballot before them in the booth.
My unwavering commitment to the principles of this important
legislation extends to opposing the four amendments considered during
the debate today which would either undermine or weaken the act. I am
pleased to state that I will vote for this legislation and urge all of
my colleagues to join me in continuing to protect the civil rights of
all Americans.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the
undisturbed right of all Americans to freely exercise their right to
vote. I support the extension of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). H.R. 9 is
not extension of the Voting Rights Act. This is not your parents Voting
Rights Act.
The 1965 VRA was a monumental step in the right direction--correcting
past sins--and it has worked extremely well.
In Georgia in 1964 there were fewer than 25 minority elected
officials.
In Georgia today there are 61 minority elected officials.
In Georgia in 1964, 27.4 percent of minority citizens were registered
to vote.
In Georgia today, 64.2 percent of minority citizens are registered to
vote.
In Georgia in 1964 there were NO minority statewide elected
officials.
In Georgia in 2004 there were 9--out of 34--minority statewide
elected officials; including our State Attorney General, our State
Labor Commissioner and the Chief Justice of our State Supreme Court.
Great progress has been made. The Georgia of today is not the Georgia
of 1964.
In fact, minorities in Georgia are enfranchised to a greater degree
than those in many States not currently covered by the VRA--and States
that will never be covered by the VRA--because of H.R. 9.
Why? Because this legislation will perpetuate the myth that nothing
has changed, that no advances have occurred in minority participation
in the voting process. This legislation perpetuates the right that
there are no new jurisdictions in our Nation that are currently
challenged in providing for minority participation in the electoral
process.
So how will this Nation decide whether an area needs to be included
under this Bill? It will be based upon the 1964 Presidential election.
That's right! An election contested over 40 years ago! This is not a
Voting Rights Act--it is a Voting Discrimination Act!
Because voters in States that are promoting and accomplishing the
enfranchisement of minorities are being discriminated against--and
[[Page H5173]]
States that currently have discriminating practices will continue to do
so--with no fear of being caught or covered by the same rules as those
under the jurisdiction of the Voting Rights Act.
And America loses--
What we are doing today is not a renewal of the VRA. We are putting
into law the undemocratic notion that minority citizens can only be
appropriately represented by members of one political party. This is a
notion that should be anathema to all Americans.
The original and rightful intent of the VRA was to ensure that all
Americans could exercise their legal right to vote. Recent court
decisions have revealed that the judicial branch believes that the VRA
should not only ensure the legal right to vote, but that it must also
ensure the victor in any given election as a fait accompli.
I support extension of the current VRA--for all of America.
I support the enfranchisement of every American legally able to vote.
I look forward to the day when Members of Congress may work together
positively, to solve the challenges that confront us--together.
Unfortunately, that day is not today.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
Mr. Speaker, this is an historic moment. I am honored to be on the
floor of the House today as we take the next small step on the march
toward equality that Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., began
just over half a century ago.
The Voting Rights Act is nothing less than the cornerstone of our
commitment to government of the people, by the people, and for the
people--all the people. For free peoples there is no right or duty more
vital than the right to vote. By enacting the most significant civil
rights statute in our Nation's history, Congress spoke loud and clear
in 1965 that voting is a fundamental right of all American citizens.
The VRA made it the sacred duty of the Federal Government to enforce
this right not only by protecting the individual voter, but also by
evaluating the actual effects of voting law changes on minority
influence. In so doing, the VRA created opportunities for members of
all communities, regardless of race, color or creed, to serve their
fellow citizens in government.
Today, we have the opportunity to take stock of the gains we have
made and to reaffirm this country's commitment to tackling the
challenges that remain ahead. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed
the VRA in 1965, he said that ``to seize the meaning of this day, we
must recall darker times.'' Unfortunately, those dark times are not
completely behind us. Despite the steady progress of the last 41 years,
there is very little doubt in my mind that we still very much need
section 5 and section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which would sunset
if this Congress neglected to act.
For reminders that Dr. King's march from darkness is not yet
finished, we need only look to recent changes to maps and voting
requirements in Texas and Georgia. The Supreme Court struck down
portions of the new Texas congressional map just 2 weeks ago, and a
ruling on new discriminatory election practices in Georgia have
seriously eroded the Justice Department's ability to enforce section 5.
The bill before us today, thankfully, restores the statute to the
original intent of Congress.
I should note that I represent a district covered by section 5.
Although the VRA was originally built upon the blood and activism of
heroes who lived in a very different time, all of my constituents in my
majority minority congressional district have a greater voice in this
country today because of their sacrifices. Therefore, my Latino
constituents are keenly aware that section 5 is as important to their
political empowerment as the section 203 requirement for certain
jurisdictions to provide language assistance.
Now I am aware that there is a small minority of Members here today
who will try to strike section 203 from the reauthorization bill before
us today. They will argue that providing language assistance at the
polls somehow discourages immigrants from learning English. To this
argument, I say first that I have never met any immigrant, much less
one who became a citizen, who did not want to learn English or
understand that learning English is their key to the American dream. In
my city of New York, there are not enough English as a second language
courses to go around for all the folks who want to take them.
Second, this argument ignores the fact that the majority of voters
who utilize language assistance are natural born U.S. citizens.
Persistent inequalities in our education systems see to it that even
those who speak, read and write English in their everyday lives are not
always equipped to deal with often complex ballot instructions. Section
203 is a measured, targeted solution that speaks to a principle that
all Members of this body should agree on: that all eligible citizens,
regardless of their access to education, have the right to cast an
informed vote.
That is why we must renew section 203, along with section 5 and the
other expiring provisions, without delay.
Twenty-five years from now, we may be able to file away voter
discrimination, like slavery before it, as nothing more than a painful
memory in our troubled past.
Twenty-five years from now, the conditions that drove Dr. King and
others to begin their march may be nothing more than faint scuff marks
on the boots of those of us who continued that march.
Twenty-five years from now, we may live in a country in which no
racism, no cultural intolerance and no partisan ambition will impel any
American to attempt to strip any other American's right to make his or
her voice heard.
Twenty-five years from now, six decades after President Johnson
declared with his pen that ``there is no room for injustice anywhere in
the American mansion,'' we may finally be able to declare that we have
completely banished discrimination from our democratic process.
But that day is not yet upon us, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, I
applaud Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for bringing
this momentous renewal to the floor.
I also want to thank both of them for their receptiveness to the
concerns of the Black, Hispanic and Asian Members of this body, many of
whom would not be in this House if not for the Voting Rights Act.
The version of the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee is a
magnificent product of bipartisanship, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to support it in its entirety and reject any amendments that
would weaken the commitment of this Congress to civil rights.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9--bipartisan
legislation that will extend and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King--together with
thousands of other Americans--fought tirelessly to vanquish
discrimination and exclusion.
Forty years ago, millions of Americans were excluded from our
democratic process.
In many States, voters were required to pass impractical literacy
tests or pay hefty poll taxes.
It was to carry the American democratic journey beyond these failings
that Black citizens and civil rights workers risked unemployment,
violence and death.
I recall their sacrifice for this House, along with the observation
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during his 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage to
Washington.
``All types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent the
Negroes from becoming registered voters,'' Dr. King declared. ``The
denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest
mandates of our democratic tradition.''
Eight years later, during the Selma voting rights marches, televised
pictures of a vicious ``Bloody Sunday'' attack on unarmed Americans
touched the conscience of this Nation--leading directly to enactment of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Mr. Chairman, this landmark legislation, often called the most
important civil rights law of all, is still important in our own time.
From my own life experience, I can attest that we have come a long
way toward universal justice in this country, but we are not there yet.
I note that a Federal court recently upheld a Voting Rights Act
challenge to a proposed Georgia requirement that would require every
voter to present a government photo ID before voting--a requirement,
the court held, that would disproportionately burden minority voters.
And in the Texas redistricting cases that the Supreme Court just
decided, the Court held that Texas District 23 violates the Voting
Rights Act by making it more difficult for Latino-Americans to elect
representatives of their own choosing.
In communities like my own throughout the country, the Voting Rights
Act is the very foundation of our faith that America is moving forward
toward the day when ``liberty and justice for all'' will truly prevail.
Americans of our own time--minority and majority Americans alike--
need the continued guidance that the Voting Rights Act provides. We
have come a long way, but more needs to be done.
The four amendments approved by the Rules Committee are poison pills
for this bill and the sponsors know this. Any plan or scheme--by
purpose or effect--that would diminish the right to vote is un-American
and violative of the act.
With this renewal of the Voting Rights Act, we have the opportunity
to live up to Dr. King's vision of a better, more unified country.
[[Page H5174]]
``Give us the ballot,'' Dr. King declared during that 1957 Prayer
Pilgrimage to Washington, ``and we will . . . fill our legislative
halls with men of good will and send to the sacred halls of Congress
men who will not sign a southern manifesto because of their devotion to
the manifesto of justice.''
Mr. Chairman, we can be those noble people whom Dr. King prophesied,
the people who reaffirm and strengthen that truly American manifesto of
justice that reads:
``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.''
These are inspiring and powerful words, Mr. Chairman.
Our duty is clear. Vote to reauthorize VRA without the gutting
amendments.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me today in
reauthorizing the single piece of legislation that has been a guardian
of voting rights in our democracy since its inception. Su voto es su
voz--Your vote is your voice. The people who vote make decisions in
this Nation; and the more people that vote the better this democracy
can be. While the government literally represents ``We the People,'' we
were actually sent here by voters, which--at best--is about half the
people we represent.
It is ironic that today, the backdrop for this discussion is the
Supreme Court decision on Texas redistricting recently that spoke to
the unconstitutionality of how the State divided the Hispanic
population in the 2003 map. While I wish we did not need the VRA and to
protect minority voters, the bottom line is we still have
discrimination in this country--a fact illustrated by the Supreme
Court's Texas redistricting decision.
My public service began before some of you were born--not that I'm
happy to admit that. My first campaign was 1964, the last election year
before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests and poll
taxes--both components of a time when one segment of this Nation could
diminish the voting strength of other entire segments of this Nation.
My mother took out a $1,000 loan--a fortune for a migrant family in
1964--to bankroll my first campaign.
The money was mostly to help offset the poll tax for Hispanic voters,
whose priority was putting food on the table for their families. We
have improved our democracy since then, but our civil tone in political
debates has coarsened. This country, this Congress, will be better--we
will reflect the population of this Nation far better--if the VRA is
reauthorized.
This is a tool for our citizens to use to ensure that their voting
rights--the most fundamental tool to speak in this democracy--remains
protected. The Voting Rights Act protects voters from discrimination
and ensures an even playing field for all voters. The Hispanic Caucus
endorsed this bipartisan bill because the renewal of this basic civil
rights law will ensure that all Hispanics can fully participate in the
political process, protected by law from voting discrimination.
Key provisions of the VRA are set to expire in 2007 if they are not
reauthorized by Congress, including those that protect voters from
discriminatory practices that are used to commit fraud and
intimidation. I know many of my colleagues have deep concerns about
ensuring that non-native, English-speaking citizens getting language
assistance in order to cast an informed ballot. Have you ever read one
of those State constitutional amendments as you cast your ballot. Not
being a lawyer, it's a little hard to follow.
Those receiving language assistance under this bill are taxpaying
citizens, equal to all of us in this democracy--every one of them,
equal to every one of us. This provision helps citizens navigate
complicated rules and ballot language. This House should pass the bill,
and I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and John Conyers for their hard work
in bringing a fair and balanced bill to the floor, one which--if this
Congress reauthorizes in the end, will continue protecting the voting
rights of all Americans.
It's exactly the kind of bill the Congress of the United States
should pass overwhelmingly and return from a rapid conference so it
will continue to provide justice to communities that have long suffered
from discrimination--and so it will be the law of the land.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fanni Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization. Our democracy depends on protecting the right of every
American citizen to vote, which must never be compromised.
The Voting Rights Act is the most effective civil rights law ever
enacted. It was put into place in direct response to significant and
pervasive discrimination taking place across the country, including the
use of literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and violence.
By outlawing the barriers that prevented minorities from voting, the
VRA put teeth in the 15th amendment's guarantee that no citizen can be
denied the right to vote on the basis of race.
This legislation has been renewed four times by bipartisan majorities
in the House and Senate and signed into law by both Republican and
Democratic Presidents. In the 41 years since its initial passage, the
VRA has enfranchised millions of racial, ethnic and language minority
citizens by eliminating discriminatory practices and removing other
barriers to their political participation. The VRA has empowered
minority voters and has helped to desegregate legislative bodies at all
levels of government.
Efforts to remove many of the key provisions of the original
legislation are extremely unfortunate. States with histories of
discrimination should not be allowed to repeat past injustices.
Amendments to weaken the act undermine the heroic efforts of countless
Americans who fought for decades for the right to vote. We must stand
together to defeat any measure that would weaken the provisions of the
VRA.
It is imperative that we adopt the bipartisan bill without amendments
that violate the spirit of the original VRA to once again ensure the
right of all Americans to vote.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, which will reauthorize
expiring provisions of one of the most important and effective civil
rights bills in the history of the United States. Passage of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 marked a pivotal turning point in American history,
and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its extension for
another 25 years.
As honored as I am to be a part of reauthorizing this landmark
legislation, I am to the same extent disheartened that it remains
necessary. Would that we could say, the 41-year anniversary of the
legislation having come and gone, that 40 years had been enough to cure
all of our electoral ills. But clearly it has not been enough, and it
pains me deeply to have to look at my own country and acknowledge that
some of its electoral abuses, although perhaps less overt, are at least
as bad today as they were in 1965, if not worse.
I wish to commend the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the
Constitution for its exhaustive inquiry into the effectiveness of and
continuing necessity for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights
Act. Through this process, which was informed by elected officials,
scholars, attorneys, representatives of the civil rights and election
integrity community, the Department of Justice, other governmental
organizations and private citizens, we can all be assured that we
extend these critical voting protection measures for unquestionably
just cause.
The Judiciary Committee's report on the inquiry is compelling. Since
1982, for example, under the Voting Rights Act section 5 pre-clearance
procedures, the Department of Justice has successfully screened out
more than 700 proposed election procedure changes that were
discriminatory. The rejected proposals included objectionable practices
like discriminatory redistricting plans, relocating of polling places
making elected positions appointed positions, and other such
techniques. In fact, before the subcommittee even commenced its
hearings in 2005, I co-moderated a day-long election reform forum in
December 2004. Sponsored by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
Common Cause, and the Century Foundation, the forum documented
extensive and ongoing disenfranchisement activities. It was entitled
``Voting in 2004: A Report to the Nation on America's Election
Process,'' and the reports delivered by election reform experts and
civil rights groups are still available on the Common Cause website.
It is important to note, however, that the last 40 years have not
been a bad-news only story. The Judiciary Committee's report documents
both the continuing shortcomings of our electoral system and
improvements made to it by the Voting Rights Act. It shows that the
Voting Rights Act has been effective, but much work remains to be done.
For example, between 1965 and 1988, the gap between registration of
White voters and Black voters in Mississippi narrowed from 63.2 to 6.3
percent, and from 50 to 7.4 percen in North Carolina. Similar increases
in Black registration were experienced throughout the States covered by
section 5 during that period. Meanwhile, the number of African-American
elected officials has increased from 1,469 in 1970, to over 9,000 in
the year 2,000. Over the period from 1978 to 2004, the number of Asian-
Americans elected to office has more than doubled.
The statistics also show that much work remains. The Judiciary
Committee also found that in each of six southern States covered by
section 5--Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and
North Carolina--African-Americans make up 35 percent of the population
but hold only 20.7 percent of the State legislative seats. Latinos
represent the largest minority population in the United States, at 15
million residents, but occupy only 0.9 percent of the total number of
elected offices in the country.
[[Page H5175]]
I believe that the greatest invention of humans is our system of
Constitutional democracy. It has transformed not just America, but the
world, demonstrating that peaceful and productive government by the
consent of the governed is possible. That consent--the very cornerstone
of the system--is given by the vote. We have demonstrated that majority
rule with protections of minority rights and minority influence is
possible. The Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is the most
fundamental right, as it is preservative of all others. The measure
before us which will assure the continued life of the Voting Rights Act
in the decades to come--is of monumental importance.
I am also eager to continue the fight to improve the fairness,
accuracy and integrity of our electoral system as soon as this historic
measure passes. I hope my colleagues will rapidly work with me towards
passage of my Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R.
550, to ensure that all votes are not only counted as cast, but can
independently be audited so that both the losing side-actually,
especially the losing side--and the winning side can accept the
electoral results. The legislation would require a voter-verified paper
record of every vote cast and other things to ensure the reliability,
auditability, an accessibility of the voting process.
In addition, and especially because the measure before us will
eliminate the further use of Federal examiners to assist in assuring
the accuracy, integrity and full inclusivity of voter registration
lists, I hope my colleague will support me as I work to pass my
Electoral Fairness Act, H.R. 4989, which will substantially enhance the
protections afforded to voters under the Help America Vote Act and the
National Voter Registration Act in connection with the voter
registration process. The legislation would establish fair and uniform
rules governing the casting and counting of provisional ballots; ensure
that adequate staffing, equipment and supplies be equally available at
all polling places to minimize wait times for all voters; and protect
the accuracy, integrity and inclusiveness of the voter registration
rolls.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in reauthorizing the Voting
Rights Act, and committing themselves to working to preserve and
advance its legacy in every possible manner.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, which
reauthorizes the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for an additional 25 years.
Congress first passed the VRA in 1965 to dismantle ``Jim Crow'' and
to respond to widespread disenfranchisement of minorities. Since then
the VRA has been reauthorized numerous times and expanded to address
other issues that impact voting access and fair representation,
including congressional districting, language requirements and election
monitoring.
In 41 years since the enactment of the original VRA, enormous gains
have been made in ensuring the voting rights of minorities. However,
our country still struggles to live up to the principles of equality
and fair representation, and the legacy of racial bias still haunts the
electoral process in some areas. Among the provisions reauthorized by
H.R. 9 is Section 5 which requires jurisdictions covered under this
section to have any changes to their election procedure pre-approved by
the Justice Department or a U.S. District Court. This provision is
vital to ensure that local jurisdictions do not employ tactics that
discourage minority voting. Because of what is at stake, I believe it's
vital that we reauthorize the VRA and do so by an overwhelming
majority.
I strongly support the legislation before us, but I would be remiss
not to take this opportunity to address the challenges we still face
with respect to our elections. The 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections
demonstrated the work that needs to be done to ensure that the will of
the people is accurately reflected at the polls.
After the 2000 election, Congress acted in a bipartisan manner to
pass the Help America Vote Act which, among other things, required the
replacement of outdated punchcard and lever-machine voting systems.
While many counties have upgraded to electronic voting machines, we
cannot fully guarantee their accuracy until every electronic voting
machine is equipped with a voter-verifiable paper ballot so that voters
can verify their votes prior to casting their ballots and a recount can
be ordered if necessary. Legislation to enact these steps has been
introduced in the form of H.R. 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased
Accessibility Act, and is supported by over 190 bipartisan cosponsors.
After we vote to pass the reauthorization of VRA, we should turn our
attention to passing H.R. 550 so we can provide full confidence,
fairness and transparency in our election process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9 and to do
everything possible to make sure every vote is counted and that every
vote counts in our electoral system.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, after much delay and
hankering by the Republican leadership about bringing this bill to the
floor for a vote, I am proud to rise in strong support of reauthorizing
the Voting Rights Act. As a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer,
Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization
and Amendments Act of 2006, I urge my colleagues to join me in
rejecting any poison pill amendments meant to dismantle the broad
agreement on this crucial piece of civil right's legislation.
No congressional duty is more profound than ensuring and protecting
the voting rights of all Americans. As Members of this House, we
cannot, we must not, be divided or indifferent in reaffirming America's
promise that everyone is created equal. The vote is sacred in this
country. Throughout our history, Americans have given their lives for
freedom and the right to elect their leaders, from Lexington and
Concord in Massachusetts, to Seneca Falls in New York, to Selma and
Montgomery in Alabama, Americans demand the highest standards; the
highest confidence; the highest protection in their right to
participate in the democratic process.
The fact remains that not too long ago many Americans were denied the
right to vote based on their sex or their skin color and in all
honesty, many still battle the remnants of this discrimination today.
It has been more than 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson called
upon Congress to ``extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of
this land'' and pass the Voting Rights Act eliminating illegal barriers
to the right to vote. Since that time, the face and even the language
of the American voter may have changed, but our government's commitment
to protect the integrity of every vote has not.
So today, I ask my Republican colleagues to put aside their
partisanship and petty political gamesmanship and join me in protecting
the most fundamental right of the American people, who are the rightful
owners of this American government. I urge the Members of this House to
reaffirm our commitment to protect democracy and support the clean
final passage of H.R. 9.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
9, the Coretta Scott King, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Rosa Parks Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I can think of
no better way to honor the legacies of Mrs. King, Mrs. Hamer, and Mrs.
Parks than to pass this good, bipartisan bill.
Like most of my colleagues, I remember vividly the passage of the
original Voting Rights Act of 1965. This landmark piece of legislation
served as a significant milestone in the Civil Rights Movement.
However, as we act to reauthorize this bill, it is all too obvious that
the struggle for equal voting rights for all Americans is not over.
Sadly, we know that we still need the VRA because we continue to hear
reports of election-day abuses and violations.
Now is not the time to weaken or water-down the VRA. Some of my
colleagues will offer amendments under the guise of modernizing the
VRA. I believe that these proposed changes to the legislation will
strip out some core protections that are still necessary. I urge all of
my colleagues to oppose any amendments to H.R. 9, and to overwhelmingly
pass a clean Voting Rights Act Reauthorization.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9, The
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, which I am pleased to
cosponsor, and in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
Congressman Charlie Norwood.
Over the last 40 years, efforts to renew and restore the VRA have
been accomplished on a bipartisan basis. It is in that spirit that we
have all worked together to bring the bill before us to the floor
today. I would especially like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman
James Sensenbrenner, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers,
and Congressmen Mel Watt and Steve Chabot for their leadership on this
issue.
Voting is the most important duty and right of Americans. By enacting
the VRA, we tore down barriers to equal opportunity for minorities at
the ballot box, removing the essential political mechanism that
maintained the legal structure of segregation. As ruled by the U.S.
Supreme Court, the equal right to vote is fundamental because it is
``preservative of all rights.''
It is with this in mind that I express great concern with the
amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Norwood, as it essentially
seeks to undermine the very means by which the VRA has maintained
social justice.
Currently, section 5 of the VRA applies to any state or county where
a discriminatory test or device was used as of November 1, 1964, and
where less than 50 percent of the voting age residents of the
jurisdiction were registered to vote, or actually voted, in the
presidential election of 1964, 1968, or 1972. The Norwood amendment
would change the preclearance formula by using rolling voter
registration data and voter turn-out data from the three most recent
Presidential elections.
[[Page H5176]]
My colleague argues that his amendment will ``modernize'' section 5.
I believe that what his amendment really does is change the very focus
of the preclearance provision, as it aims to make low voter turnout and
registration the issues and not a recorded history of voting
discrimination.
In fact, if the Norwood amendment were enacted, it would make my home
state of Hawaii--a state without any history whatsoever of voting
discrimination--the only preclearance state in our nation. This
demonstrates in spades that one cannot reduce discrimination nor the
need for federal oversight to so simplistic and mechanistic formula.
Reauthorization of the VRA gives us an opportunity to not only to
reflect upon the progress we have made, but to maintain those gains
that we have achieved. Adoption of the Norwood amendment would be a
giant leap backwards.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Norwood amendment, and all other
weakening amendments, and support final passage of H.R. 9, a true
bipartisan bill.
Mahalo, and aloha.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Fannie Lou
Hammer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I want to thank the Speaker
and Majority Leader for their willingness to go forward with this
debate prior to our upcoming recess.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act changed America. It created the
opportunity for minority citizens to fully participate in Democracy.
Prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Act, black citizens in
the South were disenfranchised primarily because of the Literacy Tests
and because of the design of election systems that submerged
concentrations of black voters into large, majority-white election
districts. The result was that African-American communities could not
elect candidates of their choice to office.
Why? It was because black voters did not comprise sufficient numbers
within the district and white voters refused to vote for candidates who
were the choice of the minority community. And so, the votes of black
citizens were diluted which is a clear violation of the principal of
one-person, one-vote.
The Voting Rights Act permits minority citizens to bring Federal
lawsuits when they feel their vote is being diluted. Hundreds of these
lawsuits have been successfully litigated in the Federal courts. In my
prior life I was a Voting Rights attorney in North Carolina. As a
result of court ordered remedies, local jurisdictions have been
required to create election districts that do not dilute minority
voting strength. The result has been absolutely incredible. When I was
in law school 32 years ago, there were virtually no black elected
officials in my congressional district. Today, I count 302.
The Voting Rights Act also requires some jurisdictions to obtain
Department of Justice pre-clearance to any change in election
procedure. This, at first blush, may appear to be unfair to those
jurisdictions. But the jurisdictions that are covered have a
significant history of vote dilution and this requirement of pre-
clearance simply assures that the jurisdiction does not, intentionally
or unintentionally, make changes in their election procedures that will
discriminate. This is called section 5. Section 5 has prevented many,
many election changes that would have disenfranchised minority voters.
It serves a useful purpose and should be extended.
A short story. In 1953, in my hometown of Wilson, North Carolina, the
African-American community worked very hard to teach the literacy test
and qualify black citizens to vote. They then organized and elected an
African-American to the City Council in a district with a large
concentration of black voters. That was big news. When it was time for
re-election in 1957, the City Council arbitrarily and without notice or
debate, changed the election system from district voting to at large
voting which resulted in the submerging of black voters. The change
also required voters to vote for all city council seats on the ballot.
If not, the ballot was considered spoiled. It was called the ``vote for
six rule.''
Needless to say, that candidate, Dr. G.K. Butterfield, was handily
defeated. If Section 5 had been in place in 1957, this jurisdiction
would not have been able to implement the changes and this community
would have continued to have representation.
Mr. Chairman, we have made tremendous progress in this country with
respect to civil rights and voting rights. We must not turn back. I
urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 9 as reported by the Committee on
the Judiciary and require covered jurisdictions to get the Department
of Justice to analyze voting changes to determine if they will have the
effect of diluting minority voting strength.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a clean version
of the Voting Rights Act; a version that is free of mean spirited
amendments that aim to divide this country rather then unify and
protect the rights of minorities to vote.
After being delayed for close to a month, the Voting Rights Act is
finally allowed the vote it deserves. However, numerous Republican
members would like nothing more then to see this important legislation
derailed. Hence they have offered up amendments that will taint the
purity of this bill.
One such amendment would prohibit Federal funds to be used in
enforcing bilingual balloting. Many of the constituents that I and
other members of this Chamber represent, would like nothing more then
to participate in the basic democratic right of voting. However, many
of these people who are citizens still struggle while they learn the
English language and assimilate.
Let me be clear, we are not talking about undocumented residents.
These are citizens of the United States. Many of whom have voted you
and me into the office that we hold today.
The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to protect the rights of all
minorities to vote in the United States. However, these amendments
offered today, are political tricks that only serve to continue to
disenfranchise minority voters.
From not counting votes, purging legitimate voters from voter rolls,
mandating ID cards to vote, and downright voter intimidation, it is
clear now more then ever that the Voting Rights Act must be
reauthorized as the original drafters of the legislation intended--
excluding all amendments to this legislation that are being offered
today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on any amendment to the Voting
Rights Act and vote ``yes'' on a clean version of this bill.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote--to
participate fully and fairly in the political process--is the
foundation of our democracy. For years after the Civil War, many
Americans were denied this fundamental right of citizenship. Horrible
acts of violence and discrimination, including poll taxes, literacy
tests, and grandfather clauses, were used to deny African-American
citizens the right to vote, especially in the South.
During the 1960s, many brave men and women fought against bigotry and
injustice to secure this most basic right for all Americans. The Voting
Rights Act, VRA, the ``crown jewel'' of our civil rights statutes, was
born out of their courage, struggle, and sacrifice.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on
August 6, 1965. It provided protection to minority communities, and
prohibited any voting practice that would abridge the right to vote on
the basis of race. Any ``test or device'' for registering or voting was
forbidden, thereby abolishing poll taxes and literacy tests.
Although the Voting Rights Act is a permanent Federal law, it
contains some temporary provisions, including the ``pre-clearance'' and
the bilingual provisions.
The ``pre-clearance'' provisions were enacted as temporary
legislation in 1965. Sections four and five address ``pre-clearance''
and are only applicable in certain parts of the country. These
provisions were originally added to help bolster the constitutionality
of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA required State and local political
jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination to submit any
proposed changes to their voting laws to the U.S. Attorney General or
to Federal judges for ``pre-clearance'' before the changes could take
effect. This process ensured that the Federal Government had the
ability to prevent discriminatory voting laws before they were
implemented. For example, States must receive approval before changing
the closing time of polling places. Congress renewed these provisions
in 1970, 1975, and 1982. The process of ``pre-clearance'' provision
continues to protect voters today.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
Passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has allowed millions of
minorities the constitutional right to vote in Federal elections. In
1964, only 300 African Americans in the United States were elected to
public office, this included just three in Congress. One of the people
for whom this bill is named is Fannie Lou Hamer. Fannie Lou Hamer was
born, lived, and died in the trenches of Mississippi's 2nd
Congressional District. Her history and involvement in voter education
and voter participation include people like me who stand before you as
the highest-ranking African American elected official in the State of
Mississippi, an opportunity that would not have been possible without
the passage of this act.
Moreover, with the expiration of major provisions, section 5, section
203 and sections 6 through 9, of the Voting Rights Act rapidly
approaching, Congress must reauthorize these provisions now to protect
those who may face discrimination in their efforts to exercise their
right to vote.
In 2001, one of the most shameful and shocking reminders of
discrimination occurred in Kilmichael, Mississippi. An all-White city
[[Page H5177]]
council canceled city election 3 weeks before they were to be held
after several African Americans appeared to be in a strong position to
win seats. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires covered
jurisdictions to obtain approval, or ``preclearance,'' from the U.S.
Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court in D.C. before they
can change voting practices or procedures, protected the voting rights
of the people of Kilmichael. When elections were held, three African
Americans were elected to the Board of Aldermen and the town elected
its first African-American mayor.
As our Nation embraces the notion that the right to vote is essential
in preserving the health of our democracy, section 203, which requires
certain jurisdiction to provide bilingual language assistance to voters
in communities where there is a high concentration of citizens who are
limited English proficient and illiterate, is a critical element to the
Voting Rights Act. As leaders committed to diversity, it is imperative
that all minority language Americans are guaranteed the right to vote
and have a voice in a political process that affects every aspect of
education, healthcare, and economic development in this country.
Ongoing efforts must be made to guarantee fair access to the
political process, and Sections 6 through 9 authorizes the Federal
Government to send Federal election examiners and observers to certain
jurisdictions covered by section 5 where there is evidence of attempts
to intimidate minority voters at the polls. These statutes must remain
in place to prevent the discriminatory election practices that still
exist today.
As influential policymakers, it is our obligation to look beyond what
is good for any one of us to what is good for the whole country and its
future. It is vital that we act now to renew section 5, section 203 and
sections 6 through 9 of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
an additional 25 years.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 9, the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I urge
my colleagues to pass this reauthorization without amendment.
The Voting Rights Act has went a long way in ensuring that the voting
rights of minorities are honored, and that American citizens, whatever
their ethnicity, are able to go to the polls and participate in the
electoral process without threats, intimidation, or violence.
As a member of this body when the Voting Rights Act was initially
considered, I know first-hand how this law has changed America for the
better, ensuring that all Americans are able to exercise their
constitutional right to vote.
Before the Voting Rights Act, some States had nasty little devices
called poll taxes and literacy tests that just happened to keep
minorities from voting, while, at the same time, failing to disqualify
any White citizens from exercising the franchise. And if those devices
did not work, intimidation, threats, and even violence were used to
keep minorities from going to the polls.
Mr. Chairman, many of those nasty devices were wiped away when the
Congress passed President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the
Voting Rights Act. Those that were not directly wiped away by the
Voting Rights Act were defeated by cases brought before the U.S.
Supreme Court by the Attorney General of the United States.
As George Santayana stated so eloquently: ``Those who cannot remember
the past are condemned to repeat it.'' It is important that the House
pass this historic renewal of the VRA without amendments that would
besmirch the legacy of the three women who are honored in its title. To
do anything less would jeopardize many of the accomplishments that
those three courageous women and thousands of others fought for: that
all Americans can exercise their right to vote freely without fear.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Voting Rights Act in
1965 was a reaction to the ``exceptional conditions'' of the time.
Obstacles to voting, borne of racism, had become accepted practice in
many States. Many of these obstacles were written directly into State
constitutions. These deterrents, including literacy tests and poll
taxes, were designed to exclude and restrict nonwhite voters.
As we quickly approach the expiration of provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, we must stop and take a hard look at voting rights in
America. Although the taxes and tests are now a memory, remnants of the
prejudice and fear that conceived of them remain. In the many hearings
held by the Judiciary Committee examining the expiring provisions, the
committee found numerous recent incidents in which objections were
raised to changes in voting law.
One of the nine States subject to the provisions of section 5,
provisions that require preclearance of changes to voting law by the
Department of Justice, is Georgia. Since 2002, four objections have
been raised against proposed changes to laws in that State. These four
objections stopped discriminatory changes in that State.
The long lines and intimidation tactics used in my home State of Ohio
in 2004 are proof that this reauthorization will not, in and of itself,
solve our Nation's need for voting reform. But it is a strong step in
the right direction.
The Voting Rights Act is still needed in America. We have stopped
many of the egregious practices that plagued our voting system in 1965,
but our work is not done. I strongly support the reauthorization of the
Voting Rights Act and encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for
this important bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows
H.R. 9
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa
Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the
right of all citizens to vote, including the right to
register to vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and
protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Significant progress has been made in eliminating first
generation barriers experienced by minority voters, including
increased numbers of registered minority voters, minority
voter turnout, and minority representation in Congress, State
legislatures, and local elected offices. This progress is the
direct result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(2) However, vestiges of discrimination in voting continue
to exist as demonstrated by second generation barriers
constructed to prevent minority voters from fully
participating in the electoral process.
(3) The continued evidence of racially polarized voting in
each of the jurisdictions covered by the expiring provisions
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 demonstrates that racial and
language minorities remain politically vulnerable, warranting
the continued protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(4) Evidence of continued discrimination includes--
(A) the hundreds of objections interposed, requests for
more information submitted followed by voting changes
withdrawn from consideration by jurisdictions covered by the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement actions
undertaken by the Department of Justice in covered
jurisdictions since 1982 that prevented election practices,
such as annexation, at-large voting, and the use of multi-
member districts, from being enacted to dilute minority
voting strength;
(B) the number of requests for declaratory judgments denied
by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia;
(C) the continued filing of section 2 cases that originated
in covered jurisdictions; and
(D) the litigation pursued by the Department of Justice
since 1982 to enforce sections 4(e), 4(f)(4), and 203 of such
Act to ensure that all language minority citizens have full
access to the political process.
(5) The evidence clearly shows the continued need for
Federal oversight in jurisdictions covered by the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 since 1982, as demonstrated in the
counties certified by the Attorney General for Federal
examiner and observer coverage and the tens of thousands of
Federal observers that have been dispatched to observe
elections in covered jurisdictions.
(6) The effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has
been significantly weakened by the United States Supreme
Court decisions in Reno v. Bossier Parish II and Georgia v.
Ashcroft, which have misconstrued Congress' original intent
in enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and narrowed the
protections afforded by section 5 of such Act.
(7) Despite the progress made by minorities under the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the evidence before Congress
reveals that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of
time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following
nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th
amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to
vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.
(8) Present day discrimination experienced by racial and
language minority voters is contained in evidence, including
the objections interposed by the Department of Justice in
covered jurisdictions; the section 2 litigation filed to
prevent dilutive techniques from adversely affecting minority
voters; the enforcement actions filed to protect language
minorities; and the tens of thousands of Federal observers
dispatched to monitor polls in jurisdictions covered by the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
[[Page H5178]]
(9) The record compiled by Congress demonstrates that,
without the continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
protections, racial and language minority citizens will be
deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote,
or will have their votes diluted, undermining the significant
gains made by minorities in the last 40 years.
SEC. 3. CHANGES RELATING TO USE OF EXAMINERS AND OBSERVERS.
(a) Use of Observers.--Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973f) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 8. (a) Whenever--
``(1) a court has authorized the appointment of observers
under section 3(a) for a political subdivision; or
``(2) the Attorney General certifies with respect to any
political subdivision named in, or included within the scope
of, determinations made under section 4(b), unless a
declaratory judgment has been rendered under section 4(a),
that--
``(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious
complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic
participation organizations that efforts to deny or abridge
the right to vote under the color of law on account of race
or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
section 4(f)(2) are likely to occur; or
``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment (considering,
among other factors, whether the ratio of nonwhite persons to
white persons registered to vote within such subdivision
appears to the Attorney General to be reasonably attributable
to violations of the 14th or 15th amendment or whether
substantial evidence exists that bona fide efforts are being
made within such subdivision to comply with the 14th or 15th
amendment), the assignment of observers is otherwise
necessary to enforce the guarantees of the 14th or 15th
amendment;
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall
assign as many observers for such subdivision as the Director
may deem appropriate.
``(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), such observers
shall be assigned, compensated, and separated without regard
to the provisions of any statute administered by the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management, and their service
under this Act shall not be considered employment for the
purposes of any statute administered by the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, except the provisions of
section 7324 of title 5, United States Code, prohibiting
partisan political activity.
``(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is
authorized to, after consulting the head of the appropriate
department or agency, designate suitable persons in the
official service of the United States, with their consent, to
serve in these positions.
``(d) Observers shall be authorized to--
``(1) enter and attend at any place for holding an election
in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether
persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote;
and
``(2) enter and attend at any place for tabulating the
votes cast at any election held in such subdivision for the
purpose of observing whether votes cast by persons entitled
to vote are being properly tabulated.
``(e) Observers shall investigate and report to the
Attorney General, and if the appointment of observers has
been authorized pursuant to section 3(a), to the court.''.
(b) Modification of Section 13.--Section 13 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973k) is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 13. (a) The assignment of observers shall terminate
in any political subdivision of any State--
``(1) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to
section 8 or with respect to examiners certified under this
Act before the date of the enactment of the Fannie Lou Hamer,
Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, whenever the
Attorney General notifies the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, or whenever the District Court for the
District of Columbia determines in an action for declaratory
judgment brought by any political subdivision described in
subsection (b), that there is no longer reasonable cause to
believe that persons will be deprived of or denied the right
to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of
the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) in such
subdivision; and
``(2) with respect to observers appointed pursuant to
section 3(a), upon order of the authorizing court.
``(b) A political subdivision referred to in subsection
(a)(1) is one with respect to which the Director of the
Census has determined that more than 50 per centum of the
nonwhite persons of voting age residing therein are
registered to vote.
``(c) A political subdivision may petition the Attorney
General for a termination under subsection (a)(1).''.
(c) Repeal of Sections Relating to Examiners.--Sections 6,
7, and 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973d,
1973e and 1973g) are repealed.
(d) Substitution of References to ``Observers'' for
References to ``Examiners''.--
(1) Section 3(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973a(a)) is amended by striking ``examiners'' each
place it appears and inserting ``observers''.
(2) Section 4(a)(1)(C) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973b(a)(1)(C)) is amended by inserting ``or
observers'' after ``examiners''.
(3) Section 12(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973j(b)) is amended by striking ``an examiner has
been appointed'' and inserting ``an observer has been
assigned''.
(4) Section 12(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973j(e)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``examiners'' and inserting ``observers'';
and
(B) by striking ``examiner'' each place it appears and
inserting ``observer''.
(e) Conforming Changes Relating to Section References.--
(1) Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973b(b)) is amended by striking ``section 6'' and
inserting ``section 8''.
(2) Subsections (a) and (c) of section 12 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973j(a) and 1973j(c)) are each
amended by striking ``7,''.
(3) Section 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973l(b)) is amended by striking ``or a court of
appeals in any proceeding under section 9''.
SEC. 4. RECONSIDERATION OF SECTION 4 BY CONGRESS.
Paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 4(a) of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(a)) are each amended by striking
``Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982'' and inserting
``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006''.
SEC. 5. CRITERIA FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
1973c) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Whenever'';
(2) by striking ``does not have the purpose and will not
have the effect'' and inserting ``neither has the purpose nor
will have the effect''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting,
or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting
that has the purpose of or will have the effect of
diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States
on account of race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their
preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right
to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section.
``(c) The term `purpose' in subsections (a) and (b) of this
section shall include any discriminatory purpose.
``(d) The purpose of subsection (b) of this section is to
protect the ability of such citizens to elect their preferred
candidates of choice.''.
SEC. 6. EXPERT FEES AND OTHER REASONABLE COSTS OF LITIGATION.
Section 14(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
1973l(e)) is amended by inserting ``, reasonable expert fees,
and other reasonable litigation expenses'' after ``reasonable
attorney's fee''.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF BILINGUAL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS.
Section 203(b)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973aa-1a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2032''.
SEC. 8. USE OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY CENSUS DATA.
Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973aa-1a(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``census
data'' and inserting ``the 2010 American Community Survey
census data and subsequent American Community Survey data in
5-year increments, or comparable census data''.
SEC. 9. STUDY AND REPORT.
The Comptroller General shall study the implementation,
effectiveness, and efficiency of the current section 203 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and alternatives to the current
implementation consistent with that section. The Comptroller
General shall report the results of that study to Congress
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-554. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Norwood
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 109-554.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Norwood
Page 11, strike lines 1 through 3.
Page 11, line 4, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
Page 11, line 7, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 10. CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION FOR PRECLEARANCE AND OTHER
PROVISIONS OF TITLE I.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence of section 4(a)(1), by striking
``the first two sentences of'';
(2) by striking the second sentence of section 4(a)(1);
(3) in section 4(a), by striking ``or (in the case of a
State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the
second sentence of this subsection)'' each place it appears;
(4) so that subsection (b) of section 4 reads as follows:
``(b)(1) Subsection (a) applies in any State or subdivision
of a State that the Attorney General determines maintains a
test or device, or with respect to which the Director of the
Census determines that less than 50 percent of the citizens
of voting age residing
[[Page H5179]]
therein were registered on November 1 of a critical year, or
that less than 50 percent of those citizens voted in the
presidential election of that critical year. The critical
years for the purposes of this Act are the 3 years in which
the last preceding presidential elections took place.
``(2) A determination under paragraph (1) is not reviewable
in any court and shall take effect upon publication in the
Federal Register.'';
(5) in section 4(f)(4), by striking ``the second sentence
of section 4(a)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
(6) in section 5, by striking ``Whenever a State or
political'' and all that follows through ``1972'' and
inserting ``Whenever a State or political subdivision with
respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a)
based on a determination made under section 4(b) enacts or
seeks to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite
to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect
to voting different from that in force or effect on the day
before that determination was made''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 910, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
submit for the Record an article from Dr. Ronald Gaddie of the
University of Oklahoma and an article from the American Enterprise
Institute.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request will be covered by
general leave
Myths and Realities of the Norwood Amendment to the Voting Rights Act
(By Ronald Keith Gaddie)
There is a myth abounding in the debate about the renewal
of the Voting Rights Act, that the Norwood amendment guts
section 5, limiting its scope only to Hawaii and largely
removing Section 5 oversight in the 16 states currently
covered in whole or in part. Professor Rick Hasen, with whom
I largely agree, gave credence to this myth in his editorial
in Roll Call. I agree with Prof. Hasen regarding the bailout
amendment from Mr. Westmoreland. However, I think the Norwood
Amendment deserves a more careful, data-informed treatment
before it is dismissed.
This myth is simply wrong. Saying ``only Hawaii'' leaves
the impression that the Norwood Amendment withdraws the
Voting Rights Act from its original target, the South, and
that it is being retired to a permanent sunshine sabbatical
on Maui. The truth is far more complex, and far less
threatening to the continuation of coverage by the Voting
Rights Act.
In my supplemental testimony to the Senate Judiciary
Committee this past June, I supported updating the coverage
formula to refer to the Presidential elections of 2000 and
2004. In that testimony, I also argued that the trigger be
set to the two most recent elections, so that it would have
``a capacity to consider the evolution of the electorate, and
that the trigger be based on the voting-eligible population--
citizens. Any state or jurisdiction administering elections
where participation fell below 50 percent of the citizen
voting age population would be subject to preclearance.'' The
consequence of this trigger is not dire. Instead, most of the
currently covered jurisdictions continue to be covered, and
other jurisdictions where we observe both racial strife and
low political participation will fall under Section 5
preclearance.
An examination of data from the two most recent elections
gives us a notion of how the Norwood amendment would affect
coverage. Norwood's trigger, based on participation in the
1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential elections, requires Section
5 in over 1,000 counties across most of the states in the
union based on participation in 2000 and 2004. Lacking data
for 1996, I limit my discussion to these elections, which
resembles the trigger I proposed to the Senate (Note: these
data, including a map of the potentially affected
jurisdictions, are available at my website, http://
soonerpolitics.com).
Where are these counties? Of the 1,010 counties covered,
486 were not previously subject to Section 5. Of these, 58
are in states already covered in part by Section 5: twelve in
California, eighteen in Florida, five in Michigan, sixteen in
North Carolina, six in New York State. Another 121 are in
Arkansas and Tennessee, states not currently covered by
Section 5. Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and West Virginia
account for another 155 counties, including any rural
Appalachian counties or, in case of Oklahoma, counties with
notable Native American populations. In sum, 334 new counties
come from former Confederate or Border South states or from
current section 5 states.
Another twenty-one counties come from New Mexico, where a
state court in 2001 and 2002 accepted the presence of
racially polarized voting in the southern part of the state
and in the areas populated by Navajo and Jicarilla Apache. Of
the remaining 131 new, covered counties, 67 are in Indiana
and Pennsylvania, where population loss since the census
might explain the presence of low voting rates. This leaves
64 counties scattered over sixteen states, including a
variety of very populous counties like rapidly-growing Clark
County, Nevada (Las Vegas) and also sparsely populated places
such as Glacier County, Montana, the home of the Blackfeet
Indian Nation and about 14,000 residents. Many of the
counties that are picked up in the new states with very few
covered counties also host Indian reservations, including
counties in Nebraska, Michigan, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
and Oregon.
So where drops out? It appears that 340 counties in
currently covered states do not get picked up, plus Alaska
and ten townships of New Hampshire. Of the 340 counties that
are not picked up by the trigger, 43 are in Mississippi, 31
are in Louisiana, and 58 are in Virginia, and result in a 55
percent reduction in covered counties in these three states.
Of 64 Louisiana parishes, 58 would not get picked up. These
four states account for over half of the currently-covered
counties that would no longer be covered.
An additional 118 counties come from the 254 counties of
Texas, though the only major urban county to no longer be
covered is Tarrant County (Fort Worth). Dallas (Dallas),
Harris (Houston), El Paso (El Paso), and Bexar (San Antonio)
counties and most of the South Valley continue to be covered.
Jurisdictions that are not covered tend to be in sparsely
populated west Texas. Also, twenty-two of 159 Georgia
counties and nine of 46 South Carolina counties are not
picked up by the new trigger. Most of the Georgia dropouts
are in the Atlanta urban doughnut or outside the black belt,
as too are the South Carolina dropouts. Only four of 14
Alabama black belt counties stay in, due to their high voter
participation, and about half of the historic rural majority-
black counties of Mississippi are also not picked up.
The original trigger of the Voting Rights Act was crafted
to target jurisdictions with egregious voting rights and
human rights problems. The updating of the trigger in the
1960s and early 1970s picked up non-Southern jurisdictions
that had participation problems and also, coincidentally or
not, often had other voting rights challenges that might not
have been addressed in the absence of an updated trigger. The
Norwood Amendment trigger preserves coverage in most of those
original and updated jurisdictions, and also expands coverage
in a fashion similar to the 1968 and 1972 trigger updates.
And, in doing so, it picks up jurisdictions where noted
advocates such as Laughlin MacDonald have stated the need for
greater oversight, such South Dakota, by identifying areas in
partially-covered states and uncovered states where lower
participation might indicate the need for closer scrutiny by
the Department of Justice.
The politics of the Voting Rights Act renewal dictate that
the Norwood Amendment will not pass in the House. But on its
face the Norwood Amendment is not predatory. Rather, it
acknowledges a political reality of significant gains in
participation in areas long-covered by the Voting Right Act,
while also continuing and extending coverage in areas where
voters are not participating, and where the need for stricter
scrutiny of voting and registration practices could be in
order.
TABLE l.--CHANGES IN S. 5 COVERED COUNTIES, NORWOOD AMENDMENT, USING 2000 AND 2004 ELECTION PARTICIPATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties Net change, Net change, Total
Currently covered by currently currently number of
covered Norwood covered non-covered counties in
counties amendment counties States State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ 67 36 -31 ........... 67
Arkansas....................................... 0 54 ........... 54 75
Arizona........................................ 15 12 -3 ........... 15
California..................................... 4 16 12 ........... 58
Colorado....................................... 0 6 ........... 6 64
Florida........................................ 4 22 18 ........... 67
Georgia........................................ 159 137 -22 ........... 159
Hawaii......................................... 0 4 ........... 4 4
Idaho.......................................... 0 3 ........... 3 44
Illinois....................................... 0 3 ........... 3 102
Indiana........................................ 0 37 ........... 37 92
Kansas......................................... 0 8 ........... 8 105
Kentucky....................................... 0 63 ........... 63 120
Louisiana...................................... 64 6 -58 ........... 64
Massachusetts.................................. 0 1 1 14
[[Page H5180]]
Maryland....................................... 0 9 ........... 9 24
Michigan....................................... 2 7 5 ........... 83
Missouri....................................... 0 15 ........... 15 115
Mississippi.................................... 82 39 -43 ........... 82
Montana........................................ 0 1 1 1 56
North Carolina................................. 40 56 16 ........... 100
North Dakota................................... 0 4 ........... 4 53
Nebraska....................................... 0 1 ........... 1 93
New Jersey..................................... 0 2 ........... 2 21
New Mexico..................................... 0 21 ........... 21 33
New York....................................... 3 9 6 ........... 62
Nevada......................................... 0 4 ........... 4 17
Ohio........................................... 0 6 ........... 6 88
Oklahoma....................................... 0 38 ........... 38 77
Oregon......................................... 0 2 ........... 2 36
Pennsylvania................................... 0 30 ........... 30 67
South Carolina................................. 46 39 -7 ........... 46
South Dakota................................... 2 9 7 ........... 66
Tennessee...................................... 0 67 ........... 67 95
Texas.......................................... 254 136 -118 ........... 254
Utah........................................... 0 2 ........... 2 29
Virginia....................................... 123 65 -58 ........... 134
Wisconsin...................................... 0 1 ........... 1 72
West Virginia.................................. 0 39 ........... 39 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Assessment of Racially Polarized Voting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Prepared for the Project on Fair Representation, American Enterprise
Institute
(By Charles S. Bullock III and Ronald Keith Gaddie)
The scope of racially polarized voting is not confined to
the Section 5 states or to the South, but indeed occurs in
places such as Wisconsin. During the 2002 federal trial to
establish new state Assembly boundaries for the Badger State,
the well-regarded University of Wisconsin political scientist
David Canon entered testimony on behalf of plaintiffs arguing
for the existence of racially polarized voting and
significant differences in African-American versus Anglo
participation in Milwaukee. The following data and analysis
are drawn from Canon's reports and affidavits.
Canon's analysis focused on sixteen biracial elections
within Milwaukee County. In fourteen of these contests, white
turnout exceeded black turnout, often by double the rate of
voter participation.
In his analysis, Canon found nine instances of ``legally
significant'' racially polarized voting in black-versus-white
contests: the 1992 Milwaukee County Executive primary, the
1992 House district 5 primary, the 1995 at-large school bard
primary, the 1996 Supreme Court primary, the 1996 Milwaukee
Mayor's race (General election), the 1998 gubernatorial
primary, the 1999 at-large school board election, and the
2000 Supreme Court general election. Eight of these contests
were primaries or non-partisan contests, and in those eight
contests, the white turnout rate was on average double that
of the black turnout rate.
The average black vote for the black candidate (86.2%) in
the eight polarized, primary or nonpartisan contests was
comparable to the average white vote for the white candidate
(85.2%). These levels of polarization are comparable to
levels observed in the most polarized southern elections, and
exceed the degree of polarization in recent Georgia
elections. Overall, in the nine instances of legally
significant polarization identified by Canon, black voters
cast at least 89% of votes for the black candidate on six
occasions while white voters cast at least 89% for the white
candidates on three occasions.
Dr. Canon exhibits an explicit concern that Republicans in
Wisconsin would use districting to locate black voters in
such a fashion that a Voting Rights Act violation might
occur. In his criticism of State Assembly redistricting plans
advanced by the Assembly and Senate Republicans in 2002,
Canon observed that: ``the black majorities are too small in
the Republican plans, black voters will not be able to elect
their candidates of choice in as many as four of the six
black-majority districts. The highly-polarized nature of
voting in Milwaukee County and the relatively low turnout of
African-American voters means that the combined minority
voting age population should be at least 65% and the African-
American voting age population should be at least 60% in
order to ensure that minority voters have an opportunity to
elect candidates of their choice . . . given the relative
lack of responsiveness of the Republican Party to the
particular needs of minority voters, see ``Electing
`Candidates of Choice' and Effective Minority Representation
in the 2002 Wisconsin State Legislative Districts,'' pp. 27-
30, the link between the creation of majority black districts
and this partisan goal, and the dilution of black voting
power by making it more difficult to elect minority
candidates of choice, I believe that the State of Wisconsin
would subjected to legal liability under a ``totality of
circumstances'' test under Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act.'' (page 48-49)
Taken a step further, we should note that the Federal panel
hearing this case sidestepped the issue by crafting a ``best
principles'' map base on compactness and minimum population
deviation. This map continued the five existing minority
districts at relatively high percentages, and rejected an
argument of ``packing'' of districts under the Democrat's
proposed maps in Milwaukee. While the argument is side
stepped, and a generally Republican map resulted from the
court's effort, they also implicitly accepted the logic of
the Democrats by basically preserving the black districts of
Milwaukee in a fashion consistent with the Democrat's expert
recommendation.
Here, we see motive and opportunity, and we have expert
analysis that demonstrates polarization akin to the South,
and prescribing a remedy much more intensive than that used
in many southern jurisdictions--Dr. Canon says that the 65%
district is still necessary in Milwaukee, while the need for
the district has passed in any southern jurisdictions covered
by Section 5, as demonstrated by Professor Epstein.
Please also note that while Epstein's analysis was not
accepted by the district court in Ashcroft, it was accepted
by Justice O'Connor in her decision.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, when the original Voting Rights Act passed
this House, it was to correct voting discrimination evident in the 1964
Presidential election. The legal protections and enforcement scheme in
the new law were all designed around that challenge.
The specific challenges of 1964 have long ago been rectified, yet the
specific enforcement scheme contained in sections 4 and 5 remain based
on 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Here are the current
rules on the VRA:
To fall under section 5 Federal oversight, a voting jurisdiction has
to have committed both of the following offenses:
One, they must have maintained discriminatory tests or devices to
discourage voting in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.
Two, they had to have fallen below 50 percent voter registration or
turnout in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.
Note that an area must have committed both offenses back then to fall
under section 5.
We have a rare opportunity today to update the Voting Rights Act and
bring it back into compliance with the original intent of the bill to
safeguard voting rights all across the country, not just in the current
16 States.
Instead of continuing to face legal protections on 1964 conditions,
this amendment will update them to modern results and toughen the
standard, and, indeed, add more jurisdictions under the Voting Rights
Act.
First, instead of requiring a jurisdiction to violate both of the
standards to fall under section 5 oversight, a jurisdiction is placed
in the penalty box for violating either one of the two triggers.
Second, the Presidential election years used to determine violations
are updated to the most recent three elections, 1996, 2000, 2004. They
would be automatically updated in the future to ensure that the act
stays current.
Third, the penalty period for new violations is increased from the
current 10-year bailout rule to 12 years, by requiring an area
demonstrate three
[[Page H5181]]
clean Presidential elections in a row in order to get out of the
penalty box.
Under this amendment, the Justice Department is ordered to
automatically review nationwide results and add noncomplying areas to
the section 4 list or section 5 oversight after each 4-year cycle. Any
jurisdiction that does not violate either trigger for three
Presidential election years in a row will be automatically removed from
section 5.
That is a real incentive for State and local governments to move
aggressively into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. It guarantees
the terms for getting off the list, without bankrupting local
governments with legal bills as do the current arbitrary 10-year
bailout requirements, which in many cases are impossible to meet. And
it is certain that a partisan Justice Department wants to make sure you
stay under there for 10 years, and with enough time we will explain how
they do that.
{time} 1330
The Justice Department will therefore determine whether specific
jurisdictions need to be added or deleted from Federal oversight list
based on their performance in 1996, 2000, and 2004 rather than 1964,
with automatic rolling updates to future election cycles.
The end result of this amendment would be expanded Federal oversight
in areas with current violations, and section 5 oversight relief for
areas with long-standing historic Voting Rights Act compliance.
My State of Georgia, under my amendment, will unfortunately, remain
on the list since we fell below the 50 percent trigger in 1996.
There are currently 837 jurisdictions under section 5 oversight. That
would be on the chart to the right. Under this amendment, there would
be a minimum, with my new amendment there would be a minimum of 1,010
covered jurisdictions all across the country in 39 States. That is
indicated by the chart on my left. The white areas are people not under
5; under my amendment the colored areas are people who would be under 5
because they broke the same rule under section 4 as we did in Georgia.
In fact, there would be substantially more than that. Our researchers
could only find areas out of compliance in 2000 and 2004, without
spending a great deal of money in 1996, but we will know 1996. So all
these areas that failed to comply in 1996 would also be added to
section 5 oversight as well. We just can't tell you for sure right now
how many more that might be.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will significantly improve voting rights
protections by eliminating default amnesty for modern violations. It
will provide understandable and clearly defined goals for areas not in
compliance with either original trigger, and thereby encourage vigorous
remedial action by those governments, and actually strengthening and
updating the Voting Rights Act to go after current violations.
I do not understand why it is not important about violators in 2004,
but we seem to not take that up in H.R. 9.
Our amendment provides long-overdue equity to the areas of our
country that unjustly remain under penalty for 40-year-old violations
that have long been remedied. And do not kid yourself, just because a
partisan Justice Department objects to a submittal does not necessarily
mean they are right. The Supreme Court has said on occasion that they
are wrong. Nor does it mean that there has been any discrimination.
I urge Members to support updating the Voting Rights Act for the 21st
century with this amendment
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts the Voting Rights Act, and let's
make no bones about it. It does so by altering its coverage formula to
cover only those jurisdictions in which voter registration and turnout
fell below 50 percent in the 2004, 2000, and 1996 Presidential
elections.
Based on the Census Bureau Current Population Survey, there is not a
single State, except Hawaii, with voter registration and turnout below
the 50 percent level required by this amendment. That means that only
the State of Hawaii in its entirety would be covered, along with random
scattershot jurisdictions across the country that do not have the
century-long history of discrimination that the covered States do, and
which the Supreme Court requires for the application of the
preclearance and Federal observer conditions contained in the VRA.
The amendment not only guts the bill, but turns the Voting Rights Act
into a farce.
To give you a sense of the absurdity of this amendment, let's take
the example of Montana. In Montana, the amendment would only cover
Glacier County, where there has been absolutely no evidence of voting
discrimination, but where voter registration and turnout fell below the
thresholds established by this amendment. That is the little blue spot
on the Canadian border on Mr. Norwood's map.
The amendment, however, would not cover Blaine County, where just a
few years ago a Federal District Court and a U.S. Court of Appeals
found widespread evidence of discrimination against American Indians,
who comprised one-third of all of the voters.
This amendment would also not cover Big Horn County, where a Federal
court documented the virtually complete disenfranchisement of American
Indian voters, nor would it apply to several other counties in Montana
where voting discrimination has occurred, such as Rosebud County.
Under this amendment, similarly absurd results apply in 38 other
States. So you might want to check on how this amendment affects your
State before deciding whether to vote ``yes'' on it.
In addition, the amendment would render the temporary provisions of
the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. This amendment is designed to
make all of the expiring provisions unconstitutional, and it simply
guarantees that the Supreme Court of the United States will wipe this
act off the books.
As recently as 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of the current coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act. In 1999, 7
years ago. In Lopez v. Monterey County, the Supreme Court upheld the
Voting Rights Act's voting rule preclearance requirement finding that
it ``burdens State law only to the extent that the law affects voting
in jurisdictions properly designated for coverage.''
By radically altering the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act
in a way that severs its connection to jurisdictions with proven
discriminatory histories, this amendment will render H.R. 9
unconstitutional and leave minority voters without the essential
protections of the preclearance and the Federal observer requirements
central to the VRA. The elimination of these provisions would threaten
to destroy the advances of voting rights the VRA has made possible to
date and must continue to protect and advance in the future.
There is broad agreement on this point. Justice Scalia, in his
opinion in the recent Texas redistricting case, joined by the Chief
Justice, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, makes its clear that the
Voting Rights Act with its current coverage formula will be upheld as
constitutional, and that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies
only to jurisdictions with a history of official discrimination.
The existing formula triggering coverage under the Voting Rights Act
is not at all outdated in any meaningful sense of the term, and States
covered are not unfairly punished under the coverage formula. Sixteen
States are covered in whole or in part under the temporary provisions
of the Voting Rights Act. The formula does not limit coverage to a
particular region, but encompasses those States and jurisdictions where
less than 50 percent of the citizens of voting age population
registered or turned out to vote in 1964, 1968 or 1972.
But coverage is not, and I repeat ``not'' predicated on these
statistics alone. States are not covered unless they applied
discriminatory voting tests. And it was this aspect of the formula that
brought these jurisdictions with the most serious histories of
discrimination under Federal scrutiny.
[[Page H5182]]
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has held that
``Obviously, the preclearance requirements of the original act and its
reauthorization had a much larger purpose than to increase voter
registration.'' On the occasion of each reauthorization, Congress
reviewed voting progress, including increases in registration and
turnout, and the necessity of continuing coverage under the act.
The review was no different in 2006. The Judiciary Committee had 12
hearings, called 46 witnesses, and compiled more than 12,000 pages of
evidence of continued discrimination in covered jurisdictions. In
Georgia alone, 91 objections were interposed by the Justice Department
since 1982, including four since 2002. In Texas, 105 objections were
interposed. All of these incidents involved voting rule changes that
the Department of Justice determined to be discriminatory.
Indeed, the reauthorization of this formula in H.R. 9 is based on
recent and proven instances of discrimination in voting rights compiled
in the Judiciary Committee's 12,000-page record. Moreover, the Voting
Rights Act as it exists already includes provisions that allow for the
expansion and reduction of covered jurisdictions as necessary, which
ensures that the list of covered jurisdictions is appropriately revised
and updated.
Insofar as voting conditions have improved over the years in the
covered jurisdictions, that improvement is due precisely to the Voting
Rights Act itself and the requirements preventing discriminatory voting
rule changes from going into effect. This amendment would abolish
exactly those provisions that are directly responsible for the enhanced
voting protections that the VRA has secured for millions of Americans.
As a result, the amendment undermines the VRA's goal of ensuring that
progress made by minority voters continues and that America never
backslides in its protection of minority voting rights.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to
simply point out that most of what the chairman said I certainly don't
agree with, and I fully expect the Supreme Court not to agree with it
either.
I didn't write section 4, but I can read even though I am not a
lawyer. It is very clear what the mechanism in section 4 says and means
to put you under section 5, and there is no reason, I think, on earth,
that every jurisdiction in this country shouldn't have to live under
the same rule.
The scattered counties we are talking about over there that would go
under section 5 end up being 200 or 300 more that aren't under there
now. And, Mr. Chairman, if you think they have problems in Montana in
discriminating, you ought to do something about it. All I can do is
have them follow section 4 of the original VRA.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend from
Georgia yielding the time to me, and I appreciate his work on behalf of
the Voting Rights Act during the process of this debate.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is named after Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta
Scott King, and Rosa Parks. These brave women dedicated their lives to
ensuring that everyone had access to the polls and the right to vote.
It is up to us standing here today to honor their legacy by ensuring
that the bill we pass to rewrite the Voting Rights Act will stand the
test of time forever.
There is no question that the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965.
Georgia had a terrible record and merited the drastic remedy imposed on
it by preclearance and section 5. The thrilling thing is, it worked;
Georgia is not the same place it was. Today, we have more than 600
elected black officials; nine of the 34 statewide officeholders are
minorities, and black voter turnout in the 2000 election exceeded white
voter turnout. Georgia is a changed State, changed for the better
because of the Voting Rights Act.
A cornerstone of the civil rights movement, my friend from Georgia's
Fifth District, Mr. Lewis, said, under oath during a lawsuit in 2002:
``We have changed. We've come a great distance. I think it's not just
in Georgia, but in the American South, I think people are preparing to
lay down the burden of race. There has been a transformation. It is
altogether a different world.''
My concern is that failing to acknowledge the change will result in
the VRA being found unconstitutional. There is no basis for continuing
to single out certain States, especially when more than half of the
findings of liability on section 2 claims have come from States outside
the covered jurisdictions. The remedy of section 5 is no longer
congruent and proportional to the discrimination that exists.
We must have a record on which to show continued drastic remedies are
needed, and that record is not here from this reauthorization. The lack
of evidence of State-sponsored discrimination is of major concern for
the future of the VRA when viewed by a court. There is a lot of paper,
but not many facts or statistics to show why Georgia is different from
Tennessee or why Texas is different from Oklahoma or why racially
polarized voting in Wisconsin shouldn't be addressed with a remedy such
as the VRA. Updating the formula is the answer.
Mr. Norwood's amendment does not gut the VRA. It ensures its
continuity for future generations. By rolling the formula, every
jurisdiction is reviewed every 4 years. Low turnout generally means
problems with voting, and this amendment uses the same formula already
in law to identify these problems.
{time} 1345
Any Member who votes against this amendment whose district is covered
based on this amendment is being disingenuous about their views on
civil rights. You argue for equal rights and the beauty of the VRA, but
don't want it applied to your State or in your district.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, such as Mr. Chabot, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Tubbs
Jones and Chairman Sensenbrenner, who have talked about how good this
bill is, to vote for this amendment. If it is good for the South, it
should be good for your State and good for your district.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the efforts made by Mr.
Norwood.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Sensenbrenner in opposition
to the Norwood amendment. The amendment represents a fundamental
misunderstanding of the Voting Rights Act and its structural design by
arbitrarily selecting the last three election cycles as the starting
point for confronting and combating voting discrimination. The
amendment unhinges section 5 from its historical connections, disrupts
the delicate balance embodied by the act, and makes it likely that the
act would be declared unconstitutional.
The Voting Rights Act, as amended and extended on four separate
occasions, struck a delicate balance that remains relevant today. The
act imposes special requirements on specific jurisdictions that have a
history and ongoing record of unequal policies.
The Norwood amendment misguidedly seeks to establish a remedy where
one already exists. Voters may seek redress for recent voting rights
infractions under existing provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And
where a court finds sufficient justification based on actual evidence,
it may impose the identical preclearance requirements that covered
jurisdictions must satisfy currently. If the Norwood amendment only
duplicated the existing protections of the Voting Rights Act, perhaps
the only complaint would be that it is redundant and unnecessary.
In 1975, Senator Strom Thurmond offered a similar amendment to change
the trigger to the next election, making virtually the same arguments
that are being made by Mr. Norwood today. He stated: ``One of the main
problems with the Voting Rights Act is that it is, as presently
constituted, an ex post facto law which punishes several Southern
States for events which occurred in 1964.''
In a remarkable colloquy that ensued between Senator Thurmond and
Senator Jesse Helms from my home State, Senator Helms proposed yet
another
[[Page H5183]]
amendment which would have a presumption of discrimination if
registration and participation of voting-age citizens exceeds 50
percent in the last election.
Like the amendment offered by Mr. Norwood, this amendment should be
defeated as we defeated the ones by Mr. Helms and Mr. Thurmond back at
that time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Under the gentleman's amendment, which would utilize election data
from 1996 and 2000 and 2004 Presidential election data, as the chairman
mentioned, the only State that would be fully covered under the
preclearance and Federal observer provisions of the Voting Rights Act
would be the State of Hawaii. Not only does this undermine the policy
of protecting minority voters who have been historically discriminated
against, the central crux behind the Voting Rights Act, but it
threatens the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act and the
progress made by minority voters over the last 40 years. And that is
one of the principal things that the Subcommittee on the Constitution
looked at and why we took so much testimony on this issue because we
want to make sure that this stands up if there is a challenge in the
Supreme Court, and there probably will be.
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act sets forth a formula under which
certain jurisdictions are subjected to voting rule preclearance and
Federal observer requirements. While the formula utilizes neutral
registration and turnout data from the 1964, 1968 and 1972 elections,
coverage is really about the documented history of discriminatory
practices which is reflected in the first prong of the coverage formula
that brings jurisdictions that maintain prerequisites for voting or
registration under the scrutiny of the Federal Government.
Examples of such discriminatory practices include that minorities,
one, demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand or interpret
any matter; two, demonstrate any education achievement or knowledge of
any particular subject; three, possess good moral character; or, four,
prove qualifications by the voucher of registered voters of members of
any other class.
I can tell you firsthand that the testimony gathered during the 12
hearings, which is reflected in more than 12,000 pages of record,
demonstrates a continued need for the preclearance and Federal observer
provisions.
The Norwood amendment, without any historical basis, would revise the
coverage formula which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently
as 1999 in Lopez v. Monterey County.
In one amendment, the underlying policy of the Voting Rights Act
would be put at risk; and the constitutionality of the remaining
provisions of the Voting Rights Act would be threatened, jeopardizing
the protections for minority voters and thereby possibly jeopardizing
the advances in voting rights that the Voting Rights Act has
facilitated to date.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention to my colleague
that 43 of the people you had testify were 43 people who came in to
justify what you had done in H.R. 9. Everybody has been here long
enough to know how you set up hearings. There were three people in that
whole group that disagreed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I moved to Georgia in 1969 from Minnesota, and I saw the abuses the
Democrat leadership, the Democrat Governors and Democrat officeholders,
were putting on black voters, restricting them the vote.
When I was elected to the Georgia house with David Scott in 1974, at
one time I was one of 19 Republicans in a 180-member house.
As we started to build the Republican Party, the Democrats needed
those black votes and started treating them differently; but treated
them in multimember districts, and we know what that means: put a large
district with four posts in it, not enough minority voters to nominate
a black candidate to run, but enough to ensure that four white
Democrats will win.
That finally went away under provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But
in 2001 our last Democrat Governor brought them back. He gerrymandered
our State so badly that he created multimember districts throughout the
State with four posts in a large district, guaranteed not enough black
voters to nominate a black candidate, but guaranteed enough to elect
four white Democrats.
Did he get it precleared by the Department of Justice under the
rules? No, he sued the Justice Department in a friendly court in
Washington, D.C. and he spent $2 million of taxpayers' money on outside
attorneys to get a favorable decision. And Georgia was back in
multimember districts in the election of 2002. That is how keenly this
act has worked in some States for clever Democrat Governors.
If you believe it must be done, and I frankly saw the success of it
during my years in the legislature, if you believe it must continue to
apply, why in the world don't you want it to apply to every
jurisdiction? Why in the world shouldn't everybody be looked at on a
regular basis?
It may not be the kind of amendment that you like, but the chairman
was offered many opportunities to sit down and negotiate the language,
and chose not to do that.
But if this Voting Rights Act is good for Georgia and 15 other
States, it ought to be wonderful for the country, and you should
support this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Scott) with a different view on what is going on
there.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you yielding me this
time.
Let me just pick up from the last point: Why shouldn't it be applied
to the whole Nation? The opposition knows full well: if that were the
case, it would immediately be ruled unconstitutional. In every case,
the Supreme Court was very clear that whatever the remedy is, it must
fix the size of the problem where there has been demonstrated
discrimination. That is the whole purpose of it.
Mr. Chairman, let me quickly with my time, I want to get to this
amendment because it is very important that we show why this amendment
is designed to do two things: one, to make this bill unconstitutional;
and, two, to kill the Voting Rights Act.
The Norwood amendment would do one important thing: it would take the
list of jurisdictions currently covered under section 5 and throw it in
the garbage can. It would completely disavow every known jurisdiction
that is now covered under the Voting Rights Act. That alone is enough
for us to have a reason to defeat this amendment.
We know that jurisdictions on the list today are still discriminating
because we heard testimony, 12,000 pages of testimony. I was there in
the committee each and every day. And much of that testimony, Mr.
Chairman, came directly from the State of Georgia.
As I said earlier, there is no State that needs the Voting Rights
Act's protection as does Georgia. When my colleagues from Georgia say
they are being punished, who is being punished? I will tell you who is
being punished. It is those African American citizens down there who
year after year, as we have testified, have said that they are being
punished and discriminated against because of the violations of the
act.
As we sit here and debate this bill today, the Voter ID bill from
Georgia gives ample evidence that Georgia is still discriminating. The
power of the Voting Rights Act is the power of section 5, and the power
of section 5 is to make sure these procedures are precleared. It is
designed to prevent discrimination. We dare not take that protection
off the books, and that is what the Norwood amendment will do and why
we must vote it down.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, of course our amendment does not do that.
It simply applies to every jurisdiction in the country equally, equal
protection under the law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Deal).
[[Page H5184]]
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, today, some 41 years after the
first Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, the facts that relate
to infringements on voting have substantially changed. And here we are
talking in this amendment about a portion of the Voting Rights Act that
was deemed to be temporary and was deemed to be remedial in nature.
The bill we are asked to pass today, however, without this amendment
relies on facts that are over 40 years old, and the Norwood amendment
seeks to overturn those facts and base this legislation on facts that
exist today, in fact, the three most recent Presidential elections
rather than the election of Lyndon Johnson.
Now, the opponents of the Norwood amendment argue that it might
render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional to do that. Doesn't that
give you some pause, some concern? If you can't justify this
legislation on the facts of 2006, if you can't base it on the last
three Presidential elections and those facts will make your act
unconstitutional, that alone ought to cause you to vote against it.
This is here because the 15th amendment has given jurisdiction to
Congress to do certain things, and we act on those facts. But the facts
are still the facts even though this bill may attempt to say they are
something different.
Just because some of our Members prefer to linger in the sins of the
past, it is our responsibility to legislate on the facts of the
present, and those facts do not justify an extension of section 5
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. No, I don't have time to yield.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Deal) controls the time.
{time} 1400
With all due respect to my good friend, Mr. Scott, with whom I also
served in the Georgia legislature, we are talking here about a portion
of the act that was deemed to be temporary. That is why we are talking
about an extension of it today, that alone, a temporary extension,
something that was only 5 years in its initial duration, is now, 41
years later, being asked to make it for an additional 25 years.
I would submit that the Norwood amendment needs to pass. It is a
welcome improvement to the legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) to explain why Hawaii does not have a history of
discrimination and should not be covered under the Norwood amendment.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for
the same reasons as have been articulated otherwise.
But I also rise in opposition because of this amendment's specific
impact on my State of Hawaii, because under his amendment, Hawaii would
be, per se, subjected to a preclearance requirement solely because of
relatively low turnout in recent presidential elections.
Now, I am not proud that we have had a low turnout in recent
Presidential elections; but I say to the gentleman very directly, the
author of this amendment, that it is not because of any history of
discrimination against our citizens with respect to voting, and we
should not be subjected, by application of some mechanistic and
standardized formula unrelated in any way to the facts to section 5
preclearance.
And that really demonstrates the fallacy of the amendment, the
removal from relevancy of applicable conditions in any State, past,
present or future in determining who is and is not subject to
preclearance. It is and should be relevant, and there are available
means to come out from under preclearance.
But this amendment is not that, and I urge its rejection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, today, when walking through the
Capitol, I saw President Roosevelt's words inscribed on a wall. They
stopped me in my tracks. He said, ``We must remember that any
oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our
civilization.''
These words should guide us in this debate. They were deemed so
important that they are literally a part of the structure of our
Nation's Capitol.
The Voting Rights Act is the most important and successful civil
rights law in our Nation's history. From poll taxes to literacy tests,
States historically disenfranchised voters based on their race, their
gender and educational background.
While America exports democracy around the globe, we must not deny it
here at home. Sadly, many Americans have lost faith in our electoral
system. From the 2000 election in my home State of Florida, or Ohio in
2004, many Americans feel like some in their government don't want
their vote to count. We must renew the Voting Rights Act to restore
that lost faith.
Some say the preclearance provisions are no longer needed, and they
are wrong. Since 1982, the Department of Justice has made more than
1,000 objections to discriminatory changes in State and local voting
laws. If the gentleman from Georgia's amendment is adopted, these 1,000
objections would never be considered. This amendment deserves to be
defeated. All the amendments need to be defeated, and the Voting Rights
Act should be adopted in full.
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act because millions of Americans
had been intentionally denied their equal right to vote.
Some of my Republican friends also want to take away language
assistance at the polls, and they speak the emotional rhetoric of anti-
immigrant jingoism.
But this bill isn't about illegal immigration--it is about Americans
participating in their democracy.
The overwhelming majority of those who receive language assistance at
the polls are native-born, tax-paying American citizens.
In 2004, there were 15 initiatives on Florida's ballot. This issue is
not only about distinguishing Candidate A from Candidate B. The VRA
ensures that citizens also understand these confusing ballot
initiatives.
In my district voters receive assistance in Spanish, Creole, and
Seminole dialects.
Instead of erecting more barriers to voting, we should identify ways
to increase civic participation and make people more confident in their
Government and their leaders.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill with no amendments.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
of my friend and colleague from Georgia, Representative Charlie
Norwood.
This amendment will correct a fundamental flaw of this bill. As
currently drafted, H.R. 9 will not only apply 1964 standards to the
world of 2006, but it will continue to apply it for the next 25 years.
Mr. Chairman, I know that some claim this amendment is a poison pill
designed to kill the bill. But I would say that this amendment, rather,
is a disinfectant that will save this bill from a constitutional
challenge.
The Norwood amendment will strengthen this act by creating a rolling
standard using turnout from the three most recent Presidential
elections to determine a State's compliance requirements under section
5. This rolling standard will keep every State, whether south, north,
east or west, on their toes with respect to the voting rights of their
citizens. Just look, Mr. Chairman, at the additional jurisdictions that
would be covered by the Norwood amendment.
It makes no sense to use the election of 1964 as a measure of voter
participation in 2006, and the Norwood amendment fixes this flaw. It
ensures the passage of a Voting Rights Act that is not only fair, but
it also upholds the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under
the law.
Mr. Chairman, in good conscience, how can we be justified in
punishing the citizens of States covered by section 5 based upon voter
participation in 1964? The Norwood amendment will correct this inequity
and ensure that the underlying bill protects the voting rights of every
citizen in every State by using a modern and accurate standard.
Mr. Chairman, again, I encourage all my colleagues, please adopt this
amendment. Give this House an opportunity to renew a true and
constitutional Voting Rights Act.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
[[Page H5185]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I
think it is very, very important that we realize that the coverage
formula in this bill does not need to be changed, as is being proposed
by the gentleman from Georgia, in order for it to be up to date.
Jurisdictions free of discrimination for 10 years can come out from
under coverage. There is a bailout provision. Let's continue to use
that, because I think it is so important.
Now, during the course of all the hearings and testimony and
witnesses, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) never testified
before the committee.
This issue has been explored very carefully. When we crafted this
bill, we wanted to make sure that it would stand the test of time, and
this trigger in 4 that governs section 5 is so important.
The Supreme Court has spoken. There must be congruence and
proportionality before the injury to be prevented or remedied, and the
means adopted to that end.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from
Wisconsin has the right to close.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), and then I will do my close, and the chairman says
he will then close.
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. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to Mr. Conyers, I am not on
the Justice Committee, the fair Justice Committee. I don't have any
right to testify before the committee, nor am I asked to testify before
the committee, nor would I, I doubt, be allowed to testify before the
committee simply because I don't agree with H.R. 9 as it presently is
written.
What we are asking here basically is that everybody be treated equal
under the law. Section 4, I didn't write. Section 4 clearly says what
the formula is. In fact, section 4's formula is why my State is under
section 5.
Why in the world shouldn't we look at everybody in the country today,
in the 21st century?
In 1964, my son was 2 years old. He was part of the 30 percent of
Georgians that are still in Georgia today. I don't think he had
anything to do with 1965.
I was 23 years old. I didn't have a clue what was going on in 1965.
Half of the 30 percent of the people in Georgia who were in Georgia in
1965 had nothing to do with this. You are finding my grandchild guilty
for something my grandchild didn't do, is not doing and doesn't want to
see happen. Yet you will not take this and apply it to other States who
deserve to have the same equal protections under the law that we do in
Georgia.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just set the record straight. When the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) conducted the hearings before the Subcommittee
on the Constitution, he allowed nonmembers of the Judiciary Committee
to come and participate in the hearings and to ask questions of the
witnesses that came before the hearing. And I know that the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, did participate very actively. We were
very happy that he came, and appreciate the contributions that he made.
So we have not been exclusionary at all. And a lot of other
committees simply do not allow nonmembers of the committee to
participate. Mr. Chabot did.
But I would like to point out that much of the impetus behind this
amendment comes from Georgia. And I think the fallacy of the amendment
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is that he wants to base
coverage exclusively on voter participation and not on any other
factors, and that is what the constitutional flaw is.
The reason that section 5 does have the preclearance requirement is
based on a number of factors, including the past history of
discrimination and discriminatory voting practices.
In Georgia there have been 91 objections since the last
reauthorization by the Department of Justice, and seven of them have
been objections that have resulted in withdrawal of voting changes
since 2002. So the arguments that Georgia isn't doing all this bad
stuff anymore are not borne out by the statistics of what has been
submitted to the Justice Department and where preclearance has been
rejected.
During the general debate today, I introduced two rather extensive
reports into the record from outside groups that gave the history of
section 5 objections and voting rights problems in the State of Georgia
since the 1982 reauthorization.
Now, the amendment that Mr. Norwood has proposed is a Trojan horse.
It is designed to make the section 5 protections unconstitutional. And
I guess the argument that I am hearing, the result of which is that if
you can't win here, jiggle the law so that it ends up being declared
unconstitutional in court.
This has been an important part of the Voting Rights Act. We should
not run the risk of changing the formula that has met the test of time
with repeated constitutional challenges. That is why the Norwood
amendment should be rejected.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, the road to justice is a difficult journey.
It is not a mere step, but rather a lengthy endeavor. The result of the
endeavor is to seek out those who have committed wrongdoing and deliver
punishment in accord with the offense. All that any may hope, is that
through the travail, there will be reflection on the truth. The truth
is determined by careful, objective analysis of the facts, as best they
can be determined. Facts are what result from examination of the
evidence. When evidence show that the accused was not in the state at
the time when the offense occurred, there is sufficient reason to find
the accused was not a participant in the offense. It is even more
explicit that the accused did not participate in the offense when the
person was not yet born. Yet, that does not insulate the unfortunate
from accusation. Accusation is the understandable action from those
affected by wrongdoing. Someone is at fault, and failing clear evidence
to establish the responsible party, accusations flow until the evidence
and the facts lead all to justice. All of us should find affront in
unsubstantiated accusation.
Here is where I discover reason for concern in the matter before us.
The bill now pending, when enacted, will seek to serve justice.
Notwithstanding the evidence, or the facts, for the next twenty five
years, all those who follow in the scourged seven states will be
branded with the racist label. This follows 25 years application of the
previous penalty, which was assessed based on the facts and the
evidence of the 1960's.
In the case now pending, the decision to condemn will be built upon
the evidence now 42 years buried in history. It is not evidence or
facts discovered today. The actions of the grandfather will now
determine the fate of the grandson.
What is it that I ask? I have always found merit in the principle
that where action is justified for one, it should be justified for all.
Public policy should be applicable to all within jurisdiction of the
government. Do we believe that discrimination ends at a county line? Is
it really your view that justice is served in 43 other states, while
bigotry only survives in a constrained geographic corridor? Where is
the evidence? What are your facts? Why is it this legislation will
mandate supervision of seven states, and not the whole of our Nation?
Many have been incensed even by the thought of this discussion,
because they mistakenly view this legislation as all that stands
between them and their right to vote. The 15th
[[Page H5186]]
Amendment to the Constitution apparently is of no consolation, although
it ensures the right to vote to every American across the entire
Nation. The bill now pending leaves 43 States on a different
legislative landscape.
There is much in history to regret. We should not forget, or fail to
learn from the troubled past. But we must also think about the present.
Careful, analytical thought must precede action. Action to condemn or
punish should be taken only when the evidence establishes the facts.
All should be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. This principle establishes our freedom from the actions of an
otherwise tyrannical government.
How do we come to this moment? Am I to believe that my grandchildren,
not yet born, are condemned to a life of racial intolerance? How can
this be? All reason is to be cast aside?
And if, my colleagues, you believe this policy to be well advised and
necessary, why is it then ill advised to make it applicable to your
constituents? And failing that, would you not examine the evidence,
determine the facts, before condemning my constituents?
The pending amendment by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood,
would remedy most of my concern. Failure to adopt that amendment will
leave those in Louisiana without an opportunity for fair deliberate
consideration. Without the adoption of this provision, I cannot support
the underlying bill.
For those who demand justice, it is now time to demand justice for
all.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
{time} 1415
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 109-554.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gohmert:
Strike section 4 and insert the following:
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF TITLES I AND II.
Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
1973b(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``at the end'' and all
that follows through ``1982'' and inserting ``before August
6, 2016''; and
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking ``at the end'' and all
that follows through ``1982'' and inserting ``on August 6,
2016''.
In section 7, strike ``2032'' and insert ``2016''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 910, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
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.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
[[Page H5187]]
Gohmert) is not really a 10-year reauthorization. It is a 9-year
reauthorization since the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions do
not expire until August 6, 2007. So this really is kind of a little bit
less than what has been advertised.
The last time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized, it was
reauthorized for 25 years; and there is no reason why it should not be
reauthorized for another 25 years. Minority citizens register, turn
out, and cast meaningful ballots as a result of the protections
extended by the Voting Rights Act. And while we have made great strides
in achieving Martin Luther King's goal of having people judged by the
depth of their character rather than the color of their skin, without
the Voting Rights Act's being there, their vote will not be treated
equally with the votes of every other citizen in that jurisdiction or
of the United States of America.
History has also shown that when Federal oversight is eliminated,
minority voters suffer the most. And the purpose of this legislation is
to protect the progress made by minority voters over the last several
decades and to continue that progress for the next 25 years.
The 12 hearings conducted by the Judiciary Committee and the enormous
evidentiary record shows that all Voting Rights Acts violations that
have occurred in covered jurisdictions support the conclusion that
renewal of the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years is warranted.
Anyone who votes for this amendment will have to tell their
constituents why the following information and testimony did not
justify the full 25-year renewal of the preclearance provisions of the
Voting Rights Act. The committee report makes clear ``more section 5
objections were lodged between 1982 and 2004 than were interposed
between 1965 and 1982.'' So we are talking about the fact that the
number of actions that have required objections in precleared States
have not gone away or significantly diminished. And since 1982, the
Department of Justice has objected to more than 700 voting changes that
have been determined to be discriminatory. And I have talked earlier in
this debate about the number of objections, both since 1982 and since
2004, that have been objected to as being discriminatory.
Let me say that with the 9 years proposed in the Gohmert amendment
rather than the 25 years, when this act comes up for renewal in 2016,
as the gentleman from Texas wants, there will be significantly less
record because it is a significantly shorter period of time. And
believe me, the people who have been opposed to the Voting Rights Act,
and we have heard a lot from them today and will continue to hear a lot
from them, will say, look, things are getting much better. The last
time it came up they had 24 years of records and it was yea big, and
now let us look at this. It has not been quite as much. And believe me,
a court is going to take judicial notice of that as well.
Now, in the face of the current evidentiary record of abuse, it would
be shortsighted and irresponsible not to reauthorize the VRA for at
least as long as the last reauthorization President Reagan signed into
law in 1982. Moreover, renewing the preclearance and Federal observer
provisions of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years is
necessary to allow a meaningful change to be measured and to make
eradication of discrimination in the voting process an achievable goal.
Most activity under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act occurs during
redistricting, which only happens every 10 years following each census.
If the Voting Rights Act is not renewed for an additional 25 years,
it will capture only one redistricting cycle, and that will not provide
enough evidence of the past use and practice to allow Congress to make
the same reasoned determination regarding renewal 10 years from now
that this Congress is allowed to make on the previous record of 25
years.
For this reason adopting this amendment will effectively preclude the
Congress from ever reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act again because it
will deny Congress the sufficiently large set of data the Supreme Court
has held necessary for the Voting Rights Act to be reauthorized.
Further, this amendment, if adopted, would completely nullify the
current incentive the VRA provides to encourage covered jurisdictions
to maintain clean voting rights records for 10 years in order to be
eligible to utilize the bailout process. This amendment sends the
message to covered jurisdictions that the VRA will not apply to them in
the future regardless of their conduct over the next 10 years.
In sum, to protect minority voting rights for decades to come, to
prevent tying Congress' hands in 10 years by denying it the sufficient
record on which to decide future renewals as required by the Supreme
Court, and to prevent nullifying the current Voting Rights Act's
incentive to maintain clean voting records for 10 years, this amendment
should be soundly defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's bringing up
the period of extension that my amendment provides. It is exactly 10
years from now, 2016. That is what the amendment has said all along,
2016; and it does raise a very interesting point.
What I think most people do not realize is that the bill on the floor
today does not actually reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for 25 years
from now. It actually reauthorizes the bill for 26 years from now. So
that should be understood by others. And I would only submit that since
evidence now exists that there is even a jurisdiction in Wisconsin,
California, New Mexico, a number of places that are not currently
covered, you bring this back up 10 years from right now and a 10-year
additional history may very well be plenty of history to assuage the
concerns about historical discrimination.
If areas continue to have the discrimination that are not currently
covered and it continues for 10 years, then that should be enough to
effectively convince people on both sides of the aisle that the Voting
Rights Act needs to be extended and it needs to be expanded so it truly
is remedial and not just punitive.
{time} 1430
Mr. Chairman, there are others who wish to speak, and I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to argue for
strengthening the Voting Rights Act. When I first heard about the
rewrite, I was shocked to learn that we were going to put the same
States that had problems in 1964, 1968 and 1972 under coverage for an
additional 25 years without solid evidence that they continue to have
State-sponsored discrimination different than any other State.
Chairman Sensenbrenner has talked about that; we do not have enough
history if we just do it for 10 years.
We have had 41 years of history, and we cannot make a judgment on
that, of the States that are not under section 5. We do not know how
many violations they have. Some here today have cited the number of
objections in Georgia. One of the recent objections in Georgia came
from Dougherty County in Albany, Georgia, where a black majority city
council had their objections that were sufficient for the Justice
Department to rule.
Let me just read about some of the other objections in Georgia we
keep hearing about. Six of these were creation of additional judicial
slots in superior and State courts, objections for which the Federal
courts found no merit since they approved these additional judgeships.
Another four objections went to redistricting plans. The first three
forced Georgia to draw districts that courts later found to be
unconstitutional under Miller v. Johnson. The fourth involved the post-
Miller plans to correct for racially drawn State legislative districts.
An eleventh objection involved Monroe municipal elections that a
court deemed to have already been precleared.
An October 1992 objection in Union City was withdrawn, and there is
no indication that the city made any changes to secure removal of the
objection. That might be a twelfth inappropriate DOJ objection.
The key number is, since 2001 there have been only five objections.
This is
[[Page H5188]]
when every jurisdiction in the State of Georgia, 159 counties, 300
cities, 180 school boards, 180 house districts, 56 senate districts,
were redrawn in redistricting plans. That is hundreds and hundreds of
plans that only had five problems, and only four were objections to
redistricting plans, and one of those was, the objection was a plan
drawn by a black majority city council in Albany, Georgia.
When we talk about these objections, let's talk about facts. Let's
just don't say objections. Let's talk about that most of these
objections had no facts.
We do not know how many objections will be brought up across this
country because of racial discrimination, because in 2002 a lawsuit
brought in Wisconsin said that there was more polarized voting at a
higher percentage in Wisconsin than in the South.
Let's look at this whole country, let's look at it for 10 years, and
then let's come back and see what the results are.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
reauthorization and against all amendments
Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in an ongoing historic dialog that
unfortunately, we must continue to address in the United States
Congress.
The issue before us today is whether we should reauthorize certain
sections of the Voting Rights Act. I grew up in the fifties and sixties
when we had segregated water fountains, schools, an restrictions on
voting.
We are here to decide if we should continue mandating pre-clearance
for any changes in election policy in jurisdictions that are known to
have a history of disenfranchising the rights of minority voters.
My home state of Texas is included on that list.
Over the last forty years, the renewal of this Act on this Floor has
embodied what we hope this country will be: a Country where regardless
of race, religion, or political party, we come together to ensure that
the core of our democracy continues to thrive.
The right to vote is the core of our democracy and we must protect
this right for all Americans.
Recently, the Department of Justice failed to pre-clear an election
plan for a bond election in the area I represent.
Polling places were few, and it was the opinion of many that putting
polling places only in select areas for this election was a violation
of the Voting Rights Act.
DOJ agreed and the election has been postponed until a better plan
can be put in place.
This is but one recent example of how the Voting Rights Act ensures
people have access to the polls so their voice can be heard.
As we support an emerging Democracy in Iraq and the success of the
elections that were held there, we need to remember that this Country
has also struggled to achieve Democracy and one that everyone can
participate in.
Let us be an example to Iraq in the world that a true Democracy
includes ALL Americans and that we are committed to preventing the
discrimination that millions of Americans had to endure in the past.
I urge my colleagues to reauthorize these Sections of the Voting
Rights Act and send a message that this Country is still the example of
how representative government should work.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Sensenbrenner in opposing the
Gohmert amendment to extend the vital protections afforded by the
expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for merely 9 years.
The gains made under the Voting Rights Act mark impressive racial
progress for our Nation and should be celebrated.
But to acknowledge progress is not to disavow the continued obstacles
faced by minority voters for which the Voting Rights Act provides
protections. These obstacles are not easily removed. My own election to
Congress close to 3 decades after the Voting Rights Act was passed
illustrates that 10 years is simply not enough.
If we are serious about continuing the progress all seem to praise,
we must be equally serious about keeping in place the mechanisms that
made that progress possible. Just 3 years ago, ruling on the propriety
of race-conscious admissions standards, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
concluded in the affirmative action case, ``It has been 25 years since
Justice Powell in Bakke first approved the use of race to further an
interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher
education.''
Justice O'Connor went on to recognize that in the area of public
education 25 years of protections were, sadly, not enough. Despite the
measurable progress in that arena, the Court understood the need for
continuing protection, but expressed hope that an additional 25 years
would be enough to overcome our Nation's unfortunate history of racial
hostility and division.
Voting protections are just as necessary today as educational help is
in the college arena. I ask opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Voting Rights Act should be reauthorized for another 25 years and
not a 10-year renewal that is recommended in this amendment. That is
just too short a period of time.
The reauthorization process for the Voting Rights Act is not a quick
one. In fact, for the last 9 months, the subcommittee that I have the
privilege to chair, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, has spent 8
to 9 months and been really immersed in these hearings to establish a
significant record so the renewal will pass constitutional muster.
As I said before, we have spent more time on this particular issue
than any other issue that we have been involved in in the 6 years that
I have had the privilege to chair that particular subcommittee. And I
fear that a shorter reauthorization period could jeopardize the act by
not allowing both Congress and the civil rights community to study the
impact and need for the act.
In addition, traditionally, redistricting has occurred on the State
level every 10 years, and if the Voting Rights Act is also reauthorized
every 10 years, it makes this process even more burdensome and gives
States less of an incentive to comply with the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act.
The Subcommittee on the Constitution has established the need for
renewing the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years, evidence like the
more than 700 voting changes that have been determined to be
discriminatory since 1982 as further proof of this need.
This amendment not only jeopardizes the carefully crafted bipartisan
bill that has been offered, but could diminish its impact and, most
importantly, its ability to withstand constitutional scrutiny. That is
one of the chief challenges that we face, why we went into such detail,
why we had so many witnesses, why we had 12,000 pages of testimony;
because we know that it is likely that there will be a constitutional
challenge.
So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think what we do
in the U.S. Congress is important. I think what this committee has done
on this bill is important. Indeed, we hear from the committee members
over and over again, we had many, many witnesses, 12,000 pages of
testimony. They put some effort into it.
So why is that same committee afraid of leaving the door open for
future Congresses in 10 years from taking another look? Because I can
tell you this, as a member of the State legislature who served on the
reapportionment committee in 1991: The Voting Rights Act is fluid. It
evolves, it changes.
We have seen the Bossier Parish decision. We have seen the Ashcroft
v. Georgia decision. We have seen the LULAC decision in Texas. All have
profound impacts on the Voting Rights Act, and therefore, I think it is
important for Congress to come back in 10 years and take a look at it.
I know the committee has been a little clever with 9 years, but you
guys, we could say your reauthorization is 26 years, but the intent is
10 years. We all
[[Page H5189]]
know that, but what Mr. Gohmert is saying is, the Voting Rights Act
changes, and anybody who has served in the legislature and anybody who
has watched the Voting Rights Act knows it changes without one single
vote of Congress.
This is the first time we have been voting on it in 25 years, and yet
it is totally different than the interpretation of 1982, the
interpretation of 1991. Reapportionment in 2001 was totally different
than the 110 years before that, and I can say this, it is going to
impact lots and lots of minorities.
We tend to think of this as black v. white. There is a huge growing
Hispanic population that is totally almost removed from this argument
today. Those are the ones 10 years from now that are going to have the
most impact. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my distinguished ranking member.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we have to remember one historical fact.
For 400 years, we have been dealing with the problem of discrimination
and racism in America. I think it would be simplistic in this Congress
that we would think, after 40 years, we do not need to worry about it
that much anymore and shorten the period of time.
It is going to take a while for us to evaluate the progress that is
being made, and I am proud to say progress is being made, but the
bailout provision is there and it works quite well.
Now, in addition, we have to be very careful about the fact that some
jurisdictions will play the wait-out game. They will wait out for the
10 years to expire, and then we will be back in a big problem again.
Keep this a 25-year measure.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Watt and
Ranking Member Conyers for the tremendous work they have done on
getting us to this point with this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address this issue of time. Those of us who
have read Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, letter from the Birmingham city
jail may recall that King dealt with the question of time. In dealing
with that question, he said that he had come to the conclusion that the
people of ill will in our society make a much better use of time than
the people of goodwill. He thought in his writings that we are going to
be called to repent in this generation not just for the vitriolic words
and deeds of bad people, but for the appalling silence of good people.
This Congress broke its silence on voting rights violations some 41
years ago. Although the 1964 elections triggered the Voting Rights Act,
the 1965 Voting Rights Act was rooted in 10 generations of slavery,
from 1619 to 1863, giving you 244 years. That is 10 generations. Then
another 102 years of what we call ``creative devices'' that came into
being in 1863 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 got rid of.
These creative devices, when I first ran for office, I ran from
Charleston County in something called ``full-slate voting.'' It meant
that there were 11 positions available and one African American
running, in order for any vote for that African American to count, you
had to vote against that person 10 times, because for your vote to
count, you had to cast 11 votes for that position. That was the law
that this act got rid of.
We also had something called ``numbered posts'' that set up racially
polarized voting. The Voting Rights Act got rid of that.
We also had at-large voting, rather than voting from districts. The
Voting Rights Act got rid of that.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman earlier talked about what
was going on in Georgia. For some strange reason, nobody is talking
about what happened in the 41st year of this act when Georgia put in
place voting cards in order to vote. You had to have a picture,
government-issued identification card.
{time} 1445
That is a creative device that ought to be submitted to the Justice
Department. Now, it was; and the Justice Department accepted it. But
the courts looked at it and said, this is unconstitutional. All of this
is made possible by various sections of the Voting Rights Act. It ought
to be extended for 25 years. I plead to the Members of this body to do
so.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment in order to enhance
and support the constitutional framework upon which this law before us
is predicated. The reason I say that is that, you know, 25 years ago,
as I mentioned, I was working with the distinguished ranking member of
the full committee on extending this law for 25 years.
At that time, there seemed to be evidence supporting that. But I have
been gone for 16 years in this House. I come back and find there are
very few Members here who were here when I was here before. As a matter
of fact, sometimes I talk to Members and I feel like I am sort of the
museum piece being pulled out for people to observe.
The only point I make is 25 years is a long time. And if you look at
the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Professor Hasen
from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, he points out that this kind of
amendment may very well be the kind of amendment that saves this law
under consideration by a future Supreme Court with respect to its
constitutionally.
Why? Because he said, beginning in 1965, Congress imposed the strong
preclearance remedy on those jurisdictions with what the Supreme Court
called a pervasive, flagrant, and unremitting history of discrimination
in voting on the basis of race.
In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the court upheld section 5 of the
act as a permissible exercise of congressional power. But what has
changed since 1965, as Professor Hasen says, both the law and the
facts. And he suggests that we may be creating an infirm law by
extending it for 25 years because the Court has said you have to have a
connection with the historic discrimination, and it has to be
proportionate to that.
And it has to pass those two tests. And the very argument that we
extend it for 25 years, I think, argues against the defense of this in
court. And rather than saying that the gentleman from Texas's amendment
is an amendment that weakens this law, I believe it strengthens it. I
suggest again, we have three counties in California that are under
preclearance coverage only because in 1972 they had military
installations, and so the people there were counted in the census, even
though they voted in their home States.
One of those counties has 49.6 percent participation. Those counties
have not been able to get out from under it. Now we are going to say,
for another 25 years, because of the presence of military in your
sparsely populated counties during the height of the Vietnam War, you
are not going to be able to get out.
I find that difficult to justify if you are appearing before the
Supreme Court saying that we have carefully tailored this bill. So I
would just ask my colleagues, look at this amendment. It is not a
gutting amendment. It is an intelligent amendment that really goes to
supporting the constitutional framework of this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that one
of the issues that many of my constituents call and they are very
concerned about is time. They are concerned whether or not they are
going to lose their right to vote. No, they are not. But I want to read
a brief statement from the administration, the Bush administration:
``The administration is strongly committed to renewing the Voting
Rights Act and therefore supports House bill H.R. 9. The Voting Rights
Act is one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation
in the Nation's history, and the President has directed
[[Page H5190]]
the full power and resources of the Justice Department to protect each
citizen's right to vote and to preserve the integrity of the Nation's
voting process. The administration is pleased the House is taking
action to renew this important legislation. The administration supports
the legislative intent of H.R. 9 to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court
2003 decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft.''
That says it all. Bipartisan support. Democrats, Republicans, and the
administration. This is an American bill
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act, H.R. 9, and strongly oppose the
Gohmert amendment. It reduces the 25-year reauthorization period of the
expiring provisions to 10 years. The provisions set to expire in 2007
include section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of
voting discrimination to obtain Federal approval for any new voting
practices or procedures implemented.
Section 203 ensures that American citizens with limited English
proficiency get the help they need at the polls. Sections 6 through 9
authorize the Attorney General to appoint Federal election observers
where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at
the polls.
These provisions require the creation of a credible record. Most
important, each of the expiring provisions depends upon the conduct of
State elections, all of which operate independently and on schedules
that do not coincide. Furthermore, lawsuits that come out of these
expiring provisions make the creation of a record a very difficult
task.
If Congress were to reauthorization the Voting Rights Act for short
periods of time, as this amendment suggests, it would create an
incentive for jurisdictions to wait out their obligations rather than
comply, thus contributing to the widespread noncompliance with the
statute that continued into the late 1970s.
In order for Congress to let voters know whether discrimination still
exists in particular jurisdictions, it must be able to review voting
changes through multiple redistricting cycles. The 3 years following
the decennial census represent the time of the highest volume of voting
changes and the greatest opportunity for discrimination.
The 25-year reauthorization period already in H.R. 9 is the product
of numerous oversight hearings as well as analysis by Representatives,
scholars, and election law practitioners. The amendment by the
gentleman from Texas should be defeated because it simply is not sound.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the
authors of the bill. I rise today in strong opposition to the Gohmert
amendment. You know, what is considered to be punishment for some
Texans protects the legal privilege of other Texans. Another native
Texan added Latina protection.
The passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has changed the face of
this Nation, enabling millions of Americans the opportunity to vote.
When I hear about 25 years being too long, it reminds me of how many
years passed before we got the privilege. I do not think 25 years is
too long, because we are in the midst of looking at a violation right
now in Texas in redistricting.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that this gentleman supports the
Voting Rights Act, but I do not support the 10 years; I support the 25
years.
There are many who say there is no longer a need for the Voting
Rights Act. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
At every election minorities continue to face an uphill battle
exercising their right to vote.
In preparing for this reauthorization, the Judiciary Committee
reviewed hundreds of examples of voter intimidation and discrimination.
It is unfortunate, but this level of discrimination will not be
eradicated in the next 10 years.
Additionally, 10 years is not enough time to effectively review
patterns of discriminatory conduct.
This is not a punishment for Southern states. It's a pledge that
Congress will work to ensure all Americans have the ability to vote and
to have that vote counted.
In addition, no state is force to comply with these provisions for
another 25 years. There are ways for jurisdictions to exit both Section
5 and Section 203.
The Voting Rights Act is current, necessary, and protects the rights
of millions of Americans.
Now is the time to reauthorize this historic cornerstone of civil
rights for another 25 years. It is imperative to our rights, our
freedom and our democracy.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the chairman for the
Judiciary Committee will be closing. Is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. He has the right to close, yes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion on this amendment, it is an amendment for
10 years from now. I did not realize originally, as did many others,
that this was extending actually 20, the bill before us extending 26
years from this summer.
But let me reinforce my point earlier, and Mr. Lungren's point
earlier about the dangers of having this go too long. This was
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee from Professor Richard
Hasen. He is with Loyola Law School. I don't know the gentleman
personally. But they are in Los Angeles, California. I understand he is
probably not a conservative Republican.
But his position before the Senate Judiciary Committee was:
``Congress should impose a shorter term limit, perhaps 7-10 years,'' he
said, ``for extension. The bill includes a 25-year extension and the
Court may believe,'' talking about the Supreme Court, ``it is beyond
congruent and proportional to require, for example, the State of South
Carolina to preclear every voting change no matter how minor through
2031.''
He was thinking it was 25 instead of 26. But in any event, it brings
the point home, if you really want this to all survive constitutional
muster, if you really want it to stay and continue to help, then why
does it not make sense to continue to monitor it?
I know there are so many games that get played around this floor, but
I am telling you and I am giving you my word as I stand before this
body, I will work with anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this body, when there
is proof of racial discrimination to help work to make this act
stronger and better to stamp that out.
You run the risk of creating an unconstitutional act and undoing so
much of what has already been done. We have heard the argument, gee, it
takes too long to reauthorize. I applaud my friend, Mr. Chabot, who has
done such great work, heard from all of the witnesses. As he has
indicated, he has taken months of testimony.
But I would humbly point out that it has actually taken a year less
to get this thing to the floor to reauthorize than apparently was
anticipated, because here we are a year before the bill was actually
going to expire renewing it for 26 more years from now.
So I am not trying to play games. We are better continuing to monitor
this. This is too important to put it off and not relook at it
constantly. But folks, you know, Mr. Chairman, you know if it is not
coming up for reauthorization, it is hard to get anything done to fix
something that is broken.
Besides that, the Supreme Court may fix it for us as ruling it more
punitive than remedial. With that I would encourage the Members of the
House, through you, Mr. Chairman, to please let's vote to extend this
for 10 years from now and not for 26 years from now.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why this amendment should be
rejected. First of all, it flies in the face of the fact that there
have been more section 5 objections lodged by the Justice Department
since the last reauthorization than during the first 17 years of
operation of the Voting Rights Act.
Since 1982, over 700 objections have been lodged. That means we still
need
[[Page H5191]]
this law, and we need the law on the books for a long time.
Second, adopting this amendment will effectively prohibit Congress
from ever reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act again, because it will
deny us, the Congress of the United States, a sufficiently large set of
data the Supreme Court has held necessary for the VRA to be authorized.
What the gentleman from Texas's amendment does is, it gives Congress
16 years less data in the future by shortening the reauthorization
period from 25 years to 9 years.
Finally, the amendment, if adopted, would completely nullify the
current incentive the Voting Rights Act provides to encourage covered
jurisdictions to have clean voting records for 10 years in order to get
out through the bail-out provisions. This is only a 9-year extension.
The way I was taught math, 9 is less than 10.
So there is no incentive whatsoever for a covered jurisdiction to
clean up its act to be able to bail out, because the act will expire
before they can have the 10 years to do it. Vote against the amendment.
It is a bad one
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 109-554.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Strike sections 7 and 8.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 910, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, especially I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for
the hard work that they have done to put together the framework for the
reauthorization for the Voting Rights Act. And also I want to thank the
sponsors of my amendment, Mr. Istook, Mrs. Miller from Michigan, Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Spencer Bachus from Alabama, for
joining me in this and many others who have worked hard throughout the
last 4, 5, and perhaps even 6 weeks to get us to this point where we
can have a debate on this amendment and end up having a vote on how to
improve the Voting Rights Act.
I think it is important from a symbolic standpoint to be able to
improve and vote on the Voting Rights Act. We are able to do that
because also of the indulgence and the patience and the good years that
come from all the leadership in this Congress, and I appreciate that a
great deal.
What my amendment does is it recognizes that the Voting Rights Act
was established in 1965. 1975, not as an original part of the act
itself but as I would say a decade-old afterthought, came this
imposition of foreign language ballots in 1975, and that came in as a
temporary measure. Now, today, it is not so temporary from 1975 until
2006, but it is set up to sunset August 6, 2007.
So what my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it would lift the Federal
mandate imposing foreign language ballots on localities by allowing the
amendment to sunset, and the mandate is due to expire in 2007.
It is that simple. And the reason is this, that it is consistent with
federalism. The Federal Government doesn't need to be imposing foreign
language ballots on any locality anywhere in this country. They can
make those decisions locally.
Anyone who is a citizen of the United States that is a naturalized
citizen has had to demonstrate their proficiency in both the spoken and
the written English language, so they have no claim to a foreign
language ballot if they are a naturalized citizen. So, therefore, there
isn't a need for foreign language ballots unless someone is here by
birthright citizenship and hasn't had enough access to English to be
able to understand a simple ballot. But in those circumstances we
protect those people by allowing a right to assistance. They can bring
an interpreter of their choice into the voting booth with them to do
that interpretation.
So all my amendment does, the King-Istook-and others amendment, it
lifts the mandates and allows the local electoral districts to retain
their local control and their right to print in the languages they
choose; and there are plenty of examples across the country that do
that.
Some of the things that are objectionable about this would be, for
example, the determination of how a district is imposed by the Federal
Government on foreign language ballots, and one of those things is
surname analysis, Mr. Chairman. So we have a computer program that
sorts the last names of people. If it kicks out that a certain
percentage of them have a Spanish last name or a Chinese last name,
then there will be foreign language ballots that go to those districts,
whether everyone there maybe came here with Cortez. That is how bad it
has gotten. It has been abused.
And we protect the rights for localities. So it is a reasonable and
general amendment that lifts the Federal mandate for foreign language
ballots and lets local governments to do what they choose
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a poison pill amendment. If
this amendment is adopted, the supporters of this legislation will
withdraw their support, and the extension to the Voting Rights Act
would be defeated. So from a practical standpoint, the amendment should
be opposed; but on a substantive standpoint, it should be opposed as
well.
A recent survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted on the
Voting Rights Act's provision requiring bilingual ballots for taxpaying
legal citizens under certain circumstances.
Let me make this clear. The amendments in the Voting Rights Act have
nothing to do with illegal immigrants voting. Illegal immigrants are
not eligible to vote. We are dealing with people who are United States
citizens. And United States citizens ought to have their right to vote
protected even if they are not proficient in English.
When those surveyed were asked specifically whether they supported or
opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act with bilingual ballot
provisions, 70 percent of the registered voters supported or strongly
supported a renewal bill that contained the bilingual ballot provisions
for taxpaying legal citizens. I ask the membership of the House to
stand on the side of those 77 percent, an overwhelming majority.
When those polled were asked specifically what they thought of the
part of the VRA that required States and counties where over 5 percent
of the citizens are not fluent in English to provide assistance in
their native language, 65 percent either strongly favored or favored
those provisions.
Even though section 203 affects only 12 percent of the country, it
was enacted for sound reasons and is still needed to remove barriers to
voting by legal taxpaying citizens who do not speak English well enough
to participate in the election process. According to the 2000 Census,
most of the people who are potential beneficiaries of section 203
assistance are native-born legal citizens, meaning they are not
immigrants who were naturalized, they are people who are citizens
because they were born in the United States of America.
The Judiciary Committee's records shows that adults who want to learn
[[Page H5192]]
English experience long wait times to enroll in English as a second
language literacy centers. And, once enrolled, learning English takes
adult citizens several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding
of the English language. Even after completing literacy classes, it is
often not enough to understand complex ballots.
I strongly support the proposition that Americans be fluent in the
English language. However, effectively denying them their right to cast
ballots that they cannot comprehend will not advance this goal, but
will frustrate it.
Section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational
disparities which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter
turnout. These disparities still continue to exist. As of the year
2000, three-fourths of the 3 million to 3.5 million students who are
native-born citizens were considered to be English language learners,
meaning the students don't speak English well enough to understand the
basic English curriculum. ELL students lag significantly behind native
English speakers and are twice as likely to fail graduation tests.
California has over 1.5 million ELLs, Texas 570,000, Florida 25,000,
and New York over 230,000.
The intricate complexity of many ballot initiatives cannot be
understood by those who understand minimal English. Chris Norby, the
elections supervisor for Orange County, California, testified that many
ballot initiatives include triple negatives that confuse even fluent
English speakers. In California, the June 6, 2006 ballot was written
for those at the 12th through 14th grade comprehension and reading
levels.
And let me point out that this type of assistance is most critical in
those States that have lots of referendum questions on the ballot. It
is pretty easy to determine a vote for which candidate one prefers by
looking at the names and marking the ballot in the appropriate way; but
with the initiative questions and the referendum questions on the
ballot, those have been written in many cases by Philadelphia lawyers
and it is real hard to understand the true meaning of the question so
that one can cast the proper vote to reflect their sentiments.
The amendment will also hurt the elderly who are exempt from the
naturalizations test language proficiency requirements and are not
required to learn any English whatsoever before they become legal
naturalized citizens.
Current law allows the jurisdiction to get out from coverage under
section 203 if it shows the D.C. Federal court that the applicable
language minority population's literacy rate is at the national average
or above. So teach the people how to read and you are out from
underneath it. If they don't know how to read English, then they should
be under it. In this way, section 203 provides an incentive for
jurisdictions to develop successful ways of helping non-English
speakers learn English. Adopting this amendment would remove that
incentive and subvert the goals it purportedly advances.
Furthermore, the assistance authorized under section 208, which is
the provision that authorizes voters to be accompanied into the polling
booth under the Voting Rights Act, does not provide adequate protection
for many language minority voters. With the increased number of
linguistically isolated households in this country, seeking assistance
of a family member is not feasible. The assistance provided by section
203 is the only certain form of assistance that language minority
citizens can rely on to exercise the right to vote and enjoy autonomy
and independence in the voting booth.
I would like to remind members that 2 weeks ago, on June 28, the
House soundly rejected on a bipartisan basis and by a vote of 167-254
an effort to defund the Department of Justice's efforts to enforce
section 203 during the consideration of the Commerce Justice State
appropriations bill.
I believe that one of the cornerstones of American society is the
ability to speak English. English is the language of commerce in this
country, and I believe every citizen should strive to become proficient
in the English language. However, punishing those who don't attain this
goal and taking away the incentive for local jurisdictions to develop
educational programs to increase the literacy rate above the national
average is not the answer. That is why this amendment should be
rejected
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my good friend from Iowa, Representative King, and I would
ask for its adoption.
This commonsense amendment will remove a substantial and unnecessary
burden for our State and local governments by allowing the sunset of
sections 7 and 8 of the bill which mandate the printing of multilingual
ballots on the basis of data collected in a flawed manner by the Census
Bureau.
Under current law, if the Census reports that 5 percent of the
State's population speaks primarily a language other than English, even
though most of them can speak English quite well, then the whole State
must print ballots in that language for every precinct. Once a State or
voting jurisdiction meets this 5-percent threshold, any other minority
language can be added with a significantly lower threshold.
Mr. Chairman, this is insanity, and, furthermore, it is an unfunded
mandate on our States. There are already existing avenues to assist
individuals, as the chairman just said, who may have difficulty reading
a ballot in official English, and there is no reason whatsoever to
waste taxpayers' dollars on printing thousands upon thousands of
ballots that will probably never be used.
This amendment will not prevent any State from printing multilingual
ballots, but will only remove this burdensome Federal mandate on the
States. Let's adopt this commonsense cost-saving provision and stop the
insanity.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to how much time I
have left.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 15 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the opposition of my
chairman to this amendment.
I am really amazed sometimes how much of an effort we put forth to
support democracy around the world and yet won't do the same thing
right here at home.
One of the things I have on my wall at home is the first ballot after
apartheid that was used in South Africa. Our government, the United
States Government, encouraged the folks of South Africa to put
photographs of the candidates on the ballot so that they would know who
they were voting for because they couldn't read.
{time} 1515
Can you imagine us doing that here in the United States, even though
it would facilitate people's ability to vote? Yet here we are trying to
confuse this issue with the issue of immigration, illegal immigration,
when it has nothing to do with that.
The majority of voters protected by section 203 are not even
immigrants. Section 203 provides language assistance to cover United
States voting-age citizens who are not fluent in English. According to
the 2000 census, three-quarters of all voters covered by section 203
are native-born voting-age citizens in the United States. So this
notion that this is somehow a part of the anti-immigrant movement is
just a fallacy.
We need to be doing whatever we can to enable our citizens to vote,
and this amendment goes in the face of that. I think we should oppose
it and move on with the passage of this bill.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I wonder if I might have been stereotyped here. I didn't hear
anything about immigration on this side. I didn't hear anything come
out of Mr. Gingrey about immigration. We are
[[Page H5193]]
talking about the Voting Rights Act, and I think that is what this
debate will be about on this side, the Voting Rights Act.
But I would point out that there is a reason why natural-born
citizens utilize this more than anyone else, and that is because one of
the criteria that is used to measure is the question on the census that
says, Do you speak English: not at all, not well, well, or very well?
And if you answer well, you still are put into the limited-language-
proficient category.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I wholeheartedly support
the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the renewal of it. I think it is
very, very important, critically important for this Congress to act on
this issue today.
And let me say to my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus,
obviously I have never had the African American experience, but I am
sincerely moved when I hear such great civil rights leaders as John
Lewis, and others who have spoken today with such passion about the
injustices that happened in regards to voting.
Before I came to Congress, I served for 8 years as the Michigan
secretary of state, with the principal responsibility as my State's
chief election officer. So I feel I have some credibility to speak to
this issue, because during those 8 years I actually had the occasion to
have to actually threaten legal action against an African American
clerk who I thought was disenfranchising African Americans in the city
of Detroit of the right to have their votes counted.
I am also very proud of the fact that in 2001 the NAACP gave me the
highest grade in the entire Nation for any secretary of state for
election reform and for voter integrity programs.
I am also proud to be a member of the party of Abraham Lincoln, and
while I strongly believe in clean elections, fair elections, and voting
integrity, I also believe in States' rights and local control.
This amendment is all about States' rights and local control. It has
nothing to do with the immigration issue. It has nothing to do with
racial equality. It simply says that the Federal Government does not
mandate to the States or the local units of government that they
provide bilingual ballots. And if the State or local units decide they
want to do so, fine, that is their option.
Mr. Chairman, consider for just a moment that in southeast Michigan
alone we have the largest Arabic population in the Nation and we have
the largest Macedonian population in the Nation. My home county has an
Italian cultural center, a German cultural center, a Ukrainian cultural
center, and a Polish cultural center, which are a reflection of the
very proud ethnic heritage of the area. If the local election officials
want to provide them with bilingual ballots, that should be their
choice, not a Federal mandate. And the same should be so all across our
great Nation.
Vote ``yes'' on this amendment
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the former secretary of state of Michigan,
and I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Iowa, and I am going to give you three reasons why we should support
this amendment.
First is that it is an expensive, unfunded mandate on local
governments. The county in which I live, Orange County, California,
very diverse county, in the last cycle spent $600,000 on bilingual
ballots when only seven-tenths of a percent, seven-tenths of a percent
of the ballots requested were multilingual or bilingual ballots.
Secondly, the current law is discriminatory. In Orange County,
California, we are required under the Voting Rights Act to print
ballots in five languages, but yet in the school district where my kids
went to school, which is only one city out of 35 cities in Orange
County, there are 83 different languages spoken at home. So what about
those other 78 language speakers? Aren't we discriminating against them
by not putting out ballots in their languages, too?
Now, I happen to think it would be less discriminatory if they were
only in English, because then everyone would have the same opportunity
to understand the ballot as everyone else. But the point of this
amendment is that that is for the county to decide. Some counties may
not have 83 different languages, while others do. That is for them to
decide.
And, third, I think it is interesting that the chairman brought up
Chris Norby, a supervisor in Orange County, as being in opposition to
this amendment. Chris Norby is actually very strongly in favor of this
amendment. The issue that was discussed was the complexity of ballot
initiatives.
Now, ballot initiatives, and California is kind of the hotbed of
those things, and I personally have been involved in drafting them, but
they are complex and they are complex to translate. That is the point.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Iowa for the
time, and I would like to ask my good friend, the sponsor of this
amendment, to engage in a brief colloquy.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, as a long-time advocate
for the sovereign rights of Native American tribes and in recognition
of the importance of preserving those languages indigenous to America,
I do need to ask the gentleman from Iowa for a few points of
clarification.
First and foremost, does this amendment restrict a tribe or local
government's ability to print a ballot in any language it deems
necessary to better serve its voting population?
Mr. KING of Iowa. No, this amendment does not impose restrictions on
printing ballots in languages other than English.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, current Federal law allows a voter to
receive necessary assistance from someone while in the voting booth.
This statute makes it possible for a tribal elder, who may be more
comfortable communicating in an indigenous tribal language, to be aided
by a translator while participating in the democratic process.
Does this amendment in any way restrict any American from receiving
such assistance?
Mr. KING of Iowa. The answer is ``no,'' this amendment does not
change the Federal law that allows voters to bring their own
interpreter.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for clearly stating his
amendment does not infringe on tribal sovereign rights to print ballots
in native languages or on the ability of a tribal member to receive
translational assistance while voting.
With this assurance, I will support this fiscally responsible
amendment before us, which removes a costly and unfunded Federal
mandate currently being forced upon these local tribal and State
governments.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I rise in gratitude to Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on
the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It is historic in its
scope, and I admire his thoughtfulness and the dignity with which he
has gone about this process.
I also rise, although in opposition, with deep respect for the
gentleman from Iowa, whom I would support for anything, including Pope.
Even though, from time to time, we differ on issues, he is a man of
integrity and principle.
The arguments have been made today by the chairman, and they will be
by others in opposition to the King amendment, in a substantive way,
that even though section 203 only affects 12 percent of the counties of
this country, it was enacted for sound reasons and we still need it;
that to support the King amendment could literally hurt the elderly,
who in many cases were excluded from the English proficiency
requirements of naturalization and,
[[Page H5194]]
therefore, would, if this amendment passed, be denied the language
assistance to participate as American citizens in the voting process.
There has also been the thoughtful discussion that we are not just
talking about choosing between candidate A and B, but rather, Mr.
Chairman, we are talking about ballot initiatives that can oftentimes
be written in double negatives, and so language assistance is
appropriate for Americans in exercising their blood-bought right to
vote.
So I just simply rise today in opposition to the King amendment; to
say that language requirements belong in immigration law, not in the
ballot box.
I myself have authored an immigration reform proposal that would
require all new guest workers within 2 years to pass a 40-hour course
in English proficiency. And I believe, as many of my colleagues who
support this amendment believe, that it is central to assimilation and
to becoming a part of the American experience to achieve English
proficiency. But I say with deep respect to my sincere colleague, Mr.
King, not here, not in the ballot box, and not for Americans.
There is a certain amount of sacred soil in America. I tend to think
this floor, Mr. Chairman, is sacred soil in democracy. But I think the
four corners of that curtained ballot booth are also sacred soil, and
we ought to do everything that is necessary in our power to make sure
that Americans can exercise their blood-bought, God-given right to vote
in an informed manner.
And so I rise to oppose the King amendment and to thank again the
gentleman for his sincerity.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the highest
compliment anyone has ever received on the floor of this Congress, and
express the same of my friend, Mr. Pence.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), also a
cosponsor of this amendment.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman
very much for yielding this time. I rise today in support of this
amendment, which I am cosponsoring along with my good friend and
colleague Congressman King.
Bilingual ballot requirements were not in the original Voting Rights
Act. As a matter of fact, they were only added in 1975, and were always
intended to be a temporary crutch, not a permanent mandate. And that
mandate, by the way, is an unfunded mandate.
Now, many of us came from backgrounds in the State legislature and/or
local governments, and what was the one thing we complained the most
about? Unfunded Federal mandates. This, ladies and gentlemen, is an
unfunded Federal mandate.
To become a citizen today you must demonstrate that you can speak
English. These requirements have encouraged new immigrants to learn our
language and become part of our society. We must return to this
tradition to reunite our society and erase the divide between new
citizens and those with two, three, and more generations in this great
Nation.
Certainly, if you were a citizen living in Mexico and you wanted to
participate in the latest Mexican election and English was the language
that you spoke, I guarantee you that the recent Mexican elections did
not have English ballots for those who only spoke English.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the next governor of the State of Oklahoma, and a cosponsor
of this amendment, Mr. Istook.
{time} 1530
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. Congress should
not dictate that American ballots must be printed in multiple
languages.
Over 30 States, including Oklahoma, are now required by Congress to
print bilingual or multilingual ballots in at least some parts of those
States. In Oklahoma, it is required in Marmon County and Texas County.
I have a sample of the ballots that will be used there on July 25, and
this is for State and local races, not Federal elections. The
candidates for county commissioner will be surprised that they have
been relabeled as candidates for ``comisionario del condado.''
Instead of this confusion, we need the unifying force of an official
language, English, which is the language of success in America.
To become an American citizen, we require people to read, write and
speak in English. That is to help them to assimilate in our melting
pot, truly to become Americans. We mock that when the cherished right
to vote does not involve English any more.
My father was the son of immigrants, and he grew up bilingual, but
English is what my father taught me and what he spoke to me. America's
strength is not our diversity; it is our ability to unite around common
principles even when we come from different backgrounds.
We have too many laws that undercut our unity. Today we can fix one
of those laws, and we should. Please join me in doing what the American
people want and expect us to do. Support this amendment and support the
unifying force of a common language, the English language.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
(Ms. HERSETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HERSETH. I thank the gentleman for yielding
Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend my strong support to H.R. 9, The
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I would also like to
commend House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking
Member Conyers for their leadership in working together to craft a bill
that received overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee. The
committee approved H.R. 9, as amended, by a vote of 33 to 1 on May 10,
2006. I am pleased that the leadership has scheduled H.R. 9 for floor
consideration today and hope that the full House will pass this vital
piece of legislation, as it was reported by the Judiciary Committee.
The preservation of all of the rights guaranteed to Americans under
law in great measure depends upon the security of Americans' voting
rights. Ensuring an equal opportunity for all citizens to vote is a
fundamental governmental duty. All Americans recognize the importance
of ensuring the right to vote. That is why the 109th Congress will
address few more critical pieces of legislation than H.R. 9 in 2006, a
year of Federal, state, and local elections.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the product of a remarkable time in
America, when courageous and visionary people from different
backgrounds and communities came together to move the Nation from an
era when too many Americans were denied one of the most fundamental
freedoms. The Nation has made great progress since that time toward the
goal of full voting rights for all. Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act
will ensure that we continue to move forward with protecting,
preserving, and enhancing the gains that we as a society have made.
Some of the core provisions of the Voting Rights Act are set to
expire in 2007. Importantly, H.R. 9 would reauthorize these provisions
for 25 years. Expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act require
covered jurisdictions to seek ``preclearance,'' either with the U.S.
Department of Justice or a specific federal court, of any proposed
voting changes, such as redistricting. Two counties in South Dakota are
subject to these requirements.
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires that language
assistance be provided to language minorities, including certain Native
American communities. A number of jurisdictions in South Dakota are
covered by Section 203.
Statements made by a number of the proponents of the King amendment
seem to suggest that the only non-English languages come from foreign
countries. But the fact is, in my home state of South Dakota and across
America, any voters speak Native American languages--languages that
were spoken here long before English was ever uttered in this
hemisphere. Parts of Indian Country are covered by Section 203--a
section with strong bipartisan support--based on a history of practices
and procedures that disenfranchised certain language minorities.
American Indians were here when many of our ancestors immigrated to the
United States.
Just yesterday I had the opportunity to celebrate and honor the
service of Native American code talkers who fought bravely during World
War II. Native Languages were the basis for a military communications
code that was never cracked by the Axis powers. They
[[Page H5195]]
saved countless lives and protected the freedoms we enjoy today.
Native Languages have always had a place in America and should
continue to have a place in America. They are part of our history and
have played an important role in defending this country. The rights of
Native Language speakers should continue to be protected at the ballot
box through all of the protections afforded by Section 203. That is why
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the King amendment.
It is incredibly encouraging to see the strides American Indians in
South Dakota have made in recent years, including in the political
process. I believe that full political participation, and especially
voting, is one of the keys to continuing these welcome developments.
Voting is not only the expression of support for a particular set of
ideas, but is also an expression of hope, and belief in the future.
One of the ways we can help ensure that these hopes become a reality
is to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, because the Act continues to
play a critical role in ensuring the integrity of the political
process. It helps assure not only that an effective legal procedure
exists for correcting violations of voting rights, but that violations
can and will be prevented from developing. It is also a beacon that
sends the message to all American citizens that voting rights must be
respected.
Thus, I thank the leadership for scheduling H.R. 9 for floor action,
and I urge my colleagues to give H.R. 9 their full support.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands
(Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King
amendment which would disenfranchise millions of Americans
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to ensure the
right to vote to every American citizen.
While I oppose all of the amendments to the bill, I rise now to
specifically speak to the King amendment which would deny this
fundamental right to American citizens who have not yet fully
accomplished English proficiency, or who are just more comfortable with
their primary language.
Not only would the King amendment discriminate against the millions
of naturalized citizens whose native language is Spanish, it would also
discriminate against Native indigenous Americans in Alaska and American
citizens who are Puerto Rican and for whom Spanish is their primary
household language.
This is a mean spirited amendment and must be voted down by every
Member of this House of good will and who believes in a fair and just
America.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the King amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act and in
strong opposition to this amendment to strike renewal of section 203, a
key provision.
The Voting Rights Act is a touchstone of the American Civil Rights
movement. It brought millions of Americans into the heart of American
democracy. The Act demonstrated to the world, and to history, that we
are capable of recognizing the mistakes of our past and acting to fix
them.
This is a subject I know intimately. Many years ago, in the early
1970s, I served as Chief Counsel to the Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. in 1975, the
Subcommittee managed amendments to the Voting Rights Act, and we
drafted, debated, and passed section 203 on my watch.
I knew then that section 203 was a vital protection of voting rights.
It is no less important today.
By 1975, poverty, poor education, and institutionalized
discrimination had combined to turn English-only ballots into a de
facto literacy test. Many citizens did not register to vote because
they could not read election materials or communicate with poll
workers.
Section 203 helped lower these barriers by requiring that
jurisdictions with a significant population of ``language minorities''
provide election information in more than one language. It has since
been applied to 500, jurisdictions in 31 states.
The success of section 203 cannot be overstated. Study after study
has demonstrated that when bilingual assistance is provided, more
citizens register to vote, and more registered voters go to the polls.
And since 1975, minority voter registration has continued to climb and
more minorities have been elected to public office. The result is a
stronger, more vibrant, and more representative democracy.
But the job is not yet done.
Today, as in 1975, millions of Americans do not speak fluent English.
Some are recently naturalized citizens. Many others are native-born
citizens, who may have been raised in homes where English was not their
primary language. Because of poor schooling, discrimination, or other
factors, these citizens still may not be proficient in English.
Section 203 gives these Americans a voice, allowing them to
participate in their native languages
We must remember that the individuals protected by section 203 are
citizens. They are family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. And they
are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen--including the
right to cast an informed vote.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
chairman for yielding me this time.
I would like to preface my remarks by expressing my profound
admiration for the author of this amendment who I think is a great
American patriot. In the Rules Committee, I supported his right to be
heard on the floor today.
And I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that we have made
great progress. One of the beauties of America is we are constantly
improving as a Nation. We have improved to the point that citizens, for
example naturalized citizens, it is important to point out that the
elderly, pursuant to our laws, when they have been residents, legal
residents of the United States for many years and they seek to become
an American citizen, according to our laws, they can take the exam to
become an American citizen in their language of preference, their
language of origin.
What we said in amendments to the Voting Rights Act, those people
have a right to understand what they are voting on. Whether it is a
simple choice of candidate or a complex ballot issue, elderly citizens
who are naturalized have a right to understand what they are voting on.
Also, there are millions of native-born Americans whose language,
primary language, is not the English language. And so we believe, just
like we certainly are extremely proud of those citizens, whether they
are naturalized or en route to be naturalized or native born and they
defend this country, and we are certainly grateful to them and proud of
them when they do so, we think they should have the right when they
vote to be able to understand the ballot initiatives that they are
voting on or other questions.
So I really think, Mr. Chairman, that the fairer we are as a society,
the greater we are. The more fair our country is, the greater our
country is. This is an example. We have opened an opportunity for full
participation, for citizens whose primary language is other than
English, to the ballot box. And I think we should be proud of that as a
country.
So I again commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing forth this
legislation and oppose the amendment before us at this time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) who has worked very hard on this issue.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let
me ask the people, including my good friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), Candice Miller was the Secretary of State of
Michigan, and she told me there are 23 Arabic dialects in Wayne County,
in one county, in Michigan. Now are all of you prepared to have 23
separate languages on the ballot? Is that fair?
This amendment does not infringe on anybody's ability to cast an
informed vote. States can still choose to provide language assistance
and individuals can still choose to bring their friends as translators
into the ballot box and help them understand.
This is simply a commonsense amendment that merely removes a
[[Page H5196]]
Federal mandate to provide translations. Are you going to ask the
Federal Government to force a State to have 23 Arabic dialects in Wayne
County? It is a States' rights issue.
Let's look at what Margaret Fung of the Asian American Legal Defense
and Education Fund said: ``I think all of the language assistance is
supplemental to what, hopefully, will happen, which is that everyone
will learn English.''
Immigrants arriving on our shores add to the vibrant fabric of our
Nation, but it is important as a melting pot that all of these
immigrants learn to speak English
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King amendment
and urge its defeat
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking
Member John Conyers for their hard work on the Voting Rights Act and
for the opportunity to speak on the importance of passing this landmark
piece of legislation.
I stand in opposition to the King amendment to strike sections 7 and
8 of the bill which ensure that all American citizens, regardless of
language ability, are able to vote on a fair and equal basis.
Recent discriminatory actions in the States of Georgia, Texas, the
Dakotas and even in my home State of New Jersey underscore the
importance of including provisions such as language assistance for
potential voters and the pre-clearance of electoral changes for covered
jurisdictions.
In fact, in New Jersey there are approximately 1 million Spanish-
speaking voters, which quite clearly exemplifies the need to extend
provisions such as section 203. In 1999, the Department of Justice's
Civil Rights Division found that Passaic County, New Jersey, was
discriminating against Latino voters by denying equal access to the
electoral process. The Civil Rights Division entered into a consent
decree with the County of Passaic, and now the elections are monitored
by the Federal observers. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District
Court of New Jersey appointed an independent elections monitor to
ensure that the county complies with the court orders. The monitor
assisted the county in its efforts to comply with the court's orders.
Today, the House of Representatives stands at a fork in the road. On
one side, we can journey down the path where we ignore past and recent
history that has shown discrimination and disenfranchisement still
prevents U.S. citizens from exercising their inherent right to vote. I
am one of the Members of this Chamber who marched for civil rights back
in the 1950s and 1960s.
From my first-hand experiences, I can attest that our gains have been
hard-fought and a long time coming. Fortunately, we still have the
opportunity to choose the right path of action.
The reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act is a reaffirmation of
the values upon which America was founded. The American principles of
justice and fairness compel this Congress to pass this piece of
legislation without weakening amendments. Martin Luther King Jr., whose
life and death symbolized the struggle for equality and justice along
with his wife Coretta Scott-King, said that, ``Injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.'' If we pass the Voting Rights Act with
these odious and retrogressive amendments, we are not only turning our
back on the sacrifices of those who were harmed and killed for our
right to vote but also turning our back on our diverse constituencies
who have entrusted us to stand up for justice and equality for all.
I applaud the bipartisan efforts that have cleared the way for this
bill to be voted on and I urge all Members of the House of
Representatives to complete this journey with the swift and clean
passage of this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, the Tri-Caucus strongly
believes that the VRA continues to effectively combat discrimination
and protect the gains achieved for minority voters.
It is well documented that language assistance is needed and used by
voters. For instance, the U.S. DOJ has reported that in one year,
registration rates among Spanish and Filipino-speaking American
citizens grew by 21 percent and registration among Vietnamese-speaking
American citizens increased over 37 percent after San Diego County
started providing language assistance.
In Apache County, Arizona, the Navajos have increased their turnout;
and the Navajo Code Talkers, who sacrificed their lives during World
War II, were able to participate in this process.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in my fullest
support for the King amendment, and also his work to make sure that all
political barriers to participation are removed. But we are clear that
foreign language ballots do no such thing.
There are three reasons why I support the King amendment. First,
section 312 of the current code says anyone coming into this country as
a naturalized citizen must be able to be proficient in reading, writing
and understanding the English language. So there should be no basis for
requiring the ballots to be in another language.
In fact, we are ignoring the current law in providing a disincentive
for new citizens to assimilate into this country without this
amendment.
Secondly, as already pointed out, this is in fact yet another
unfunded mandate on the States. Talk to your county commissioners and
they will tell you how much this costs them. And I should also point
out that this amendment does absolutely nothing, nothing to require
that all ballots be in English. We simply say under this amendment that
the States and localities will decide how to implement it themselves.
Third, this bill currently is an arbitrary and capricious attack
against individuals by insulting the voters by simply implying that
with a foreign language surname that they cannot understand the
language. I support the amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
cosponsor of this amendment and a member of the Judiciary Committee,
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization as an original cosponsor. I also rise in
support of this amendment.
From the 1790s to the 1970s, our forefathers came to this country,
America, from across the globe. They spoke a multitude of languages.
They became American citizens. They exercised their right to vote, and
they did so in English.
Teddy Roosevelt was right when he said: ``There can be no divided
allegiance here. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We
have room for but one language here, and that is the English
language.''
It was good enough for our forefathers, it was good enough for our
grandparents, it should be good enough for us. There is a tradition in
this country. For 180 years, we voted in English. That is the true
American tradition, and this amendment is true to our heritage, not
what has existed unnaturally for the last 20 years.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the King
amendment. Mandating election materials and ballots be provided in
languages other than English is a travesty and will lead to no good for
this country and no good for the people who supposedly we are trying to
help. It is a horrible, long-term attack on the unity of the United
States of America.
When we come from various ethnic groups and races, what unites us, it
is our language, the English language. We are hurting America by making
it easier for people not to learn English. We are hurting those people
by giving them an incentive not to learn English. This is
multiculturalism at its worst. Bilingual ballots ought to be made
history.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
If that is the case, why do a million and a half people in California
who are native-born citizens require these types of bilingual ballots?
These are Census statistics.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King
amendment which I refer to as ``let's return to the good old days.''
The good old days of literacy tests, because that is what
[[Page H5197]]
they are talking about. Make no mistake about what we are talking about
here today.
In 1975, a bunch of brilliant people finally came up with an answer,
and they said we have found a way to become inclusive, to increase
voter participation, to make citizens more responsible, to engage them
in our society and assimilate into society with a little bit of
assistance at the polling place. That is what language assistance is
all about. It is about inclusion, not exclusion.
Everything you have heard from the other side and the proponents of
this particular amendment is about exclusion, about reducing voter
participation. That is what is at stake here today.
I will ask anybody here in this body today that is considering voting
for this particular amendment: Do you have campaign material in your
career or on your Web site or your newsletters in another language?
Let's not be hypocrites. Let's be honest and do the right thing today.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this amendment. It is interesting that individuals are required to take
their U.S. citizenship test in English, not in another language, but in
English.
It is also interesting that we provide an opportunity if they want to
take a translator to the polls to help them, they are able to do that
also.
But in my district, which is basically Orange County, individuals
received a letter which is called an outreach letter offering foreign
language ballots. These were sent to any individual who had a foreign-
sounding name such as Martinez or Chen. The response I received was
overwhelming, and it was pure anger that the assumption was made
because my name happened to be Chen or Martinez that I was not a U.S.
citizen capable of speaking English.
Less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of the 1.5 million people in
Orange County actually requested non-English ballots, yet they only
have to provide five ballots today: English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese
and Vietnamese. The next Census has predicted that they will have to
produce an additional five languages. This is a reasonable amendment. I
ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Section 203 works: when language assistance is
available, voter participation goes up. When language assistance is not
available, voter participation goes down.
We are talking about citizens. In fact three-fourths of those
affected by Section 203 are natural born Americans.
Section 203 only applies where there is a large number of citizens in
the jurisdiction with the same language--enough voters to affect the
outcome of an election--and enough for those who don't like how the
affected community votes to have an incentive to try to depress the
vote.
Section 203 is not a burden to communities. The evidence presented in
our hearings was that the cost is negligible. For example, the
bilingual poll worker will be paid the same amount as any other poll
worker who would have been hired anyway.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not result in voters being
encouraged to improve their English. Our hearing record revealed voters
in affected jurisdictions waiting years to get into adult education
classes. A repeal of Section 203 may make it less likely that those
education programs will be properly funded in the future, and a repeal
will definitely result in lower voter participation.
Mr. Chairman, we should encourage voter participation by defeating
the King amendment.
{time} 1545
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, the King amendment is a vote in
favor of discrimination against language minorities. This point was
driven home by a Federal court in Osceola County, Florida, just a few
weeks ago.
Osceola County was purposefully denying voter registration and
assistance opportunities to Spanish language voters, including a large
Puerto Rican population. The Department of Justice sued and secured a
consent decree requiring the county to comply with Federal law. In July
2002, Osceola County became covered by section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act. However, the county continued to neglect its duties under Federal
law. The Federal court found just 2 weeks ago that there is
considerable evidence to suggest that the county's institution and
maintenance of an at-large voting system was motivated by a desire to
dilute the vote of an emerging Hispanic population.
Now, we are not talking about something that happened 40 years ago.
This is just a few weeks ago now, in 2006.
Eliminating section 203 will encourage jurisdictions to
disenfranchise emerging language minorities, which will be compounded
by depriving these taxpaying U.S. citizens of the assistance they need.
Really, do you think that people who speak flawless English, who
can't understand balloting initiatives that are complex, if they have a
hard time, then what do you think someone who has English as a second
language can do? Not very much without the assistance of section 203.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I will take the opportunity to close
with that minute and a half.
I would speak, first of all, to Mr. Pence's statement that now is not
the time. Now is actually the only time in a half a century where this
Congress has the opportunity to have a voice on the reauthorization of
this. It was reauthorized in 1982, until 2032 if the language prevails.
It is in the bill. We have to do it now.
Citizens are required to demonstrate proficiency, in both spoken and
written word, of the English language. They don't have a claim.
Naturalized citizens do not have a claim to foreign language ballots.
American-born citizens do have, and they can make that claim locally,
like they do in places like Wisconsin, where the electoral board of
Wisconsin just determined that they would be printing ballots in the
languages both of Hmong and Spanish. So they have demonstrated how
local control actually works, Mr. Chairman.
And then the waste is demonstrated in places like California where a
small precinct, 650 people, 33 separate ballots for 650 people in
languages English, Spanish, Chinese, at a cost of $100,000 for that
county alone. Three hundred counties are covered by this. We don't need
to be imposing this upon the American people.
The heavy hand of the Federal Government can be lifted off. People
will still be voting in the languages of their choice because they will
be controlled by the locale, consistent with the 10th amendment,
States' rights, federalism, fiscal responsibility, and the philosophy
of the majority of this Congress, the Republican Party and the view of
the individual opportunity to vote. We will protect those rights.
But my amendment would lift the Federal mandate imposing foreign
language ballots on localities by allowing the mandate to sunset. The
mandate is due to sunset and expire in 2007. We let the wisdom of our
forefathers take care of that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a poison pill amendment. It is no secret that
if this amendment is adopted, the voting rights extension will be
doomed because the supporters of this bill will withdraw their support.
So if you want a VRA, vote ``no'' on the King amendment.
I would repeat the fact that we are dealing here with United States
citizens. Illegal immigrants, legal immigrants who have yet to be
naturalized are not eligible to vote. Three-quarters of the people who
do require language assistance for ballots are native-born
[[Page H5198]]
Americans. They achieved their citizenship by birth in the United
States of America. And should we deny them the opportunity to
understand their ballots because their background or the educational
system where they grew up did not make them functional in English?
I believe English should be the national language. I believe that
English is the language of commerce, and one cannot achieve the
American dream without being functional in English. But, at the same
time, should we deny people who are citizens, most of them native born,
the opportunity to understand the ballots because this part of the
Voting Rights Act ends up being repealed or allowed to sunset?
I answer that question, ``no.'' And that is particularly important in
States that have a lot of ballot initiatives, some of which have got
triple negatives the way they have been drafted.
The registrar of voters in Orange County, California, said that
ballot questions are drafted there to reflect a 12th to 14th grade
level of education. Believe me, if you are not functional in English,
and it is a post-high-school grade level that the ballot questions are
drafted in, certainly we ought to give these people assistance.
Reject the amendment
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment by Representative King of Iowa to repeal the language in the
Voting Rights Act that requires certain jurisdictions with
concentrations of citizens who don't speak English very well to provide
language assistance to voters who need it and the American citizens who
request it.
My district is one such jurisdiction. Over 34 percent of my district
is made up of foreign-born American citizens. Besides that, nearly
45,000 U.S.-born citizens in my district speak some language other than
English in their homes. These are Americans. They live here, work here,
raise families and pay taxes here. They vote here.
This amendment is an attack on the fundamental right to vote for
millions of citizens across the country. It's crucial that everyone in
our democracy has the right to vote. Yet, having that right legally is
meaningless if certain groups of people are unable to accurately cast
their ballot at the polls. Voters may be well informed about the issues
and candidates, but to make sure their vote is accurately cast,
language assistance is necessary and reasonable in jurisdictions with
concentrated populations of limited English proficient voters.
Some try to tie this to immigration, but this is not about
immigration. According to the most recent information from the Census,
more than 70 percent of citizens who use language assistance are native
born, including Native Americans, Alaska natives and Puerto Ricans.
Even though most new citizens are required to speak English, they still
may not be sufficiently fluent to participate fully in the voting
process without this much-needed assistance. Ballots are often too
complicated even for native English speakers. To deny needed assistance
to American citizens goes against who we are as a democracy.
Before the language assistance provisions were added to the Voting
Rights Act in 1975, many Spanish-speaking United States citizens did
not register to vote because they could not read the election material
and could not communicate with poll workers. Language assistance has
encouraged these and other citizens of different language minority
groups to register and vote and participate more fully in the political
process, which is healthy for our democracy.
Some try to say that language assistance costs millions of dollars.
Language assistance is not costly. According to two separate Government
Accounting Office studies, as well as independent research conducted by
academic scholars, when implemented properly language assistance
accounts only for a small fraction of total election costs. The most
recent studies show that compliance with Section 203 accounts for
approximately 5% of total election costs.
Let's examine what is at stake here:
In 2003 in Harris County, Texas, officials did not provide language
assistance for Vietnamese citizens. This prompted the Department of
Justice to intervene and, as a result, voter turnout doubled and a
local Vietnamese citizen was elected to a local legislative position.
The implementation of language assistance in New York City had
enabled more than 100,000 Asian-Americans not fluent in English to
vote. In 2001, John Liu was elected to the New York City Council,
becoming the first Asian-American elected to a major legislative
position in the city with the nation's largest Asian-American
population.
In San Diego County, California, voter registration among Hispanics
and Filipinos rose by over 20 percent after the Department of Justice
brought suit against the county to enforce the language minority
provisions of Section 203. During that same period, Vietnamese
registrations increased by 40 percent.
Those who have tried to master a second language know the near-
paralysis that sometimes grips you. Confusion, embarrassment and
frustration are constant companions for those trying to change the way
their tongues work and their minds think in the important, pressure
situation of voting. Such mundane tasks as ordering at a restaurant or
going to the bank become challenges--every word a potential mistake in
comprehension.
The language in section 203 is not about coddling immigrants, and
this amendment shouldn't be about punishing new citizens for having to
learn a second language under fire. Section 203 is about making sure
that a fundamental right, the right to vote, is without obstacle.
I urgently ask that my colleagues join me in defeating the King
amendment and standing for the rights of all Americans to cast the vote
they intended.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 109-554.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Westmoreland
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. EXPEDITED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN CERTAIN CASES.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``The Attorney General
shall, not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this sentence, and annually thereafter, determine whether
each State and political subdivision to which the
requirements of this section apply meets the requirements for
a declaratory judgment under section 4(a). The Attorney
General shall inform the public and each State or political
subdivision of the determination with respect to that State
or subdivision. The Attorney General shall consent to the
entry of judgment in favor of a State or political
subdivision that seeks such a declaratory judgment if the
Attorney General has determined that State or subdivision
currently meets the requirements.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 910, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) and a Member opposed each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to help save the
Voting Rights Act. After carefully studying the issue and collecting
information about the renewal, I have serious concerns about the
constitutionality of this rewrite of the VRA.
When Congress last renewed the Voting Rights Act 25 years ago, it
adjusted the system for providing bailout, a way for covered
jurisdiction, if its record is clean, to get out from under coverage.
Congress believed that there would be a flood of bailout petitions,
as a result, from jurisdictions with clean records. Instead, only 11
counties, and I believe they are all from Virginia, out of the
thousands of jurisdictions covered have bailed out.
So today, hundreds of jurisdictions that are otherwise able to bail
out simply are not doing so; and the committee did not appear to
explore this question in detail during its hearings. My concern is that
a failure to provide a better way to get out from coverage will result
in the Supreme Court looking at the preclearance portion of this act in
a negative way.
We must provide a better way for jurisdictions to get out from under
the coverage. Although the bailout procedures are in place, many times
small jurisdictions cannot figure them out or are afraid of asking to
bail out and being rejected.
[[Page H5199]]
In order to bail out, a county has to hire an attorney and sue the
United States Department of Justice in Federal court in Washington,
D.C. Let me say that again. My hometown of Grantville, Georgia, with a
population of 2,270 people, that has never had an objection lodged
against it, would have to sue the United States Department of Justice
in Washington, D.C., in order to bail out.
My amendment seeks to address the bailout issue by requiring the
Department of Justice to assemble a list, using its existing databases,
of all the jurisdictions that are eligible to get out from under
Federal oversight, and then consent to entry of judgment, letting those
jurisdictions out from coverage. The genesis for this idea came from
Professor Rick Haysen, who is one of the leading election law experts
in the country and has carefully studied the constitutional issues
surrounding the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. He openly supports
this amendment and urges all Members to look carefully at it.
The amendment does not change the existing bailout requirements, nor
does it prevent any other party from intervening in an action for
bailout and objecting, requiring a full trial.
The amendment does not get the VRA; it does not make a bill change to
the bill, except to ease the process for jurisdictions that do not have
problems with discrimination to get out from under coverage.
Some say this is a difficult burden to place on the Department of
Justice, or that it cannot obtain all the information necessary. But
the DOJ is free to request information of every jurisdiction in this
country whenever it so desires. And it has the evidence of lack of
objections in its possession.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to carefully consider this question.
We all want to preserve the legacy of the Voting Rights Act, and not
giving careful consideration to the constitutionality of the renewal
will probably result in the Supreme Court throwing it out.
To prevent that from happening, I urge that all Members support the
Westmoreland amendment to H.R. 9.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the Voting Rights
Act that prevent covered jurisdictions from enacting discriminatory
voting changes and allow Federal observers to monitor elections in
covered jurisdictions are crucial provisions that are protected and
should continue to protect minority voters.
Further, covered jurisdictions can cost effectively remove themselves
from coverage under the Voting Rights Act, as 11 counties in Virginia
have done, if they can show a clean record on voting rights for 10
years.
However, this amendment would turn the Voting Rights Act on its head
by requiring the Voting Section of the Department of Justice to conduct
an annual, once a year, review of nearly 900 jurisdictions, and thus,
drain all of its resources away from preventing voting discrimination.
The amendment would require travel to nearly 900 jurisdictions every
year for the review of voluminous records, the interviewing of
thousands of people to determine whether all the jurisdictions' voting
changes have been submitted for preclearance, as required by the Voting
Rights Act, and that all other bailout criteria have been met.
This would require not just a review of all the materials that
covered jurisdictions may have submitted to the Department of Justice,
but also a review of all the materials a covered jurisdiction may not
have submitted to the DOJ. Placing this burden on the Federal
Government does nothing to make the Voting Rights Act more
constitutional, but it does everything to make the Voting Rights Act
hopelessly incapable of effective administration, to the detriment of
minority voting rights.
J. Gerald Hebert, a former Justice Department Voting Section lawyer,
and the attorney who represented all 11 counties in Virginia that
successfully bailed out of the Voting Rights Act, has written the
following regarding what the Justice Department would have to do at all
900 covered jurisdictions under the Westmoreland amendment. And
remember, this means each and every one of those jurisdictions:
``It has been my experience that to determine eligibility for bailout
takes a rather comprehensive assessment of all aspects of the voting
election process in a State or political subdivision. This would
include, for example, a description of the opportunities afforded
minority voters to become registered voters, the extent to which
minorities participate in the political process, including their
success as candidates, whether they have worked in the registration
office, the extent to which they have served as poll officials in the
jurisdictions, et cetera.
``Moreover, to assess bailout eligibility, it is usually necessary to
review voter turnout numbers to determine the extent to which the
electorate is participating in national, State and local elections.
``Views of the minority community are also routinely sought in
bailout cases. The Attorney General would need to contact minority
leaders in every jurisdiction to obtain their views on bailout.
``In addition, in order to assess whether a jurisdiction has
faithfully complied with section 5, usually a review of all the records
of the jurisdiction is undertaken to study whether any voting changes
have been implemented by the jurisdiction without the requisite
preclearance.''
Now, clearly, requiring such an assessment every year by the Justice
Department would prevent it from its primary responsibility of
enforcing minority voting rights. In reality, there are only a handful
of attorneys in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice, and
this amendment does not include one penny of additional funding to hire
the additional resources that would be necessary to conduct this annual
assessment.
Further, under this amendment, the Department of Justice would be
given the unprecedented authority to determine on its own whether the
provisions of the Voting Rights Act that protect minority voters from
discriminatory voting changes will remain in effect.
{time} 1600
The amendment states: ``The Attorney General shall annually determine
whether each State and political subdivision to which the requirements
of this section apply meet the requirements'' that would remove a
jurisdiction from coverage under the Voting Rights Act. That is an
unprecedented voting rights policy that places far too much power in a
single Department of a Federal executive agency, giving it the
unfettered authority to remove entire States from coverage under one of
the most important civil rights protections enacted in the last
century.
Giving so much power to a single executive branch agency over the
vastly important decision of whether a given jurisdiction is covered or
not covered by the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions invites
abuse. And the protection of voting rights should never be made subject
to a regime that invites incentives other than the protection of voting
rights.
In addition, this amendment invites lawsuits against the Department
of Justice itself for its alleged failure to adequately conduct a
review that it would be required to conduct in all 900 jurisdictions.
So the gentleman's amendment says that this has got to be done every
year in 900 jurisdictions. He does not give the Justice Department a
penny to hire any additional people to conduct the review. And then it
invites lawsuits against the Justice Department because they failed to
do so because they do not have enough money to be able to do it.
In addition, the amendment compels the Department of Justice to
prospectively take a litigation position, that it ``shall consent to
the entry of judgment'' based on a previous determination even if
subsequently discovered facts render the previous decision unjust.
Meaning it ties the Justice Department's hand from acting based on
newly discovered evidence.
The amendment denies the Justice Department the ability to assert
itself in litigation as it sees fit in court, based on its assessment
of tactics and legal considerations. This directive affronts
established executive litigation authority and upsets the separation of
powers.
In sum, this amendment, far from being a reasonable clarification of
the
[[Page H5200]]
Voting Rights Act, will invite chaos. It will cripple the enforcement
resources of the Voting Division of the Department of Justice. It would
redirect limited resources away from voting rights enforcement, give
the executive branch unprecedented and unfettered authority to remove
crucial voting rights protections over large parts of the country, and
impermissibly lock an executive branch agency into a litigation
position.
Of all four amendments that have come before us today, this one is
the worst. Please reject it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary has argued that my amendment places an impossible burden on
the Department of Justice. All we are asking them to do is to look at
the jurisdictions that are now covered under section 5, and hopefully,
I thought that the Department of Justice was looking at these
jurisdictions. I thought they were keeping up if there was any
violation or not any violation. The chairman of the Judiciary has just
really caused me some concern to think that we are under the coverage
of section 5, but nobody is looking at us. Nobody is looking to see if
we are doing the right thing or not. I am confused. Maybe we need to do
some more legislation to make sure the Department of Justice is doing
their job.
They are the ones that know if there have been any objections. They
should be the ones that have the information to know if a city or
county should be able to bail out or not. Maybe this is why
jurisdictions aren't bailing out.
I listened to the chairman read all the stuff. I felt like I was
listening to an algebra problem. That is the reason we do not know if
we can bail out or not. With all of its lawyers and all of its
resources, if the Justice Department cannot figure out who can bail
out, how in the world is a small city or county going to make that
determination?
The chairman of the committee appears to be arguing my point. The
bail-out procedures are so complicated that even the Justice Department
cannot figure them out. That seems to indicate that we may need to take
another look at the bail-out provisions in this law, which does not
appear to have been done by those 12 hearings with all these different
witnesses that never once looked at the flawed bail-out procedure.
I would also ask whether this burden is better borne by the Federal
Government or by small cities, such as my hometown of Granville, and
counties that are not able to come to Washington to litigate their past
history
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I find this sort of interesting, Mr. Chairman. It seems like you are
concerned about the bail-out provisions and the cost to the Justice
Department if they actually do their job, which they are not; but no
one seems to be at all concerned about the cost of bilingual ballots or
counties or States having to print 35, 37 different ballots on the box.
Nobody cares about that unfunded mandate, only that the Justice
Department could not possibly afford to do what it is supposed to do.
Actually, I hope that you are the one that argues the case when this
goes to the Supreme Court, Mr. Chairman, and use that very same
argument you just put on us about Mr. Westmoreland's amendment.
This amendment has the support of some of the strongest supporters of
section 5 renewal, and it is there for a very practical reason. The
Supreme Court would likely throw out a 25-year extension of section 5
if no attempts have been made to update the rules that determine
whether counties remain under Federal oversight. The court allowed
section 5 to stand for one reason. Even a nonlawyer can read it in
there. It was to be a temporary remedial tool. There was not a thing in
that law that says past discrimination puts you under section 5. There
is nothing written in the bill that says that. You say that because of
the findings, but it is not in the bill.
But the rubber-stamp renewal of section 5 for another 25 years would
mean the original 837 counties would be under Federal oversight for 65
years, affecting people that had absolutely nothing to do with any of
this. It does not take a legal scholar. Even I can determine 65 years
is not temporary.
There must be a more realistic method for counties to win release
from the penalty box than under the current law, which is almost
impossible, if they have truly ended discriminatory practices or if
they have followed the rules under section 4.
This amendment allows the Justice Department to help section 5
counties simply determine if they are eligible for bailout. What is the
Justice Department for if not for that? It provides an expedited means
for counties to regain their constitutional rights if they have met the
bailout standards according to DOJ and no one else objects to their
petition. This is not only fair. It gives many counties in compliance
with the act a realistic chance to win release from section 5 for the
first time.
It is hard work being fair, Mr. Chairman. It requires a lot of effort
for everybody to be equal under the eyes of the law. And that is what
basically Mr. Westmoreland's amendment is asking for. I actually think
further amendments to the bail-out section are needed as well, though
we are not doing it today. But the Westmoreland amendment will help
justify allowing section 5 to withstand court challenges, while
providing long-needed equity for counties that have indeed remedied
past discrimination.
I am going to be honest with you. There is hardly any way to get out
of the bail-out provisions. In 25 years, 11 counties have been able to
do so. Don't you think more counties would have if they could possibly
have done it? Those 11 counties that got out have minority populations
of under 5 percent. They live right across the Potomac River. This
nonsense about it costing $5,000, you cannot hire a lawyer to come
uptown for $5,000. It costs big dollars for small cities and rural
counties to get out from under this whether they are guilty or not, but
nobody seems to care whether they are guilty or not. It does not
concern anybody about fairness here.
Partisans, and there are plenty of them and you all know it, at DOJ
try to make sure that there are objections to submissions. A very
perfect example: all you have got to do is have one submission objected
to by the Department of Justice. In the last 5, 6 years, we have had
six objections in Georgia. One of them comes from a small little town
in south Georgia where the city council is majority/minority. They had
a change they wanted to make in their voting laws, and they submitted
it to the Justice Department. The Justice Department says, oh, no, you
can't do that, we object. It is not as if they are always right. It is
just that they get the last word until the Supreme Court gets ahold of
them.
That one objection puts my State back in the penalty box for 10
years. That is an unfair circumstance. That keeps us there for another
10 years. It does not matter what is right. It does not matter what is
fair. It does not matter what is legal. It means you just cannot get
out of it. It is designed to be that way. It is people in the civil
rights division in the Justice Department that are very bias, very
partisan; and they work darn hard at making sure we cannot get out of
the penalty box.
I have heard over and over today people talk about a bill passed in
Georgia. They are simply trying to make sure only American citizens
vote. That is all it was all about. It is so easy to vote in Georgia.
We have illegal alien citizens of other countries trying to vote all
the time. A simple voter ID, it was precleared by the Justice
Department that, Mr. Chairman, you think so much of. We were told it
was all right. Then it goes to court. Well, you know how you do that?
You venue shop. You go around and wait until you can find a judge that
will say what you want to say, and that is exactly what they did in
this particular case. So that is an objection; so now we get to stay in
for another 10 years.
My last observation on this subject is all four of these amendments
are commonsense amendments. They do not, in my opinion, have anything
to do with bringing down section 5 or the Voting Rights Act, which I do
not want them to do. They add some sensible changes to it. It has been
41 years since this was written.
Mr. Chairman, in 1982 you voted against section 203. Today you are
promoting section 203. You are against the
[[Page H5201]]
King amendment. What happened? Did you change your mind in 25 years?
Probably so. That is legal. That is fair. That is okay if you have
changed your mind concerning how you feel about that in 25 years. A lot
has changed in 25 years. A lot in our State and our country has
changed.
Vote for these amendments and make this thing fair, and everybody
will have equal protection under the law
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to
the very fair subcommittee Chair from Ohio, who presided over 12
hearings and 46 witnesses and 12,000 pages of testimony. It is tough
being fair.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I, first of all, want to indicate that I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
First, what are the existing provisions of the Voting Rights Act that
this particular amendment applies to? Well, the temporary provisions of
the Voting Rights Act require jurisdictions with documented histories
of unconstitutional practices to preclear voting changes with the
Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court here in Washington,
DC, District of Columbia.
These provisions also authorize the Department of Justice to assign
Federal observers to monitor elections in covered jurisdictions to
protect the rights of minority voters. Together, these provisions have
been crucial to the success of the Voting Rights Act and the progress
made by minority voters over the last 40 years.
The current provisions of the Voting Rights Act strike the right
balance expanding and contracting coverage as necessary. In fact, 11
jurisdictions have successfully bailed out from coverage while other
jurisdictions have been brought under the watch of the Federal courts.
Now, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia would alter
the balance contemplated by the Voting Rights Act and that is
maintained by H.R. 9, the bill that we have before us.
{time} 1615
Under the gentleman's amendment, the Department of Justice would be
affirmatively required to conduct investigations into the bailout
status of the approximately 900 covered jurisdictions and to announce
the results of its investigation annually, thus diverting precious
resources away from its administration and enforcement responsibilities
under sections 5 and 203.
Not only would this amendment shift the burden of bailout from the
covered jurisdiction to the Attorney General, but the amendment would
render the Department of Justice ineffective in performing any of its
responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act, to the detriment of
minority voters in this country.
Under this amendment, minority voters would no longer be able to rely
on the protections and enforcement actions undertaken by the Department
to enforce voting rights laws. Rather, the Department would be visiting
each and every covered jurisdiction to review voluminous records to
determine which voting law changes the jurisdiction has complied with
and which ones they have not, 900 jurisdictions.
In addition, this amendment has the effect of creating an
unprecedented and what could be considered unconstitutional amount of
authority to the Department of Justice to determine which jurisdictions
should be removed from coverage. This is unprecedented voting rights
policy that has the potential to undermine the most important civil
rights law in our history.
H.R. 9 is bipartisan legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to
maintain the bipartisanship and oppose this amendment.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains for each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) has 7
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has
10 minutes remaining.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by Representative Lynn Westmoreland, and I would ask all my
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
I was surprised a little earlier to hear the chairman say that of the
four amendments this is the worst of the lot.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is one of the best of the lot,
and with all due respect to Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Chabot, I wish
there was as much concern about the unfunded mandates that this bailout
provision in H.R. 9 puts on local jurisdictions and the unfunded
mandates that the multilingual ballot requirements put on local
jurisdictions as their concern of the financial burden and time
constraints that it puts on the Justice Department.
This amendment will facilitate States and jurisdictions that have
fully complied with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act to be
expeditiously removed from its section 5 restrictions as already
provided by law.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will simply require that the Department
of Justice on an annual basis proactively notify States and
jurisdictions once they are eligible for relief from section 5
preclearance requirements. Once the Department of Justice determines a
State or jurisdiction is eligible, the Department of Justice must
promptly notify them and then consent to a streamlined judicial process
for the State or jurisdiction, which in turn will significantly reduce
the legal costs borne by our taxpayers.
Simply put, since the Department of Justice has the responsibility
anyway to monitor and review States covered by the Voting Rights Act,
the DOJ should also have the responsibility to notify States once they
have qualified to be relieved from the restrictions and allow them to
do so with a minimal amount of cost.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues, support this
amendment. This may be one of the best of the four. In fact, support
all four amendments.
It makes the underlying bill better and more equitable.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill that came
out of the committee
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
A few years ago, my son Brian and I were fortunate to have the
opportunity to travel with Congressman John Lewis to Selma, AL, to
participate in a reenactment of the 1965 voting rights march over the
Edmund Pettus Bridge. On the 36th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the
most famous civil rights confrontation of the 20th century, I was
deeply moved to hear firsthand accounts from John Lewis and others
about that fateful day. When the original marchers got across the
bridge, the Alabama State troopers savagely attacked and brutally beat
them simply for peacefully demanding their rights as American citizens.
The sacrifices at Bloody Sunday produced the most effective Federal
election reform in our Nation's history and guaranteed the voting
rights of millions of American citizens.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 protects our citizens' right to vote
primarily by forbidding covered States from using tests of any kind to
determine eligibility to vote, by requiring these States to obtain
Federal approval before enacting any election laws, and by assigning
Federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain
localities. Although the Voting Rights Act is a permanent Federal law,
it contains some temporary provisions that will expire in 2007.
Sections 4 and 5 pertaining to pre-clearance of congressional district
maps by the U.S. Department of Justice and the bilingual provisions
contained in section 203, were considered constitutionally
controversial and were made temporary in order to revisit the issues.
Mr. Chairman, I support reauthorization of H.R. 9 and oppose all
amendments which attempt to weaken it. With the help of the Voting
Rights Act, I am proud to say that my State of North Carolina has made
substantial progress in lessening voting discrimination. However, more
progress can be made and because sections 4, 5 and 203 continue to be
necessary in some jurisdictions, they must be reauthorized. We must
continue to protect the rights of all American citizens to fully
participate regardless of race, color, ethnicity or native language.
Some argue that ballots should only be printed in English; however,
the fundamental
[[Page H5202]]
right to vote must not be subject to a modern day equivalent of a
literacy test. I oppose the amendment proposed by Representative King
which will effectively deny some citizens the right to vote.
I also oppose the amendments offered by Representatives Westmoreland
and Norwood of Georgia. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is working
for North Carolina and is an important protection for our citizens. My
State of North Carolina has 40 counties which are subject to
preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice. In testimony before the
Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property
Rights, Donald Wright, general counsel for the North Carolina State
Board of Elections said ``. . . there is a consensus that the temporary
provisions have had the effect of moving the consideration of adverse
effects on the voting rights of minorities to the `front of the bus,'
as opposed to the `rear of the bus' where it was for much too long.
There also continue to be instances in which section 5 prevents
discriminatory voting changes from being implemented in North Carolina.
To tamper with these temporary provisions may jeopardize the
substantial progress minorities have made in our State.''
Upon signing the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson said,
``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which
imprison men because they are different from other men.'' I fully
support passage of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments of 2006 for 25
years.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
because it will actually make it harder for the Justice Department to
use its authority under section 5 to prevent discrimination from taking
root.
It will do this by forcing the Department to treat those
jurisdictions where the disease of discrimination is in remission as
though the disease was cured once and for all.
It will make it harder for the Department to do its job by forcing
the Department to turn way from treating the disease where it is still
rampant, and spend all of its resource reexamining and re-reexamining
and re-re-reexamining those places where it is in remission.
No doctor trying to eliminate a disease would regard remission as a
cure, and neither should the Voting Rights Act.
No doctor trying to eliminate a disease would ignore those who are
obviously sick and spend all his time treating a patient whose disease
is in remission, and neither should the Voting Rights Act.
I was raised on the Ten Commandants, as was the sponsor of this
amendment, and one of those commandments is one that I know he knows.
It says, ``Thou shall not steal.''
Well, this amendment does not come right out and violate or break
that commandment, but it does make it easier for those folks to break
that commandment.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation
Mr. Chairman, I came to the Congress in 1987--the 100th Congress.
We had a number of stars in our freshman class--
Jim Bunning--A Hall of Fame baseball pitcher,
Fred Grundy--an accomplished actor,
Amo Houghton--The 1st CEO of a Fortune 500 Company elected to the
Congress,
John Lewis--a hero of the Civil Rights movement who plotted and
marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As colleagues, John Lewis and I have travelled the roads back to
Birmingham, Montgomery and Selma. We stopped along the way numerous
times and heard the stories relived.
We travelled the bus route of Rosa Parks and we stopped at the church
which had been bombed killing those sweet little girls.
I credit those brave Members of Congress that took action in the
1960's that addressed some of the racism and bigotry that still stain
and haunt our history of a just nation.
Passage of civil rights legislation which included the Voting Rights
Act was the right step.
Today, it's still not hard to find racism and discrimination. Yes,
folks are still trying to prevent Americans from participating in our
electoral process.
About a year ago, I sat on the House floor with the Dean of the House
and my respected colleague, John Dingell, from the great State of
Michigan.
We looked at the Congressional Record and the names of Members of
Congress that voted for and against the different civil rights bills of
the 1960's.
I was surprised to see how some of our former colleagues voted.
And, my bet is, that some of those that voted no then, would have the
courage to vote yes now. That they would see the positive impact that
those bills have brought about.
Mr. Speaker, we are the Peoples House--but we cannot be the Peoples
House if we construct barriers for the people to participate.
The Voting Rights Act provides protections and removes the barriers.
It needs to be extended.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the
ranking member and the CBC chair for their moving forward this equal
protection under the law for all Americans.
I tell you, the gentleman who proposed this said that this is to help
save the Voting Rights Act. In fact, it is an attempt to destroy it,
because this amendment turns section 5 on its head under this
amendment. Instead of enforcing the Voting Rights Act and stopping
voting discrimination, the Department of Justice would be forced to
spend nearly all of its time conducting investigations.
As the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, which
oversees Federal elections, voter disenfranchisement continues
nationwide, and this is the wrong time to weaken this voting rights
bill with all of these poison amendments.
Three Presidents cannot be wrong. The architect of this one, the late
President Lyndon Johnson's daughters are asking for this to be passed
without these poison pill. We had the late Ronald Reagan, who continued
this piece of legislation for 25 years, and our present administration,
the President who strongly wants to renew this.
We must move forward. We must let generations to come know that we
were steadfast in keeping the promise of this America.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have expressed some
bit of surprise at the virulence coming from the Republican Members of
the Georgia delegation. Well, let me just say that I am not surprised
at all, because I was born in Georgia and I live there. I served in the
Georgia legislature with a few of them.
But let me also say that just this week the second attempt by the
Georgia legislature to impose a voter ID bill on the people of our
State was struck down by the courts in violation of the Voting Rights
Act.
We also learned in 2002, in my own election, with the crossover vote,
that crossover voting can be used as effectively as the all-white
primary was in days past.
So we need the Voting Rights Act. We need it because we are looking
at the State of Georgia. We see what you are doing. And now the Nation
also sees that the State of Georgia desperately needs to be under the
Voting Rights Act because some things still have not changed.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the district court specifically did
not rule on the issues raised by the plaintiffs in the case that my
colleague from Georgia is talking about, the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers at this time, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my distinguished ranking member.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this Westmoreland amendment has some huge
problems.
I would like to remind you that a 25-year veteran of the Department
of Justice Voting Section commented that the bailout amendment proposed
is
[[Page H5203]]
completely unworkable unless the staff of the Voting Section is tripled
or cuts corners in making its determination. There is no way the
existing staff can possibly do what this calls for and make a binding
determination of eligibility for bailout. And plus, we do not include
one dime in this proposal to take care of all of this.
We turn section 5 on its head, and we will not be stopping voting
discrimination.
This amendment would cripple the Voting Section at the Department of
Justice, making enforcement of the Act nearly impossible. There are 900
jurisdictions covered by section 5. How could we do a report on them
every year?
Reject the amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a
unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt).
(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Westmoreland's
amendment.
This amendment imposes far more federalism costs on states than does
the current structure of the Voting Rights Act that its opponents
criticize. In short, the amendment would permit the Department of
Justice on an annual basis to snoop through every governance document
maintained by a jurisdiction to determine whether it meets the
eligibility requirements for bailout. This process will be far more
onerous than that presently imposed on jurisdictions. Now jurisdictions
are in control of what they provide to the Department, both for
preclearance and bail-out purposes.
The mechanism established under this amendment also requires DOJ to
expend tremendous amounts of time and resources exposing
nondiscrimination while leaving discrimination unabated. This amendment
turns the Voting Rights Act on its head and makes a complete farce out
of our principles of democracy. It should be soundly defeated.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman.
As much as things change, they remain the same, and I oppose the
Westmoreland amendment primarily because it interferes and interjects
the Attorney General in a partisan decision on the enhancement of
rights.
Let me document for you why the Voting Rights Act is still needed
today. As Lucy Baines Johnson and Mrs. Robb have indicated, two
daughters of Lyndon Baines Johnson, let me suggest to you that this map
says and shows all the States that are being covered by this Voting
Rights Act. If the Voting Rights Act is hindered by these four
amendments, what we have is the inability of these individuals who are
now suffering to have redress in the courts.
Even today, the Voting Rights Act is applicable to the State of Texas
because of poorly drawn districts in 2002. It is applicable to South
Dakota because of the violation of the rights of Native Americans.
So I suggest to Mr. Westmoreland, though he may be the loyal
opposition, we, in fact, do need the Voting Rights Act without the
intervention of the Westmoreland amendment which undermines and
torpedoes the entire bill.
I ask my colleagues to join Senator Dole in her vote for the Voting
Rights Act in 1965. Vote against these amendments and vote
enthusiastically for the underlying bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous-consent
request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a new process, which was not
considered in our exhaustive hearings. In fact, testimony at our
hearings showed that the present bailout process is reasonable and
inexpensive--all 11 jurisdictions that tried to bailout were able to do
so.
Although there is not a problem now--this amendment is a problem.
There are nearly 900 jurisdictions covered nationwide by section 5.
This amendment forces the Department of Justice to conduct an
investigation in each jurisdiction every year.
This amendment also reverses the longstanding requirement that
jurisdictions bear the burden of establishing that they are free from
discrimination, and instead places the burden on the Attorney General
to determine whether each jurisdiction qualifies for bailout. Voting
Section attorneys at the Department of Justice would have to spend time
developing the evidence necessary to make these determinations, rather
than focusing their efforts on enforcing the act. There is no funding
for this additional responsibility.
There is no problem, so let's not make one. We should defeat the
Westmoreland amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Norwood said some things
change in 25 years, and he is right about it. One thing that has not
changed in 25 years is that people say one thing and have a different
agenda.
We have heard all day that we are opposed to unfunded mandates, and
now we want to put a new mandate on the Department of Justice with no
new money.
We have heard, when Mr. Westmoreland writes about this topic in the
pages of The Hill, that he wants to lift the South from the whims of
Federal bureaucrats, and this amendment would empower the bureaucrats
of the Department of Justice more than ever.
We heard his remarks, again on this amendment, by saying, I want to
save the Voting Rights Act; and then he proposes to save it by making
it harder to administer, more subject to judicial challenge, and far
more complicated.
It has not changed. People say one thing and have another agenda.
I close by saying the agenda today appears to be to water down this
act and strip it of a lot of its power, and that is wrong.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by Congressman
Westmoreland, my colleague from Georgia, is the most treacherous and
dangerous of the amendments. There is no amendment that clearly points
out what the desires have been for all four of these amendments. Their
goal has been one thing and one thing only, and that is to kill the
Voting Rights Act.
{time} 1630
We cannot allow that to happen. We must understand what those words
from Thomas Jefferson truly meant when he said that ``we hold these
truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed
by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among those are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
And there is nothing to give us that right more succinctly and more
importantly than the right to vote and to think that my colleagues from
Georgia are the ones leading this dastardly fight to deny the right to
vote to African Americans.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the
Chair for yielding me the time and also for his leadership. You have
done a wonderful job in conjunction with Mr. Conyers and the Chair of
the Congressional Black Caucus.
I stand here, here we are at the last amendment. I come from Ohio. In
2000, 2004, we had dilemmas in our voting. Across the country there
have been dilemmas with voting. And this is the first time since I
objected to the Ohio vote that we have even talked about voting on the
floor of the House of Representatives.
We are overdue. Every Member of Congress owes all of the voters of
this Nation the vote in favor of renewing the Voting Rights Act. Your
conscience should be bothering you if you are not thinking about the
fact that minority voters across this country were denied the right to
vote.
I have heard people talk about, well, my grandson did not do it. Your
grandson did not do it, but your great grandfather probably did. And
you owe and the support of all of those who deserve the right to vote
the right to vote. Thank you for the time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, do we want to be responsible for
[[Page H5204]]
stabbing the Voting Rights Act in the heart? We must defeat with all
that we have, with all of our power, with all of our votes the
Westmoreland amendment.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted today
saying if Congress goes on and passes the current version, as is, with
a 25-year extension, there is significant danger that the measure is
struck down.
Professor Sam Issacharoff was quoted saying: ``To the extent that the
coverage of jurisdiction continues to be triggered by what happened in
1964, it puts a great deal of constitutional pressure on the continued
vitality of the act.''
Neither of these men are conservatives. Neither of these men support
me. These are liberal law professors who are very learned in the
election law field that support this amendment. So if you want to talk
about somebody stabbing the Voting Rights Act in the heart, or if you
want to talk about somebody that is doing this because they do not have
any desire to see it continue, you need to talk to these people, these
liberal professors who agree with me and support what I have said.
Mr. Chairman, I think the one thing that I have learned here today is
that section 5, as looked at by the Department of Justice, is not
really looked at. The only thing they are is a bunch of checkers. They
just check things as they come in to them, rather than looking at these
900 jurisdictions.
By the way, if Mr. Norwood's amendment passes, it would be a lot more
than the 900 jurisdictions to be looked at, because of problems all
across the Nation. But our DOJ has more attorneys on staff than the
city of Granville does or the county of Coweta or the State of Georgia.
If they do not know what jurisdictions should be able to bail out, God
forbid that any city, county or State does.
I ask that the Members of this House please support the Westmoreland
amendment to H.R. 9.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I think those of you who have gotten to know me in the
time I have been honored to serve here realize that the liberal law
professors that instructed me at the University of Wisconsin law school
about 40 years ago did not make very much impact then.
And maybe we should not listen to the group of liberal law professors
that Mr. Westmoreland cites in support of his amendment today.
The fact is that this amendment turns the Voting Rights Act on its
head, because in every one of the 900 jurisdictions, if the
Westmoreland amendment is adopted, there is an army of Federal agents,
if we fund them, that will come on down, look at everything that has
gone on there relative to elections every year.
And of course this is an unfunded mandate, because the local
officials that they have to talk are going to have to spend all their
time talking to the army of Federal inspectors.
There are a number of other things that are wrong with this amendment
as well, because it unconstitutionally requires by statute that the
Department of Justice assume a litigation position. That is a violation
of separation of powers.
The DOJ lawyers represent the United States of America Government and
its people, and they should not have their hands tied, being told that
they have to adopt a position even though the position might be
contrary to the law that has been passed by the Congress and signed by
the President of the United States.
This amendment expands Federal authority by people who have been
complaining about Federal authority since the Voting Rights Act was
passed 41 years ago. Let's not turn the VRA on its head. Let's reject
this amendment. Let's reject all of the amendments
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be
postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Norwood of Georgia.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Norwood
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96,
noes 318, not voting 18, as follows
[Roll No. 370]
AYES--96
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Linder
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Paul
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOES--318
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
[[Page H5205]]
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Doggett
Evans
Graves
Harris
Hunter
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Northup
Nunes
Pence
Ryan (OH)
Sessions
Slaughter
Sullivan
Tiahrt
{time} 1659
Mr. OTTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Stated against:
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall No. 370, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 134,
noes 288, not voting 10, as follows
[Roll No. 371]
AYES--134
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--288
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Evans
Graves
Hunter
McNulty
Northup
Sessions
Slaughter
Tiahrt
{time} 1706
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 238, not voting 9, as follows
[Roll No. 372]
AYES--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
[[Page H5206]]
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Evans
Graves
McNulty
Northup
Sessions
Slaughter
Tiahrt
{time} 1713
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 118,
noes 302, not voting 12, as follows
[Roll No. 373]
AYES--118
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--302
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
[[Page H5207]]
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
English (PA)
Evans
Graves
Harris
McNulty
Northup
Sessions
Slaughter
Thomas
Tiahrt
{time} 1719
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 9) to
amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, pursuant to House Resolution 910,
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 390,
noes 33, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 374]
AYES--390
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--33
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bonner
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Conaway
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Linder
McHenry
Miller, Gary
Norwood
Paul
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Shadegg
Tancredo
Thornberry
Westmoreland
NOT VOTING--9
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Evans
Graves
McNulty
Northup
Sessions
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1738
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________