[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

                          ____________________