[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 93 (Monday, July 17, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1429-E1430]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 13, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 9) to amend 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for 
yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the King Amendment to H.R. 9, 
the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' The King 
Amendment strikes, inter alia, section 203 of the bill. Section 203 is 
the part of the Voting Rights Act that provides language assistance to 
American citizen voters for whom English is not their first language.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be soundly defeated. I agree with 
the Mr. Sensenbrenner that of all the weakening amendments offered, 
this is one of the worst and ugliest.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things proponents of the King 
Amendment fail to understand is that Section 203 removes barriers to 
voting faced by TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS, citizens who do not speak 
English well enough to participate in the election process. Tax-paying 
citizens should not be penalized for needing assistance to exercise 
their fundamental right to vote.
  Language minority citizens are required to pay taxes and serve in the 
military without regard to their level of English proficiency. If they 
can shoulder those burdens of citizenship, they should be able to share 
in the benefits of voting with appropriate assistance to exercise the 
vote.
  Section 203 mandates language assistance based on a trigger formula 
for language minorities from four language groups: Native Americans, 
Native Alaskans, Asian Americans, and persons of Spanish heritage. 
Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants. Regardless of 
one's position on the ongoing debate over immigration reform, the 
debate over immigration policy is simply irrelevant to the debate on 
ensuring that the fundamental right to vote is exercised equally by 
English and non-English proficient citizens. According to the 2000 
census, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of those protected by 
Section 203 are native-born citizens. For example, 100 percent of 
Native Americans and Native Alaskans were born in the United States; 
98.6 percent of Puerto Ricans protected by Section 4(e) were born in 
the United States; and 84.2 percent of Latinos were born in the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of 
educational disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and 
low voter turnout. These disparities continue to exist. As of 2000, 
three fourths of the 3 to 3.5 million students who are native-born were 
considered to be English Language Learners (ELLs), 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 1,500,000 ELLs; Texas has 570,000 ELLs; Florida has 25,000 
ELLs; and New York has over 230,000.
  Since 1975, there have been more than 24 education discrimination 
cases filed on behalf of ELLs in 15 States. Fourteen of the States in 
which education discrimination lawsuits have been brought are covered 
by language assistance provisions. Since 1992, 10 cases have been 
filed. Litigation and consent decrees are currently pending in Texas, 
Alaska, Arizona, and Florida. Discrimination cases that have been 
brought address issues such as inadequate funding for ELLs, inadequate 
curriculum to assist ELLs become proficient in English, and lack of 
teachers and classrooms. These disparities increase the likelihood that 
ELLs will achieve lower test scores and drop out of school, ultimately, 
leading to lower voter registration and turnout.
  Also, adults who want to learn English must endure long waiting 
periods to enroll in English Second Language (ESL) literacy centers. 
The lack of funding to expand the number of ESL centers around the 
country leaves minority citizens unable to enroll in classes for 
several years. For example, in large cities such as Boston, citizens 
must wait for several years to enroll. In New Mexico, citizens must 
wait up to a year. In the State of New York, the waiting lists were so 
long, the State eliminated them and instituted a lottery system. Once 
enrolled, learning English takes citizens several years to even obtain 
a fundamental understanding of the English language--not enough to 
understand complex ballots. Citizens should not be barred from 
exercising their right to vote while trying to become English 
proficient.
  Most jurisdictions covered by Section 203 support its continued 
existence. According to a 2005 survey, an overwhelming majority of 
jurisdictions covered by Section 203 think that federal language 
assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections. In 
fact, in a poll of registered voters, 57 percent believe it is 
difficult to navigate ballots and instructions and that assistance 
should be provided.
  Mr. Chairman, it is instructive to review just a few contemporary 
examples which demonstrate the continuing need for the language 
assistance provisions of Section 203:

       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 July 2005, the U.S. Dept. of Justice field a lawsuit 
     against the City of Boston for violations of the federal 
     Voting Rights Act, specifically the language assistance 
     provisions (Section 203) for Spanish language assistance

[[Page E1430]]

     and racial discrimination (Section 2) against Asian American 
     voters. The complaint alleges that Boston abridged the rights 
     of language minority groups by:
       Treating limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian 
     American voters disrespectfully;
       Refusing to permit limited English proficient Hispanic and 
     Asian American voters to be assisted by an assistor of their 
     choice;
       Improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring the ballot 
     choices of limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian 
     American voters;
       Failing to make available bilingual personnel to provide 
     effectively assistance and information needed by minority 
     language voters; and
       Refusing or failing to provide provisional ballots to 
     limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American 
     voters.
       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.

  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. By eliminating 
language assistance to American voters, the King Amendment will make it 
more difficult for American citizens to participate in the political 
process simply because English is not their primary language. The King 
Amendment is thus inconsistent with American values and the spirit of 
the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject the 
amendment.

                          ____________________