[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 44 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1653-H1660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE BATTLE WAGES ON: SECURING EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to 
be before you this evening on the heels of our Nation's recognizing the 
50th anniversary of the Selma marchers which tore down many obstructive 
barriers to voting for African Americans and which led to the passage 
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  We have grown as a nation since the night Jimmie Lee Jackson was 
murdered peacefully marching for voting rights in Alabama, and we are 
not the America we were when Mamie Till made the world see what had 
been done to her baby. But we are still living in dynamic times for our 
democracy. Selma has changed, but the issues of Ferguson, Missouri, 
remain.
  Nearly 60 years after Emmett Till was buried, Black mothers still 
worry about the value of their son's lives when they leave home. We are 
reminded of this every time we look into the eyes of Trayvon Martin's 
mother. We are better today than we were then,

[[Page H1654]]

and the changes we made to our laws paved our path to prosperity. The 
President spoke of this in Selma, and Republicans and Democrats alike 
were united in our feeling that we must uphold the promise of the 
Nation we inherited because of Selma.

                              {time}  1930

  The U.S. Senate should vote to confirm very qualified and exceptional 
U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch as the next Attorney General. The CBC 
devoted an hour of floor testimony last month in defense of her 
confirmation, but in her role as Attorney General, Loretta Lynch will 
be tasked with defending the Federal laws that protect the right to 
vote, and that brings us to our topic this evening.
  Tonight's Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour is entitled: 
``The Battle Wages On: Securing Equal Voting Rights in the United 
States.'' This topic is truly timely. This conversation needs to take 
place now. Work remains to secure equal voting rights in the United 
States.
  Actions like the Supreme Court's decision to gut the Voting Rights 
Act remind us that the equality that should exist at the ballot is 
still lacking and why I dream of a day when the Voting Rights Act is no 
longer necessary. The truth is that voter discrimination and 
suppression remain as tragic legacies of our past.
  In the past few years, many States have introduced restrictive 
legislation that diminishes an individual's access to the voting booth. 
The Justice Department may have the tools to fix this problem and go 
after places that are discriminating against certain voters.
  In some places, getting a voter ID that you can use to vote can cost 
up to $150, and that can be a burden for someone who is on a fixed 
income and not driving anymore and doesn't have a license.
  Discriminatory laws and policies that hamper access to the ballot box 
are reasons that the protections and the Voting Rights Act are 
necessary. The VRA must remain intact as its principles are powerful 
democratic agents that make our Union more perfect.
  With that, I would like to kick off this Special Order hour by 
yielding to my colleague and anchor, a man who has dedicated his life 
to the issues of justice in America--a lawyer, judge, and statesman who 
has defended voting rights--the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, the Honorable G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kelly. Thank you 
for your leadership, and thank you for what you mean to the 
Congressional Black Caucus.
  The Congressional Black Caucus is now the largest caucus in our 
history. We are very proud to announce that we have 46 members now in 
CBC, representing more than 30 million people from 23 States, in 
addition to the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, so I am 
delighted that you have taken this responsibility each week, Ms. Kelly, 
to come to the floor and manage this time.
  Typically, Congressman Donald Payne would be joining Congresswoman 
Kelly tonight, but Mr. Payne is not able to come to the floor tonight 
to help with this Special Order due to, what I am told, is 
complications from foot surgery, so we wish Congressman Payne a very 
speedy recovery.
  Ms. Kelly, I wanted to particularly thank you for selecting this 
subject this evening. This is a very timely conversation that we must 
have in this Congress, and that is the whole subject of the Voting 
Rights Act. The topic that you have chosen, ``The Battle Wages On: 
Securing Equal Voting Rights in the United States,'' is so very 
appropriate; and, hopefully, in the next 2 or 3 minutes, I want to tell 
you why.
  Let me just start by explaining the whole voting rights story. Some 
of my colleagues may not fully appreciate it and understand that when 
we talk about voting rights, we just don't talk about 1965.
  In order to fully appreciate the voting rights history in this 
country, we must go back to the end of slavery when 4 million slaves 
became free. They did not have the right to vote. Once the 15th 
Amendment was added to the Constitution, then all of the former slave 
men got and obtained the right to vote.
  They got engaged. They got involved in the political process. From 
1870 until 1900, a period of some 30 years, African American males, 
particularly in the South, were fully engaged in the political process.
  But do you know what? In 1900, Mr. Speaker, in 1900, that right to 
vote came to an end. It came to an end because of Southern States like 
South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and the like, all 
of these Southern States passed disfranchisement laws, particularly a 
literacy test.
  This literacy test had the practical effect of denying the former 
slaves and their descendants the right to vote. Not only did you have 
to read and write in order to be able to register to vote, you had to 
convince the registrar that you were literate.
  The practical effect of that was that the whole voting rights 
movement during those days came to an abrupt end in 1901 when 
Congressman George H. White, who was one of my predecessors in North 
Carolina, stood on this House floor on March 3, 1901, and made a very 
profound welfare speech to the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the first era of voting rights in this country.
  The next era, I would say, would be from 1901 to 1965, when African 
Americans, for the most part, were not allowed to register to vote 
because of the literacy test and were not meaningfully involved.
  The next and final phase would be from 1965 until the present. In 
1965, this Congress passed a historic 1965 Voting Rights Act, and it 
was a bipartisan bill. Democrats and Republicans promoted the bill all 
the way to the finish line with the help of then President Lyndon B. 
Johnson.
  The 1965 voting rights, Mr. Speaker, did many great things, but the 
three things that I will highlight tonight are: Number one, it 
eliminated the literacy test; number two, it gave a right of action, it 
gave to African American communities all across the United States the 
right to bring legal action to file civil lawsuits in Federal court to 
challenge discriminatory election laws or practices or procedures; the 
third part of the Voting Rights Act was what we now refer to as section 
5.
  The Congress in 1965 set aside certain States in the country and 
certain subdivisions within a State to require them to get preclearance 
before election laws when new election laws went into effect.
  Many of our Southern States did not like section 5, but it was put on 
the books for a purpose because, if given the opportunity, these States 
were going to pass discriminatory election laws that made it very 
difficult for African Americans to vote.
  Section 5 has now been on the books since 1965. It has been strongly 
enforced by the Attorney General. Section 2 has been strongly enforced 
in courts all across the country. Now, we have 46 African Americans 
serving in Congress, we have thousands elected at State and local 
levels all across the country, and it was because of the Voting Rights 
Act in many respects.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we received a great surprise on June 25 of 2013. 
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that section 5 could not be enforced 
because the formula that gives life to section 5, which is section 4, 
the court said that section 4 needed to be updated and called on this 
Congress to amend section 4 to make it more contemporary in its 
application.
  This Congress has failed to act. Now, this is the spring of 2015, and 
we have failed to act. Our voting rights are under continuous assault 
with more and more States and counties enacting voting laws that, on 
their face, appear to not be an impediment to voting. Many of these new 
laws are discriminatory, I want you to know. Some are intended to be. 
Others, though not intentional, will have a discriminatory result.

  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am just unable to understand why my 
Republican colleagues refuse to support an amendment to section 5 to 
make this provision compliant with the Supreme Court decision.
  Through the years, this Congress has been called upon to extend 
section 5, and it has done so in a bipartisan way. In 2006, as section 
5 was about to expire then, there was a bipartisan bill passed by this 
Congress, signed by President

[[Page H1655]]

George W. Bush. There were 192 Republicans who voted for the bill.
  I want to say that to you again, my colleagues: 192 Republicans voted 
to extend section 5 just a few years ago. I saluted them then; I salute 
them now. Sixty-six of those Republicans continue to serve in the House 
today, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Goodlatte.
  Mr. Speaker, we must fix section 5 to comply with the Supreme Court's 
decision to update the formula. If we continue down this path and if we 
do nothing, the practical effect will be that jurisdictions will pass 
election laws or implement election practices or procedures that will 
discriminate, and we know it, and we must prevent it from happening.
  The only remedy African American communities have to obtain redress 
from discriminatory practices will be to file very expensive 
litigation. In the meantime, the law, the new law goes into effect.
  If section 5 was in place, there wouldn't be the need for expensive 
litigation. The jurisdiction would simply be required to make a showing 
to the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General would determine 
the effect of the change on minority voting strength. That is the way 
we have done it for the last 50 years.
  I call on my Republican colleagues to please join with us in a 
bipartisan, bicameral effort to fix the formula so that section 5 can 
be enforced in our country.
  Thank you, Ms. Kelly.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Thank you, Congressman Butterfield.
  It is now my honor to introduce the gentlewoman from Alabama, one 
that was our gracious host last weekend, and we appreciate everything 
she did, Terri Sewell.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 2015, nearly 100 
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle went to Selma to 
commemorate the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the 1965 march 
from Selma to Montgomery. I was humbled to welcome so many of my 
colleagues in Congress to my hometown of Selma, Alabama.
  It meant a lot to me and the State of Alabama to also welcome 
President and Mrs. Obama and their daughters, as well as President and 
Mrs. George W. Bush to Selma to commemorate the significant events in 
American history. The Selma movement for voting rights was a uniquely 
American story of how ordinary Americans working together achieved 
extraordinary social change.
  I want to thank all of the Members and everyone who participated in 
the Faith & Politics pilgrimage to Alabama this year. I especially want 
to thank my Alabama colleagues--Senator Sessions, Representative Martha 
Roby, Representative Robert Aderholt, Representative Bradley Byrne, and 
Representative Gary Palmer--for their participation in the delegation. 
A special thanks to Congressman John Lewis and the Faith & Politics 
Institute for a job well done.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to walk in the footsteps of 
John Lewis with John Lewis is an unforgettable experience that is truly 
transformative. The bipartisan participation by Republicans and 
Democrats alike was truly something to behold, especially given the 
hyperpartisanship of Washington.
  It was something to see us gather together in Selma, Alabama, to 
honor the sacrifices of the foot soldiers who dared to fight for voter 
equality 50 years ago. I tried not to have any expectation from this 
bipartisan showing, but I must admit my hope was that all of us would 
be motivated by the experience of traveling with John Lewis, in his 
footsteps with him, to honestly look at modern-day threats to voting 
rights today.
  Now that the spotlight is no longer on Selma, we must move beyond the 
bridge and see that there is still a need to fight to ensure that all 
Americans can participate equally in the political process.
  New barriers to voting rights have been legitimized in State 
legislatures across this country. Photo ID laws and efforts nationwide 
to get rid of early voting or weekend voting are modern-day efforts 
that have had the profound effect of restricting access to voting.
  Any effort that restricts or decreases the likelihood of citizens to 
vote is a threat to the voting rights of all Americans. There is no 
denying that modern-day laws imposed to ostensibly prevent voter fraud 
has had the ``unintended consequence'' of making it much harder for 
certain sectors of the population to vote.
  My father is a perfect example of an individual who has found it 
harder to vote because of these modern-day laws. Prior to the State of 
Alabama imposing a photo ID law to vote, my father, Andrew, a stroke 
victim who has been wheelchair bound for the last 10 years, had been 
voting by using his federally issued Social Security card, which does 
not have a photo; but once the law was imposed, my father--who no 
longer drives, who no longer works, is retired--had no way of getting a 
photo ID.
  After the Alabama law changed, my mother and I made sure that my 
father would get a photo ID to vote. The effort was tremendous. We 
transported my father in a special wheelchair access van and got him 
into the old Dallas County courthouse, which was grandfathered in from 
having ADA laws and, therefore, no wheelchair ramp. Once inside the 
courthouse, the elevator to the registrar's office was being serviced, 
and we had to wait an hour in order to use it.
  Once we finally got to the office of the board of registrars, there 
was only one person waiting on 25 people in line. My mother and father 
persevered. They persevered to make sure that my father got a photo ID 
that day because he was resolved in voting because his daughter was on 
the ballot for reelection.

                              {time}  1945

  Just think of all of the seniors or disabled citizens who do not have 
a relative or a person to take them to get a photo ID. This photo 
requirement definitely reduces the number of and the ability of certain 
segments of the society to exercise their right to vote.
  In the Supreme Court ruling which invalidated the preclearance 
provisions of the VRA, the Court said that the formula used by Congress 
to determine the covered States was outdated, and it implied that there 
was no need for the Voting Rights Act today since, after all, there was 
an African American elected as President. Oh, how shortsighted the 
Supreme Court was. As long as there are vulnerable communities that 
face barriers to voting, there is still a need for Federal protection.
  Just last year, after the Supreme Court ruling, the city of 
Evergreen, Alabama, came under Federal scrutiny for unfairly excluding 
African Americans from the voting rolls and for attempting to further 
dilute their voting power with a redistricting plan that would pack its 
majority Black population into only two of the five municipal 
districts. Incidences like this in Evergreen, Alabama, remind us that 
progress is always illusive and that the injustice suffered on the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years ago has not been fully vindicated.
  Mr. Speaker, beyond the bridge, there are still laws that explicitly 
or unintentionally limit the access of Americans to vote. Now that we 
have commemorated the movement that led to the passage of the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, what are we going to do to protect the progress 
that has been made and to expand access to the sacred right to vote?
  On March 7, 2015, while en route to Selma, President Obama signed 
H.R. 431, the bill that awarded a Congressional Gold Medal to the foot 
soldiers of the Selma to Montgomery march of 1965. Finally, this Nation 
is acknowledging the bravery of these foot soldiers, who dared to make 
this Nation live up to its ideals of justice and equality for all. 
While a great honor, a medal is not adequate repayment for their 
sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, the greatest tribute that we as Members of Congress can 
give is to work honestly and earnestly on a bipartisan bill to restore 
Federal voting protections to vulnerable communities under the Voting 
Rights Act. While I applaud bipartisan efforts made in the Voting 
Rights Amendment Act of 2015, which creates a new formula that would 
determine which jurisdictions require Federal preclearance, this new 
formula that is in the current VRA Amendment Act omits key States, key 
States like North Carolina, South

[[Page H1656]]

Carolina, and Alabama. I can't imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the very 
State--Alabama--that prompted the Voting Rights Act that was signed 
into law 50 years ago would now not be afforded the protection of 
Federal oversight. The fight for voting rights was born in Alabama, and 
on my watch, it will not die there.
  Voting rights advocates and everyday citizens must remain vigilant 
and do all that they can to safeguard against efforts to constrict 
democracy in State and local governments. Our democracy requires it. We 
can all pay a debt of gratitude to those foot soldiers by voting in 
every election--local, State, and Federal. We all have our part to 
play, and we in Congress can play a vital role.
  To echo the President's call to action, President Obama said on that 
day:

       Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one 
     person. The single most powerful word in our democracy is the 
     word ``we.'' We the people are tasked with strengthening and 
     safeguarding our democracy. We the people are responsible for 
     ensuring our Nation lives up to its very principles.

  On the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and the historic 
march from Selma to Montgomery, I urge my colleagues--Democrats and 
Republicans alike--to recommit ourselves to the work that was done by 
our predecessors, to work together to restore the Voting Rights Act for 
all Americans. That is the least we can do on this, the 50th 
anniversary. I look forward to this august body taking up a voting 
rights amendment act that fully restores Federal protection to all 
vulnerable communities so that all Americans can definitely exercise 
that sacred right to vote.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Thank you to the gentlewoman from Alabama. 
Thank you for sharing the challenges citizens like your dad can have in 
complying with the new Voting Rights Act law. Thank you for standing 
up.
  At this time, I would like to introduce the fierce and gentle woman 
from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, Representative Robin Kelly from 
Illinois, for her leadership on this night, this first night back.
  For Members back from Selma, I appreciate that our chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus has been here to give us very important 
background and history. I particularly appreciate that we have just 
heard from a Member from Alabama, itself, Representative Terri Sewell, 
and all of that seems to me to be the appropriate prelude for what we 
are doing here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, this is the first day we are back from this 
historic trip and are back from the 50th anniversary of the Voting 
Rights Act. There is no place for the almost 100 Members who went to 
Selma to be but on this floor this evening. I want to thank Attorney 
General Holder for taking the crippled Voting Rights Act and continuing 
to enforce it. The trip to Selma essentially set the stage for Members 
to come back and to regard our trip as a call to action and get down to 
work to revitalize the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  My thanks to Representative Jim Sensenbrenner and to Representative 
John Conyers for cosponsoring a revised version of the act. My thanks 
to John Lewis, who has kept Selma and the Voting Rights Act alive by 
his annual trips with Members and others to Selma. I am appreciative of 
the almost 100 Members from both parties who went to Selma on the 6th 
and 7th.
  What was the purpose of going?
  It could not have been a celebration. You can celebrate the 1964 
Civil Rights Act. It has not been dismembered. You can celebrate the 
1968 fair housing law. It still is on the books. But you go to Selma to 
try to bring back to its full glory the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
where setback with section 5 has rendered the act virtually obsolete 
for most of its original purposes.
  I stress that the Supreme Court did not invalidate the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act. It invited the 100 Members who went to Selma and the others 
in this body to modernize the act. We may differ on how to do that. I 
do not think there can be any doubt that it has to be revised and that 
we have to meet the challenge that the Supreme Court has given us. 
After all, the Voting Rights Act has prevented, literally, hundreds of 
discriminatory voting practices, and there were countless practices 
that it simply deterred. I must say that I was disappointed that, early 
on in this session, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Representative Goodlatte, indicated that he did not believe that the 
act was necessary, and he talked about the 11 Southern States that had 
been under the act.
  The fact is that the preclearance Voting Rights Act requirements went 
far beyond those States. At the time of the Supreme Court decision in 
2013, Arizona and Alaska were covered. Parts of California, New York, 
South Dakota, and Michigan were covered. In the past, parts of Hawaii, 
Colorado, New Hampshire, Idaho, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wyoming, 
Maine, New Mexico, and Oklahoma have been covered. It is true that at 
the heart of the coverage were the 11 Southern States, but that is 
where the heart of the violations were, in fact, tracked. That is where 
the poll taxes were. That is where the violations were.
  There has been a compromise bill that has been put forward by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers. In the very act of going to Selma, there 
was put upon us an obligation to come back and respond to that trip. 
The bill before us has tried to meet some of the objections that were 
raised. There is a rolling preclearance formula, for example, that does 
not require congressional reauthorization. There is a bail-in section 
of the act to reach those who had not been covered. There are a minimum 
number of violations over a period of time that have to be recorded in 
order for a state to come under the act.
  As my good friend from Alabama, Terri Sewell, says, the act is not 
what all of us wanted, but it does mean that in the spirit of 
compromise and because of the necessity of this act, this act which 
democratized the South and is necessary now--perhaps not as necessary 
as it was 50 years ago--but no one can doubt, as a Supreme Court 
Justice himself said when he said he didn't doubt that there was still 
discrimination in voting practices, but he said it was up to the 
Congress to modernize the bill.
  I don't see how almost 100 Republican and Democratic Members can have 
gone to Selma on the 50th anniversary without coming back to revise the 
act. We went emptyhanded. We went without a bill. I hope that what we 
got in Selma was the gumption to come back and to put forward a bill. 
Yes, the act has been dismembered by the Supreme Court, but the Court 
asked us to reshape it. It asked us to restore it. It was one thing to 
go without a bill. It is quite another to come back and do nothing 
about a bill.
  The President did not hesitate to say where the responsibility, in 
fact, lies, and I am quoting from his speech in Selma:

       One hundred Members of Congress have come here today to 
     honor people who were willing to die for the right it 
     protects. If we want to honor this day, let these 100 go back 
     to Washington and gather 400 more and, together, pledge to 
     make it their mission to restore the law this year.

  That is our mission. The trip to Selma, where we went in the name of 
the entire Congress, demands that we act before the end of this 
Congress.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Thank you so much to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, D.C.
  At this time, I would like to introduce the gentleman from South 
Carolina, our leader, James Clyburn.
  (Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I often refer to this Hall as America's 
classroom. I do that because I do believe that, as we conduct ourselves 
here on this floor, it is to set an example for all citizens, 
especially our young citizens, who look in on our proceedings and get 
some idea about how they ought to conduct themselves as Americans going 
forward. One of those things, I think, that we ought to be very careful 
of is how we address the rights and responsibilities that we all have 
as citizens.

                              {time}  2000

  We teach our children in our classrooms and in our homes that the 
right to vote is basic to this democracy of ours. I know that all of us 
are aware that in our past it is a right that has not always been 
practiced, but in its

[[Page H1657]]

wisdom this body, acting collectively, decided back in 1965 that it 
would do something about making right the wrongs that have been heaped 
upon citizens for decades when it comes to voting. And so we did.
  A formula was adopted that was based upon the 1964 results of the 
Presidential election. We have renewed time and time again that law, 
always updating under that formula; but several months ago the United 
States Supreme Court looked at the formula and decided that the formula 
had outlived its usefulness, but the Voting Rights Act was still 
needed. They invited the Congress to take a look at the formula and 
update it, as the chair said, and to make it more contemporary. We have 
worked for months.
  I want to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Mr. Conyers of 
Michigan for the work they have done to put together some amendments 
that would update that formula.
  This time we decided to look back just a few years and to see, within 
the last 10 or 12 years, what jurisdictions have still continued to 
violate people's rights and who have been found guilty of doing so. 
Rather than apply the formula to everybody, what we will do is come up 
with a series of wrongs, put some numerical qualification on it, and 
make a new formula.
  Now, that formula is not going to cover South Carolina today, but 
under the formula, any jurisdiction, any State that permits these kinds 
of atrocities and is found to have done so, they will be brought under 
the formula. So the formula applies to every jurisdiction in the 
country. I think that it is time for us to be honest that everybody 
will not do right, but we should have something in place so when a 
jurisdiction fails to do right, we will have a mechanism to address 
those ills.
  Now, let me hasten to add--and I want all that are listening in to 
understand--this part of the Voting Rights Act is a preventive measure. 
It says that it allows for the Justice Department to move to prevent 
any kind of implementation of a change in the voting laws so that we 
won't have expensive litigation if something in it is not quite right. 
I believe that it is incumbent upon us to do what we can to employ 
methods that will not require citizens and the jurisdiction, their 
States, their cities and counties, to go to the expense of litigation 
when we can have an administrative procedure in place to take a look at 
what has been done and make a decision as to whether or not there is 
any possibility that someone's voting rights could be taken away. That 
is all this formula does. That is all section 5 is about.
  I would hope that those of us who traveled to Selma last week to 
renew our commitment to making this country of ours a more perfect 
Union will sit down in the near future, and before we get to the 50th 
anniversary of the signing of that 1965 Voting Rights Act, which comes 
on August 6 of this year, sometime between now and August 6, let's put 
in place the kind of amendments that would allow the Voting Rights Act 
to maintain the life that it has given to so many communities for so 
many years.
  I want to thank Ms. Kelly for putting together this Special Order.
  Let me close by saying: The longer I live, the more I get in touch 
with those old adages that we grew up with, one of which was ``an ounce 
of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' I believe that these 
amendments that we are proposing are preventive measures, and it is 
much more valuable than for us to come back looking for a cure that 
could be very, very expensive.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Thank you to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn) for your important insight and your important comments.
  Now it is my honor to introduce the gentlelady from Texas, 
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my colleagues and thank Congresswoman 
Kelly and Chairman Butterfield for the opportunity to carry forward the 
spirit of the 50th commemoration of the march over the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge. Let me also begin by thanking our colleague Congresswoman Terri 
Sewell and all of the Alabama delegation for their hospitality and 
their spirit of unity.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am so moved by that experience that I frankly 
believe that now is the time to move the bill that is bipartisan that 
is a response to the United States Supreme Court to the floor of the 
House, to the Committee on the Judiciary and to the floor of the House.
  Leader Clyburn was very apt in describing a very significant point 
that really answers the question of the Supreme Court. If I had my way, 
coming from the State of Texas, I frankly believe that the 
reauthorization that we did through the Committee on the Judiciary, of 
which I am a member, and which I was very much engaged in in 2006 and 
2007, was a thorough expose of the value of the Voting Rights Act. We 
did 15,000 pages of testimony, and witness after witness from different 
perspectives indicated that the formula that we were using at that time 
on the preclearance was an effective formula. Of course, the Supreme 
Court challenged the data, and I would only argue that it is 
appropriate to update the data. I welcome that.
  But we have gone even further. As has been articulated by the bill 
that has just been introduced by a number of us, we have crafted a 
formula that says it is an even playing field, an even playing field 
for a State to opt in because they have voting rights abuses for all 
people or to opt out because they have a smooth, evenhanded process for 
citizens in their State to vote.
  So I believe it is important that the message get out of what the 
Voting Rights Act stands for and what it meant for those foot soldiers 
to cross that bridge. They crossed that bridge, and they were willing--
and were bloodied, frankly--to do something nonviolent, and that is to 
petition their leaders at the voting box.
  I can't imagine that there is any Member here in this place, in this 
august Congress, that would not want to go to their constituents, 
whether they live in South Dakota or Utah or Mississippi or New York or 
Texas, as I do, that there is an unfettered right to vote.
  I will soon be introducing a Voting Rights Act that establishes the 
date that we signed the Voting Rights Act by the President that came 
from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson, with the leaders of Martin Luther 
King and John Lewis and many others standing at his side, to introduce 
that as being Voting Rights Act Day, to reinforce the value to 
Americans of the importance of voting.
  Who would want to oppose the idea that voting is not important?
  So I am looking forward to having Members join on the simple premise 
that it is important to vote in America and that it is important to 
commemorate the signing of the Voting Rights Act and make it Voting 
Rights Day. That inspiration came as we saw the thousands that were 
marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
  Let me just clarify for a moment, under section 5, the submitting 
jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and H.R. 885, Voting 
Rights Amendment Act of 2015, has to prove that the proposed changes 
are not retrogressive, that they do not have the purpose and will not 
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of 
race or color. We have expanded that, again, to go by acts, by 
occurrences that would keep someone from voting.

  So I believed that this past weekend, or the weekend of Bloody 
Sunday, was a moving moment that would draw us together, that would 
allow us to understand H.R. 885. And might I say this: I know that many 
of us will be willing to have teach-ins to ensure that our colleagues 
understand the importance of this legislation and that we do it in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Let me conclude my remarks by saying, earlier today I stood on the 
floor and asked for a bipartisan approach to the approval of the 
Attorney General nominee by the other body. I say that from the spirit 
of recognition of the three branches of government. A President has 
nominated a very well-qualified, distinguished member of the bar, 
Loretta Lynch, to be the next Attorney General of the United States of 
America.
  We understand differences of opinion with legislation. I have no 
quarrel with those differences. I happen to support the human 
trafficking bill and recognize that there is a disagreement on language 
that I agree with the disagreement, but that disagreement can

[[Page H1658]]

be worked out through ongoing talks and however they want to approach 
it or a vote on the floor. But Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General 
nominee, should not be held up captive to disagreements on legislation 
and moving toward a constitutional crisis.
  All of this, Mr. Speaker, is wrapped up together. The Department of 
Justice enforces the Voting Rights Act, enforces the voting rights of 
Americans. As we look to the future, as we formulate the understanding 
of the three branches of government, to avoid a constitutional crisis 
of not having the leadership that is timely for the work that has to be 
done, I would hope the Senate would move forward, and I would hope that 
all of us would honor the Voting Rights Act and the message of Selma 
that we stand together under this wonderful flag and stand for voting 
rights for all.
  Since its passage in 1965, and through four reauthorizations signed 
by Republican presidents (1970, 1975, 1982, 2006), more Americans, 
especially those in the communities we represent, have been empowered 
by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 than any other single piece of 
legislation.
  Section 5 of the Act requires covered jurisdictions to submit 
proposed changes to any voting law or procedure to the Department of 
Justice or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for pre-
approval, hence the term ``pre-clearance.''
  Under Section 5, the submitting jurisdiction has the burden of 
proving that the proposed change(s) are not retrogressive, i.e. that 
they do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or 
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
  In announcing his support for the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights 
Act, President Reagan said, ``the right to vote is the crown jewel of 
American liberties.''
  And Section is the ``crown jewel'' of the Voting Rights Act.
  But a terrible blow was dealt to the Voting Rights Act on June 25, 
2013, when the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Shelby County 
v. Holder, 537 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b), the 
provision of the law determining which jurisdictions would be subject 
to Section 5 ``pre-clearance.''


                    Facts of Shelby County v. Holder

  In 2006, the City of Calera, which lies within Shelby County, enacted 
a discriminatory redistricting plan without complying with Section 5, 
leading to the loss of the city's sole African-American councilman, 
Ernest Montgomery. In compliance with Section 5, however, Calera was 
required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and conduct 
another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat.
  According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down 
Section 4(b): ``Times change.''
  Now, the Court was right; times have changed. But what the Court did 
not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due 
almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting 
Rights Act.
  And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed.
  Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by 
Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not 
eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in 
stymying the practices that resulted in the wholesale 
disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did 
eliminate them entirely.
  Before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, the right to vote 
did not exist in practice for most African Americans.
  And until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in 
English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not 
understand the ballot.
  Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also suffered systematic 
exclusion from the political process.
  In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were 
approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just 
three in Congress.
  Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the 
South.
  Because of the Voting Rights Act, there are now more than 9,100 black 
elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number 
ever.
  The Voting Rights Act 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.
  Now to be sure, the Supreme Court did not invalidate the preclearance 
provisions of Section 5; it only invalidated Section 4(b).
  But that is like leaving the car undamaged but destroying the key 
that unlocks the doors and starts the engine.
  According to the Court, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) had to 
be struck down because the data upon which it was based--registration 
rates and turn-out gaps--was too old and outdated.
  But my colleagues in Congress and I refuse to let the Voting Rights 
Act die.
  And so we went to work, crafting and drafting the legislation that 
would repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme 
Court decision and capable of winning majorities in the House and 
Senate and the signature of the President.
  After months of hard work, consultation, negotiation, and 
collaboration, we produced and have reintroduced in the 114th Congress, 
a bill, H.R. 885, ``Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015'' that can 
achieve these goals.
  To be sure, this legislation is not perfect, no bill ever is.
  But--and this is important--the bill represents an important step 
forward because it: 1. is responsive to the concern expressed by the 
Supreme Court; and 2. establishes a new coverage formula that is 
carefully tailored but sufficiently potent to protect the voting rights 
of all Americans.
  First, H.R. 885 specifies a new coverage formula that is based on 
current problems in voting and therefore directly responds to the 
Court's concern that the previous formula was outdated.
  The importance of this feature is hard to overestimate. Legislators 
and litigators understand that the likelihood of the Court upholding an 
amended statute that fails to correct the provision previously found to 
be defective is very low and indeed.
  H.R. 885 replaces the old ``static'' coverage formula with a new 
dynamic coverage formula, or ``rolling trigger,'' which works as 
follows: 1. for states, it requires at least one finding of 
discrimination at the state level and at least four adverse findings by 
its sub-jurisdictions within the previous 15 years; 2. for political 
subdivisions, it requires at least three adverse findings within the 
previous 15 years; but 3. political subdivisions with ``persistent and 
extremely low minority voter turnout,'' can also be covered if they 
have a single adverse finding of discrimination.
  The effect of the ``rolling trigger'' mechanism effectively gives the 
legislation nationwide reach because any state and any jurisdiction in 
any state potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite 
number of violations are found to have been committed.
  Prior to Shelby County v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act covered 16 
states in whole or in part, including most of the states in the Deep 
South.
  The rolling trigger contained in H.R. 885, unfortunately, does not; 
at least not initially. The only states that would be covered initially 
under the new bill are: 1. Texas 2. North Carolina 3. Louisiana 4. 
Florida 5. South Carolina.
  To compensate for the fact that fewer jurisdictions are covered, our 
bill also includes several key provisions that are consistent with the 
needs created by a narrower Section 5 trigger.
  For example, H.R. 885: 1. Expands judicial ``bail-in'' authority 
under Section 3 so that it applies to voting changes that result in 
discrimination (not just intentional discrimination); 2. Requires 
nationwide transparency of ``late breaking'' voting changes; allocation 
of poll place resources; and changes within the boundaries of voting 
districts; 3. Clarifies and expands the ability of plaintiffs to seek a 
preliminary injunction against voting discrimination; and 4. Clarifies 
and expands Attorney General's authority to send election observers to 
protect against voting discrimination.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation.
  For millions of Americans, and many of us in Congress, 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.


                       ABOUT TEXAS NAACP V. BERRY

        (Texas Photo ID case; consolidated with Veasey v. Perry)

  1. The suit alleges that the State of Texas' photo ID requirement for 
in-person voting, enacted in 2011, was adopted for discriminatory 
reasons, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and has a discriminatory ``result'' 
in violation of Section 2. The case is consolidated with similar suits 
filed by the United States and other private plaintiffs.
  2. Trial was held from September 2 to September 11, 2014, and closing 
arguments were presented on September 22, 2014.
  3. On October 9, 2014, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos 
issued a 147-page opinion in which she ruled that the Texas photo ID 
requirement violates both the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  4. Judge Ramos found that the law was enacted for the purpose of 
discriminating against African-American and Latino voters, and that it 
denies minority voters an equal opportunity to participate in the 
political process in violation of the Section 2 results standard.

[[Page H1659]]

  5. Judge Ramos also found that the photo ID law unconstitutionally 
burdens the right to vote, and functions as an unconstitutional poll 
tax.
  6. On October 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit granted Texas' motion to stay the district court's permanent 
injunction until Texas' appeal is briefed, argued and decided.
  7. On October 15, 2014, the Lawyers' Committee and co-counsel filed 
an emergency application with the Supreme Court to reinstate the 
district court's injunction.
  8. On October 18, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the application to 
vacate the stay; Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent, joined by Justices 
Sotomayor and Kagan.
  9. Oral argument before the 5th Circuit is scheduled to take place 
during the last week in April.
  10. Previously, in a lawsuit litigated under Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act, a three-judge district court in Texas v. Holder, 888 F. 
Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012), ruled that Texas' photo ID law did not 
satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 5.
  11. However, the district court ruling was vacated by the Supreme 
Court, 133 S. Ct. 2886 (2013), following the Court's decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), that the geographic coverage 
formula for Section 5 is unconstitutional.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for her 
remarks. Now it is my honor to yield to the gentlelady from Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin, Congresswoman Gwen Moore.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged just recently to stand hand 
in hand and shoulder to shoulder in Selma, Alabama, with 100 Members of 
Congress, with civil rights leaders, friends of the movement of all 
races from every State in the United States, with civil rights 
luminaries such as Mrs. Abernathy, Dorothy Cotton, Amelia Boynton--113 
years old--Doris Crenshaw, and, of course, our very own colleague, John 
Lewis, who helped lead a march for a better life and more equality for 
all of America.
  But it was very, very hard to celebrate. There was a very sober mood 
in the crowd as we realized that the voting rights of Americans, 
particularly African Americans, were under threat 50 years after the 
Voting Rights Act was signed. As the President said in his remarks:

       Right now, in 2015, 50 years after Selma, there are laws 
     across the country designed to make it harder for people to 
     vote.

                              {time}  2015

       As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. 
     Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much 
     blood, so much sweat and tears, the product of so much 
     sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, the Voting Rights 
     Act stands weakened, its future subject to political rancor.

  As we think of those martyrs like Viola Liuzzo, James Earl Chaney, 
Andy Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, it is very, very difficult to deal 
with the reality that States such as the one that I hail from, 
Wisconsin, is one of the States who has joined the map of shame and 
passed one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country.
  In the following years since 2011, Wisconsin has been a battleground 
in fighting this pernicious law. In 2014, a Federal judge ruled that 
our voter ID law was unconstitutional and violated section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the 14th 
Amendment. It found that 300,000 Wisconsinites lacked the proper ID 
needed under the law and that the law would have a disparate impact on 
Blacks and Latinos.
  Despite that powerful finding, the Federal district court was 
recklessly overturned by a three-judge panel in the Seventh Circuit. 
Right before our 2014 election, the United States Supreme Court stepped 
in and enjoined this law in an emergency stay to prevent them from 
implementing the voter ID law only 6 weeks before the 2014 election. 
Recently, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have sent an amicus 
brief, and I am optimistic that justice will prevail.
  I know that there have been many African Americans and people of 
other races who have marched across that Edmund Pettus Bridge. As a 
woman, I know that the brave suffragettes fought equal treatment for 
over 70 years while they faced humiliation and shame from society.
  History has made it so very, very clear that voting rights are so 
fundamental. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects voting 
rights; the 15th Amendment provided that males, even former slaves and 
males of any race, could vote; women's suffrage; with the 24th 
Amendment, poll taxes supposedly were eliminated, and the 26th 
Amendment allowed 18-year-olds to vote.
  Of course, we have the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I think it is very, 
very clear, when you look at the history of this protection, that it is 
one of the most constitutionally protected rights that there is.
  I would urge my colleagues here in this body to do more than hold 
hands and sing, ``We Shall Overcome,'' but to really pass laws to 
strengthen the Voting Rights Act.
  We have all heard the adage that history repeats itself, and we have 
seen a race across the country for Republican legislatures and 
Governors to pass these voter ID laws, but I think we also have the 
power to shape our future by drawing from the lessons of the past: our 
civil rights movement, our march in Selma, where we stood hand in hand, 
arm in arm, and fought back against this tide of oppression.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. Thank 
you for sharing your thoughts.
  Now, it is my honor to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, 
Frederica Wilson.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. In Miami-Dade County, I have a program called 
the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project. It is a program of Black 
and Hispanic boys who are trying to grow up into good men.
  The Friday before Bloody Sunday, over 500 12th graders--graduating 
seniors--from that program went to a movie to watch a private screening 
of the movie ``Selma.''
  I want to give a special shout-out to Nancy Sewell, who is the mother 
of Terri Sewell. As I watched the two of them on C-SPAN, MSNBC, and 
CNN, I was so proud of them.
  These boys were prepared by men who experienced the civil rights 
battles and know the bitter history and violent battles we had to 
endure. I wish I had the resources to take all 500 of them to Selma.
  During the movie, we planned a Twitter war. Thousands participated 
all across the Nation. Movie stars, rappers, sports legends, and the 
White House joined in the Twitter war. These boys will never be the 
same. They were visibly moved; and their applause, tears, hugs, and 
tweets proved their transformation.
  The next day, on that Saturday, when the President spoke, the Twitter 
war continued. It was based at my home. So many of them watched and 
marveled at Representative John Lewis, a card-carrying, sworn-in member 
of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project. They watched so proudly 
as he introduced the first Black President of the United States. In 
fact, he is the only President that they know. They are beyond proud.
  Why did I do this? I wanted as many students as possible to 
experience the importance of voting, and I am not finished. All 8,000 
of them will see the movie as soon as it is released for distribution. 
This generation of children needs to know the importance of voting. 
They need to know what their forefathers had to endure so that they 
could vote.
  When I was on the Miami-Dade County School Board in 1996, we set up a 
process in partnership with the department of elections. Every eligible 
student is registered to vote in the 11th grade, and when they graduate 
and turn 18, their voter registration card is mailed to their homes. 
This is a policy that all school districts all across America should 
adopt.
  While they repair the damage to the Voting Rights Act through 
legislation, graduating seniors in Miami-Dade public schools--Black, 
White, and Hispanic--will still have the opportunity to vote. Every 
single one of them will vote. I hope that other school districts will 
adopt this policy so that children will know and understand the 
importance of voting. It is their voice.
  God of our weary years, God of our silent tears, let us as a people 
march on until victory is won.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Thank you to the gentlewoman from Florida. 
Thank you for sharing your success stories. Hopefully, those can be 
duplicated.
  At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 
Congresswoman Alma Adams.
  Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Congresswoman Kelly, for your leadership. I

[[Page H1660]]

appreciate what you are doing very much. Certainly, it is something 
that we need to do, and we must do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of equal voting 
rights for everyone. Just over a week ago, I traveled to Selma with 
several of my colleagues to retrace the steps of those who shed blood 
as they tried, again, to gain equal access to the ballot box.
  As a professor for 40 years at Bennett College in North Carolina, I 
made sure that the students that passed through my classroom and our 
campus knew just how important it was to have their voices heard, and 
to this day, students know: ``Bennett Belles are voting belles.''
  In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a major provision of the 
Voting Rights Act limiting Federal oversight over State voting laws. 
Sadly, my home State of North Carolina quickly implemented voting laws 
that disenfranchise voters by making cuts to early voting, reenforcing 
strict ID requirements, and ending some preregistration programs which 
did not allow young high school students to be able to register to 
vote.
  As I think about those who risked their lives in order to exercise 
their right to vote, I cannot believe that 50 years later, in 2015, 
that simple freedom given to us in the Constitution is still under 
attack.

  It is time for all of us, Mr. Speaker, to come together to restore 
the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that every voter--no matter their 
race, no matter their class or creed--can make their voice heard and 
elect the leaders of their choice.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 
again, for her insight and comments.
  Here we are, 50 years removed from Selma, 50 years after Americans--
young and old, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Jewish--
made a decision to stand up for what they knew was right. They stood up 
for democracy and demanded fair and unobstructed access to the ballot.
  As you have heard this hour, the evolution to the America we are 
today has been a long and challenging journey. The Voting Rights Act 
has done much to make our Union more perfect, but the strength of the 
Voting Rights Act has been diminished. With new, discriminatory laws on 
the books, this Congress must act. This Congress can pass a bipartisan 
bill that extends section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
  As was the case in Selma, the law is not equal for all. We must 
unite, as we did then. I urge my colleagues to take up this important 
issue and strengthen the Voting Rights Act.
  I would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and all my colleagues who took the time to 
speak to us this evening.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues Congressmen 
Payne and Kelly for leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special 
Order Hour.
  Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago 600 men and women began a peaceful march 
in Selma, Alabama to demand their full and equal right to participate 
in our democracy. Their quest for equal voting rights was met with 
physical violence and racial hatred on what has become known as 
``Bloody Sunday.''
  The marchers were turned back that day, but they remained steadfast. 
With unwavering determination, residents of Selma, civil rights 
activists, and inspired people from across the nation completed the 
march from Selma to Montgomery. Their heroism was instrumental in the 
passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; a watershed bipartisan action 
of the U.S. Congress.
  Fifty years later, on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, I stood with 
President Obama and my House and Senate colleagues to honor the legacy 
of those brave foot soldiers for justice. But unfortunately, the battle 
wages on. There is still much to be done to ensure the sacrifice of 
those marchers was not in vain.
  The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder to strike 
down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act left many Americans more 
vulnerable to voting discrimination. In the absence of this historic 
safeguard, numerous states have attempted to suppress voting through 
restrictive voter ID laws and limits on early voting. My home state of 
Ohio is one of them.
  Congress must act to restore Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and 
update critical voter protections. In 2015, no eligible citizen should 
be disenfranchised. No eligible citizen should be denied full 
participation in our democracy. Let us recommit to rejecting 
intolerance and injustice in all forms, and continue the fight for 
equal voting rights for all Americans.

                          ____________________