[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 81 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2946-H2953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2015
                          DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) is 
recognized for half of the remaining time until 10 p.m. as the designee 
of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honor and a privilege 
to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives to help anchor 
the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order hour, this hour of power, 
where, for the next 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus have the opportunity to speak directly to the American people on 
an issue of great significance.
  Today's Special Order hour topic is Democracy in Crisis: The 
Reckless, Republican Assault on the Right to Vote in America.
  It is with great dismay that many of us come to the House floor today 
to speak to an issue of significance to the American people and our 
democracy.
  There is nothing more sacred to the integrity of the democratic 
process than the right to vote. There are people throughout the years 
who died trying to secure the ability to participate in the franchise 
to help execute upon that great American promise of a government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people, to vote for those 
individuals who would represent them at the city, State or Federal 
level, regardless of race or religion, ethnicity, immigration status.
  While we undeniably have made tremendous progress in America, clearly 
there has been an effort by some, unfortunately, led, in part, by 
people on the other side of the aisle, to stop something so 
fundamentally American as the unfettered right to participate in our 
democracy by voting.
  Today we are going to explore some of the history connected to the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, widely regarded as one of the most 
significant pieces of legislation ever enacted by this august body.
  Of course, we know that, in 2013, in the Shelby County v. Holder 
decision, the Supreme Court effectively gutted section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act, widely known as the preclearance provision, in a manner 
that has adversely impacted the ability of voting rights advocates and 
others to protect the ability of people to participate without obstacle 
or obstruction.
  It is my honor, as one of the anchors of the Congressional Black 
Caucus Special Order, to join in that responsibility with my coanchor, 
who, from the moment which she arrived in the Congress, has been a 
tremendous force for the district that she represents, a voice for the 
voiceless, someone who is both fierce in her beliefs, but willing to 
reach out to others across the aisle in order to get things done on 
behalf of the American people.
  It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise this evening proud to stand 
with my coanchor, my classmate, the gentleman from the Eighth 
Congressional District of New York (Mr. Jeffries). I say to the 
gentleman that I look forward to tonight's Special Order hour.
  Mr. Speaker, Congressman Jeffries and I, along with our colleagues 
from the Congressional Black Caucus, will have scholarly debate on how 
our democracy is in crises because of the assault on the right to vote 
in America.
  As we just heard from Mr. Jeffries and we will hear from others, 
voting is the voice of the people. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed 
with bipartisan support, established strong Federal protections for the 
freedom to vote, banning or limiting many of the discriminatory 
election policies and practices of the Jim Crow South.
  Combined with subsequent legislation such as the National Voter 
Registration Act, which requires State agencies to provide 
opportunities for voter registration, the Voting Rights Act has helped 
our Nation make significant progress in boosting voting for African 
Americans and other historically marginalized groups.
  But we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, today facing our first 
Presidential election in 50 years without the full protection of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  As Mr. Jeffries referenced in Shelby, the Supreme Court decision 
reversed over 50 years of progress made to expand access to the voting 
booth and opened a pathway to new voting laws that discriminate against 
African American voters.
  As a result of Shelby, new voting restrictions have been put in place 
in 22 States, 18 of them, Mr. Speaker, Republican-led since 2010, 
making it harder for millions of Americans to exercise their right to 
vote.
  The way States have been able to reduce the voting power of minority 
communities and put in place new voting restrictions in an effort to 
make it harder for millions of Americans to vote is appalling.
  Mr. Speaker, our democracy is in crisis. Our right to vote is under 
assault.
  Mr. Speaker, why would we want to make it harder for Americans to 
vote?
  I believe we should be making it easier for Americans to have access 
to the ballot box. But, apparently, some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle do not agree.
  We need to put forth a vote on the Voting Rights Act now. New laws 
range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks, to 
registration restriction.
  Among these 16 States with new voting restrictions is my home State 
of Ohio. In Ohio, in 2014, lawmakers cut 6 days of early voting and 
eliminated the golden week, during which voters could register and cast 
a ballot all in one trip, Mr. Speaker.
  Of course, Ohio is not alone in its efforts to make it harder for 
Americans to vote. Mr. Speaker, the freedom to vote is one of America's 
most constitutionally guaranteed rights, and it should be easily 
accessible to those who want to exercise it.

  That is why I am honored this Congress to serve as the deputy vice 
chair of the newly created Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, a caucus 
dedicated to protecting our democracy by ensuring the fundamental right 
to vote is safeguarded for all Americans.
  However, after a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship on voting 
protections, House Republicans now refuse to bring either bill to the 
floor for a vote.
  This is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has 
been reauthorized with bipartisan support five times. Congress has a 
duty to ensure elections are free and transparent so that all eligible 
voters feel comfortable and welcome.
  I would echo President Obama's February 13, 2013, statement on the 
Voting Rights Act, and let me quote:
  ``We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are 
protected . . . That includes one of the most fundamental right of a 
democracy: the right to vote. When any American, no matter where they 
live or what their party, are denied that right . . . we are betraying 
our ideals.''
  There are 168 days until the Presidential election, and our democracy

[[Page H2947]]

still has far too many missing voices, particularly among those who are 
already at a disadvantage due to deeply rooted racial and class 
barriers in our society.
  We must ensure that voter suppression is not the new normal. In order 
to have a truly vibrant democracy, the United States must take steps to 
ensure inclusive voting by reducing barriers to voting.
  Efforts to suppress voting turnout undermine democracy, and those 
efforts, Mr. Speaker, are on the wrong side of history.
  As I close, Mr. Speaker, the time is now. I am calling on all people, 
including our community and national leaders, to join me in working to 
eliminate voter suppression and to restore what so many people fought 
for, marched for, died for. Mr. Speaker, that is the Voting Rights Act.
  Human rights organizations like the NAACP and the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights have been at the forefront of 
these issues along with my colleagues, members of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, encouraging and training poll workers and poll 
protectors.
  It is up to all of us, Mr. Speaker, to protect the most at risk among 
us and to expand opportunity for all.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for making 
several extremely important observations about the urgency of restoring 
the Voting Rights Act, of Congress voting up or down.
  All we are asking for is for Members of this House to act on 
bipartisan legislation that has been introduced in this Congress that 
would respond to the Supreme Court's decision, adopt a new coverage 
formula, and allow us to move forward in advance of this consequential 
Presidential election with a system that we can all be confident in 
will fairly allow everyone who wants to vote the opportunity to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor and my privilege to yield to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, someone who had a distinguished record 
prior to his service in the House as a jurist on the bench as a civil 
rights lawyer in North Carolina and has continued his fight here on the 
floor of the House of Representatives for the last 10 years on behalf 
of fairness, justice, and equality, particularly in his capacity as 
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding time this 
evening, and I thank him for his incredible work not just in the 
Congressional Black Caucus, but on behalf of the people that he 
represents in that great borough of Brooklyn, New York.
  And I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for all the work 
that she does. She is an incredible leader in this Congress, and we 
appreciate her so very much.
  I want to thank my colleagues for selecting the topic for discussion 
tonight. It is certainly an appropriate topic.
  There are so many of us who have been working on enforcement and 
extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They are too numerous to 
mention, but I will certainly single out Congressman John Lewis, 
Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Congressman Mark Veasey, Congressman John 
Conyers, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and so many others, who have 
just worked tirelessly to enforce the right to vote not just for 
African Americans, but for all Americans.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Speaker, on August 6, 1965--and I remember it so very well; it 
was a few days after I had graduated from high school--this Congress, 
this House of Representatives where we are seated tonight, and the 
Senate, which is just a few steps down the hall, together passed the 
Voting Rights Act. This act was signed by the President of the United 
States immediately, and it has had a profound impact on empowering 
African American communities all across the country to participate in 
the electoral process.
  Prior to the Voting Rights Act, it was a sad state of affairs, Mr. 
Jeffries, in North Carolina, in South Carolina, and in Alabama. It was 
a very sad state of affairs. In order to register to vote, one had to 
be able to read and to write. But not just that. They had to be able to 
satisfy a registrar. In all cases, it was a White registrar. African 
American citizens had to satisfy a registrar who, in many cases, 
discriminated that he or she was competent and able to be able to read 
and to write; and, in most instances, those would-be voters were denied 
the right to vote.
  In addition to that, laws were passed all across the South that 
disenfranchised minority groups. Redistricting schemes were drawn to 
disenfranchise, at-large elections and staggered terms and all of the 
rest. So there was a necessity--a necessity--Congressman, for the 
Voting Rights Act. It was just not a good idea; it was actually a 
necessity in order to enforce the right to vote. Congress enacted this 
tool, and it has been very effective.
  One of the most effective parts of the Voting Rights Act--there are 
many parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 is that part that gives 
minority communities the right to bring lawsuits, and that applies to 
every county in the United States. It is a permanent law. It is on the 
books permanently. It also eliminated the literacy tests.
  But there is another provision that kind of goes unnoticed from time 
to time, and it is called section 5. Section 5 is an oversight 
provision. It gives the Federal Government the right to preclear 
election changes before they go into effect to determine whether or not 
these changes would have a discriminatory result in their community.
  Section 5, Mr. Speaker, does not apply to every county in America. 
Section 5 only applies to certain States that had a long history of 
voter discrimination. In my State, for example, North Carolina, the 
whole State was not included under section 5. Only 40 counties were 
included for preclearance. So it has been a good law, and it has worked 
quite well. As the previous speaker said, it has been extended from 
time to time.
  But, Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that 
section 5--first of all, the Supreme Court ruled that section 5 is a 
proper exercise of legislative authority. But the Supreme Court 
surprised us. It determined that the formula used to determine which 
counties or which States should be subject to section 5 is outdated. 
The Court suggested that it needed fixing.
  So the Court called on us here in this Congress to fix it, and the 
Congressional Black Caucus has been fighting every day since that Court 
decision to try to put together a bipartisan agreement to fix the 
formula.
  No one in this Congress has worked harder than Congresswoman Terri 
Sewell of Alabama. Her bill is now pending before this House, and we 
need to fix the formula, and we need to do it now.
  When you look at the 2013 discriminatory election law changes and the 
2011 legislative and congressional redistricting, you must conclude--
anyone must conclude--that there is a concerted effort in many parts of 
the country to disenfranchise particular groups of voters from 
participating in the process.
  The absence of section 5 protection allows States--allows States, my 
State included--to pass discriminatory laws that disenfranchise African 
American voters and other groups. We have seen these laws enacted in 
State after State all across the country.
  On July 25, 2013, Mr. Jeffries, the North Carolina General Assembly 
passed--now, remember, the Supreme Court decision was June 25, 2013--30 
days later. I don't know why they didn't do it 30 days earlier. Well, I 
do know why, and that is because there was a section 5. But after 
section 5 was suspended by the Supreme Court, 30 days later, the 
general assembly passed a sweeping voting law that discriminates not 
only against African Americans, but other minority groups. It 
discriminates against students and seniors.
  This law has also cut back on early voting. That is a big deal in our 
communities. It cut back on early voting by a week and barred same-day 
voter registration. The law went into effect upon passage, and there is 
no oversight in section 5 to protect us.
  This is disappointing. This law is regressive and absolutely 
disgusting. We have to let our State lawmakers know that our voices 
matter and that all citizens--all citizens--in this country should be 
able to participate in democracy through unfettered access to the 
ballot box.

[[Page H2948]]

  So, in closing, the Congressional Black Caucus, of which I am honored 
to chair, vows to continue our fight to restore section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act to stop the assault on access to the ballot box because 
every citizen deserves the right to vote.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus for his eloquent words and for explaining 
the practical realities of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down 
the coverage formula and effectively invalidate section 5 and the 
implications that that has had on people all across the country, in 
North Carolina and beyond.
  I also note that the Voting Rights Act in section 5 and the coverage 
formula in section 4, upon passage in 1965, didn't just impact States 
in the South. There are five counties in New York City that constitute 
the Big Apple, and three of those counties in the Bronx, Manhattan, and 
Brooklyn, were covered by section 5.
  We recognize that there had been challenges all across the country 
with respect to the right to vote, and many of us, even beyond the 
South, have now lost that critical protection. That is why it is time 
for Congress to act.

  I thank the chairman for his continued leadership.
  It is now my honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from the 
great State of Alabama (Ms. Sewell). She has been a tremendous 
proponent of the right to vote. We were all in awe of her leadership 
last year when we were down in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of Bloody Sunday and are thankful for all that she 
continues to do to uphold that great American tradition that sprang 
forth from that small city down in Alabama where the distinguished 
gentlewoman hails from. She currently is a sponsor--the lead sponsor--
of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would fix the problem that 
the Supreme Court created.
  It is now my honor to yield to Representative Terri Sewell.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my 
distinguished colleague from New York and my distinguished colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio, for this wonderful hour of power on voting. 
It is my great honor to stand with them, to rise today and to join with 
my CBC colleagues to discuss the reckless Republican assault on the 
right to vote in America.
  We began tonight by bringing attention to the ever-evolving crisis 
brewing in our democracy. Since the Supreme Court in the Shelby 
decision gutted the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, there has been nothing short of an assault on the right to vote--
the most sacred right to vote. This 2016 election will be the first 
time in my lifetime and, I daresay, in the lifetime of the gentleman 
from New York, that we will have a Presidential election in which there 
will not be the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  As the gentleman so rightly acknowledged, I welcomed, in 2015, 100 
Members of Congress, both Republican and Democratic, to my hometown of 
Selma, Alabama, in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the historic 
Bloody Sunday march from Selma to Montgomery, where people shed blood 
and tears. Our own colleague, John Lewis, was bludgeoned on that 
bridge, the Edmund Pettus Bridge, 50-some years ago in order to have 
the right to vote for all Americans.
  On that day, Republicans and Democrats held hands as we crossed the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge one more time, as John Lewis likes to say, this 
time on the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. We all had a Kumbaya 
moment, if you will, but we came back to Congress and did nothing to 
try to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have we really gone so far in the 
last 10 years? After all, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was amended and 
reauthorized five times, most recently in 2006 under a Republican 
President, President George Bush, who was with us on that glorious day 
on the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery march to make sure 
that his support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was there.
  So I say to you, in 10 years since 2006 when we reauthorized the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, overwhelmingly, in both Houses of Congress--
overwhelmingly--we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. Had 
it not been for the Shelby decision which gutted section 5, which 
provided that preclearance formula, and made the full protections of 
the Voting Rights Act null and void, we would still be living under a 
regime where, as the gentleman so rightfully said, it was not only the 
Deep South States that were part of the coverage formula, but New York 
was part of the coverage formula as well.
  So the Supreme Court, in the Shelby decision, really issued a 
challenge to Congress to come up with a modern-day formula. The 
challenge was that we shouldn't hold States like Alabama and the Deep 
South for past discriminations that were so long ago, back in the 1950s 
and the 1960s and the 1940s, but, rather, we should come up with a 
modern-day formula.
  The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 does just that. I was 
privileged to introduce that bill along with my colleagues Linda 
Sanchez and Judy Chu; and Senator Leahy, on the Senate side, introduced 
that bill. It has a lookback not since the 1950s or 1960s, but it has a 
lookback of 25 years, since 1990 going forward. It says that if there 
have been five violations, statewide violations, that a State would be, 
then, opted in to preclearance if they had five.
  Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that not 1, but 13 States have had 
violations of voting discrimination over the last 25 years? Those 
States include California, New York, Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. Thirteen States would actually fall 
under the rubric.
  I think that it is really telling that we, in 2016, saw such long 
lines wrapped around Maricopa County, Arizona, most recently in March, 
during their Presidential election primary in March. Do you know why? 
Because Maricopa County used to be covered under the coverage formula 
for the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and since it no longer has any teeth 
and has been gutted, they could summarily close down polling stations.

  It shouldn't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, that in 2008, Maricopa County 
had 800 polling stations, in 2012 it went down to 400 polling stations, 
and for 2016, 60 polling stations--and those 60 polling stations 
covered the whole county of Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona. It was 
clearly not enough to get all of the folks who wanted to vote to be 
able to vote. They could close down those polling stations without any 
advance notification because there was no more Voting Rights Act of 
1965.
  My own State of Alabama was one of those States that, after the 
Shelby decision, decided to institute a photo ID law. So many of my 
constituents came up to me and said: We need a photo ID to get on the 
plane these days. We need a photo ID to get a passport. Why shouldn't 
we need a photo? How is that in some way discriminatory?
  I had to remind many of our constituents that so many of our elderly, 
especially in the rural communities that I represent, many of whom were 
born by midwives, don't have birth certificates and can't actually 
readily prove a birth certificate in order to get a photo ID law. Some 
seniors and those who are disabled, like my father who no longer 
drives, therefore, he doesn't have a driver's license. He was a nine-
time stroke victim--actually, a survivor. He is still with us today.
  But my dad was determined to get that photo ID in 2014 when Alabama's 
law came into effect. He was highly motivated, Mr. Speaker, because his 
daughter's name was on a ballot, and he wanted to be able to vote. I 
want you to know that it took my dad 5 hours to get a photo ID. Now, if 
that is not a barrier--you say to yourself: Five hours. Why would it 
take 5 hours?
  Well, Dallas County Courthouse is a courthouse that actually was 
grandfathered into the ADA laws and so did not have to have a ramp by 
which people who have wheelchairs can get readily into the courthouse. 
It had been grandfathered in. We were very blessed to have a gentleman 
help us get my dad up those seven stairs into the courthouse. But when 
we got into the courthouse, because the voter registration was on the 
second floor, we had to take an elevator upstairs.

                              {time}  2045

  Lo and behold, that particular day, the one elevator bank was what?

[[Page H2949]]

  Actually out of service. Out of service.
  Now, my mom, having been a former member of the City Council in Selma 
and, obviously, a very well-known member of the citizens of Selma, she 
could go across the hall and talk to the probate judge's office and 
say: Look, we are here today to get this photo ID, this nondriving 
photo voter ID, so that my husband can vote.
  It took 1\1/2\ hours, but they got someone to service that elevator. 
And by the time that elevator was working and we got up to the second 
floor, lo and behold, it was 11:30. And guess what? Lunchtime.
  Now, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, we no longer have to count how many 
marbles are in a jar, we no longer have to recite all 67 counties in 
the State of Alabama in order to get a voter registration card, but we 
should not in America have to go through so many hoops in order to 
exercise the most fundamental right, the most sacred right of our 
democracy--the right to vote.
  And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that any denial of access to the 
ballot box, to me, totally obfuscates and really undermines the 
integrity of the electoral process. If one person who wants to go out 
and vote has to stand in line for hours upon hours and can't actually 
physically stand in line because they have other obligations like 
children and day care and jobs, then it is unfair. We are actually 
limiting access to the ballot box, which actually goes to the integrity 
of our electoral process. It is fundamental to our democracy.
  So I say to you tonight, I am honored to join my CBC colleagues as we 
fight for the opportunity of all Americans to have equal access to the 
ballot box.
  Mr. Speaker, my State of Alabama, after having a photo ID requirement 
and during the State budgetary process, had the gall to actually decide 
to close down 30 Department of Motor Vehicle offices, which, as all of 
us know, the most popular form of photo ID is a driver's license. So to 
actually require a citizen to have a photo ID and then to close down 
DMV offices in rural parts of my district in the State of Alabama was 
really unconscionable.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Isn't it the case that a disproportionately high number 
of those DMV offices that the State of Alabama just happened to decide 
to close were in predominantly African American parts of the State of 
Alabama?
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. They were. Those DMV offices, as the gentleman 
from New York so aptly recited, were mostly located in heavily African 
American parts of the State of Alabama, but they were also 
predominantly rural parts of the State of Alabama. Those same areas 
have a hard time having transportation, public transportation, to get 
around in those areas.
  They said, of course, that the reason why they were closing down 
these DMV offices had nothing to do with voting, of course, but had to 
do with the fact that there were serious budgetary restraints. 
Obviously, one of the consequences of the closures of those DMV offices 
was to limit access to those people getting photo IDs, the most popular 
form of photo ID, which is a driver's license, and, therefore, limiting 
their ability to go vote.
  I did speak with our Governor, and he did open up those DMV offices 
on a limited basis, but only on a limited basis. And I say to you that 
it is unacceptable in America to have any limitations on the right to 
vote.
  I really ask all of my colleagues, especially those who have come to 
Selma over the years with John Lewis on these pilgrimages, to really 
search deep in their hearts. If they are really about access to the 
ballot box and being able to make sure that all Americans have an 
opportunity to exercise this fundamental right, then why would we not 
make it easier for people to vote?
  Instead of going the way of Alabama and having these photo ID laws, 
it seems to me that all of us should be adopting laws like the State of 
Oregon, which has mail-in ballots and same-day registration. There are 
ways that we can make it much easier for every American to exercise 
that most fundamental right to vote.
  So tonight I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in 
with the 168 cosponsors of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, and join 
us in this fight to make sure that we do a modern-day formula, a 
modern-day formula, with a look back, since 1990 going forward, to look 
at whether or not there have been discriminatory acts that have limited 
people's access to the ballot box.
  I also ask my colleagues to join us every Tuesday that we are in 
session. We have declared it to be Restoration Tuesday. And on those 
Tuesdays, since Tuesdays are the days that we vote, we go to the well 
of the floor, and we talk about why it is important to restore the 
vote.
  So I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, for leading us in this charge tonight. I hope 
that it will spill over to tomorrow, which is Restoration Tuesday, 
where we can really talk about the modern-day examples of people being 
denied access to the ballot box because of people's inability to 
actually get the credentials that people require them to have, or 
because they have to work late. They don't have the ability to be able 
to drop everything and go and vote and stand in long lines if those 
polling stations have been closed.
  I say all this to say that it is really imperative, I think, that we 
put real action behind our talk. We do a lot of talking about our 
democracy and upholding our Constitution. This is an opportunity for 
this august body to actually do something about it.
  In closing, I want to quote one of our Republican colleagues, who has 
been in this fight for a very long time, Republican Congressman 
Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, who I think really best summed it up when 
he wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times after witnessing those long 
lines in Maricopa County, Arizona, the following:
  ``Ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot without fear, 
deterrence, and prejudice is a basic American right. I would rather 
lose my job than suppress votes to keep it.''
  I have to repeat that.
  ``I would rather lose my job than suppress votes to keep it.''
  My Republican colleague went on to say:
  ``Our credibility as elected officials depends on the fairness of our 
elections.''
  Mr. Speaker, voting rights transcend partisan agendas. It really 
solidifies that equality in voting is the Democratic way.
  I ask my colleagues to join all of us in this fight, this fight for 
our democracy. This crisis that we are in is a crisis that we can fix 
in Congress by coming up with a modern-day formula.
  We already have several bills in the House. Congressmen Sensenbrenner 
and Conyers introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act. I have 
introduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act. There are several bills--
two bills, in fact--that would actually come up with a modern-day 
formula. I dare this august body to actually act on one. I am here to 
tell you that the American people will be stronger, and this Republic 
will be stronger, because of it.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Alabama, my good friend, Terri Sewell, for a very compelling, 
comprehensive, and complete analysis of the situation that we find 
ourselves in in the practical consequences of the Supreme Court's 
decision. And the fact that there are people all across this country, 
in Alabama, and in other parts of this great Republic, who are 
determined to elevate themselves by suppressing the ability of others 
to participate in the Democratic process, that is a shame, it is a 
stain on our democracy, and it is time for this Congress to act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), my 
classmate and good friend, who himself has been championing the issue 
of fair redistricting, who has personally been impacted in terms of his 
capacity as a representative, to make sure that lines are fairly drawn, 
and most recently has announced the formulation of the Voting Rights 
Caucus here in the Congress. He has been a tremendous leader in this 
area. A great Member of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Hakeem Jeffries from New 
York and Congresswoman Joyce Beatty from Ohio for everything that they 
are doing on raising this issue tonight. It is very timely, considering 
everything that we are going through

[[Page H2950]]

right now. When you think about the Voting Rights Act, it is literally 
the single most important piece of legislation that has ever been 
passed in the history of the United States as it deals with an 
individual's right to vote.
  But as you know, 3 years ago, the Supreme Court regressed and sent us 
back by gutting section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Not only was that 
bad because it hurt the Voting Rights Act, but it was also bad because 
of everything that it did to propel States around the country from also 
retrogressing and sending us back in the area of voting rights.
  You are starting to hear so many stories of States and localities 
that are passing more and more laws to restrict the right to vote, 
making it harder for young people to vote--seniors, the disabled, 
people that move around a lot and are transient, people that don't 
necessarily have the money that they need in order to obtain the proper 
identification.
  And you heard Congresswoman Sewell when she so eloquently talked 
about the fact that oftentimes, particularly in the South, people were 
born by midwives. We have a lot of baby boomers that are out there. 
People think these things happened a long time ago. That is the thing 
that you hear all the time. But there are people that are living here 
today, a lot of baby boomers, that were born down in the piney woods of 
east Texas, that were born in other parts of the South, that don't have 
the proper documentation that they need in order to be able to vote.
  I have met people since I have been involved in campaigns and 
elections and as an elected official that didn't have the proper ID to 
vote. I have to tell you that there are many of them out there.
  Just hours after the Supreme Court made the decision in 2013 that my 
home State of Texas implemented the most egregious voter ID law in the 
entire country, just hours after the Supreme Court gutted section 4, 
they moved to reimplement the law. That was very disappointing, 
considering that an appeals court had already said that the voter ID 
law in Texas was one of the worst in the country.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Isn't it a fact that the case as it relates to that 
particular ID law in Texas, that individuals are able to vote if they 
have a gun license identification card, but are not able to vote under 
that draconian Texas law with a college ID?
  Mr. VEASEY. That is correct. If you have an ID that is issued to you 
by the University of Texas, or Texas A&M, or Prairie View A&M 
University, that same ID, that same student ID that can be used to 
identify yourself to campus police officers, that can be used to 
identify yourself for other things that you would need an ID for, it 
will not work in order for you to go and vote. But if you have a 
concealed handgun license, then you can vote. Concealed handgun 
licenses are mostly used by White males in the State. It is really 
unfair that a more diverse form of ID, like the student ID, is not 
allowed under Texas laws.

  That was one of the reasons why I became the lead plaintiff on the 
voter ID lawsuit, Congressman Jeffries. It is Veasey v. Abbott. We are 
going to continue to fight. We just got news today that the Fifth 
Circuit Court is going to take up our case. I am going to continue to 
work here in Congress, continue to work in Texas, continue to work in 
the Dallas-Fort Worth area to protect the voting rights of individuals 
that have been wronged.
  I also want to point out that, again, you oftentimes hear people say 
that we have progressed as a country and we don't need these laws. But 
when you look at what is going on in Texas and when you look at what is 
going on across the South, I just think we can't sit back anymore. We 
can't sit back and be idle and say: Oh, no, well, we are doing a little 
bit better, so these people that are going to be discriminated 
against--the transients, the college students, the people that don't 
necessarily have their birth documentation in order like other people 
may have--we just can't sit back and say we are going to just move on 
and forget about them. We have to fight for those individuals as well 
because it is their right to vote, and we must protect it.
  In 2016, I just think we should be making it easier for citizens to 
vote. We should be talking about things like same-day registration. We 
should be working together, Democrats and Republicans, on ways to ease 
lines when it comes to voting in places. We should be looking at ways 
that we can make it to where we have more days to vote early. You are 
starting to hear about laws around the country to scale back the number 
of in-person early voting days. I just think that is wrong.
  Again, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. I also 
want to thank you for pointing out that I have introduced the first 
Congressional Voting Rights Caucus to help aid and fight in the battle, 
along with so many other task forces and organizations that are here in 
Congress that are working on those issues.

                              {time}  2100

  We want to continue to make sure together again--and we need to do it 
in a bipartisan manner--that we all protect the right to vote.
  I thank the gentleman and the Congresswoman from Ohio, Representative 
Beatty, for their work and passion on this issue.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend for his leadership on this very 
important issue and for the steps that he has taken both here in 
Congress, with the initiation of the Voting Rights Caucus, as well as 
down in Texas as the lead plaintiff in the Veasey v. Abbott lawsuit to 
challenge the voter ID requirements--the draconian requirements--that 
have been imposed by the State of Texas.
  It should shock the conscience of every American that a State would 
impose a restriction that allows licensed gun owners to vote who 
disproportionately happen to be of a certain demographic--white male--
but would deny the legitimacy of IDs that the State of Texas itself 
issues.
  Texas A&M, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of 
Houston, and other institutions are all public universities, and these 
individuals--these students--pay tuition to go to these public 
universities, and, in response, they are issued identification 
vehicles, identification cards, but the State of Texas has seen fit to 
say that that is not valid in order to vote.
  I think that one example--and we have heard several others--basically 
exposes the fact that the movement to impose voter identification 
requirements is fraud in itself. It is a sham.
  The whole argument behind it is that: We are trying to protect the 
integrity of the voting system. But here is the problem: you are 
protecting the integrity of the voting system by imposing a solution in 
search of a problem because none of these individuals in any of these 
States has been able to produce a scintilla of evidence of fraud.
  In fact, there are studies that have shown that there have been over 
a billion instances of Americans exercising their right to vote without 
any evidence of misrepresentation--over a billion times. The number of 
instances of questionable voting is less than 50; yet, in State after 
State, we see voter identification laws being imposed on the people.
  It is not designed to protect the integrity of anything. It is 
designed to protect certain individuals and maintain their power in the 
face of troubling demographic changes that are occurring in America. 
Let's call it like it is.
  Let me ask the Chair how much time we have remaining in this Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to someone who has been a 
tremendous champion from the great State of Texas in representing her 
people in Houston and is a phenomenal member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York, who shows that the issues of voter empowerment are nationwide.
  Let me also thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, who has been steadfast 
on important issues that deal with the empowerment of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague from Texas made his 
presentation, Congressman Veasey, who everyone knows was the plaintiff 
in Texas for the voter ID law.
  I wanted to come this evening very briefly to, one, submit a full 
statement

[[Page H2951]]

into the Record and to make this point. And let me read the headline or 
the topic again: Democracy in Crisis: The Reckless Republican Assault 
on the Right to Vote in America.
  It did not have to be, for it is evident that we have dealt with 
voter empowerment in a bipartisan way. It is the very difficult journey 
that Lyndon Baines Johnson took in 1965 after the foot soldiers and Dr. 
Martin Luther King and others made their momentous march and statement, 
including a letter from a Birmingham jail that captured the history or 
the sentiment and the movement of the civil rights movement in the very 
basic words: Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
  With that power behind him, he was able to frame the Voting Rights 
Act in a bipartisan manner with Republicans from the North and with 
whom we used to call Dixiecrats from the South. It can be done.
  Then, in 2006 and 2007, I was privileged to have another Texan, 
George W. Bush, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, after 
15,000 pages of testimony with a Republican chairman, and we went and 
passed a vote reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  Let me close with these points about the pointedness, Mr. Jeffries, 
of what voting power actually means.
  What it means is that we would not have the North Carolina set of 
voting laws, if you will, that cut Sunday voting or early voting. It 
had one of the most horrific voter ID laws.
  We would not have the Texas voter ID law that disenfranchised 
thousands upon thousands of Hispanics because of no DPS officers--
Department of Public Safety officers--in their locations.
  We would not have an attempt to cut billions of dollars from food 
stamps and an attempt to cut trillions of dollars from education for 
our children and the status that we are in right now of trying to seek 
the full funding of the President's emergency funding of $1.9 billion 
for the Zika virus. This is what ``voting power'' means.
  Finally, after the Supreme Court instructed the Congress or told the 
Congress that we needed to have a new bill, we would not have the 
predicament we are in now. We need voting power, and that is what 
voting rights are all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Congresswoman 
Joyce Beatty (D-OH) who are anchoring this Special Order on Democracy 
in America and the Reckless Assault on Minority Voting Rights.
  I thank all of my colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus for 
their leadership on fighting back against voter suppression and holding 
this important special order to discuss what we can do to protect our 
voices and democracy.
  I applaud my colleagues here today for their commitment to being the 
change that we all wish to see in America--today and for generations to 
come.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Texas, Mr. Veasey for his 
leadership in forming the Voting Rights Caucus. As a Vice Co-Chair, I 
look forward to working with the Members of this new Caucus and my 
colleagues of the CBC Voting Rights Task Force as we continue in this 
movement to elevate our voices and rights as citizens that we have long 
fought for and earned.
  We are at a pivotal time to protect and embrace the power that we 
hold in restoring and maintaining our democracy.
  The 2016 election season is already in full swing.
  As voters in a number of states face new restrictions for the first 
time in a presidential election, we've already seen problems in 
primaries across the country.
  A new photo ID requirement led to long lines in Wisconsin. A 
reduction in polling places forced some to wait five hours to vote in 
Arizona. New rules created confusion in North Carolina.
  And in my home state of Texas, last minute changes to polling 
locations in Harris County resulted in long lines, confusion and for 
some, the inability to vote.
  The challenge of voting in fewer polling locations without adequate 
notice, along with the implementation of long-contested voter ID law 
changes, created unnecessary and burdensome obstacles for voters in a 
county that is home to more minorities and non-English speaking 
residents than that of greater state of Texas or the nation.
  In a county that ranks third in the nation in terms of population, 
critical changes impacting the ability of individuals to exercise their 
right to vote must be reviewed to ensure that any violation of federal 
law is addressed and corrected.
  This could be an early glimpse of problems in November--as voters 
face the first presidential election in 50 years without the full 
protections of the Voting Rights Act, which was designed to prevent 
discrimination in voting.
  In 2016, 17 states will have restrictive voting laws in effect for 
the first time in a presidential election.
  Restrictions in most of these 17 were passed before this year.
  The new measures range from strict photo ID requirements to early 
voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
  Those 17 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, 
Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and 
Wisconsin.
  We cannot afford to turn back the clock--we must continue to forge 
ahead and push back against these egregious and painful laws.
  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 could 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 
not eliminate entirely.
  Or as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissent 
of the Court's ruling:

       Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is 
     continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like 
     throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are 
     not getting wet.

  As stated by my predecessor, Barbara Jordan, a civil rights and 
voting rights icon and a woman of many firsts--I know that perhaps the 
greatest and most important battle to be fought is on behalf of the 
right to vote, the most precious right of all because it is a 
preservative and passage of all other rights.
  We must be vigilant in this movement to elevate our voices and rights 
as citizens that we have long fought for and earned.
  Fifty years ago, America was preparing for the first national 
election following passage of the Voting Rights Act--the crucial 
legislation for which Martin Luther King, Jr. and civil rights 
activists toiled for years.
  Today, we're preparing for our first election in half a century in 
which these essential voter protections will not be available.
  Voting rights were ascendant in 1966--today voter suppression tactics 
are spreading throughout the nation.
  Congress was increasingly an ally in 1966--now in 2016, it's 
conspicuously absent.
  Regressive state voter suppression laws--including Voter ID laws, 
Voter caging, elimination of polling places, elimination of early or 
Sunday voting, refusal to locate sites in low-income areas, last-minute 
changes to polling locations--are the clear culprits.
  In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's disastrous Shelby 
ruling--which eliminated the requirement that areas with histories of 
discrimination receive preclearance for any changes to voting laws--
there was hope that Congress would act to mitigate the damage.
  But those hopes have been diminished.
  There has been no Congressional action to repair the VRA to date.
  At face value, a voter ID law might not look as egregious as a poll 
tax.
  But, considering the hurdles that they present--including the need to 
procure a birth certificate or visit a far-away DMV during severely-
limited operating hours--the obstacles are comparable.
  These laws are especially prohibitive for elderly or low-income 
people who have difficulty traveling.
  Recent studies reveal that state voter suppression could stop 
approximately 1.3 million from voting in competitive election states.
  Thirty-six states have promulgated new laws that disproportionately 
impact minority citizens in response to fabricated issue of ``voter 
impersonation.''
  Sixteen of these states will see their plans go into effect for the 
first time in the 2016 elections.
  An analysis by Nate Silver for the New York Times shows that these 
laws can decrease turnout by between 0.8 and 2.4 percent--a potentially 
decisive amount in highly competitive elections.
  As The Nation's Ari Berman and others have methodically reported, the 
efforts to suppress votes through Voter ID laws, the purging of voter 
rolls, and the elimination of polling places are already having their 
impacts.
  The 2016 primaries have been marked by long lines in several states 
and severe hurdles to voting.
  According to Ari Berman, voters disenfranchised by new laws include: 
a man born in a German concentration camp who lost his birth 
certificate in a fire; a woman who lost use of her hands but was not 
allowed to

[[Page H2952]]

use her daughter as power of attorney at the DMV; and a 90-year-old 
veteran of Iwo Jima, who was not allowed to vote with his Veterans ID.
  We need to translate widespread outrage about voter suppression into 
momentum for an actionable voting rights agenda.
  While proponents of voter ID laws point constantly to a looming 
``crisis'' of voter impersonation to justify barriers to accessing the 
polls, they've yet to demonstrate empirical evidence. Where is the 
proof?
  We now have empirical evidence, gathered from academic experts at 
University of California at San Diego and other leading institutions, 
that voter suppression laws disproportionately impact minorities and 
immigrants.
  Fixing the VRA is just the start of the fight to secure voting 
rights.
  We must also deal with issues including aging and insecure voting 
machines, problems with absentee ballots, willful misinformation, felon 
disenfranchisement, partisan election administration, untrained 
election staff, and many others.
  As we know, the Voting Rights Act is one of the most fundamental 
pieces of American legislation, designed to prevent the 
disenfranchisement of black and minority voters by prohibiting voting 
practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, 
or membership in a language minority group.
  In signing the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965, 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.

  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 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 ``preclearance.''
  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 5 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.''
  In 2006, the City of Calera, which lies within Shelby County, 
Alabama, 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, the City of Calera was 
required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and conduct 
another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat.
  In 2010, Shelby County filed suit in federal court in Washington, 
D.C., seeking to have Section 5 declared unconstitutional.
  In 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld 
the constitutionality of Section 5, holding that Congress acted 
appropriately in 2006 when it reauthorized the statute.
  And in 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit affirmed the district court ruling by a vote of two to one.
  However, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 4 
of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to 
determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 
5's preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be 
used.
  Thus, although the Court did not invalidate Section 5, it will have 
no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to 
determine who should be covered by it.
  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 could 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 
not eliminate entirely.
  Or as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissent 
of the Court's ruling:

       Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is 
     continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like 
     throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are 
     not getting wet.

  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.
  Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the 
right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, 
which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political 
participation for decades.
  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 10,000 
black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest 
number ever.
  The Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many other 
minorities, including over 6,000 Latino elected officials and almost 
1,000 Asian American elected officials.
  Native Americans and others who have historically encountered harsh 
barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.
  Aided by Section 5, the Voting Rights Act was successful in 
preventing the states with the worst and most egregious records of 
voter suppression and intimidation from disenfranchising minority 
voters.
  So successful in fact that the Supreme Court apparently saw no harm 
in invalidating the provision that subjected those states to the 
federal supervision responsible for the success it celebrated.
  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 refused to let the Voting Rights 
Act die--as states all across the nation had already begun implementing 
restrictive voting laws that would keep thousands of citizens away from 
the polls.
  After months of hard work, consultation, negotiation, and 
collaboration, we were able to produce the ``Voting Rights Amendment 
Act'' which sets out to achieve these goals.
  I was an original cosponsor when this bill was first introduced in 
2014 (H.R. 3899), and again when it was reintroduced in 2015 (H.R. 
885).
  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: is responsive to the concern expressed by the 
Supreme Court; and establishes a new coverage formula that is carefully 
tailored but sufficiently potent to protect the voting rights of all 
Americans.
  First, the Voting Rights Amendment Act 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.
  The Voting Rights Amendment Act replaces the old ``static'' coverage 
formula with a new dynamic coverage formula, or ``rolling trigger,'' 
which works as follows:
  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;
  For political subdivisions, it requires at least three adverse 
findings within the previous 15 years; but
  Political subdivisions with ``persistent and extremely low a 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

[[Page H2953]]

in any state potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite 
number of violations are found to have been committed.
  Prior to Shelby Co. v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act covered 16 
states in whole or in part, including most of the states in the Deep 
South.
  The states that would be covered initially under the new bill are: 
Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, and 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, the Voting Rights Amendment Act:
  Expands judicial ``bail-in'' authority under Section 3 so that it 
applies to voting changes that result in discrimination (not just 
intentional discrimination);
  Requires nationwide transparency of ``late breaking'' voting changes; 
allocation of poll place resources; and changes within the boundaries 
of voting districts;
  Clarifies and expands the ability of plaintiffs to seek a preliminary 
injunction against voting discrimination; and
  Clarifies and expands Attorney General's authority to send election 
observers to protect against voting discrimination.
  This bipartisan compromise legislation is not ideal--but on the 
balance, it represents a step forward as we continue to fight for 
enforcement of our most fundamental right: the right to vote.
  Additional measures introduced to help protect and enforce our right 
to vote include the Voter Empowerment Act and the Coretta Scott King 
Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act.
  The Voting Empowerment Act was introduced to help ensure equal access 
to the ballot for every eligible voter.
  The Voting Empowerment Act was designed to protect voters from 
suppression, deception and other forms of disenfranchisement by 
modernizing voter registration, promoting access to voting for 
individuals with disabilities, and protecting the ability of 
individuals to exercise the right to vote in elections for Federal 
office.
  This legislation would expand and protect citizens' access to the 
polls and would increase accountability and integrity among elected 
officials and poll workers.
  It would also expand eligibility to allow all ex-offenders who have 
been released from prison (even those who may still be on probation on 
parole) the opportunity to register and vote in federal elections.
  Outlined in 13 Title sections, this bill prioritizes access, 
integrity and accountability for voters.
  I have also introduced H.R. 75 (originally introduced in 2013 as H.R. 
2490) which prohibits any state whose congressional districts have been 
redistricted after a decennial census from carrying out another 
redistricting until after the next decennial census, unless a court 
requires such state to conduct a subsequent redistricting to comply 
with the Constitution or enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  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.
  Please know that I am as committed to the preservation of the Voting 
Rights Act and I will not rest until the job is done.
  As I stated in 2006, during the historic debate in Congress to 
reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

       I stand today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a 
     beneficiary of the Voting Rights Act. 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.

  With these legislative priorities and principles at the forefront, I 
intend to work with my colleagues and advocates to do all I can to 
protect the voting rights of all Americans.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman.
  The right to vote is fundamental to the integrity of our democracy, 
and, as Lyndon Baines Johnson said from this very Chamber shortly 
before the Voting Rights Act was passed into law a few months later, 
``We shall overcome.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________