[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 194 (Thursday, December 5, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9265-H9271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 
 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 326, EXPRESSING THE 
 SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING UNITED STATES EFFORTS 
 TO RESOLVE THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT THROUGH A NEGOTIATED TWO-
                             STATE SOLUTION

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 741

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to amend 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for 
     determining which States and political subdivisions are 
     subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 326) expressing the 
     sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States 
     efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a 
     negotiated two-state solution. The amendments to the 
     resolution and the preamble recommended by the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs now printed in the resolution, modified by 
     the amendments printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 741, providing for consideration of 
two measures.
  First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4, the Voting 
Rights Advancement Act of 2019, under a closed rule. The rule self-
executes a manager's amendment offered by Chairman Nadler and provides 
1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides one 
motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 326, 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United 
States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a 
negotiated two-state solution, under a closed rule.
  The rule self-executes two manager's amendments offered by Chairman 
Engel. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the great 
legislative achievements of American history. It is perhaps the 
greatest single statute of the 20th century, in a century of great 
statutes, including the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  But the Voting Rights Act was born out of the blood, sweat, and tears 
of the American civil rights movement; in the wake of Freedom Summer; 
in the murders of Schwerner, Chaney, Goodman, and other civil rights 
heroes; and in the after the famous March on Washington, where Dr. King 
made his ``I Have a Dream'' speech.
  The Voting Rights Act transformed American politics by bringing into 
our elections millions of voters who had been disenfranchised for a 
century after the Civil War ended. It changed the nature of politics in 
the Deep South and across the United States, and it changed the 
politics of the United States Congress as well.
  Theoretically, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments had solved the 
problem of disenfranchisement after the Civil War. The 13th Amendment 
abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment established equal protection; and 
the 15th Amendment banned discrimination in voting. But after the 
dismantling of reconstruction, African Americans were subjected to a 
regime of disenfranchisement that included violence, terror, 
grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes, and an ever-expanding 
panoply of devices, tricks, and tactics to keep Black people from being 
able to register to vote and to participate in elections.
  The civil rights movement and President Lyndon Johnson fought for the 
Voting Rights Act, which passed in 1965 and which included a package of 
strong remedies targeting discriminatory voting practices and devices 
in the areas where discrimination was most egregious and virulent.
  A key component of the Voting Rights Act was section 5, the 
preclearance requirement, which compelled covered States--that is, the 
States to which it applied--to stop discriminating and to subject all 
changes in their voting practices to the Department of Justice or to 
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
  States were covered if they had used illegal voting discrimination 
devices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and character exams, and if 
fewer than 50 percent of the people were registered to vote or allowed 
to participate.

[[Page H9266]]

  The Voting Rights Act was challenged immediately in litigation called 
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, but in 1966, the Supreme Court rejected 
arguments that the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.
  The Supreme Court said Congress may use any rational means to 
effectuate the constitutional prohibition on race discrimination in 
voting. It upheld the preclearance requirement against attack.
  Specifically, it was said by South Carolina that it violated the so-
called equal footing doctrine, but the Supreme Court said that the 
equal footing doctrine applied to the admission of States and not to 
the Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment or section 2 
of the 15th Amendment.
  All of this worked for the Voting Rights Act to usher in a new era of 
real democracy in America. The preclearance requirement meant that the 
States, counties, and jurisdictions that had been discriminating had to 
submit to the Department of Justice or to Federal court their plans for 
changes. That worked to enfranchise millions of voters across America. 
It worked for the election of thousands of African American elected 
officials at the local, State, and Federal levels.
  The genius of section 5 was that jurisdictions had to submit 
potentially discriminatory changes before the harm took place. Anybody 
can go ahead and sue under section 2 after an election is over, but 
then it is too late because the harm has already been done, the 
election has taken place. So even if you win in court, the court is not 
going to order a rerun of the election. It is not going to require all 
the voting to take place again, so it is too late at that point.
  Section 5 puts the burden on the potentially discriminating parties 
to prove that they are not discriminating when they make changes in 
voting laws.
  It works all the way up until 2013, when the Supreme Court rendered 
its 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Shelby County case 
struck down the section 4(b) formula for which States were covered, 
declaring that this formula was now out-of-date because it went back 
many, many decades to the 1960s and 1970s and that the Congress would 
need to update the formula to address current needs in the field and to 
show that the formula relates to the current problems that we are 
targeting.

  The Court said specifically that coverage was based on decades-old 
data and eradicated practices, like literacy tests, which don't exist 
anymore. So when it got struck down, dozens of States and counties that 
were previously required to preclear changes related to voting didn't 
have to do it anymore, and they began very quickly, almost instantly, 
to roll back various kinds of voter protections and to pass strict 
voter identification laws, to pass massive voter purges, to implement 
cuts to early voting, to close polling places, and so on.
  I am going to read from one of the witnesses who testified before the 
House Judiciary Committee, Kristen Clarke, the president and executive 
director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, who said:
  ``We have vetted complaints from tens of thousands of voters in 
Shelby, many revealing systemic voting discrimination. In short, this 
is how Shelby has impacted our democracy.
  ``First, we have seen the resurgence of discriminatory voting 
practices, some motivated by intentional discrimination, and this 
discrimination has been most intense in the very jurisdictions that 
were once covered by section 5. They range from the consolidation of 
polling sites to make it less convenient for minority voters to vote to 
the curtailing of early voting hours, the purging of minority voters 
from the rolls under the pretext of list maintenance, strict photo ID 
requirements, abuse of signature match verification requirements . . . 
, the threat of criminal prosecution, and more.

                              {time}  1230

  ``Second, we have seen increased levels of recalcitrants in hostility 
among elected officials who institute and reinstitute discriminatory 
voting changes with impunity. . . .''
  ``Third, the loss of public notice regarding changes in voting 
practices that could have a discriminatory effect is significant. . . 
.''
  ``Fourth, the public no longer has the ability to participate in the 
process of reviewing practices before they take effect. . . .''
  ``Fifth, the preclearance process had an identifiable deterrent 
effect that is now lost.
  ``Sixth, the status quo is not sustainable. Civil rights 
organizations are stepping up to fill the void created by the Shelby 
decision at insurmountable expense.
  ``And finally, this will be the first redistricting cycle in 
decades'' in which redistricting takes place without the Voting Rights 
Act.
  That is one example of testimony that we got from all over America 
about what the Shelby County v. Holder decision meant by dismantling 
section 5 by knocking out section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
  H.R. 4 is doing precisely what the Supreme Court invited us to do in 
the Shelby County decision: to pass a new coverage formula for the 
Civil Rights Act preclearance requirement based on new data in a new 
formula designed to address current contemporary problems.
  The Judiciary Committee and the House Administration Committee had a 
combined total of 17 hearings: 9 on the Judiciary side with its 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and 
8 in the House Administration Committee's Subcommittee on Elections. 
They heard about restrictive and discriminatory practices taking place 
in numerous States across the country, including Texas and Georgia, 
where, after the end of preclearance, Georgia voters faced a myriad of 
new voting barriers, including the closure of more than 200 precinct 
polling places, spoiled voter registration materials, purging of more 
than 1 million voters in a racially discriminatory way, restrictive 
voter ID laws, systematic rejection of absentee ballots, and more.
  We also looked in North Carolina, which passed a so-called monster 
voter suppression law, which resulted in race discrimination in 
accessing the polls, including the closure of dozens of polling sites 
and long voting lines. The law eliminated same-day voter registration, 
reduced early voting by a week, curtailed satellite polling sites for 
elderly and disabled voters, and so on.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is the product of massive legislative 
inspection of voting conditions across the United States of America 
today, and it threads the needle that was offered to us by the Supreme 
Court in the Shelby County decision by amending the Voting Rights Act 
to revise the section 4(b) criteria and providing other voter 
protections at the same time.
  Specifically, the bill creates a new coverage formula that applies to 
all States and hinges on a finding of repeated voting violations in the 
preceding 25 years.
  It establishes a process for reviewing voting changes in 
jurisdictions nationwide, focused on a limited set of measures such as 
voter ID laws and the reduction of multilingual voting materials; it 
requires reasonable public notice for voting changes; it allows the 
Attorney General authority to request Federal observers; and it 
increases accessibility and protection for Native American and Alaska 
Native voters.
  Just turning, now, to H.R. 326, for more than 20 years, American 
Presidents from both political parties and Israeli Prime Ministers have 
supported reaching a two-state solution that establishes a democratic 
Palestinian state to coexist peacefully and constructively side by side 
with a democratic Israel.
  Middle East peace talks have favored the two-state solution and 
opposed settlement expansions, moves towards unilateral annexation of 
territories, and efforts to arrive at Palestinian statehood outside the 
framework of negotiations with Israel.
  In 2002, President Bush stated: ``My vision is two states, living 
side by side in peace and security.''
  In 2013, President Obama reiterated this exact same commitment, 
stating that: ``Negotiations will be necessary, but there is little 
secret about where they must lead--two states for two peoples.''
  This resolution emphasizes the sentiment of the past 20 years of 
peace talks

[[Page H9267]]

by expressing the sense of this House of Representatives that only a 
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure 
Israel's survival as a secure democratic state and fulfill the 
legitimate aspirations for a secure and democratic Palestinian state. 
It further expresses the sense that any U.S. proposal that fails to 
endorse a two-state solution will put a peaceful end to the conflict 
only further out of reach.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank Representative Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the right to vote is of paramount importance in our 
Republic. We all agree on that. Prohibitions against discriminatory 
barriers to the right to vote have been grounded in Federal law since 
the Civil War and, more recently, through the Voting Rights Act of 
1965.
  We all agree: Discrimination should have no place in our voting 
system. However, the majority would have us believe that the Voting 
Rights Act does not prevent any of this and would rather pass this 
partisan legislation for a Federal takeover of elections.
  I anticipate that the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder 
will be brought up many times today, but I would like to point out to 
my Democratic colleagues that, in that decision, the Supreme Court only 
struck down one outdated provision of the Voting Rights Act.
  This provision, section 4(b), was struck down because it was outdated 
as it had not been updated since 1975, and it violated principles of 
equal State sovereignty and federalism. H.R. 4 is, quite 
simply, unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court had held that Federal 
control over local elections is allowed only when there is proof of 
discriminatory treatment in voting.

  Further, I believe it is important to point out that other very 
important provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain in place, 
including section 2 and section 3.
  Section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or 
procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the 
ability to speak English. Section 2 is enforced through Federal 
lawsuits just like every other Federal civil rights law, and the United 
States and civil rights organizations have brought many cases to 
enforce the guarantees of section 2 in court, and they may do so in the 
future, as well.
  Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act also remains in place. This 
section authorizes Federal courts to impose preclearance requirements 
on States and political subdivisions that have enacted voting 
procedures that treat people differently based on race in violation of 
the 14th and 15th Amendments.
  If a Federal court finds a State or a political subdivision to have 
treated people differently based on race, then the court has discretion 
now to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance 
requirements as they see fit until a future date at the court's 
discretion. This is all valid now without this bill.
  Section 3 has been utilized recently, in fact. U.S. District Judge 
Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required 
that the city of Pasadena, Texas, be monitored by the Justice 
Department because it had intentionally changed its city council 
districts to decrease Hispanic influence.
  States should be allowed to implement their own laws regarding their 
elections and voting security to ensure all results are accurate on 
election day. State and local governments know more about how to handle 
their elections than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  I applaud State and local governments that are taking the necessary 
steps to modernize and secure their elections. For example, in Arizona, 
my home State, we have made continual progress on improving voter 
turnout and participation.
  Mr. Raskin said that the section that was taken out by the courts was 
genius. Well, I believe the opposite is true.
  Arizona was under this outdated preclearance formula, and I can tell 
you personally that this section was not genius. Both Arizona Democrats 
and Republicans, alike, thought to have to preclear every single 
decision that elected election officials made with the Federal 
bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., was a total disaster.
  Arizona now has free, open, and secure elections, despite not being 
under this Federal control preclearance anymore. Nearly 80 percent of 
Arizonans vote by mail. We have a robust online voter registration 
system, so it is easy to register to vote. We have approximately 1 
month of early voting.
  While Arizona has made voting easier and more accessible for voters, 
we have also made our elections more secure by outlining the practice 
of ballot harvesting. In Arizona, we believe it should be easy to vote 
and hard to cheat. The policies in Arizona seem to be working, as we 
have seen in election after election that voter turnout continues to 
grow.
  A couple months ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a field 
hearing in Phoenix, Arizona, to discuss the Voting Rights Act. There, I 
spoke with staff of the Maricopa County Recorder, an elected Democrat. 
She relayed to me how disappointed they were to not have been asked to 
testify at this hearing as they felt that they had not been able to 
speak to the story of the successes in Arizona and why they were very 
concerned about H.R. 4. They did not want the Federal Government 
preclearing every single decision they made.
  Think about it: They don't want to have to go back to the Federal 
Government every single time they change early ballots or voting 
locations. They, instead, are making great progress and strides. Voter 
turnout has soared. They don't want bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., 
slowing down important and time-sensitive decisions.
  This rule also includes H. Res. 326.
  I am curious why my Democratic colleagues decided to bring forward 
this nonbinding resolution as opposed to bringing up H.R. 336, a bill 
that I am personally a proud cosponsor of, which is identical to the 
text of S. 1, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East 
Act of 2019, which passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23--totally 
bipartisan--on February 5, 2019. Instead of the nonbinding resolution 
we have before us today, H.R. 336 would take concrete steps to counter 
the BDS movement against Israel.

                              {time}  1245

  Instead, I am saddened the Democrats brought up this resolution, a 
resolution that rebukes and ties the hands of the Trump administration 
and embarrasses Israel. In fact, the resolution expressly states a 
proposal must be put forward that is consistent with previous 
administrations' proposals, completely undercutting the Trump 
administration. This should not be a partisan issue with only Democrat 
sponsors and not one Republic cosponsor as this bill has. We should not 
be handicapping our President.
  My Republican colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me 
that a resolution that supports a two-state solution, without 
attempting to undermine the President, could have been bipartisan. 
However, this resolution singles out settlement expansion and 
annexation. These are some of the most delicate issues in our bilateral 
relationship with Israel, and it shines a spotlight on them in the 
middle of an ongoing and contentious time in Israel.
  The resolution spells out specific Palestinian Authority demands 
without listing critical Israeli preconditions, such as acknowledging 
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with an undivided Jerusalem 
as Israel's capital and providing assurances for Israel's safety and 
security through a demilitarized zone.
  As a whole, this resolution disproportionately criticizes the Israeli 
Government while failing to recognize the dangerous actions targeting 
innocent Israelis that further remove the possibility of peace.
  We already voted to support a two-state solution over the summer in 
H. Res. 246 in a bipartisan manner.
  So why do we need this partisan bill?
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
My good friend from Arizona chides me for having described section 5, 
the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, as genius, which 
is amazing to me because this has been a bipartisan national commitment 
and a

[[Page H9268]]

bipartisan commitment in Congress since 1965 when it passed on a 
bipartisan basis, since 1982 when it was reauthorized on a bipartisan 
basis, and since 2006 when President Bush signed it, as well, and 
celebrated it.
  So we have had Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama, a continuous 
array of Presidents, supporting it, and Congresses supporting it.
  If you don't have it, here is what happens: The NAACP Legal Defense 
Fund testified to us about successful litigation they had in Texas 
against a restrictive voter ID law that had discriminatory racial 
impact. They won on the lawsuit under section 2, but it was too late.
  In the meantime, who was elected in Texas?
  A U.S. Senator, all 36 Members of the House of Representatives, a 
Governor, a lieutenant governor, and so on.
  The reason why section 5 is genius and why we need to restore the 
precoverage formula is because it requires States to submit in advance 
laws that could be potentially discriminatory.
  I was amazed to hear again the language of federalizing control and a 
Federal takeover of elections when this has been a bipartisan 
commitment for decades grounded in the Constitution of the United 
States which tells us in Article I, Section 4 we can regulate 
elections; Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment saying we can regulate 
elections to prevent race discrimination; Section 5 of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, and the republican Guarantee Clause, which tells us we must 
guarantee to people of the States a republican form of government, 
which means representative government based on democracy.
  Finally, I will allow my friend to portray what is going on in her 
State her way, and she paints a lovely picture. I would just refer her 
to page 25 of the Judiciary Committee report which says that in Arizona 
polling places were closed throughout the State, many with significant 
populations of Latino voters, in advance of the 2016 election. Maricopa 
County, 31 percent Latino, closed 171 polling places, Mohave County 
closed 34, and so on. So there is another story to be told there which 
is embodied in the work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Gottheimer).
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which adopts bipartisan 
language which I introduced with my good friends, Congressman   Tom 
Reed and Congressman Ted Deutch, reaffirming the United States' 
ironclad commitment to providing security assistance to our historic 
ally, Israel, which, as ever, is key to America's national security in 
the region, especially in our fight against terror.
  This vote officially puts to rest the splinter view of adding new 
conditions on aid to Israel and reinforces our historic commitment to 
restoring a two-state solution.
  I want to thank my good friend, House Foreign Affairs Committee 
Chairman Eliot Engel, for his leadership on this issue and for 
including our language in his manager's amendment.
  Madam Speaker, as we have seen in recent weeks, Israel, the democracy 
in the region, faces threats like no other country of missile and 
rocket attacks from terrorist organizations, including Hamas, 
Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as the ongoing threat 
of Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
  Vital security assistance to Israel, including missile defense 
funding for Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3, helps our ally to 
defend itself and preserve its qualitative military edge in the region. 
That is why in 2016 under the Obama administration, the U.S. and Israel 
signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding which constituted the 
single largest pledge of security assistance to Israel in America 
history. The MOU also increased the amount of defense dollars that go 
to U.S. businesses here at home, with as much as $1.2 billion a year 
invested in the United States.
  We know that this aid helps save countless lives, and we know that 
the United States is better off when Israel is fully equipped to defend 
itself. That is why I led a bipartisan amendment with my colleagues, 
Congressman Reed and Congressman Deutch, which reaffirms our commitment 
to providing this assistance without additional conditions or 
exceptions.

  Our amendment was cosponsored by a total of 36 Members of Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, who know that this assistance should not be 
subject to politics. I deeply appreciate all of our colleagues' support 
for our amendment, for this vital, lifesaving assistance, and for the 
bipartisan U.S.-Israel relationship.
  This language is absolutely necessary because of the extreme and 
misguided views of some, especially several currently running for our 
Nation's highest office, who seemingly believe that assistance to 
Israel should be held hostage until Israel makes concessions according 
to their beliefs, including how Israel treats Gaza, which is controlled 
by the foreign terrorist organization Hamas.
  We must stand together in rejecting that harmful view--as one Senator 
called it, the view of having leverage against Israel, our ally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey 10 
additional seconds.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, when our ally, Israel, faces more than 
450 rockets fired by Palestinian and Jihad terrorists in Gaza, it must 
have the ability to defend itself, no matter what.
  That is why with this vote we commit ourselves to strengthening the 
U.S.-Israel relationship by ensuring that we fulfill our guarantee to 
provide vital security assistance to the key democracy in the region.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, 
Mrs. Lesko, for her participation in the Election Subcommittee hearing 
in Phoenix.
  Also, Madam Speaker, I want to thank you personally for your hard 
work in making sure that every person throughout this great Nation gets 
that opportunity to vote and for your work in furthering civil 
discussion and civil rights in your career.
  Madam Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4 today.
  The Voting Rights Act is currently in place. The bill that we will be 
debating tomorrow is not a reauthorization of this important and 
historically bipartisan legislation that has prevented discrimination 
at the ballot box.
  It has only been since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder that Democrats have decided to politicize the Voting 
Rights Act. This landmark decision left the vast majority of the Voting 
Rights Act in place.
  What it struck down was 40-year-old data and the formula used to 
determine which States were to be placed under the control of the 
Department of Justice, known as preclearance. The Supreme Court deemed 
this data and formula was no longer accurate nor relevant for our 
country's current climate.
  The 2013 opinion held that regardless of how to look at the record, 
no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the pervasive, 
flagrant, widespread, and rampant discrimination that faced Congress in 
1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the 
rest of the Nation.
  So what does H.R. 4 do?
  It doubles down and would attempt to put every State and jurisdiction 
under preclearance. This is a bill to federalize elections, regardless 
of what my colleagues have said in this institution today. During last 
night's Rules Committee meeting, it became clear that the majority was 
unable to determine the number of States or jurisdictions that would be 
covered by this preclearance if H.R. 4 were to become law tomorrow. 
Apparently, we have to pass this bill before the American people can 
even find out if they would be subjected to it.
  This is a proposition that the majority knows is bad policy, and it 
is a nonstarter for myself, my colleagues in this Chamber, and those in 
the other body across this Capitol, the Supreme Court, too, but perhaps 
most importantly, the thousands of local election

[[Page H9269]]

officials across the country who would be crippled if this bill were to 
ever become law.
  H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, is not a Voting Rights Act 
reauthorization bill. This is only about preclearance and the 
Democratic majority giving the Department of Justice control over all 
election activity.
  While it is not in my committee's jurisdiction in the House 
Administration Committee, our Subcommittee on Elections majority held 
seven field hearings and one listening session across the U.S., 
encompassing eight different States and over 13,000 miles of air 
travel. Even with this gargantuan effort, the Democrats were still 
unable to produce a single voter who wanted to vote and was unable to 
cast a ballot.
  This is a great thing. We ought to celebrate it. Credit should be 
given to the Voting Rights Act for helping to achieve this. The 2018 
midterm election produced the highest voting turnout in four decades 
according to data from the Census Bureau, especially among minority 
voters. That, again, should be celebrated.
  Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act that are currently in 
effect are continuing to safeguard the public from discrimination at 
the ballot box. Every eligible American who wants to vote in our 
country's elections should be able to cast a ballot. That is why we 
have the Voting Rights Act, a great example of a bipartisan solution 
that is working to help Americans today and protecting Americans from 
discrimination.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4 is just a political attempt from the Democrats 
to give the Federal Government more control over how States run their 
elections. I have now seen four voting bills from the majority come to 
this floor. All of them have one common theme, and that is 
to federalize elections.

  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who has been such a magnificent leader on this 
legislation.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly rise to support 
the rule on H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019.
  Voting rights are primal. They are the cornerstone of our democracy. 
No right is more precious to our citizenship than the right of all 
Americans to be able to vote. When Americans are not able to cast their 
ballots, their votes are silenced, and we, especially as elected 
officials, should be alarmed if any American who wants to cast a ballot 
is unable to cast a ballot.
  What H.R. 4 does is it restores the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by 
giving a new coverage formula. In fact, the Roberts Court specifically 
said in striking down section 4(b) that it was outdated. So H.R. 4 is 
our effort, the efforts of three committees, hours of testimony, lots 
and lots of stakeholders, and lots and lots of people who were American 
citizens not able to vote; it is that effort that led to a narrowly 
tailored new coverage formula. That new coverage formula does not look 
back to the 1960s or to the 1970s. It looks back 25 years, that is 1994 
and going forward.
  It requires adjudicated violations of voter discrimination. It is 
narrowly tailored, and it hits the mark as to what the Supreme Court 
requires us to do in saying that Congress could feel free to update its 
coverage formula.
  The Supreme Court and Roberts, in his opinion, also said that voter 
discrimination still existed. It admitted that it still existed. And 
H.R. 4 is our effort to actually provide a modern-day voter coverage 
formula that will allow States and jurisdictions with the most 
egregious forms of discrimination to be required to preclear.

                              {time}  1300

  The Shelby v. Holder decision originated out of Shelby County, 
Alabama. I am honored every day to represent Alabama's Seventh 
Congressional District. It is a district that knows all too well the 
importance of voting.
  You see, my district includes not only Birmingham and Montgomery but 
my hometown of Selma, Alabama. It was on a bridge in my hometown that 
our colleague   John Lewis and so many other foot soldiers bled on that 
bridge for the equal right of all Americans to be able to vote.
  This is exactly what H.R. 4 does. It restores the full protections of 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In so doing, it provides a mechanism by 
which the most egregious States and localities must preclear before the 
elections. It is so hard to unring the bell once an election has 
already taken place. So section 2, while it has been used to litigate 
and to get good results, it only can occur after the election has taken 
place.
  So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not only an important 
piece of legislation for our Nation to ensure that every American--
American--who has the ability, who is 18 years of age or older, has the 
right to access a ballot box.
  It is clear to me that since the Shelby v. Holder decision, so many 
States have now instituted voter discrimination laws. Some of them have 
been in the guise of voter fraud, but the Brennan Center and so many 
others have found that voter fraud happens minisculely in any election.
  It is not about voter fraud. It is about voter suppression, 
suppressing the voices of certain Americans. And that is un-American, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Just the 2018 midterm elections alone highlight the voter 
discrimination that occurred.
  In Georgia, the Republican candidate for Governor used his power as 
secretary of state to put 53,000 voter registrations on hold, nearly 70 
percent of which belonged to African American voters.
  In North Dakota, Republicans established a new requirement that 
voters must show an ID that they live at a residential street address. 
It was not enough that they had a P.O. Box. That law was a barrier to 
thousands of Native Americans who live on reservations and use P.O. 
Boxes rather than residential street addresses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Doggett). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Maryland has 
shown, in Maricopa County, Arizona, which I think is where the 
gentlewoman is from, there is still voter discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a seminal piece of legislation that will restore 
rights for the people. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, should be 
about making sure it is easier to vote, not harder to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 4.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for 
yielding me time and for her strong opposition to this rule.
  Let's be clear, H. Res. 326 is a one-sided, partisan, and ill-timed 
resolution. This past summer, Members of this Chamber came to the floor 
and passed, almost unanimously, a very strong statement opposing the 
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, as well as much of the 
language that is in this resolution, H. Res. 326. This is actually a 
watered-down version of what we passed last summer. There is nothing in 
this resolution that we didn't already pass almost unanimously last 
summer.
  So, what happened? We woke up the day after that resolution passed 
last summer, and the Republicans wanted to pass legislation with teeth. 
I know that we have a lot of strong, bipartisan support for passing 
legislation with teeth, S.1/H.R. 336, legislation that already passed 
the Senate with almost 80 votes. But, unfortunately, for some of my 
colleagues, they woke up the next day and instead of wanting to pass 
legislation with teeth that would do something about it, do something 
about that strong statement that we made, we have been seeing this 
resolution passed as the main effort for the second half of this year.
  In the last 2 years, Israel has been hit by over 2,600 rockets and 
mortars, and 1,500 of those rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into 
Israel in the past year alone. Last week, every headline in the region 
was about Israel being bombarded with over 450 rockets, and that was 
just one moment in time.
  This resolution fails to not only recognize these latest attacks but 
all the

[[Page H9270]]

persistent assaults on innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists. 
Notice this resolution is reprimanding Israel, but it says nothing 
about Palestinian terrorists.
  My friend on the other side of the aisle, when he was giving his 
opening remarks, was reprimanding Israel and didn't say anything about 
Palestinian terrorists murdering innocent Israelis; nothing about the 
pay-to-slay program where the Palestinians financially reward terrorism 
and incite violence; nothing about Hamas denying humanitarian aid, 
calling jihad an obligation, and saying that they do not recognize 
Israel as a Jewish state.
  This reality is lost in this resolution. This resolution completely 
fails to mention that Israel has made repeated attempts to offer peace 
proposals to the Palestinian Authority. Time and again, the Palestinian 
Authority has rejected peace proposals because they refuse publicly and 
privately to accept a Jewish state in Israel.
  This resolution is silent on fundamental facts that shape the way 
Israel has dealt with this constant threat on its border. This 
resolution chooses to reference President Obama's policy toward Israel 
while intentionally leaving out President Trump's policy, ensuring a 
partisan outcome for this resolution.
  Support for Israel in this Chamber has long been bipartisan. For 
whatever reason, the majority is choosing to advance in the resolution 
tomorrow that is going to have one of the most partisan votes to ever 
take place regarding Israel in the history of the House of 
Representatives. Congratulations.

  H. Res. 326 undercuts the administration's efforts to strengthen our 
critical alliance with our greatest ally, Israel, and the timing of 
this vote is fooling no one. This resolution is a clear rebuke to the 
Trump administration's recent reversal of the Obama administration's 
targeting of Israel with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.
  If House Democrats want to pass bipartisan legislation with teeth, 
they should bring S.1/H.R. 336, which has already passed the Senate, as 
I mentioned, with strong, bipartisan support and was introduced by 
Congressman   Michael McCaul in the House. There is even a discharge 
petition led by Congressman Brian Mast for this bill that has almost 
200 signatures on it. If it came to a vote in this Chamber, it would 
pass.
  How about we focus on passing legislation that gets through the 
House? It has already been through the Senate. It will be signed by the 
President. We will be doing something about that strong statement that 
we made last summer.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this rule and against 
this partisan resolution.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, all I will observe is that the gentleman 
from New York oddly begins by attacking a resolution for being a 
recycled version of language we have already adopted on a massive 
bipartisan basis in the House. Then he closes by attacking us for this 
resolution being partisan and divisive in some way. Obviously, those 
two things don't match up.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Voting rights guarantee all of our other rights. When 
Americans are obstructed from freely participating in elections, our 
democracy is imperiled.
  This bill, six long years overdue, restores a key provision of the 
Voting Rights Act that was wrongfully nullified by Republican-appointed 
justices.
  How troubling that a law that President Lyndon Johnson long ago 
secured now is being obstructed, while our home State of Texas has 
become ground zero for voter suppression. State Republicans have 
aggressively, illegally purged voting rolls. They eliminated mobile 
voting to quash especially student and senior voters. They enacted a 
cumbersome voter ID law. And they horribly, illegally gerrymandered our 
State.
  Republicans split 100 voting precincts to create the district which I 
serve today, creating one of the most crooked districts that weaken the 
accessibility and accountability of Congress Members. A three-judge 
Federal court with two Republican-appointed judges unanimously 
condemned Texas redistricting as intentional racially discriminatory 
intent in its work.
  Fortunately, the Texas Civil Rights Project, MoveTexas, LULAC, and 
other groups have challenged the suppression, but this bill is 
essential to offer the protection that they, and our democracy, 
deserve.
  We need preclearance in Texas. We need preclearance to clear away all 
the obstacles Republicans insist on imposing to ensure that our State 
remains a voter nonparticipation State for democracy.
  Madam Speaker, let's support H.R. 4.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will bring to the floor H.R. 
2207, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2019, which most people 
know as the bill that will eliminate the medical device tax.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sewell of Alabama). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2207 was introduced by Mr. Kind from 
Wisconsin, and it has 253 bipartisan cosponsors, including myself.
  Since the medical device tax was imposed by the Affordable Care Act, 
commonly known as ObamaCare, folks have known that it was detrimental 
to innovation and to patient access to necessary devices and 
treatments. The 2.3 percent excise tax has been suspended twice because 
we know it is bad policy. So what are we waiting for?
  Madam Speaker, we should be bringing legislation to this floor that 
showcases how we can work together. The American people need to see us 
united on issues as important as this. We need to stand together when 
opportunities like these arise to better the lives and truly help all 
of our constituencies. H.R. 2207 does just that.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana 
(Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question.
  If we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule 
to include the repeal of the medical device tax.
  The medical device tax takes effect on January 1, 2020, unless 
Congress acts. Time is of the essence. Yet, my friends across the aisle 
continue to waste our time and energy and, more importantly, clock time 
that we need to stop this tax from going into effect.
  This is a bipartisan bill with 253 of us cosponsoring it. All I am 
asking is that the 253 cosponsors get an opportunity before this 
expires to say stop this, stop the wheels from grinding. Let's do 
something that counts for our fellow Americans, for senior citizens who 
are the recipients of a lot of these medical device implants.
  It brings quality of life. Oftentimes, it brings the extension of 
very important quality of life to seniors. It is less time in 
hospitals. It has been proven--back up on people's feet to engage back 
in the workforce and their part of the American Dream.
  Instead of having nothing happening in a bipartisan way, as our 
fellow Americans are watching what is happening in this House, if 253 
of us agree on this today, we can stop this onerous tax. We can stop 
costing healthcare and the exorbitant amount of increases sent back 
down to all of our constituents.
  This is a big deal in the State of Indiana, where I come from. What 
we do in the State of Indiana with 300 medical device manufacturing 
companies supporting nearly 55,000 good-paying jobs--nationally, the 
industry directly employs over half a million people.

                              {time}  1315

  It is no understatement to say that thousands of jobs are at stake if 
the medical device tax comes back in 26 days. When the tax was in 
effect for the 3 years of 2012 to 2015, industry lost almost 30,000 
jobs nationwide, according to government data.
  Madam Speaker, we should be focusing on important, urgent, bipartisan 
issues like this. We can do something together to make our constituents 
and to make our Nation better.

[[Page H9271]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Twenty-six days 
to go. We can work together. Over 250 of us are cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  I ask, on behalf of every citizen, everybody working in the medical 
device industry, and for the sake of our own economy, let's do 
something that makes sense for this country.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, in closing, H.R. 4 is totally partisan, 
without one Republican cosponsor; and H. Res. 326, another totally 
partisan bill, ties the Trump administration's hands and embarrasses 
Israel.
  Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the 
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank my friend from Arizona, who rightfully invites us to 
focus on legislation that will bring us together.
  The gentlewoman from Indiana, who I have not had the good fortune of 
meeting yet, accuses me of wasting not just time, but something called 
``clock time,'' which sounds like a really low blow.
  In any event, I think our legislation actually will bring us together 
and should bring us together. The rule is for two pieces of legislation 
that I thought ought to have and would have complete bipartisan 
support.
  The first is simply to update the preclearance coverage formula, 
section 4(b) in the Voting Rights Act, as we were instructed to do by 
the Supreme Court in the Shelby County v. Holder decision.
  The Voting Rights Act is the product of a massive political and 
social struggle in the country to make America move forward, but it had 
been supported by huge bipartisan majorities in 1965, in 1982, and in 
2006. Yet, today, our friends across the aisle now attack it as a 
Federal takeover of State elections, which is absolutely flabbergasting 
that the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, is now attacking the 
Voting Rights Act and the preclearance requirement for being some kind 
of assault on Federalism when it vindicates the right of all Americans 
to vote, as we are not only authorized to do under the 14th and 15th 
Amendments, but we are obligated to do under the republican Guarantee 
Clause to make sure that all Americans are in a representative 
relationship with their government.
  So I invite them to come on back over to this side of the Voting 
Rights Act.
  Obviously, we are all for a two-state solution, as American 
Presidents of both parties have been for, for the last several decades, 
so I invite them to come back over for that, too.
  This resolution cannot be both a tired rehash of everything we have 
done in the past, as was claimed, but also some kind of partisan 
departure. The partisan departure is on their side.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote 
on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 741

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2207.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________