Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 130 (Monday, July 26, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 130 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3891-H3900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2021, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I am here to anchor this Special
Order on the fierce urgency of preserving the precious right to vote by
passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and
legislation like H.R. 1, For The People.
I am delighted to be co-anchoring this Congressional Black Caucus
Special Order at the request of our tireless leader for justice,
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, and to be joined by my co-anchor,
Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York, and many other members of the
Congressional Black Caucus.
Fifty-six years ago, in a century that was close to a hundred years
after the Emancipation Proclamation and the rendition of the 15th
Amendment, the very right to vote, there we were fighting with this
beloved Member of Congress, who challenged us to get into good trouble,
fighting in 1965, pursuant to the collapse of the understanding of the
15th Amendment, fighting for the right to vote again.
Madam Speaker, here we are today, 2021, now 56 years after the 1965
Voting Rights Act, fighting for the right to vote.
I want to make sure that I pay tribute to Our Power, Our Message, led
by the Honorable Joyce Beatty, who does not only speak her words, but
she acts on her words, how proud we were. But I am sure pride is not
what she wants us to feel as she walked down this difficult road here
in Washington, D.C., to be able to express, with Black women and
others, that we have a fierce sense of urgency, and was arrested, just
about two weeks ago, in the name of voting rights.
So let me, for a moment, read to you out of the book that has just
been published by a dear, beloved friend, ``Carry On.'' I use this book
in the Rules Committee, when there seems to have been a challenge to
helping the impoverished. I concluded my remarks, when I was giving
amendments, to help the impoverished to carry on.
But on the issue of justice, these are his words: ``We must practice
what we preach. If we believe in life and liberty, then we should not
defer the dream of equality and justice''--the right to vote--``under
the law for people of color. We must use the system of government to
improve our laws and to make our society fairer and more just. While no
one bill can right the many wrongs, we can stitch together partial
solutions to deal with the complex societal issues that lead to
systemic bias and inequality.''
That is why we stand here today. We are stitching together a response
to the collapse of voting rights in America. We are stitching together
laws that will deal with the mass of suppression laws being passed in
State legislatures across America. We are stitching together a response
for those brave Texas Democratic representatives who are here in
Washington, D.C., who are begging us to pass H.R. 1 and S. 1 and of
course we have passed H.R. 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act.

{time} 2015

Let me just briefly say that serious damage to the precious right to
vote occasioned by the rightwing conservative majority on the Supreme
Court demands that the Congress exercise its powers under section 5 of
the 15th Amendment to restore the extraordinary reach and effectiveness
of section 2 and section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The 15th Amendment
said that no law, no State legislature should abridge the right to vote
on the basis of discrimination of race and color and ethnicity and that
the Congress should stand up and provide the relief and the answer.
Did you hear, Madam Speaker? The Congress. And the Congressional
Black Caucus has said that, not only with their words but with their
bodies. Hank Johnson was just arrested last week, Congressman Hank
Johnson.
So the objection to the VRA and their opponents is without substance.
I have long said that the States that were subject to preclearance
under the Voting Rights Act earned their way into so doing by
discriminatory laws.
Madam Speaker, June 25, 2021, marked the eighth anniversary of the
Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which
immobilized the Department of Justice from subjecting discriminatory
voting and election laws to the preclearance.
On August 6 will be the commemoration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
56 years. And look at the predicament we are in.
Later on in this debate I will recount all the times we voted for the
Voting Rights Act. Madam Speaker, it was bipartisan. It was across
racial lines, regional lines, because we knew it was the right thing to
do.
So tonight we stand on what is right. We stand on good trouble. We
stand on making the decision that not the

[[Page H3892]]

Shelby case, not the Arizona case. The Arizona case is Brnovich v. DNC
that dashes section 2, and frankly says, by one of the justices, that a
little bit of discrimination is okay. Not on the watch of the
Congressional Black Caucus and all of my colleagues, because voting
rights belongs to every single person in this Congress and to their
constituents.
Why would they want to deny the implementation and the substance of
the Constitution and the 15th Amendment?
So here we are tonight to be able to explain to the American public
and our colleagues that we cannot wait any longer for H.R. 4 or H.R. 1,
S. 1, S. 4, and we are here tonight to tell our story.
It is my pleasure and certainly my privilege, as we continue to tell
our story, and as I continue to weave in that story, to yield to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Beatty), who, again, has spoken with her
actions, not just her words, the Chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus, senior member and chairwoman on the Financial Services
Committee, and, again, someone who showed the Nation that it is both
our message and our power by being arrested in the name of the fight
for equality, getting into a little good trouble.
I am sure John Lewis, rest in power, is looking down on us.
Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,
who is coanchor with Congressman Ritchie Torres.
Let me say this: Congresswoman Jackson Lee is at the right place in
the right time in history. I thank her for her leadership and her
powerful, profound words of talking about not only our late Congressman
John Lewis, but talking about why we are here tonight, speaking truth
to power, from her own experiences, from her own leadership, from those
marches that I have read about and witnessed her in, leading not only
individuals from Texas but across this Nation. So I thank her and look
forward to hearing her talk about voting rights under attack.
Lastly, let me thank her for quoting from his latest book, ``Carry
On.'' Just as it was fitting for her, as a powerful attorney, to talk
about justice, in that book he talks about voting rights, and in that
book he kept it quite simple. In capital letters, he said: Vote, vote,
vote. And stand up for the right of voting, because voting rights
belong to all of us and all of our constituents.
Madam Speaker, let me say tonight, I rise and join my colleagues of
the Congressional Black Caucus for this Special Order hour on a
critically important topic, voting rights.
The Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour is generally
regarded as a solemn moment to give the CBC an opportunity to speak
directly to the American people and to reflect on the ideas and
policies of critical interest to our constituents.
Well, tonight I speak to the people about the right to vote. We are
gathered in this sacred Chamber, the floor of the people's House, to
discuss the future of voting rights in America, to amplify our power,
our message, and to boldly proclaim that we are not going to let the
clock be turned back to a time when the votes of Black people were
restricted and limited by those who feared our power.
On behalf of the 57 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I come
today to share some thoughts and join my colleagues on this debate on
voting rights.
The right to vote is under attack, and some of those attacks have
taken place right here in this Chamber, and in other States across the
Nation.
So, Madam Speaker, let me be clear to the American people: The
Congressional Black Caucus will not sit idly by as State legislatures,
fueled by the support of adversaries intent on limiting our access to
the ballot box, voter suppression, changing the rules of engagement
after we have been victorious. We have the majority in the House, the
Senate, and we are building back better with the Biden-Harris
administration. To all of those who believe it does not exist, I have a
message for you: We won. We stand for the people, because we were
elected by the people.
The civil disobedience displayed by the proud Black women and
activists, allies, and others just over a week and a half ago that our
coanchor talked about, we were there for a reason, organized by good
friend and colleague Melanie Campbell, Clayola Brown, Barbara Skinner,
the Reverend Barbara Skinner, and so many other women. Well, yes, I was
proud to stand with them.

On that day I did reflect back on how many of my CBC colleagues had
been arrested and what they fought for that gave me the privilege to
stand on this floor tonight. Did I think about John Lewis and did I
think about Fannie Lou Hamer and so many more? Yes. Did I think about
Rosa Parks and what she did to give us the Montgomery March of 1955
when she sat down that gave us 1964 civil rights, 1965 voting rights,
1968 jobs and housing act, and so much more?
Well, tonight, that is what we are standing here for. We understand,
Madam Speaker, that you can't change the future if you don't
acknowledge the past. And that is why you will hear us repeatedly talk
about the legal cases. You will hear us talking about our rich history.
And as much as we embrace it and we love it, we are not going back to
it. And that is why we are standing here.
Madam Speaker, I stand with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and
coanchor Ritchie Torres. Let me just say tonight, we send a strong
message that we are here to pass H.R. 1 and H.R. 4, the For the People
Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. We are done waiting. We are
done being patient.
If it means we have to speak out, if it means we have to stand up and
march and protest, then that is what we will do. The example set by
Democrats across the United States, and specifically those members who
came here from Texas, we stand with them, because they were forced to
come here. Are they making a bold statement? Yes.
But think about it. It has only taken one action, one person to get
the attention of the Nation to change things and make it right. And
that is what we are doing. When people ask why, why do we stand here
and stand up for freedom and justice and our equal rights and to
protect our voting rights? Because we know if we don't stand up for
ourselves, what will our future be like? What will the future of our
children, our grandchildren, and those yet unborn be like? Well, we
want to stand up today for H.R. 1, for H.R. 4, so we leave them with a
better future.
Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee for giving me
the opportunity to speak tonight.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairwoman of the
Congressional Black Caucus for her powerful words. And, yes, thank her
for acknowledging the women who stood in the gap, including Melanie
Campbell and Reverend Barbara Williams Skinner and Clayola Brown, and
Tamika, who has been at the forefront as well, and many, many others
that have, likewise, been at the forefront. We are pleased to be able
to join in their leadership as well.

General Leave

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Torres), a gentleman who now walks in history, who knows his
history, and who is prepared to fight against that history that should
never be repeated, my coanchor, who has eloquently articulated what was
in General Granger's Order No. 3, and that is the equality of rights.
Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be
here with Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
The culprit is not only the Republican Party, but it is also the
Supreme Court. The rightwing majority on the Supreme Court gave the
Voting Rights Act the narrowest possible meaning in order to render it
powerless against 21st century voter suppression.
Congress deliberately wrote the Voting Rights Act broadly so as to
protect against both obvious and insidious forms of voter
disenfranchisement. The broad language of the Voting Rights

[[Page H3893]]

Act prohibits not only the denial, but also the abridgement of voting
rights. It prohibits not only discriminatory intent, but also racially
disparate impact. It requires that all methods of voting be equally
open to communities of color, and that communities of color have an
equal opportunity to cast their ballots.
And so anything that undermines equal openness and equal opportunity
is a violation of the Voting Rights Act properly interpreted. I would
submit to you that voter suppression in America has no greater ally
than rightwing judicial activism.

{time} 2030

Instead of interpreting the Voting Rights Act as written, the
rightwing majority on the Supreme Court has chosen to rewrite the
statute out of existence. The enforcement mechanisms of the Voting
Rights Act have been all but eviscerated. There was section 5, which
provided for preclearance, which enabled the executive branch to
protect voting rights. Then there was section 2, which provided for
litigation, which enabled the courts to protect voting rights.
Both of those enforcement mechanisms had been gutted at the hands of
the Supreme Court, the former in Shelby County v. Holder and the latter
in Brnovich v. DNC.
We know from history, Madam Speaker, that the most effective tool for
preventing voter suppression is preclearance. According to Justice
Kagan, from 1965 to 2006, the Federal Government harnessed the power of
section 5, the power of preclearance, to prevent 1,200 voting
restrictions from taking effect.
We should see the desecration of both section 5 and section 2 as a
call to action, as a call for the United States Congress to pass the
John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would restore our preclearance not
only for select jurisdictions but for every State and locality across
the Nation.
Let it be known that the greatest obstacle on the path to 21st
century voting rights enforcement is the filibuster. The filibuster
perpetuates a status quo that disenfranchises communities of color. If
you are a defender of the filibuster, then you should dispense with the
pretense that you are a champion of voting rights. If you are a
defender of the filibuster, you are not part of the solution, but you
are part of the problem.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from New York for opening the pathway. We may have him continue to
explore that journey, which I will take up, and that is the question of
the filibuster. Someone described it as busting things up and busting
good things up.
We know that there has to be a solution to those who have argued
that, in fact, they are about the institution of the other body; they
are about the integrity of the other body. I would argue that where
blood has been shed so that people have died so that people might vote,
it is not the integrity of the institution. It is the life and death of
voting rights, not only for people of color, but for this Nation.
A man who has argued eloquently about the filibuster and a resolve of
our next steps, but also recognizes historically, not only the civil
rights journey but the fundamental right of voting that should not be
hindered or undermined is our majority whip, and we are very grateful
for his leadership and his historical perspective and his current
understanding of how we have to get the job done.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
me and thank her so much for bringing this issue before the American
people.
For several weeks now, we have all heard discussions about various
aspects of H.R. 1 and H.R. 4. Now, H.R. 4, as all of us know, has not
yet passed the Congress and is now before the Senate.
But I wanted to bring two issues to the forefront here this evening.
The first one has to do with the so-called preclearance that we just
heard a discussion on. I am serving in the Congress today in large part
because of the preclearance in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
But preclearance came into being because of some targeted
legislation, legislation targeted toward those States that had a
history of discriminating. Therefore, because all the States did not
have that kind of a history, we had to go out and develop a record to
show that this is the reason these particular States are being
targeted. All or parts of seven States were initially covered and, of
course, we all know what happened in Shelby County v. Holder.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act was virtually gutted because the formula
of section 4 is no longer operative. Therefore, section 5 has really
been neutralized, which is the preclearance.
Here is something I want to bring to the attention of the American
people, and that is this: If you were to only pass preclearance as it
relates to a history of discrimination, we will miss what is happening
in the country today. Pennsylvania was not one of those States. Yet, we
see massive discrimination in voting being advocated throughout
Pennsylvania. The same thing is going on up in Michigan.
Now, according to the studies I have read, 48 States have now put
into place or proposed--I think 28 of them have put into place--
restrictive voting laws. Under the standard of the 1965 Voting Rights
Act, these States would not be covered. Therefore, it is time for
everybody to turn their attention to what we need to do about
preclearance.
I submit that preclearance needs to be applied universally to all 50
States, because if you pass preclearance, zeroing in on seven, eight,
nine States, and then another State pops up with a new restrictive law,
that State would not be covered under preclearance, and I think it is
time for us to take a look at that as well.
Madam Speaker, I call upon my friends in the Senate to not wait
around for us to develop this record, though I think it is pretty much
in place, look at applying preclearance to all 50 States.
The second thing I think that we are needing to begin to think about
that is not being discussed is this little thing called nullification;
states enacting nullification laws. If you look at the Georgia law that
they passed, it is very suppressive. It restricts. The thing that is
insulting to me is that little part in there that allows an established
commission to overturn the results of an election, to nullify the
results of an election. None of us are using that word today, but that
word is very prominent when you look at what States are doing.
That violates not just laws as passed by this Congress, that violates
the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear. Article I, Section 4
tells us that no State can pass final judgment on federal elections. No
State. The best argument for that is sitting right there in The
Federalist Papers No. 59. It talks about it and lays out examples as to
why the Federal Government cannot allow States to determine the
election.
That is why the Supreme Court made it very clear that States could
not put term limits on Members of Congress because that is not their
purview. When you see nullification laws coming forward, I think it is
incumbent upon this Congress to step in and do what is necessary to
exert the Constitution of the United States. That is what is at threat
here today. That is why I have argued irrespective of what you may feel
about filibusters.
Filibusters ought not be applied to anybody's constitutional rights
because it will allow a State to give final determination as it relates
to federal elections, and that is as unconstitutional as anything that
can take place.
Madam Speaker, I think that it is incumbent upon the Federal
Government, the Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate
to do what is necessary to make sure that the United States
Constitution still reigns supreme.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from South Carolina for his comments. He clearly acted, as I indicated,
and that is, he presented the history, but he brought us to the 21st
century and 2021. I think the challenge that we are now offering to the
American people, incredulously, how can anyone try to undermine the
votes of any American, and particularly those Americans of color?
As I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, let me at least
just depict for a moment the uniqueness of our history, for this
picture is a picture

[[Page H3894]]

of a whipped, beaten back of a slave. That means that we had
extraordinary conditions, extraordinary circumstances. In the 1800s
preceding and around the Emancipation Proclamation, I will just read
these words as I yield: Congress put forward the 15th Amendment and it
made it very clear that:

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied
by any State or political subdivision in a manner which
results in a denial or abridgement of the rights of any
citizen of the United States to vote on the account of race,
or color, or language minority status.

This was coming out of slavery when they had the 13th Amendment that
eliminated slavery but didn't eliminate stigma and institutional
racism, gave due process, and then gave the right to vote out of the
history of what is depicted here. That is why this is so serious that
an institutional rule cannot survive over the right to vote, and the
big lie cannot supersede the right to vote.
It is my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Adams), who is a historian and professor in her own right and
spent her life's work teaching at historically Black colleges which
were born out of the seeds or born out of the quagmire and the fires of
slavery but born to make a difference. She has been a champion for the
HBCUs and understands what the denial of the vote and voting rights
means to that constituency.

{time} 2045

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I thank the coanchor, Sheila Jackson Lee. I
thank her for her stellar leadership and all of her diligent work and
labor in this vineyard.
To the dynamic coanchor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), I
thank him so very much.
To our illustrious chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am so
very proud of her work and very proud of her leadership, and I thank
her so much.
Power is what makes the difference in lives and communities. The
first thing you have to understand about power and how to get it: You
don't ask somebody how to get it, where it is, if you can have it. You
take it.
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about our most fundamental
right in a democracy, the power of the vote, the right to vote.
While we have made amazing strides over the past century--votes for
women, voting rights for Native Americans and indigenous people, the
end of racist Jim Crow laws that completely suppressed the Black votes
in certain States, and lowering the voting age to 18--we are still
marching because the promise of one person, one vote continues to be
abridged by State legislatures across the country.
Marches, sit-ins, and protests are part of our rights as Americans,
but we shouldn't have to March 245 years after the Declaration of
Independence. We shouldn't have to march 151 years after the 15th
Amendment guaranteed Black Americans the right to vote. We shouldn't
have to march a full century after women's suffrage.
But we will continue to march, and we will continue to make our
voices heard until every adult citizen can freely, fairly, and easily
access the ballot. To cast a vote is at the core of what it means to be
American. It is how we build a more perfect Union.
Here in the House, we have passed voting rights bills that bring us
closer to a more perfect Union. As we await the support of our Senate
colleagues on this urgent matter, the issue of voting rights, I want to
leave you with this because I have to tell you that, in my State of
North Carolina, there is a lot of mischief going on, and there has been
for a number of years.
As the gentlewoman knows, my district was considered to be the
district that they described as ``surgical precision.'' It continues to
be a problem.
I have been a State legislator for 20 years. I have witnessed
legislation that targets African Americans with almost surgical
precision and imposes cures for problems that did not exist--that is,
unless you think African Americans voting is a problem.
Congress cannot tolerate State-level attempts to curb our most
fundamental right. Now is the time to make sure that every American who
can vote has the opportunity to do so. This is our power, our message.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
pointed message about North Carolina and her district. I think I join
her. My district is a voting rights district, so we know what it is to
be at the edge of surviving.
The only way that we have survived is with the protection of the 1965
Voting Rights Act. We are living testimony that it is crucial to the
vast diversity that has been created in this House on behalf of the
American people.
Madam Speaker, let me now take the pleasure of yielding to another
distinguished Member who has had her own history in a very unique
State.
Someone asked the question: Is it Southern? Is it Northern? I think
you only have to hear her--and, of course, the President of the United
States, who is a very forthright leader. President Joe Biden and Vice
President Harris have been forthright in confronting issues that have
been meant to help the American people heal and unite. She has been
right in the mix and, as well, has been a leader on labor issues, a
leader on healthcare issues. But one thing she knows is the depth of
disparity that plagues a community when voting is extinguished.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt
Rochester).
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Sheila
Jackson Lee for her leadership and the things that she does to protect
all of us across the country, not just in her district but across the
country. We are greatly indebted to her for her service.
The gentlewoman mentioned me coming from the State of Delaware and
whether it is Southern or Northern. Many people might not know, but we
are on the Mason-Dixon Line. We are urban, suburban, rural, and
coastal. But we are also on that Mason-Dixon Line with that strong
history.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and her coanchor, Mr. Torres,
and I thank our esteemed chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Joyce Beatty.
Madam Speaker, I stand before you tonight with a sense of urgency
because the most fundamental and sacred right we have as Americans is
under attack.
Across this country, State lawmakers have introduced at least 389
restrictive bills in 48 States just this year, and 14 States have
already enacted more restrictive voting laws. Even the highest court in
the land is chipping away at this fundamental right.
We know that those who would engage in suppression, subversion, and
intimidation are not resting, but neither is the Congressional Black
Caucus. Tonight, we are standing up and speaking out because we know
that just as our message is our power so, too, is our vote.
I am going to say that again: Our vote is our power.
We are here to protect and defend that right because the vote is tied
to everything. The vote is tied to criminal justice reform. The vote is
tied to healthcare. The vote is tied to the minimum wage increase
across this country and access to affordable childcare. It is tied to
the preservation of our democracy. It is tied to our very existence:
the ability to drink clean water, breathe air that is free of
pollution, and even to have a planet to live on.

Everything is tied to the vote, and the vote is on the line.
While we are fighting a new battle, it is the same old tactics that
we have seen before. And it is a future we are not going back to.
Yesterday, we lost another American civil rights leader and educator,
Bob Moses. One of the many things that he was known for was Freedom
Summer, a project to organize and register voters. Through intimidation
and beating, Bob Moses never relented in his mission to register voters
in the South.
Sixty years later, it is our turn to answer the question that Bob
asked of students, a question that goes to the very core of who we are:
What kind of society will we be?
Today, the CBC is here to proclaim loudly and proudly: We will be the
kind of society that values every voice, empowers every citizen, and
counts every vote because it is all on the line. We must pass and have
signed into law

[[Page H3895]]

H.R. 1, the For the People Act, and H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
In honor of Bob Moses, let's make this the Freedom Summer of our
time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
mentioning Bob Moses.
For those of us who care and know about history, we know about Bob
Moses, and it makes this night even more significant because if you are
losing the peaceful warriors who helped organize and put themselves on
the line, then we must carry on. I thank the gentlewoman from Delaware.
Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 17 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me make an argument regarding
where we are, and then I will be happy to yield to my coanchor and
happy to conclude.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to reemphasize where we are today and
reemphasize that, unfortunately, a bill that had been passed as
bipartisan for years has been ``upheavaled'' by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, a Supreme Court that, as my friend from New York
described, is an activist Supreme Court--the Shelby Court and now the
Brnovich Court, absolutely wrongheaded decisions.
In Shelby, I believe the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that
you don't throw away an umbrella in a rainstorm.
Now, let me characterize these words and not attribute them. I think
one of the other points that was made is: Just because polio is not on
the rise, you don't get rid of the polio vaccine. Just because you
think COVID-19 is gone, you don't throw all manner of precautions to
the wind.
Obviously, we see what is happening with this kind of reckless
behavior and this kind of red State, blue State discord. People are
dying.
That is where we are with voting rights. The Shelby case in 2013 just
imploded the preclearance, which in actuality says that as you begin to
think about a bill that may have these discriminatory impacts, they can
be precleared by the Department of Justice and stopped in their tracks.
Section 2 says the harm has been done, and you can run into court
making the argument that it is discriminatory.
Tragically, all we were left with, before the Brnovich case, was
section 2. But here, what has happened in this case that came out of
Arizona--a place where the big lie is playing out every day with a
false and misleading and disreputable vote count. To my colleague, I
don't know what they found yet, but it is certainly one that has no
basis in fact.
The Court in Brnovich suggested that they would have something called
guideposts--I call them burdens or suggestions--that when reviewing
claims that are facially so-called neutral election policy, practice,
or voting rule, and it is discriminating, you can look at these
aspects.
You can burden us by saying, ``Here is what you look at.'' Are they
ordinary burdens or mere inconvenience exception, the size of
disparities and burdens imposed by the challenge rule, other
opportunities to vote provided by a State's election system.
So, the polls are closed. You can't do a mail ballot. You don't have
Souls to the Polls. So, just find some other way to vote.
That is the question. They say, ``other opportunities to vote.'' You
close out all the other supporting aspects of voting, and maybe you can
get to vote in a snowstorm. Maybe you can get to vote as a military
person in battle. Maybe you can show up to the voting poll on election
day because that is another opportunity. Maybe you can get on a plane
and leave battle to vote. These are the just nonsensical aspects of the
Brnovich case.
Legitimate State interests justifying the challenge voting rule--oh,
there is a State interest to close your polling locations in minority
neighborhoods, to not have places to get a voter ID in eight counties
in Texas when you have a law that says you must have a voting ID, or to
close out Souls to the Polls, a perfectly legal concept to allow people
who work around the clock through a Sunday to go vote. I guess you
would tell them to just find another opportunity.
When we were in the middle of COVID-19 and nurses and doctors were
working around the clock, Harris County said: We will give you 24-hour
voting.
Legally, law enforcement present, machines in order, no fraud
detected at all, but you are fighting COVID, and you might not get off
until 1 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m.
Yet, this is what the big lie brings about, and then the degree to
which a voting rule departs from what was a standard practice when
section 2 was amended in 1982.
Now, the crisis of this is that all of this must be run down for you
to be able to prevail under section 2, under the Brnovich case.
Taken together, this Supreme Court cabal is saying to racial, ethnic,
and language minorities already intimidated--and you need to look at
what John Lewis faced in 1965, this brunt force, law enforcement on
horses chasing foot soldiers back over the bridge, 8-year-olds running
for their lives, and bloodied older persons, foot soldiers, and John
Robert Lewis, who said he thought he was going to die.

{time} 2100

That is what sacrifice has been made for voting. Taken together, this
court decision is saying: What is the big deal? It is only voting. Just
like with bad weather, sometimes you just have to grin and bear it and
have a little inconvenience. Just a little bit of discrimination. Why
are you concerned about that?
And so I assume that without the 24th amendment, that this
conservative majority and the court will subject poll taxes and
literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich. Just a
little bit of inconvenience. Take that money out and pay that poll tax.
You don't have any money? I guess your fundamental right to vote has
just been extinguished.
That is where we are today. That is why we are here today challenging
the filibuster, speaking about the Federalist papers nullification, and
trying to understand that the Constitution prevails over all of these
miserly bills across the Nation. The 15th amendment and then the
Constitution statement, very clearly says that Congress, that no one
can nullify or stop your rights as a person that is elected to Congress
because they have no rights.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article, an op-ed, that I
submitted on June 26, 2021, authored by myself.

Where GOP Lawmakers Have Passed New Voting Restrictions Around the
Country

Republican state legislators have introduced hundreds of
bills that would tighten access to voting around the country,
many of them echoing former president Donald Trump's false
claims that loose election laws allowed fraud to taint the
2020 White House race.
The groundswell began early this year with the introduction
of 253 bills proposing voting restrictions across 43 states
as of mid-February, according to the nonpartisan Brennan
Center for Justice. That number rose to at least 389 bills in
48 states as of mid-May.
The national spotlight is now on Texas after Democratic
lawmakers left the state on July 12 in an effort to block
passage of one of the most stringent new voting measures in
the country. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said the members
could face arrest when they return, which is not expected
until the state's special legislative session concludes--
potentially as late as Aug. 7.
Across the country, 17 states have enacted laws this year
that tighten the rules around casting ballots and running
elections, according to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab,
which tracks developments in state election law.
Many of the bills target mail voting and other policies
that helped safeguard the franchise during the coronavirus
pandemic and produce the highest turnout among American
voters in more than a century.
Some of the bills also seek to curtail early voting, impose
restrictions on voter registration efforts, limit the power
of local officials to oversee elections and stop private
donors from supplementing their operational budgets.
Democratic-controlled states have moved in the other
direction, approving measures to formalize more permissive
voting policies from 2020, complementing proposed federal
legislation to protect voting rights with a set of national
standards.
In addition to the states listed below, Alabama, Arkansas,
Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, New
Hampshire, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming have
also passed laws with restrictive language.

[[Page H3896]]

STATES WITH SIGNIFICANT NEW VOTING RESTRICTIONS

Arizona--Enacted May 11 and June 30
Republicans in Arizona changed the state's popular
Permanent Early Voting List, which determines who receives
mail ballots each election cycle.
The new rules mean voters who do not cast a ballot at least
once every two years will have to respond to a government
notice to avoid being removed from the list and to continue
getting a ballot in the mail.
Another measure, signed into law on June 30, stripped power
from Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, allowed third
parties designated by the legislature to flag ineligible
voters for removal from the rolls and provided funds for
election security and post-election recounts.
Florida--Enacted May 6
New state law signed May 6 institutes a number of changes,
including requiring voters to renew their mail voting
application every two years and to submit a form of
identification.
With some exceptions, voters' access to drop boxes for
returning mail ballots will be limited to early voting hours,
a maximum of 12 hours per day.
If any drop box is found to be accessible outside of these
hours, the local supervisor of elections could be subject to
a civil penalty of $25,000.
Voters will be permitted to drop off only two ballots for
nonfamily members.
The law gives partisan election observers more access to
the ballot counting process.
It also prevents behavior undertaken with the ``intent'' of
influencing a voter, so the law is likely to bar efforts to
provide food and water to people waiting in line to cast in-
person ballots.
Donations to election budgets from private individuals are
also not allowed.
Georgia--Enacted March 25
Georgia's new voting law signed by Gov. Brian Kemp (R) on
March 25 imposes a number of restrictions on voting in the
state, earning it comparisons to the Jim Crow laws that
effectively blocked Black men and women from voting in the
American South.
Specifically, the rules prevent proactively sending mail
ballot applications to voters, require voters to submit
identification with their application to be approved and
shorten the time frame for the application process to take
place.
Like several other states, Georgia added new restrictions
on the use of mail ballot drop boxes and prohibited providing
food or water to people waiting in line to vote in person.
Legislators also stripped certain powers from the secretary
of state, removing that official as chair of the State
Election Board and allowing the General Assembly to select
his or her replacement.
Iowa--Enacted March 8
New Iowa voting law shortens the application period for
mail ballots and bars election officials from proactively
sending application forms to voters.
County auditors can face criminal charges if they do not
follow certain procedures in purging voter rolls.
The early voting period--and voting hours on Election Day
are shorter.
Local officials' discretion in placing drop boxes is
curtailed.

What to watch in coming weeks

Texas
One of the most restrictive voting bills in the country was
defeated--at least temporarily--in Texas on May 30, when a
Democratic walkout in the state House caused the chamber to
miss the deadline for passage.
The GOP bills would empower partisan poll watchers and
impose stiff penalties on election administrators for actions
such as sending unsolicited mail ballot applications to
voters.
Comparing the legislation to Jim Crow laws, critics have
said it would disproportionately affect people of color.
The measures would prohibit drive-up voting and other
methods used widely by Black and Latino voters in Houston to
cast ballots during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as
create strict signature-matching rules that could force the
rejection of valid votes cast by mail.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Torres), my co-anchor, and I thank him again for his joining
me tonight, and for our journey that we are on trying to raise up
justice in this country.
Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, both the 2020 and 2021
election cycles have been a powerful testament to the influence of the
Black vote.
I proudly come from New York State where we have seen a golden age of
Black political power: the attorney general, the State Senate majority
leader, the State assembly speaker, the mayor, are all Black.
And we know that but for the Black vote, President Biden would have
never won the Presidency, and the Democrats never would have won a
majority in the Senate. And the attempts at voter suppression that we
have seen threatens to reverse the racial progress that has been made.
Increasingly, we are becoming a multiracial democracy. You know, 70
percent of the Democratic Caucus consists of people of color, women,
and members of the LGBTQ community. But you would never know that from
the structure of the Senate. The structure of the Senate concentrates
power in a small subset of States that are much Whiter, much more
rural, much more conservative than the rest of the country.
Before the Democratic party won the Senate in 2021, the Senate
Republican majority represented 10 to 15 million fewer people than the
Senate Democratic minority. And the problem is that the filibuster
takes the undemocratic structure of the Senate to an even greater
extreme.
The notion that one Senator, who represents a State smaller than our
congressional districts, should have the power to overturn the will of
the President and the Senate and the House, is profoundly undemocratic.
It makes an absurdity of the democratic process.
One particularly egregious example of the filibuster can be found in
the area of gun safety. In a rational world, every gun would be
registered and safely stored. Every gun owner would be licensed and
trained. Every gun sale would be subject to a background check.
But there is nothing rational about a political system that enables
one Senator from a State smaller than my congressional district to
filibuster gun safety at the expense of 330 million Americans.
Name any cause: LGBTQ equality, voting rights enforcement,
immigration reform, democracy reform, criminal justice reform, all of
these causes have died at the hands of the filibuster.
I would submit to you that we have a party in America that is intent
on holding power at any cost and by any means necessary. If the
Republican party cannot win democratically, then it will insist on
winning undemocratically through voter suppression, gerrymandering, the
structure of the Senate, the electoral college, right-wing judicial
activism on the Supreme Court. All of these are means of holding onto
power by any means necessary. All of these are means of subverting
democracy at any cost. That is the challenge that lies before us.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York.
I am so glad he said the words ``by any means necessary.'' That is
striking, and without a doubt, the approach of the activist Supreme
Court, right-wing, of the big lies, and of those who wish to stall and
stop the very lifeline of American democracy, and that is the right of
each person to vote their conscious.
As we have said: Our message, our power; but our voice, our vote; our
vote, our voice. And I thank him for joining me this evening for
elaborating and detailing and roll-calling where we are today.
I notice the gentleman did not step in the breach and indicate that
we might need to expand the Court. That is another discussion
altogether.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary
Committee. I think she can speak in her own way on the vitality of a
vote for poor people.
Ms. BUSH. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for this moment to be
able to address about something that I still have trouble understanding
the need to address when people fell, when people bled, when people
died, and we are still here. And all of that happened, so much of it
happened before I was even born, even thought of, and we are still
here.
So, St. Louis and I, we rise today, because in Missouri our right to
vote is being taken away. Taken away from many of us. And by us, let me
be clear that I mean Black folks, I mean Brown folks, I mean Indigenous
folks.

{time} 2110

Despite the raising of our voices, despite the marching of our feet,
and despite our turning out the vote to deliver the government to
Democrats, the Senate has yet to do anything about it. H.R. 1 is
gathering dust in the Senate, and the filibuster remains intact. With
every passing day, the reality of the situation worsens.
Yet, rather than acting with urgency, some have even suggested
instead we want to out-organize voter suppression.

[[Page H3897]]

After an election year when Black, Brown, and indigenous organizers
gave their blood, their sweat, and their tears to deliver a Democratic
House, Senate, and White House. A year when Black women turned the
longtime red State of Georgia blue. When Black, Brown, and indigenous
voters stood in disproportionately long lines to cast their ballots on
an election day that is not a Federal holiday. A year when Black,
Brown, and indigenous communities have been disproportionately harmed
by this pandemic, yet turned out in the face of these suppression
tactics to vote in record numbers.
We did this because we were promised justice. We were promised that
our right to vote would be secure, and we were promised a sustainable
future.
But rather than deliver on these promises, we were asked again to
give our blood, our sweat, and our tears?
To those who say just out-organize rather than legislate, I say
shame. Shame, Madam Speaker, that you take our labor for granted. Shame
that you take our struggle for granted, and shame that your promises
continue to go unfulfilled. Like my chairwoman said, we have people who
are living, struggling, burdened, and oppressed in ways that others
aren't, and are the ones who suffer the most.
Shame that rather than doing everything within your power, Madam
Speaker, to deliver us the future, we are being asked to overcome voter
suppression again.
To those who are telling us just to out-organize voter suppression,
my message to you is this: We already did.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, thank you
for recognizing me to anchor this Special Order on the fierce urgency
of preserving the precious right to vote by passing H.R. 4, the John
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and legislation like H.R. 1, the
For The People Act.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 26, 2021, on page H3897, the following appeared: Thank you,
Madam Speaker for recognizing

The online version has been corrected to read: Ms. JACKSON LEE.
I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing

========================= END NOTE =========================

I am delighted to be co-anchoring this Congressional Black Caucus
Special Order at the request of our tireless leader for justice,
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, and to be joined by co-anchor,
Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York, and many members of the CBC.
Before I begin, Madam Speaker, let me share some history and
important numbers with our colleagues and the nation that show for most
of the past 56 years, support for the Voting Rights Act and protecting,
preserving, and expanding the right to vote of all Americans has been
an issue that Americans have supported in overwhelming numbers all
across the nation.
On July 9, 1965, House passed the Voting Rights Act by a 333-85 vote,
with Democrats voting 221-61 and Republicans 112-24.
House later approved the VRA conference report on August 3 by a 328-
74 vote (Democrats 217-54, Republicans 111-20).
The Senate passed the VRA on August 4 by a 79-18 vote, with Democrats
voting 49-17 and Republicans 30-1.
This landmark legislation, P.L. 89-10, was signed into law by
President Lyndon Johnson as on August 6, 1965.
Five years later, on June 22, 1970, the VRA was renewed for five
years as Public Law 91-285, passing the House by a vote of 272-132 and
the Senate by a vote of 64-12.
Five years later, on June 4, 1975, Congress extended the VRA for
seven years, enacting Public Law 94-73, with majorities of 341-70 in
the House and 77-12 in the Senate.
On June 29, 1982, a Republican-controlled Senate joined with a
Democratic House to pass Public Law 97-205, extending the VRA for 10
years, with the vote in the Senate of 85-8 and the vote in the House of
389-24.
Ten years later, the bipartisan Voting Rights Language Assistance Act
was passed as Public Law 102-344 on August 26, 1992.
And on July 27, 2006, the Voting Rights Act was extended for 25 years
when the Congress passed Public Law 109-246 (H.R. 9), the Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
The vote for H.R. 9 was 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.
Madam Speaker, every extension of the Voting Rights Act recounted
above was signed into law by a Republican President, from Richard Nixon
to Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush, and George W.
Bush.
This chain of bipartisan support for voting rights stood solid and
unbreakable until the Supreme Court's horrendous decision in Shelby
County v. Holder 570 U.S. 529 (2013).

PROTECTING AND PRESERVING VOTING RIGHTS

Madam Speaker, the serious damage to the precious right to vote
occasioned by the right-wing, conservative majority on the Supreme
Court demands that Congress exercise its powers under Section 5 of the
15th Amendment to restore the extraordinary reach and effectiveness of
Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
As an aside, Madam Speaker, on the objection of VRA opponents to
states subject preclearance having the burden to bail themselves out, I
have long said that the states that were subject to preclearance under
the Voting Rights Act earned their way in, so it only fitting that they
earn their way out.
Madam Speaker, June 25, 2021, marked the 8th anniversary of the
Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v Holder, 570 U.S.
529 (2013), which immobilized the Department of Justice from subjecting
discriminatory voting and election law changes to prior review and
approval, or ``preclearance.''
It was predicted at the time by me and other defenders of the
precious right to vote that the Court's misguided and naive decision
would usher in a wave of state and local initiatives intended to
suppress and nullify the rights of black Americans, persons of color,
young adults, and marginalized communities to exercise the most basic
act in the political process: voting.
As we have seen in recent months, this prediction has tragically come
to pass.
Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby
decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the Roberts
Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in the
Arizona case of Brnovoich v. DNC, 594 U.S. _, No. 19-1257 and 19-1258
(July 1, 2021), which engrafts on Section 2 of the Voting Rights
onerous burdens that Congress never intended and explicitly legislated
against to ensure that:
``No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or
political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color, or language minority status.''
Among these burdens, couched as ``guideposts,'' or ``suggestions''
are that when reviewing claims that a facially neutral election law,
policy, practice, or voting rule has a discriminator, and therefore
unlawful, effect on minority citizens, courts are to consider the
following matters:
1. An ``ordinary burdens'' or ``mere inconvenience'' exception;
2. Size of disparities in burdens imposed by the challenged rule;
3. Other opportunities to vote provided by a state's election system;
4. Legitimate state interests justifying the challenged voting rule;
and
5. The degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard
practice when Section 2 was amended in 1982
Taken together, this Supreme Court cabal is saying to racial, ethnic,
and language minorities: ``What's the big deal, it's only voting. Just
like with bad weather, sometimes you just have grin and bear a little
inconvenience.''
This Supreme Court majority has simply never understood, or refuses
to accept, the fundamental importance of the right to vote, free of
discriminatory hurdles and obstacles.
Madam Speaker, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say
that this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes
and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v.
DNC.
Their predecessors on the Court understood this, going back at least
as far as 1938, when the Supreme Court held in Chief Justice Hughes'
famous Footnote 4 in United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144
(1938), that government action alleged to discriminate against
``discrete and insular minorities'' would be subject to ``strict
scrutiny'' by reviewing courts.
Madam Speaker, you might be asking who are these ``discrete and
insular minorities'' about whom the Court was referring?
The answer is they were and are persons ``excluded from ``those
political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect'' them,
racial and language minorities, and aliens, all of whom were denied the
single most important tool for protecting and advancing one's interests
in a democracy: the right to vote.
I ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this hearing, a
June 26, 2021 op-ed authored by me entitled ``A Strong Voting Rights
Act Is Needed Now More Than Ever.''
It is useful, Madam Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day.
Madam Speaker, fifty-six years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of
heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to
vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting
rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final,
completed march from Selma to Montgomery.
Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women,
boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so
much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to
bring it even closer to its founding ideals.
The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have
dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the
making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to
vote.

[[Page H3898]]

On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights
demonstrators, including our beloved former colleague, the late
Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and
local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to
Montgomery in support of the right to vote.
``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because
it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and
effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.
No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot
soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever
forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and
experience.
On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence
of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev.
Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy
Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James
Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non-
Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert
Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation
before signing the Voting Rights Act: ``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.''
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter
discrimination violations that historically left millions of African
Americans disenfranchised.
In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans
registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African
Americans living in the South were registered to vote.
Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major
causes of these racially discriminatory results.
After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited
these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral
participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than
1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote.
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, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the
South.
Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100
black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest
number ever.
Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for
many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have
been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the
state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress.
Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered
harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited
greatly.
As I indicated, the crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is
Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic
record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval
before making any changes to voting processes.
Section 5 has protected minority voting rights where voter
discrimination has historically been the worst.
Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000
discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107
discriminatory changes right here in Texas.
Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon
Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across
the South.
But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in
Texas.
In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an
African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section
5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in
South Texas were not protected at all.
But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the tireless voter
registration work performed in 1972 by Hillary Clinton in Texas, along
``With hundreds of others, including her future husband Bill, Barbara
Jordan was elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the
Voting Rights Act that all citizens would at long last have the right
to cast a vote for person of their community, from their community, for
their community.
Madam Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in
Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to
all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also
represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas,
introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and
4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of
Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities.
During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting
Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed:
``There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have
been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts
to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those
election officials because they are brown people.
``So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be
brought ``within the coverage of this Act for the first time.''
When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right to vote,
the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara
Jordan--could be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the
example for the nation.
But to realize that future, Texas must turn from and not return to
the dark days of the past.
By embracing the discriminatory Texas SB7 and the ``Big Lie'' that
the 2020 election, by all accounts adjudged the most secure and
inclusive in American history, was riven by voter fraud, Texas
Republicans are making the wrong choice to their eternal shame.
Texans must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will
abridge or dilute the precious right to vote, like the odious Texas SB7
recently passed by the Texas State Senate but killed, but not yet
permanently, by the unity and courage of Democrats in the Texas State
House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I applaud the House Democrats of the Texas General
Assembly for being on the front lines, fighting in opposition to Texas
SB7 on the House floor and I join with them in calling upon the U.S.
Senate to eliminate the filibuster and to bring to the floor for debate
and vote--so Congress can pass--H.R. 1 and H.R. 4, the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
We must all do our part to preserve this most important heritage
because it was earned with the sacrifices and the lives of our
ancestors.
The right to vote is a ``powerful instrument that can break down the
walls of injustice'' and must be protected against attack from all
enemies, foreign and domestic, using all the legal tools at our
disposal.
Madam Speaker, the right to vote and to participate meaningfully in
civic and political affairs has done more to advance the cause of
freedom, justice, and equality than the Second Amendment has ever done,
if it has done anything at all.
It is time the Congress act to protect and expand the right to vote,
the only right that is preservative of every other right.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled ``John Lewis
leaves behind a powerful legacy of social justice.''

[From the Washington Post, July 19, 2020]

John Lewis Leaves Behind a Powerful Legacy of Social Justice

(By Peniel E. Joseph)

On July 17, congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis
died at 80, on the same day as 95-year-old stalwart C.T.
Vivian, Martin Luther King's favorite preacher. Both leave
behind a legacy of social justice activism that played a
pivotal role in some of the most resounding victories of the
civil rights movement: America's Second Reconstruction.
Lewis's death comes at a critical moment in U.S. history,
amid a moral and political reckoning on black dignity and
citizenship that represents nothing less than a Third
American Reconstruction. And his life provides lessons for
activists today on how to confront racial violence, forge
productive alliances and transform American democracy.
Born in 1940 in Troy, Ala., to a family of sharecropping
farmers, the deeply religious Lewis joined the movement for
black dignity and citizenship as a student activist in
Nashville. Already enthralled by the dazzling oratory of the
young Martin Luther King Jr., Lewis enjoyed an unusual kind
of political apprenticeship under the mentorship of an array
of movement leaders. He learned the practical application of
nonviolent civil disobedience from the Rev. James Lawson and
became fast friends with fellow student activists such as
Diane Nash. Ella Baker, founder of the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC, pronounced ``snick''), played a
critical role in convincing students such as Lewis that
they--and not just King and older generations of preachers--
could play pivotal leadership roles in an unfolding national
drama.
Lewis's calm demeanor, personal sincerity and outward
humility made him a quiet star among student leaders. He was
arrested dozens of times for civil rights activism between
1960 and 1966. In 1961, he joined hundreds of volunteers on
Freedom Rides, traveling throughout the Jim Crow South to
challenge segregated bus terminals. On May 14, 1961, Lewis
experienced a vicious beating at the hands of a white mob as
a Freedom Rider in Anniston, Ala. It was the first of many
brutal experiences he endured as an activist,

[[Page H3899]]

and such punishment bolstered Lewis's political resolve to
defeat racial segregation.
Elected chairman of SNCC in 1963, Lewis became the youngest
national civil rights leader of the 1960s. At 23, he was the
youngest speaker at the March on Washington on Aug. 28, 1963.
Although parts of the collectively written speech were
abandoned after objections from white allies in the movement,
Lewis prepared the nation for continued racial combat in the
service of justice. ``By the force of our demands, our
determination and our numbers, we shall splinter the
desegregated South into a thousand pieces and pull them back
together in the image of God and democracy,'' he argued.
Lewis effectively navigated between student militants in
SNCC--which craved transformational political change radical
enough to protect black life in the Mississippi Delta and
Alabama black belt--and more pragmatic civil rights leaders
who viewed the Democratic Party as the most effective vehicle
for widespread social change. In 1964, Lewis encountered
Malcolm X while touring Africa in hopes of forging
international alliances to strengthen domestic black freedom
struggles and came away from his meeting impressed with the
black nationalist icon's willingness to explore political
alliances with civil rights leaders.
On March 7, 1965, Lewis, dressed in a crisp white shirt,
tie, raincoat and backpack, joined several hundred
demonstrators crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma,
Ala., who were routed by blue-helmeted state troopers. The
violence that afternoon left Lewis with permanent scars on
his head. But the activists' resolve in the face of violent
opposition helped trigger the moral and political outrage
that led to the passage of voting rights legislation. Lewis's
involvement at that moment made visible to the whole nation
the violent, racist dehumanization of black people.
In May 1966, Stokely Carmichael, the charismatic Howard
University activist and friend turned organizational rival,
replaced Lewis as SNCC chairman. Carmichael's call for
``Black Power!'' the next month during a civil rights
demonstration in Mississippi helped to transform the
aesthetics of the black freedom struggle. Lewis completed his
college degree at Fisk University at the moment when Black
Power activists were calling for a dramatic and radical
restructuring of American democracy. The political vision of
Black Power activists, despite political disagreements with
Carmichael and SNCC, inspired Lewis, who used the racial
solidarity forged in the crucible of the movement as a
springboard to political office.
As the radical hopes of the 1960s faded in the aftermath of
King's assassination on April 4, 1968, Lewis turned to
electoral politics. In 1986, he won the Georgia congressional
seat he would hold until his death in an ugly political
battle with Julian Bond, the charismatic SNCC activist and
former friend turned bitter adversary. Over the next 34
years, Lewis went from staring down the forces of white
supremacy at bus stations and bridges to confronting these
same adversaries in the U.S. Congress. Bringing organizing
skills learned as an activist and radical ideas about
transforming American life, he fought valiantly for health-
care, gun-control and anti-poverty legislation. During the
late 1980s and 1990s as the nation turned away from the
vision of the ``Beloved Community'' outlined at the March on
Washington, Lewis advocated for a return to the anti-poverty
and anti-racist policies that briefly flourished during the
1960s.
The American political establishment, over time, caught up
with his accomplishments. Barack Obama's watershed
presidential election proved a boon to Lewis's political
legacy, with the first black president acknowledging the
congressman's towering achievements with a Presidential Medal
of Freedom. Lewis recognized Obama's ascent as part of a
political harvest reaped from the bloodstained sacrifices of
earlier generations.
Lewis understood that those struggles for black dignity and
citizenship continued during his lifetime. He embraced the
Black Lives Matter movement, including the recent national
and global protests for racial justice and equality in the
aftermath of George Floyd's killing at the hands of police.
``It is so much more massive and all-inclusive,'' Lewis noted
of Black Lives Matter. Whereas black women, including those
who helped to nurture Lewis and lead the movement, were
excluded from speaking at the March on Washington in 1963, he
marveled to witness the prominence of black women in the BLM
movement--as featured leaders, organizers and strategists. As
an elder statesman within political and civil rights circles,
Lewis continued to encourage the young to lead a movement he
recognized as continuing into our own time.
Lewis's extraordinary life offers important lessons for
contemporary generations organizing for black equality in
America and around the world. His example teaches us that
movements for racial justice have always been denigrated by
authorities and been targets of violence by political,
legislative and military bodies. Young people who refused to
heed the warnings of an older generation helped to transform
American democracy, but they received crucial mentoring from
a council of elders who believed, like Baker, that strong
people did not require charismatic top-down patriarchal
leadership. To the contrary, young activists could be trusted
to ask the right questions that would lead to what Lewis
called the ``good trouble'' capable of ending systemic
racism, structural violence and white supremacy.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the right to vote free from
intimidation or obstacle is the most precious right of any American
citizen, a pillar of our democratic system. And when that right, that
pillar, is threatened for anyone, it is a threat to us all--to our
democracy and to our very way of life.
For Texans, this fight is personal. Earlier this year, Republican
lawmakers in the Texas Legislature introduced a series of new voting
laws, yet antiquated in thought, that would restrict access to the
polls for people across the state. Unfortunately, we are all too
familiar with these types of efforts to strip our right to vote here in
Texas. In fact, I remember having to pay a poll tax when I voted in my
first election in Dallas. And although these new efforts are not as
blatant as a poll tax, they are equally as confining.
These new waves of voter restriction efforts are not new--and neither
is the opposition to them. From our late colleague Congressman John
Lewis marching across the Edmund Pettis Bridge in 1965, to the
extension of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, to the Texas Democrats
breaking quorum to prevent the passage of restrictive voting laws this
month. It is incumbent upon us to keep alive that opposition to similar
efforts, and to inform and inspire the next generation to do the same.
It is in that spirit that I, once again, call on the Senate to pass
H.R. 1, the For the People Act. We can no longer afford the cost of
inaction on this issue. This fight is about the future of Texas, it's
about the future of the United States, and it's about the future of
democracy.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this month marked the one-year
anniversary of the passing of our dear friend and beloved colleague
John Lewis. Sadly, while we reflect upon his legacy, there are efforts
underway in State Houses across the nation to turn back the clock and
erect barriers to voter participation in elections.
We all know that the premise behind these efforts is a lie--namely,
that the 2020 election was stolen and that there was rampant voter
fraud. In my home state of Georgia, these falsehoods led to the passage
and ultimate enactment of Senate Bill 202, which was given the
misleading name, ``the Georgia Civics Renewal Act.'' The lie also
provided the impetus for the attack on the United States Capitol on
January 6.
The measures being put forward in states like Georgia reduce voter
access to the polls under the guise of protecting the vote. Georgia's
SB 202 limits drop boxes, imposes ID requirements on absentee voting,
restricts early voting on weekends, allows state officials to
circumvent the work of election officials if they do not like the
results they are seeing, and even makes it a crime to offer food and
water to voters waiting in line.
It is a ruse that disproportionately impacts voters whose voices have
too often been silenced. Why? Because those voices--African American
voices in Georgia--made all the difference in 2020.
The integrity of our elections is enhanced by greater voter
participation--not less. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``voting
is the foundation stone of political action.''
Earlier this year, I co-sponsored H.R. 1, For the People Act, which
is a voting and elections bill that protects access, promotes the
creation of fairer districts, and supports public financing of
campaigns. The legislation passed the House on March 3 by a vote of 220
to 210.
I also supported H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Enhancement
Act, which the House had approved last Congress.
H.R. 4 is intended to fix the enforcement provisions of the original
Voting Rights Act that were gutted by the Supreme Court in the 2013
Shelby County v. Holder decision.
The Court's conservative majority held that the formula for
determining whether jurisdictions were subject to the law's Justice
Department pre-clearance procedure for voting and election changes by
state and local governments were outdated. This mostly focused on
southern states with a long history of racially discriminatory voter
suppression.
Contrary to the court's opinion and since then, hundreds of bills
across several state legislatures have been proposed that would make
access to the ballot box increasingly difficult for many people--more
so for communities of color, students, seniors, and disabled people.
Some of these bills have become law.
In many cases, those who are rolling back access to the vote are also
involved in the decennial redistricting process in which congressional
and state legislative maps will be set until 2032.
These are precisely the kind of decisions the Justice Department was
able to scrutinize under the pre-Shelby County Voting Rights Act.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Enhancement Act will rectify this wrong
and fine-tune that

[[Page H3900]]

formula so that the Supreme Court cannot strike it down again.
Madam Speaker, I know that John Lewis is looking down upon us now. If
he were here with us today, I know that he would be on the House floor
tonight and would be imploring us in that booming voice of his to
continue the fight for voting rights to which he devoted his life and
career.
It is the same fight for which he endured unspeakable brutality while
attempting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the march from Selma to
Montgomery. We cannot turn back now.

____________________