[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H4384-H4415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2021

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call 
up 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, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Beatty). Pursuant to House Resolution 
601, the amendment printed in House Report 117-117 is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 4

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. VOTE DILUTION, DENIAL, AND ABRIDGMENT CLAIMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``applied by any State or political 
     subdivision'' the following: ``for the purpose of, or''; and
       (2) by striking ``as provided in subsection (b)'' and 
     inserting ``as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d), or 
     (f)''.
       (b) Vote Dilution.--Section 2(b) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 
     10301(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``A violation of subsection (a)'' 
     the following: ``for vote dilution'';
       (2) by inserting after the period at the end the following: 
     ``For the purposes of this subsection:'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) To prevail, in demonstrating that a representational, 
     districting, or apportionment scheme results in vote 
     dilution, a plaintiff shall, as a threshold matter, establish 
     that--
       ``(A) the members of the protected class are sufficiently 
     numerous and geographically compact to constitute a majority 
     in a single-member district;
       ``(B) the members of the protected class are politically 
     cohesive; and
       ``(C) the residents of that district who are not the 
     members of the protected class usually vote sufficiently as a 
     bloc to enable them to defeat the preferred candidates of the 
     members of the protected class.
       ``(2) Upon a plaintiff establishing the required threshold 
     showing under paragraph (1), a court shall conduct a totality 
     of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote 
     dilution to determine whether there was a violation of 
     subsection (a), which shall include the following factors:
       ``(A) The extent of any history of official voting 
     discrimination in the State or political subdivision that 
     affected the right of members of the protected class to 
     register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the 
     political process.
       ``(B) The extent to which voting in the elections of the 
     State or political subdivision is racially polarized.
       ``(C) The extent to which the State or political 
     subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend 
     to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the 
     members of the protected class, such as unusually large 
     election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single 
     shot provisions, or other qualifications, prerequisites, 
     standards, practices, or procedures that may enhance the 
     opportunity for discrimination against the members of the 
     protected class.
       ``(D) If there is a candidate slating process, whether the 
     members of the protected class have been denied access to 
     that process.
       ``(E) The extent to which members of the protected class in 
     the State or political subdivision bear the effects of 
     discrimination both public or private, in such areas as 
     education, employment, health, housing, and transportation, 
     which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the 
     political process.
       ``(F) Whether political campaigns have been characterized 
     by overt or subtle racial appeals.
       ``(G) The extent to which members of the protected class 
     have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
       ``(3) In conducting a totality of the circumstances 
     analysis under paragraph (2), a court may consider such other 
     factors as the court may determine to be relevant, 
     including--
       ``(A) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness 
     on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs 
     of the members of the protected class, including a lack of 
     concern for or responsiveness to the requests and proposals 
     of the members of the protected class, except that compliance 
     with a court order may not be considered evidence of 
     responsiveness on the part of the jurisdiction; and
       ``(B) whether the policy underlying the State or political 
     subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite 
     to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.

     ``In making this determination, a court shall consider 
     whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, 
     or procedure in question was designed to advance and 
     materially advances a valid and substantiated State 
     insterest.''.
       ``(4) A class of citizens protected by subsection (a) may 
     include a cohesive coalition of members of different racial 
     or language minority groups.''; and
       (4) Vote denial or abridgement.--Section 2 of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 10301), as amended by subsections (a) and (b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) A violation of subsection (a) resulting in vote 
     denial or abridgement is established if the challenged 
     qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or 
     procedure--
       ``(A) results or will result in members of a protected 
     class facing greater costs or burdens in participating in the 
     political process than other voters; and''.
       ``(B) the greater costs or burdens are, at least in part, 
     caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that 
     have produced or produce

[[Page H4385]]

     on the date of such challenge discrimination against members 
     of the protected class.
       ``In determining the existence of a burden for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the absolute number or the percent of 
     voters affected or the presence of voters who are not members 
     of a protected class in the affected area shall not be 
     dispositive, and the affected area may be smaller than the 
     jurisdiction to which the qualification, prerequisite, 
     standard, practice, or procedure applies.''
       ``(2) The challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
     practice, or procedure need only be a but-for cause of the 
     discriminatory result described in paragraph (1) or 
     perpetuate pre-existing burdens or costs.
       ``(3)(A) The factors that are relevant to a totality of the 
     circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial 
     or abridgement pursuant to this subsection include the 
     following:
       ``(i) The extent of any history of official voting-related 
     discrimination in the State or political subdivision that 
     affected the right of members of the protected class to 
     register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the 
     political process.
       ``(ii) The extent to which voting in the elections of the 
     State or political subdivision is racially polarized.
       ``(iii) The extent to which the State or political 
     subdivision has used photographic voter identification 
     requirements, documentary proof of citizenship requirements, 
     documentary proof of residence requirements, or other voting 
     practices or procedures, beyond those required by Federal 
     law, that may impair the ability of members of the minority 
     group to participate fully in the political process.
       ``(iv) The extent to which minority group members bear the 
     effects of discrimination, both public and private, in areas 
     such as education, employment, health, housing, and 
     transportation, which hinder their ability to participate 
     effectively in the political process.
       ``(v) The use of overt or subtle racial appeals either in 
     political campaigns or surrounding adoption or maintenance of 
     the challenged practice.
       ``(vi) The extent to which members of the minority group 
     have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction, 
     provided that the fact that the minority group is too small 
     to elect candidates of its choice shall not defeat a claim of 
     vote denial or abridgment.
       ``(vii) Whether there is a lack of responsiveness on the 
     part of elected officials to the particularized needs of 
     minority group members, including a lack of concern for or 
     responsiveness to the requests and proposals of the group, 
     except that compliance with a court order may not be 
     considered evidence of responsiveness on the part of the 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(viii) Whether the policy underlying the State or 
     political subdivision's use of the challenged qualification, 
     prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is tenuous. In 
     making a determination under this clause, a court shall 
     consider whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
     practice, or procedure in question was designed to advance 
     and materially advances a valid and substantiated State 
     interest.
       ``(ix) Subject to paragraph (4), such other factors as the 
     court may determine to be relevant.
       ``(B) The factors described in subparagraph (A), 
     individually and collectively, shall be considered as a means 
     of establishing that a voting practice amplifies the effects 
     of past or present discrimination in violation in subsection 
     (a).
       ``(C) A plaintiff need not show any particular combination 
     or number of factors to establish a violation of subsection 
     (a).
       ``(4) The factors that are relevant to a totality of the 
     circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial 
     or abridgement do not include the following:
       ``(A) The degree to which the challenged qualification, 
     prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has a long 
     pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date.
       ``(B) The use of an identical or similar qualification, 
     prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in other 
     States or jurisdictions.
       ``(C) The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted 
     by the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
     practice, or procedure to all members of the electorate, 
     including members of the protected class, unless the 
     jurisdiction is simultaneously expanding such other practices 
     to eliminate any disproportionate burden imposed by the 
     challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, 
     or procedure.
       ``(D) Unsubstantiated defenses that the qualification, 
     prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is necessary 
     to address criminal activity.
       ``(d)(1) A violation of subsection (a) for the purpose of 
     vote denial or abridgement is established if the challenged 
     qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure 
     is intended, at least in part, to dilute minority voting 
     strength or to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of 
     the United States to vote on account of race, color, or in 
     contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2).
       ``(2) Discrimination on account of race, color, or in 
     contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) 
     need only be one purpose of a qualification, prerequisite, 
     standard, practice, or procedure to demonstrate a violation 
     of subsection (a).
       ``(3) A qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or 
     procedure intended to dilute minority voting strength or to 
     make it more difficult for minority voters to cast a ballot 
     that will be counted violates this subsection even if an 
     additional purpose of the qualification, prerequisite, 
     standard, practice, or procedure is to benefit a particular 
     political party or group.
       ``(4) The context for the adoption of the challenged 
     qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or 
     procedure, including actions by official decisionmakers 
     before the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
     practice, or procedure, may be relevant to a violation of 
     this subsection.
       ``(5) Claims under this subsection require proof of a 
     discriminatory impact but do not require proof of a violation 
     pursuant to subsection (b) or (c).''.
       ``(e) For purposes of this section, the term `affected 
     area' means any geographic area, in which members of a 
     protected class are affected by a qualification, 
     prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure allegedly in 
     violation of this section, within a State (including any 
     Indian lands).''.

     SEC. 3. RETROGRESSION.

       Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 
     et seq.), as amended by section 2 of this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) A violation of subsection (a) is established when a 
     State or political subdivision enacts or seeks to administer 
     any qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, 
     practice, or procedure with respect to voting in any election 
     that has the purpose of or will have the effect of 
     diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States 
     on account of race or color, or in contravention of the 
     guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to participate in 
     the electoral process or elect their preferred candidates of 
     choice. This subsection applies to any action taken on or 
     after January 1, 2021, by a State or political subdivision to 
     enact or seek to administer any such qualification or 
     prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure.
       ``(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (f), 
     final decisions of the United States District Court of the 
     District of Columbia on applications or petitions by States 
     or political subdivisions for preclearance under section 5 of 
     any changes in voting prerequisites, standards, practices, or 
     procedures, supersede the provisions of subsection (f).''.

     SEC. 4. VIOLATIONS TRIGGERING AUTHORITY OF COURT TO RETAIN 
                   JURISDICTION.

       (a) Types of Violations.--Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights 
     Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment'' and 
     inserting ``violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, 
     violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that 
     prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, 
     color, or membership in a language minority group,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(a) of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking ``violations of the 
     fourteenth or fifteenth amendment'' and inserting 
     ``violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of 
     this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits 
     discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or 
     membership in a language minority group,''.

     SEC. 5. CRITERIA FOR COVERAGE OF STATES AND POLITICAL 
                   SUBDIVISIONS.

       (a) Determination of States and Political Subdivisions 
     Subject to Section 4(a).--
       (1) In general.--Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Determination of States and Political Subdivisions 
     Subject to Requirements.--
       ``(1) Existence of voting rights violations during previous 
     25 years.--
       ``(A) Statewide application.--Subsection (a) applies with 
     respect to a State and all political subdivisions within the 
     State during a calendar year if--
       ``(i) fifteen or more voting rights violations occurred in 
     the State during the previous 25 calendar years;
       ``(ii) ten or more voting rights violations occurred in the 
     State during the previous 25 calendar years, at least one of 
     which was committed by the State itself (as opposed to a 
     political subdivision within the State); or
       ``(iii) three or more voting rights violations occurred in 
     the State during the previous 25 calendar years and the State 
     itself administers the elections in the State or political 
     subdivisions in which the voting rights violations occurred.
       ``(B) Application to specific political subdivisions.--
     Subsection (a) applies with respect to a political 
     subdivision as a separate unit during a calendar year if 
     three or more voting rights violations occurred in the 
     subdivision during the previous 25 calendar years.
       ``(2) Period of application.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     if, pursuant to paragraph (1), subsection (a) applies with 
     respect to a State or political subdivision during a calendar 
     year, subsection (a) shall apply with respect to such State 
     or political subdivision for the period--
       ``(i) that begins on January 1 of the year in which 
     subsection (a) applies; and
       ``(ii) that ends on the date which is 10 years after the 
     date described in clause (i).
       ``(B) No further application after declaratory judgment.--
       ``(i) States.--If a State obtains a declaratory judgment 
     under subsection (a), and the judgment remains in effect, 
     subsection (a) shall no longer apply to such State pursuant 
     to paragraph (1)(A) unless, after the issuance of the 
     declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(A) applies to the State 
     solely on the basis of voting rights violations occurring 
     after the issuance of the declaratory judgment.
       ``(ii) Political subdivisions.--If a political subdivision 
     obtains a declaratory judgment under subsection (a), and the 
     judgment remains in effect, subsection (a) shall no longer 
     apply to such political subdivision pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), including pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) (relating to the 
     statewide application of subsection (a)), unless, after the 
     issuance of the declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(B) 
     applies to the political subdivision solely on the basis of 
     voting rights violations occurring after the issuance of the 
     declaratory judgment.
       ``(3) Determination of voting rights violation.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), a voting rights violation occurred 
     in a State or political subdivision if any of the following 
     applies:

[[Page H4386]]

       ``(A) Judicial relief; violation of the 14th or 15th 
     amendment.--Any final judgment, or any preliminary, 
     temporary, or declaratory relief (that was not reversed on 
     appeal), in which the plaintiff prevailed or a court of the 
     United States found that the plaintiff demonstrated a 
     likelihood of success on the merits or raised a serious 
     question with regard to race discrimination, in which any 
     court of the United States determined that a denial or 
     abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States 
     to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a 
     language minority group occurred, or that a voting 
     qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, 
     practice, or procedure with respect to voting created an 
     undue burden on the right to vote in connection with a claim 
     that the law unduly burdened voters of a particular race, 
     color, or language minority group, in violation of the 14th 
     or 15th Amendment, anywhere within the State or subdivision.
       ``(B) Judicial relief; violations of this act.--Any final 
     judgment, or any preliminary, temporary, or declaratory 
     relief (that was not reversed on appeal) in which the 
     plaintiff prevailed or a court of the United States found 
     that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on 
     the merits or raised a serious question with regard to race 
     discrimination, in which any court of the United States 
     determined that a voting qualification or prerequisite to 
     voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to 
     voting was imposed or applied or would have been imposed or 
     applied anywhere within the State or subdivision in a manner 
     that resulted or would have resulted in a denial or 
     abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States 
     to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a 
     language minority group, in violation of subsection 4(e) or 
     4(f) or section 2, 201, or 203 of this Act.
       ``(C) Final judgment; denial of declaratory judgment.--In a 
     final judgment (that was not been reversed on appeal), any 
     court of the United States has denied the request of the 
     State or subdivision for a declaratory judgment under section 
     3(c) or section 5, and thereby prevented a voting 
     qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, 
     practice, or procedure with respect to voting from being 
     enforced anywhere within the State or subdivision.
       ``(D) Objection by the attorney general.--The Attorney 
     General has interposed an objection under section 3(c) or 
     section 5, and thereby prevented a voting qualification or 
     prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure 
     with respect to voting from being enforced anywhere within 
     the State or subdivision. A violation per this subsection has 
     not occurred where an objection has been withdrawn by the 
     Attorney General, unless the withdrawal was in response to a 
     change in the law or practice that served as the basis of the 
     objection. A violation under this subsection has not occurred 
     where the objection is based solely on a State or political 
     subdivision's failure to comply with a procedural process 
     that would not otherwise constitute an independent violation 
     of this act.
       ``(E) Consent decree, settlement, or other agreement.--A 
     consent decree, settlement, or other agreement was adopted or 
     entered by a court of the United States or contained an 
     admission of liability by the defendants, which resulted in 
     the alteration or abandonment of a voting practice anywhere 
     in the territory of such State or subdivision that was 
     challenged on the ground that the practice denied or abridged 
     the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on 
     account of race, color, or membership in a language minority 
     group in violation of subsection 4(e) or 4(f) or section 2, 
     201, or 203 of this Act, or the 14th or 15th Amendment. An 
     extension or modification of an agreement as defined by this 
     subsection that has been in place for ten years or longer 
     shall count as an independent violation. If a court of the 
     United States finds that an agreement itself as defined by 
     this subsection denied or abridged the right of any citizen 
     of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or 
     membership in a language minority group, violated subsection 
     4(e) or 4(f) or section 2, 201, or 203 of this Act, or 
     created an undue burden on the right to vote in connection 
     with a claim that the consent decree, settlement, or other 
     agreement unduly burdened voters of a particular race, color, 
     or language minority group, that finding shall count as an 
     independent violation.
       ``(F) Multiple violations.--Each voting qualification or 
     prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure 
     with respect to voting, including each redistricting plan, 
     found to be a violation by a court of the United States 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), or prevented from 
     enforcement pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), or altered or 
     abandoned pursuant to subsection (e) shall count as an 
     independent violation. Within a redistricting plan, each 
     violation found to discriminate against any group of voters 
     based on race, color, or language minority group shall count 
     as an independent violation.   
       ``(4) Timing of determinations.--
       ``(A) Determinations of voting rights violations.--As early 
     as practicable during each calendar year, the Attorney 
     General shall make the determinations required by this 
     subsection, including updating the list of voting rights 
     violations occurring in each State and political subdivision 
     for the previous calendar year.
       ``(B) Effective upon publication in federal register.--A 
     determination or certification of the Attorney General under 
     this section or under section 8 or 13 shall be effective upon 
     publication in the Federal Register.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 4(a) of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 10303(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence of the matter 
     preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``any State with 
     respect to which'' and all that follows through ``unless'' 
     and inserting ``any State to which this subsection applies 
     during a calendar year pursuant to determinations made under 
     subsection (b), or in any political subdivision of such State 
     (as such subdivision existed on the date such determinations 
     were made with respect to such State), though such 
     determinations were not made with respect to such subdivision 
     as a separate unit, or in any political subdivision with 
     respect to which this subsection applies during a calendar 
     year pursuant to determinations made with respect to such 
     subdivision as a separate unit under subsection (b), 
     unless'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking the second sentence;
       (C) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``(in the case of a 
     State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the 
     second sentence of this subsection)'';
       (D) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(in the case of a 
     State or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the 
     second sentence of this subsection)'';
       (E) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(in the case of a State 
     or subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment under the 
     second sentence of this subsection)'';
       (F) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(in the case of a State 
     or subdivision which sought a declaratory judgment under the 
     second sentence of this subsection)'';
       (G) by striking paragraphs (7) and (8); and
       (H) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (7).
       (b) Clarification of Treatment of Members of Language 
     Minority Groups.--Section 4(a)(1) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 
     10303(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``race or color,'' and 
     inserting ``race, color, or in contravention of the 
     guarantees of subsection (f)(2),''.
     (c) Administrative Bailout.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
     (52 U.S.C. 10303) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Administrative Bailout.--
       ``(1) Determination of eligibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--After making a determination under 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) that the provisions of subsection (a) 
     apply with respect to a State and all political subdivisions 
     within the State, the Attorney General shall determine if any 
     political subdivision of the State is eligible for an 
     exemption under this subsection, and shall publish, in the 
     Federal Register, a list of all such political subdivisions. 
     Any political subdivision included on such list is not 
     subject to any requirement under section 5 until the date on 
     which any application under this section has been finally 
     disposed of or no such application may be made.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to provide--
       ``(i) that the determinations made pursuant to the creation 
     of the list shall have any binding or preclusive effect; or
       ``(ii) that inclusion on the list--
       ``(I) constitutes a final determination by the Attorney 
     General that the listee is eligible for an exemption pursuant 
     to this subsection or that, in the case of the listee, the 
     provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection 
     (a)(1) are satisfied; or
       ``(II) entitles the listee to any exemption pursuant to 
     this subsection.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--A political subdivision that submits an 
     application under paragraph (3) shall be eligible for an 
     exemption under this subsection only if, during the ten years 
     preceding the filing of the application, and during the 
     pendency of such application--
       ``(A) no test of device referred to in subsection (a)(1) 
     has been used within such political subdivision for the 
     purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right 
     to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of 
     the guarantees of subsection (f)(2);
       ``(B) no final judgment of any court of the United States, 
     other than the denial of declaratory judgment under this 
     section, has determined that denials or abridgements of the 
     right to vote on account of race or color have occurred 
     anywhere in the territory of such political subdivision or 
     that denials or abridgements of the right to vote in 
     contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have 
     occurred anywhere in the territory of such subdivision and no 
     consent decree, settlement, or agreement has been entered 
     into resulting in any abandonment of a voting practice 
     challenged on such grounds; and no declaratory judgment under 
     this section shall be entered during the pendency of an 
     action commenced before the filing of an action under this 
     section and alleging such denials or abridgements of the 
     right to vote;
       ``(C) no Federal examiners or observers under this Act have 
     been assigned to such political subdivision;
       ``(D) such political subdivision and all governmental units 
     within its territory have complied with section 5 of this 
     Act, including compliance with the requirement that no change 
     covered by section 5 has been enforced without preclearance 
     under section 5, and have repealed all changes covered by 
     section 5 to which the Attorney General has successfully 
     objected or as to which the United States District Court for 
     the District of Columbia has denied a declaratory judgment;
       ``(E) the Attorney General has not interposed any objection 
     (that has not been overturned by a final judgment of a court) 
     and no declaratory judgment has been denied under section 5, 
     with respect to any submission by or on behalf of the 
     plaintiff or any governmental unit within its territory under 
     section 5, and no such submissions or declaratory judgment 
     actions are pending; and
       ``(F) such political subdivision and all governmental units 
     within its territory--
       ``(i) have eliminated voting procedures and methods of 
     election which inhibit or dilute equal access to the 
     electoral process;

[[Page H4387]]

       ``(ii) have engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate 
     intimidation and harassment of persons exercising rights 
     protected under this Act; and
       ``(iii) have engaged in other constructive efforts, such as 
     expanded opportunity for convenient registration and voting 
     for every person of voting age and the appointment of 
     minority persons as election officials throughout the 
     jurisdiction and at all stages of the election and 
     registration process.
       ``(3) Application period.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     publication of the list under paragraph (1), a political 
     subdivision included on such list may submit an application, 
     containing such information as the Attorney General may 
     require, for an exemption under this subsection. The Attorney 
     General shall provide notice in the Federal Register of such 
     application.
       ``(4) Comment period.--During the 90-day period beginning 
     on the date that notice is published under paragraph (3), the 
     Attorney General shall give interested persons an opportunity 
     to submit objections to the issuance of an exemption under 
     this subsection to a political subdivision on the basis that 
     the political subdivision is not eligible under paragraph (2) 
     to the Attorney General. During the 1 year period beginning 
     on the effective date of this subsection, such 90-day period 
     shall be extended by an additional 30 days. The Attorney 
     General shall notify the political subdivision of each 
     objection submitted and afford the political subdivision an 
     opportunity to respond.
       ``(5) Determination as to objections.--In the case of a 
     political subdivision with respect to which an objection has 
     been submitted under paragraph (4), the following shall 
     apply:
       ``(A) Consideration of objections.--The Attorney General 
     shall consider and respond to each such objection (and any 
     response of the political subdivision thereto) during the 60 
     day period beginning on the day after the comment period 
     under paragraph (4) concludes.
       ``(B) Justified objections.--If the Attorney General 
     determines that any such objection is justified, the Attorney 
     General shall publish notice in the Federal Register denying 
     the application for an exemption under this subsection.
       ``(C) Unjustified objections.--If the Attorney General 
     determines that no objection submitted is justified, each 
     person that submitted such an objection may, not later than 
     90 days after the end of the period established under 
     subparagraph (A), file, in the District Court of the District 
     of Columbia, an action for judicial review of such 
     determination in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(6) Exemption.--The Attorney General may issue an 
     exemption, by publication in the Federal Register, from the 
     application of the provisions of subsection (a) with respect 
     to a political subdivision that--
       ``(A) is eligible under paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) with respect to which no objection under was 
     submitted under paragraph (4) or determined to be justified 
     under paragraph (5).
       ``(7) Judicial review.--Except as otherwise explicitly 
     provided in this subsection, no determination under this 
     subsection shall be subject to review by any court, and all 
     determinations under this subsection are committed to the 
     discretion of the Attorney General.
       ``(8) Savings clause.--If a political subdivision was not 
     subject to the application of the provisions of subsection 
     (a) by reason of a declaratory judgment entered prior to the 
     effective date of this subsection, and such political 
     subdivision has not violated any eligibility requirement set 
     forth in paragraph (2) at any time thereafter, then that 
     political subdivision shall not be subject to the 
     requirements of subsection (a).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--
       (A) In general.--Section 4(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act 
     of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(a)(1)), as amended by this Act, is 
     further amended by inserting after ``the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia issues a 
     declaratory judgment under this section'' the following: ``, 
     or, in the case of a political subdivision, the Attorney 
     General issues an exemption under subsection (g)''.
       (B) Expiration of time limit.--On the date that is 1 year 
     after the effective date of this subsection, section 4(g)(3) 
     of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10303(g)(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``During the 1 year period beginning on 
     the effective date of this subsection, such 90-day period 
     shall be extended by an additional 30 days.''. For purposes 
     of any periods under such section commenced as of such date, 
     the 90-day period shall remain extended by an additional 30 
     days.

     SEC. 6. DETERMINATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS 
                   SUBJECT TO PRECLEARANCE FOR COVERED PRACTICES.

       The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) is 
     further amended by inserting after section 4 the following:

     ``SEC. 4A. DETERMINATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS 
                   SUBJECT TO PRECLEARANCE FOR COVERED PRACTICES.

       ``(a) Practice-Based Preclearance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State and each political 
     subdivision shall--
       ``(A) identify any newly enacted or adopted law, 
     regulation, or policy that includes a voting qualification or 
     prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure 
     with respect to voting, that is a covered practice described 
     in subsection (b); and
       ``(B) ensure that no such covered practice is implemented 
     unless or until the State or political subdivision, as the 
     case may be, complies with subsection (c).
       ``(2) Determinations of characteristics of voting-age 
     population.--
       ``(A) In general.--As early as practicable during each 
     calendar year, the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Bureau of the Census and the heads of other 
     relevant offices of the government, shall make the 
     determinations required by this section regarding voting-age 
     populations and the characteristics of such populations, and 
     shall publish a list of the States and political subdivisions 
     to which a voting-age population characteristic described in 
     subsection (b) applies.
       ``(B) Publication in the federal register.--A determination 
     or certification of the Attorney General under this paragraph 
     shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
       ``(b) Covered Practices.--To assure that the right of 
     citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or 
     abridged on account of race, color, or membership in a 
     language minority group as a result of the implementation of 
     certain qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or 
     standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting 
     newly adopted in a State or political subdivision, the 
     following shall be covered practices subject to the 
     requirements described in subsection (a):
       ``(1) Changes to method of election.--Any change to the 
     method of election--
       ``(A) to add seats elected at-large in a State or political 
     subdivision where--
       ``(i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups 
     each represent 20 percent or more of the political 
     subdivision's voting-age population; or
       ``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20 
     percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands 
     located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or
       ``(B) to convert one or more seats elected from a single-
     member district to one or more at-large seats or seats from a 
     multi-member district in a State or political subdivision 
     where--
       ``(i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups 
     each represent 20 percent or more of the political 
     subdivision's voting-age population; or
       ``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20 
     percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands 
     located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
       ``(2) Changes to jurisdiction boundaries.--Any change or 
     series of changes within a year to the boundaries of a 
     jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or more percentage points the 
     proportion of the jurisdiction's voting-age population that 
     is comprised of members of a single racial group or language 
     minority group in a State or political subdivision where--
       ``(A) two or more racial groups or language minority groups 
     each represent 20 percent or more of the political 
     subdivision's voting-age population; or
       ``(B) a single language minority group represents 20 
     percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands 
     located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
       ``(3) Changes through redistricting.--Any change to the 
     boundaries of election districts in a State or political 
     subdivision where any racial group or language minority group 
     that is not the largest racial group or language minority 
     group in the jurisdiction and that represents 15 percent or 
     more of the State or political subdivision's voting-age 
     population experiences a population increase of at least 20 
     percent of its voting-age population, over the preceding 
     decade (as calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the 
     most recent decennial census), in the jurisdiction.
       ``(4) Changes in documentation or qualifications to vote.--
     Any change to requirements for documentation or proof of 
     identity to vote or register to vote that will exceed or be 
     more stringent than such requirements under State law on the 
     day before the date of enactment of the John R. Lewis Voting 
     Rights Advancement Act of 2021; and further, if a State has 
     in effect a requirement that an individual present 
     identification as a condition of receiving and casting a 
     ballot in an election for Federal office, if the State does 
     not permit the individual to meet the requirement and cast a 
     ballot in the election in the same manner as an individual 
     who presents identification--
       ``(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in 
     person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election 
     official with a sworn written statement, signed by the 
     individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the 
     individual's identity and attesting that the individual is 
     eligible to vote in the election; and
       ``(B) in the case of an individual who desires to vote by 
     mail, by submitting with the ballot the statement described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Changes to multilingual voting materials.--Any change 
     that reduces multilingual voting materials or alters the 
     manner in which such materials are provided or distributed, 
     where no similar reduction or alteration occurs in materials 
     provided in English for such election.
       ``(6) Changes that reduce, consolidate, or relocate voting 
     locations, or reduce voting opportunities.--Any change that 
     reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locations, 
     including early, absentee, and election-day voting locations, 
     or reduces days or hours of in-person voting on any Sunday 
     during a period occurring prior to the date of an election 
     during which voters may cast ballots in such election, or 
     prohibits the provision of food or non-alcoholic drink to 
     persons waiting to vote in an election except where the 
     provision would violate prohibitions on expenditures to 
     influence voting--
       ``(A) in one or more census tracts wherein two or more 
     language minority groups or racial groups each represent 20 
     percent or more of the voting-age population of the political 
     subdivision; or
       ``(B) on Indian lands wherein at least 20 percent of the 
     voting-age population belongs to a single language minority 
     group.

[[Page H4388]]

       ``(7) New list maintenance process.--Any change to the 
     maintenance of voter registration lists that adds a new basis 
     for removal from the list of active registered voters or that 
     incorporates new sources of information in determining a 
     voter's eligibility to vote, wherein such a change would have 
     a statistically significant disparate impact on the removal 
     from voter rolls of members of racial groups or language 
     minority groups that constitute greater than 5 percent of the 
     voting-age population--
       ``(A) in the case of a political subdivision imposing such 
     change if--
       ``(i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups 
     each represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age 
     population of the political subdivision; or
       ``(ii) a single language minority group represents 20 
     percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands 
     located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or
       ``(B) in the case of a State imposing such change, if two 
     or more racial groups or language minority groups each 
     represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age population 
     of--
       ``(i) the State; or
       ``(ii) a political subdivision in the State, except that 
     the requirements under subsections (a) and (c) shall apply 
     only with respect to each such political subdivision.
       ``(c) Preclearance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whenever a State or political 
     subdivision with respect to which the requirements set forth 
     in subsection (a) are in effect shall enact, adopt, or seek 
     to implement any covered practice described under subsection 
     (b), such State or subdivision may institute an action in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia for 
     a declaratory judgment that such covered practice neither has 
     the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging 
     the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in 
     a language minority group, and unless and until the court 
     enters such judgment such covered practice shall not be 
     implemented. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such 
     covered practice may be implemented without such proceeding 
     if the covered practice has been submitted by the chief legal 
     officer or other appropriate official of such State or 
     subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General 
     has not interposed an objection within 60 days after such 
     submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an 
     expedited approval within 60 days after such submission, the 
     Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such 
     objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication 
     by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor 
     the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory 
     judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent 
     action to enjoin implementation of such covered practice. In 
     the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that 
     no objection will be made within the 60-day period following 
     receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the 
     right to reexamine the submission if additional information 
     comes to the Attorney General's attention during the 
     remainder of the 60-day period which would otherwise require 
     objection in accordance with this section. Any action under 
     this section shall be heard and determined by a court of 
     three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 
     2284 of title 28, United States Code, and any appeal shall 
     lie to the Supreme Court.
       ``(2) Denying or abridging the right to vote.--Any covered 
     practice described in subsection (b) that has the purpose of 
     or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any 
     citizens of the United States on account of race, color, or 
     membership in a language minority group, to elect their 
     preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right 
     to vote within the meaning of paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Purpose defined.--The term `purpose' in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of this subsection shall include any 
     discriminatory purpose.
       ``(4) Purpose of paragraph (2).--The purpose of paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection is to protect the ability of such 
     citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General or any aggrieved 
     citizen may file an action in a Federal district court to 
     compel any State or political subdivision to satisfy the 
     obligations set forth in this section. Such actions shall be 
     heard and determined by a court of three judges under section 
     2284 of title 28, United States Code. In any such action, the 
     court shall provide as a remedy that any voting qualification 
     or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or 
     procedure with respect to voting, that is the subject of the 
     action under this subsection be enjoined unless the court 
     determines that--
       ``(1) the voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, 
     or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting, 
     is not a covered practice described in subsection (b); or
       ``(2) the State or political subdivision has complied with 
     subsection (c) with respect to the covered practice at issue.
       ``(e) Counting of Racial Groups and Language Minority 
     Groups.--For purposes of this section, the calculation of the 
     population of a racial group or a language minority group 
     shall be carried out using the methodology in the guidance 
     promulgated in the Federal Register on February 9, 2011 (76 
     Fed. Reg. 7470).
       ``(f) Special Rule.--For purposes of determinations under 
     this section, any data provided by the Bureau of the Census, 
     whether based on estimation from sample or actual 
     enumeration, shall not be subject to challenge or review in 
     any court.
       ``(g) Multilingual Voting Materials.--In this section, the 
     term `multilingual voting materials' means registration or 
     voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other 
     materials or information relating to the electoral process, 
     including ballots, provided in the language or languages of 
     one or more language minority groups.''.

     SEC. 7. PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY TO ENFORCE THE VOTING RIGHTS 
                   ACT.

       (a) Transparency.--
       (1) In general.--The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 
     10301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 6. TRANSPARENCY REGARDING CHANGES TO PROTECT VOTING 
                   RIGHTS.

       ``(a) Notice of Enacted Changes.--
       ``(1) Notice of changes.--If a State or political 
     subdivision makes any change in any qualification or 
     prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure 
     with respect to voting in any election for Federal office 
     that will result in the qualification or prerequisite, 
     standard, practice, or procedure being different from that 
     which was in effect as of 180 days before the date of the 
     election for Federal office, the State or political 
     subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice in such 
     State or political subdivision and on the website of the 
     State or political subdivision, of a concise description of 
     the change, including the difference between the changed 
     qualification or prerequisite, standard, practice, or 
     procedure and the prerequisite, standard, practice, or 
     procedure which was previously in effect. The public notice 
     described in this paragraph, in such State or political 
     subdivision and on the website of a State or political 
     subdivision, shall be in a format that is reasonably 
     convenient and accessible to persons with disabilities who 
     are eligible to vote, including persons who have low vision 
     or are blind.
       ``(2) Deadline for notice.--A State or political 
     subdivision shall provide the public notice required under 
     paragraph (1) not later than 48 hours after making the change 
     involved.
       ``(b) Transparency Regarding Polling Place Resources.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to identify any changes that 
     may impact the right to vote of any person, prior to the 30th 
     day before the date of an election for Federal office, each 
     State or political subdivision with responsibility for 
     allocating registered voters, voting machines, and official 
     poll workers to particular precincts and polling places shall 
     provide reasonable public notice in such State or political 
     subdivision and on the website of a State or political 
     subdivision, of the information described in paragraph (2) 
     for precincts and polling places within such State or 
     political subdivision. The public notice described in this 
     paragraph, in such State or political subdivision and on the 
     website of a State or political subdivision, shall be in a 
     format that is reasonably convenient and accessible to 
     persons with disabilities who are eligible to vote, including 
     persons who have low vision or are blind.
       ``(2) Information described.--The information described in 
     this paragraph with respect to a precinct or polling place is 
     each of the following:
       ``(A) The name or number.
       ``(B) In the case of a polling place, the location, 
     including the street address, and whether such polling place 
     is accessible to persons with disabilities.
       ``(C) The voting-age population of the area served by the 
     precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group 
     if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or 
     political subdivision.
       ``(D) The number of registered voters assigned to the 
     precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group 
     if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or 
     political subdivision.
       ``(E) The number of voting machines assigned, including the 
     number of voting machines accessible to persons with 
     disabilities who are eligible to vote, including persons who 
     have low vision or are blind.
       ``(F) The number of official paid poll workers assigned.
       ``(G) The number of official volunteer poll workers 
     assigned.
       ``(H) In the case of a polling place, the dates and hours 
     of operation.
       ``(3) Updates in information reported.--If a State or 
     political subdivision makes any change in any of the 
     information described in paragraph (2), the State or 
     political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice 
     in such State or political subdivision and on the website of 
     a State or political subdivision, of the change in the 
     information not later than 48 hours after the change occurs 
     or, if the change occurs fewer than 48 hours before the date 
     of the election for Federal office, as soon as practicable 
     after the change occurs. The public notice described in this 
     paragraph and published on the website of a State or 
     political subdivision shall be in a format that is reasonably 
     convenient and accessible to persons with disabilities who 
     are eligible to vote, including persons who have low vision 
     or are blind.
       ``(c) Transparency of Changes Relating to Demographics and 
     Electoral Districts.--
       ``(1) Requiring public notice of changes.--Not later than 
     10 days after making any change in the constituency that will 
     participate in an election for Federal, State, or local 
     office or the boundaries of a voting unit or electoral 
     district in an election for Federal, State, or local office 
     (including through redistricting, reapportionment, changing 
     from at-large elections to district-based elections, or 
     changing from district-based elections to at-large 
     elections), a State or political subdivision shall provide 
     reasonable public notice in such State or political 
     subdivision and on the website of a State or political 
     subdivision, of the demographic and electoral data described 
     in paragraph (3) for each of the geographic areas described 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Geographic areas described.--The geographic areas 
     described in this paragraph are as follows:
       ``(A) The State as a whole, if the change applies 
     statewide, or the political subdivision as a

[[Page H4389]]

     whole, if the change applies across the entire political 
     subdivision.
       ``(B) If the change includes a plan to replace or eliminate 
     voting units or electoral districts, each voting unit or 
     electoral district that will be replaced or eliminated.
       ``(C) If the change includes a plan to establish new voting 
     units or electoral districts, each such new voting unit or 
     electoral district.
       ``(3) Demographic and electoral data.--The demographic and 
     electoral data described in this paragraph with respect to a 
     geographic area described in paragraph (2) are each of the 
     following:
       ``(A) The voting-age population, broken down by demographic 
     group.
       ``(B) If it is reasonably available to the State or 
     political subdivision involved, an estimate of the population 
     of the area which consists of citizens of the United States 
     who are 18 years of age or older, broken down by demographic 
     group.
       ``(C) The number of registered voters, broken down by 
     demographic group if such breakdown is reasonably available 
     to the State or political subdivision involved.
       ``(D)(i) If the change applies to a State, the actual 
     number of votes, or (if it is not reasonably practicable for 
     the State to ascertain the actual number of votes) the 
     estimated number of votes received by each candidate in each 
     statewide election held during the 5-year period which ends 
     on the date the change involved is made; and
       ``(ii) if the change applies to only one political 
     subdivision, the actual number of votes, or (if it is not 
     reasonably practicable for the political subdivision to 
     ascertain the actual number of votes) in each subdivision-
     wide election held during the 5-year period which ends on the 
     date the change involved is made.
       ``(4) Voluntary compliance by smaller jurisdictions.--
     Compliance with this subsection shall be voluntary for a 
     political subdivision of a State unless the subdivision is 
     one of the following:
       ``(A) A county or parish.
       ``(B) A municipality with a population greater than 10,000, 
     as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most 
     recent decennial census.
       ``(C) A school district with a population greater than 
     10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the 
     most recent decennial census. For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `school district' means the geographic 
     area under the jurisdiction of a local educational agency (as 
     defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965).
       ``(d) Rules Regarding Format of Information.--The Attorney 
     General may issue rules specifying a reasonably convenient 
     and accessible format that States and political subdivisions 
     shall use to provide public notice of information under this 
     section.
       ``(e) No Denial of Right To Vote.--The right to vote of any 
     person shall not be denied or abridged because the person 
     failed to comply with any change made by a State or political 
     subdivision to a voting qualification, prerequisite, 
     standard, practice, or procedure if the State or political 
     subdivision involved did not meet the applicable requirements 
     of this section with respect to the change.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `demographic group' means each group which 
     section 2 protects from the denial or abridgement of the 
     right to vote on account of race or color, or in 
     contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2);
       ``(2) the term `election for Federal office' means any 
     general, special, primary, or runoff election held solely or 
     in part for the purpose of electing any candidate for the 
     office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, 
     Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate 
     or Resident Commissioner to the Congress; and
       ``(3) the term `persons with disabilities', means 
     individuals with a disability, as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(a) of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking ``in accordance with 
     section 6''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall apply with respect to changes which are made on 
     or after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN OBSERVERS.

       (a) Clarification of Authority in Political Subdivisions 
     Subject to Preclearance.--Section 8(a)(2)(B) of the Voting 
     Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10305(a)(2)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of 
     observers is otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of 
     the 14th or 15th Amendment or any provision of this Act or 
     any other Federal law protecting the right of citizens of the 
     United States to vote; or''.
       (b) Assignment of Observers To Enforce Bilingual Election 
     Requirements.--Section 8(a) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10305(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) the Attorney General certifies with respect to a 
     political subdivision that--
       ``(A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious 
     complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic 
     participation organizations that efforts to violate section 
     203 are likely to occur; or
       ``(B) in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of 
     observers is necessary to enforce the guarantees of section 
     203;''; and
       (3) by moving the margin for the continuation text 
     following paragraph (3), as added by paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection, 2 ems to the left.
       (c) Transferral of Authority Over Observers to the Attorney 
     General.--
       (1) Enforcement proceedings.--Section 3(a) of the Voting 
     Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``United States Civil Service Commission in 
     accordance with section 6'' and inserting ``Attorney General 
     in accordance with section 8''.
       (2) Observers; appointment and compensation.--Section 8 of 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10305) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), in the matter following 
     subparagraph (B), by striking ``Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall assign as many observers for such 
     subdivision as the Director'' and inserting ``Attorney 
     General shall assign as many observers for such subdivision 
     as the Attorney General''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management'' and inserting ``Attorney General''.
       (3) Termination of certain appointments of observers.--
     Section 13(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 
     10309(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``notifies the Director 
     of the Office of Personnel Management,'' and inserting 
     ``determines,''.

     SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO SEEK RELIEF.

       (a) Poll Tax.--Section 10(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965 (52 U.S.C. 10306(b)) is amended by striking ``the 
     Attorney General is authorized and directed to institute 
     forthwith in the name of the United States such actions'' and 
     inserting ``an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United 
     States) the Attorney General may institute such actions''.
       (b) Cause of Action.--Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights 
     Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10308(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whenever any person has engaged'' and all 
     that follows through ``in the name of the United States'' and 
     inserting ``(1) Whenever there are reasonable grounds to 
     believe that any person has implemented or will implement any 
     voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, 
     practice, or procedure that would (A) deny any citizen the 
     right to vote in violation of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 
     26th Amendments, or (B) would violate this Act (except for 
     section 4A) or any other Federal law that prohibits 
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in 
     a language minority group in the voting process, an aggrieved 
     person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney 
     General may institute''; and
       (2) by striking ``, and including an order directed to the 
     State and State or local election officials to require them 
     (1) to permit persons listed under chapters 103 to 107 of 
     this title to vote and (2) to count such votes''.
       (c) Judicial Relief.--Section 204 of the Voting Rights Act 
     of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10504) is amended by striking ``Whenever 
     the Attorney General has reason to believe'' and all that 
     follows through ``as he deems appropriate'' and inserting 
     ``Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that a 
     State or political subdivision has engaged or is about to 
     engage in any act or practice prohibited by a provision of 
     title II, an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United 
     States) the Attorney General may institute an action in a 
     district court of the United States, for a restraining order, 
     a preliminary or permanent injunction, or such other order as 
     may be appropriate''.
       (d) Enforcement of Twenty-Sixth Amendment.--Section 
     301(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10701) 
     is amended by striking ``The Attorney General is directed to 
     institute'' and all that follows through ``Constitution of 
     the United States'' and inserting ``An aggrieved person or 
     (in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may 
     institute an action in a district court of the United States, 
     for a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent 
     injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to 
     implement the twenty-sixth amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States''.

     SEC. 10. PREVENTIVE RELIEF.

       Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 
     10308(d)), as amended by section 9, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) In considering any motion for preliminary relief 
     in any action for preventive relief described in this 
     subsection, the court shall grant the relief if the court 
     determines that the complainant has raised a serious question 
     as to whether the challenged voting qualification or 
     prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure 
     violates this Act or the Constitution and, on balance, the 
     hardship imposed on the defendant by the grant of the relief 
     will be less than the hardship which would be imposed on the 
     plaintiff if the relief were not granted.
       ``(B) In making its determination under this paragraph with 
     respect to a change in any voting qualification, prerequisite 
     to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect 
     to voting, the court shall consider all relevant factors and 
     give due weight to the following factors, if they are 
     present:
       ``(i) Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
     practice, or procedure in effect prior to the change was 
     adopted as a remedy for a Federal court judgment, consent 
     decree, or admission regarding--
       ``(I) discrimination on the basis of race or color in 
     violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment;
       ``(II) a violation of the 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments;
       ``(III) a violation of this Act; or
       ``(IV) voting discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
     or membership in a language minority group in violation of 
     any other Federal or State law.
       ``(ii) Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
     practice, or procedure in effect prior

[[Page H4390]]

     to the change served as a ground for the dismissal or 
     settlement of a claim alleging--
       ``(I) discrimination on the basis of race or color in 
     violation of the 14th or 15th Amendment;
       ``(II) a violation of the 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendment;
       ``(III) a violation of this Act; or
       ``(IV) voting discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
     or membership in a language minority group in violation of 
     any other Federal or State law.
       ``(iii) Whether the change was adopted fewer than 180 days 
     before the date of the election with respect to which the 
     change is to take or takes effect.
       ``(iv) Whether the defendant has failed to provide timely 
     or complete notice of the adoption of the change as required 
     by applicable Federal or State law.
       ``(3) A jurisdiction's inability to enforce its voting or 
     election laws, regulations, policies, or redistricting plans, 
     standing alone, shall not be deemed to constitute irreparable 
     harm to the public interest or to the interests of a 
     defendant in an action arising under the Constitution or any 
     Federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
     race, color, or membership in a language minority group in 
     the voting process, for the purposes of determining whether a 
     stay of a court's order or an interlocutory appeal under 
     section 1253 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     warranted.''.

     SEC. 11. RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF VOTING RIGHTS LAWS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Relief for violations of voting rights laws.--In this 
     section, the term ``prohibited act or practice'' means--
       (A) any act or practice--
       (i) that creates an undue burden on the fundamental right 
     to vote in violation of the 14th Amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States or violates the Equal 
     Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 
     of the United States; or
       (ii) that is prohibited by the 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section 
     2004 of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101), the Voting 
     Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), the National 
     Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.), the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 
     U.S.C. 20301 et seq.), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 
     U.S.C. 20901 et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for the 
     Elderly and Handicapped Act (52 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.), or 
     section 2003 of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10102); and
       (B) any act or practice in violation of any Federal law 
     that prohibits discrimination with respect to voting, 
     including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to diminish the authority or scope of authority of 
     any person to bring an action under any Federal law.
       (3) Attorney's fees.--Section 722(b) of the Revised 
     Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting ``a 
     provision described in section 2(a) of the John R. Lewis 
     Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021,'' after ``title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964,''.
       (b) Grounds for Equitable Relief.--In any action for 
     equitable relief pursuant to a law listed under subsection 
     (a), proximity of the action to an election shall not be a 
     valid reason to deny such relief, or stay the operation of or 
     vacate the issuance of such relief, unless the party opposing 
     the issuance or continued operation of relief meets the 
     burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the 
     issuance of the relief would be so close in time to the 
     election as to cause irreparable harm to the public interest 
     or that compliance with such relief would impose serious 
     burdens on the party opposing relief.
       (1) In general.--In considering whether to grant, deny, 
     stay, or vacate any order of equitable relief, the court 
     shall give substantial weight to the public's interest in 
     expanding access to the right to vote. A State's generalized 
     interest in enforcing its enacted laws shall not be a 
     relevant consideration in determining whether equitable 
     relief is warranted.
       (2) Presumptive safe harbor.--Where equitable relief is 
     sought either within 30 days of the adoption or reasonable 
     public notice of the challenged policy or practice, or more 
     than 45 days before the date of an election to which the 
     relief being sought will apply, proximity to the election 
     will be presumed not to constitute a harm to the public 
     interest or a burden on the party opposing relief.
       (c) Grounds for Stay or Vacatur in Federal Claims Involving 
     Voting Rights.--
       (1) Prospective effect.--In reviewing an application for a 
     stay or vacatur of equitable relief granted pursuant to a law 
     listed in subsection (a), a court shall give substantial 
     weight to the reliance interests of citizens who acted 
     pursuant to such order under review. In fashioning a stay or 
     vacatur, a reviewing court shall not order relief that has 
     the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any 
     citizen who has acted in reliance on the order.
       (2) Written explanation.--No stay or vacatur under this 
     subsection shall issue unless the reviewing court makes 
     specific findings that the public interest, including the 
     public's interest in expanding access to the ballot, will be 
     harmed by the continuing operation of the equitable relief or 
     that compliance with such relief will impose serious burdens 
     on the party seeking such a stay or vacatur such that those 
     burdens substantially outweigh the benefits to the public 
     interest. In reviewing an application for a stay or vacatur 
     of equitable relief, findings of fact made in issuing the 
     order under review shall not be set aside unless clearly 
     erroneous.

     SEC. 12. ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       Section 12 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. 10308), as 
     amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(g) Voting Rights Enforcement by Attorney General.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to fulfill the Attorney 
     General's responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act and 
     other Federal civil rights statutes that protect the right to 
     vote, the Attorney General (or upon designation by the 
     Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
     Rights) is authorized, before commencing a civil action, to 
     issue a demand for inspection and information in writing to 
     any State or political subdivision, or other governmental 
     representative or agent, with respect to any relevant 
     documentary material that he has reason to believe is within 
     their possession, custody, or control. A demand by the 
     Attorney General under this section may require--
       ``(A) the production of such documentary material for 
     inspection and copying;
       ``(B) answers in writing to written questions with respect 
     to such documentary material; or
       ``(C) both.
       ``(2) Contents of an attorney general demand.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any demand issued under paragraph (1), 
     shall include a sworn certificate to identify the voting 
     qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, 
     practice, or procedure with respect to voting, or other 
     voting related matter or issue, whose lawfulness the Attorney 
     General is investigating and to identify the civil provisions 
     of the Federal civil rights statute that protects the right 
     to vote under which the investigation is being conducted. The 
     demand shall be reasonably calculated to lead to the 
     discovery of documentary material and information relevant to 
     such civil rights investigation. Documentary material 
     includes any material upon which relevant information is 
     recorded, and includes written or printed materials, 
     photographs, tapes, or materials upon which information is 
     electronically or magnetically recorded. Such demands are 
     aimed at the Attorney General having the ability to inspect 
     and obtain copies of relevant materials (as well as obtain 
     information) related to voting and are not aimed at the 
     Attorney General taking possession of original records, 
     particularly those that are required to be retained by State 
     and local election officials under Federal or State law.
       ``(B) No requirement for production.--Any demand issued 
     under paragraph (1) may not require the production of any 
     documentary material or the submission of any answers in 
     writing to written questions if such material or answers 
     would be protected from disclosure under the standards 
     applicable to discovery requests under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure in an action in which the Attorney General or 
     the United States is a party.
       ``(C) Documentary material.--If the demand issued under 
     paragraph (1) requires the production of documentary 
     material, it shall--
       ``(i) identify the class of documentary material to be 
     produced with such definiteness and certainty as to permit 
     such material to be fairly identified; and
       ``(ii) prescribe a return date for production of the 
     documentary material at least twenty days after issuance of 
     the demand to give the State or political subdivision, or 
     other governmental representative or agent, a reasonable 
     period of time for assembling the documentary material and 
     making it available for inspection and copying.
       ``(D) Answers to written questions.--If the demand issued 
     under paragraph (1) requires answers in writing to written 
     questions, it shall--
       ``(i) set forth with specificity the written question to be 
     answered; and
       ``(ii) prescribe a date at least twenty days after the 
     issuance of the demand for submitting answers in writing to 
     the written questions.
       ``(E) Service.--A demand issued under paragraph (1) may be 
     served by a United States marshal or a deputy marshal, or by 
     certified mail, at any place within the territorial 
     jurisdiction of any court of the United States.
       ``(3) Responses to an attorney general demand.--A State or 
     political subdivision, or other governmental representative 
     or agent, must, with respect to any documentary material or 
     any answer in writing produced under this subsection, provide 
     a sworn certificate, in such form as the demand issued under 
     paragraph (1) designates, by a person having knowledge of the 
     facts and circumstances relating to such production or 
     written answer, authorized to act on behalf of the State or 
     political subdivision, or other governmental representative 
     or agent, upon which the demand was served. The certificate--
       ``(A) shall state that--
       ``(i) all of the documentary material required by the 
     demand and in the possession, custody, or control of the 
     State or political subdivision, or other governmental 
     representative or agent, has been produced;
       ``(ii) that with respect to every answer in writing to a 
     written question, all information required by the question 
     and in the possession, custody, control, or knowledge of the 
     State or political subdivision, or other governmental 
     representative or agent, has been submitted; or
       ``(iii) both; or
       ``(B) provide the basis for any objection to producing the 
     documentary material or answering the written question.
     To the extent that any information is not furnished, the 
     information shall be identified and reasons set forth with 
     particularity regarding the reasons why the information was 
     not furnished.
       ``(4) Judicial proceedings.--
       ``(A) Petition for enforcement.--Whenever any State or 
     political subdivision, or other governmental representative 
     or agent, fails to comply with demand issued by the Attorney 
     General under paragraph (1), the Attorney General may file, 
     in a district court of the United States in

[[Page H4391]]

     which the State or political subdivision, or other 
     governmental representative or agent, is located, a petition 
     for a judicial order enforcing the Attorney General demand 
     issued under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Petition to modify.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any State or political subdivision, or 
     other governmental representative or agent, that is served 
     with a demand issued by the Attorney General under paragraph 
     (1) may file in the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia a petition for an order of the court to 
     modify or set aside the demand of the Attorney General.
       ``(ii) Petition to modify.--Any petition to modify or set 
     aside a demand of the Attorney General issued under paragraph 
     (1) must be filed within 20 days after the date of service of 
     the Attorney General's demand or at any time before the 
     return date specified in the Attorney General's demand, 
     whichever date is earlier.
       ``(iii) Contents of petition.--The petition shall specify 
     each ground upon which the petitioner relies in seeking 
     relief under clause (i), and may be based upon any failure of 
     the Attorney General's demand to comply with the provisions 
     of this section or upon any constitutional or other legal 
     right or privilege of the State or political subdivision, or 
     other governmental representative or agent. During the 
     pendency of the petition in the court, the court may stay, as 
     it deems proper, the running of the time allowed for 
     compliance with the Attorney General's demand, in whole or in 
     part, except that the State or political subdivision, or 
     other governmental representative or agent, filing the 
     petition shall comply with any portions of the Attorney 
     General's demand not sought to be modified or set aside.''.

     SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.

       Title I of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 21. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Indian.--The term `Indian' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act.
       ``(2) Indian lands.--The term `Indian lands' means--
       ``(A) any Indian country of an Indian tribe, as such term 
     is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code;
       ``(B) any land in Alaska that is owned, pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, by an Indian tribe that 
     is a Native village (as such term is defined in section 3 of 
     such Act), or by a Village Corporation that is associated 
     with the Indian tribe (as such term is defined in section 3 
     of such Act);
       ``(C) any land on which the seat of government of the 
     Indian tribe is located; and
       ``(D) any land that is part or all of a tribal designated 
     statistical area associated with the Indian tribe, or is part 
     or all of an Alaska Native village statistical area 
     associated with the tribe, as defined by the Bureau of the 
     Census for the purposes of the most recent decennial census.
       ``(3) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' or `tribe' has 
     the meaning given the term `Indian tribe' in section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
       ``(4) Tribal government.--The term `Tribal Government' 
     means the recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe.
       ``(5) Voting-age population.--The term `voting-age 
     population' means the numerical size of the population within 
     a State, within a political subdivision, or within a 
     political subdivision that contains Indian lands, as the case 
     may be, that consists of persons age 18 or older, as 
     calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent 
     decennial census.''.

     SEC. 14. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Section 14(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 
     10310(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The term `prevailing party' means a party to an 
     action that receives at least some of the benefit sought by 
     such action, states a colorable claim, and can establish that 
     the action was a significant cause of a change to the status 
     quo.''.

     SEC. 15. OTHER TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Actions Covered Under Section 3.--Section 3(c) of the 
     Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any proceeding instituted by the Attorney 
     General or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce'' 
     and inserting ``any action under any statute in which a party 
     (including the Attorney General) seeks to enforce''; and
       (2) by striking ``at the time the proceeding was 
     commenced'' and inserting ``at the time the action was 
     commenced''.
       (b) Clarification of Treatment of Members of Language 
     Minority Groups.--Section 4(f) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 
     10303(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking the second sentence; and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
       (c) Period During Which Changes in Voting Practices Are 
     Subject to Preclearance Under Section 5.--Section 5 of such 
     Act (52 U.S.C. 10304) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``based upon 
     determinations made under the first sentence of section 4(b) 
     are in effect'' and inserting ``are in effect during a 
     calendar year'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``November 1, 1964'' and 
     all that follows through ``November 1, 1972'' and inserting 
     ``the applicable date of coverage''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) The term `applicable date of coverage' means, with 
     respect to a State or political subdivision--
       ``(1) June 25, 2013, if the most recent determination for 
     such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made on or 
     before December 31, 2021; or
       ``(2) the date on which the most recent determination for 
     such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made, if 
     such determination was made after December 31, 2021.''.

     SEC. 16. SEVERABILITY.

        If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to 
     any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional or 
     is otherwise enjoined or unenforceable, the remainder of this 
     Act and amendments made by this Act, and the application of 
     the provisions and amendment to any person or circumstance, 
     and any remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
     shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 17. GRANTS TO ASSIST WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
                   VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants 
     each fiscal year to small jurisdictions who submit 
     applications under subsection (b) for purposes of assisting 
     such small jurisdictions with compliance with the 
     requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to submit or 
     publish notice of any change to a qualification, 
     prerequisite, standard, practice or procedure affecting 
     voting.
       (b) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, a small jurisdiction shall submit an application to 
     the Attorney General in such form and containing such 
     information as the Attorney General may require regarding the 
     compliance of such small jurisdiction with the provisions of 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
       (c) Small Jurisdiction Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``small jurisdiction'' means any political 
     subdivision of a State with a population of 10,000 or less.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1615


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
Act of 2021, would revitalize and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 
1965 to confront the onslaught of discriminatory voting laws and 
practices that have emerged in recent years across the country.
  In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, gutted the 
Voting Rights Act's most important enforcement mechanism, the Section 5 
preclearance regime, which required jurisdictions with a history of 
discrimination against racial and ethnic minority voters to seek 
approval of any changes to their voting laws before they could go into 
effect.
  Almost immediately after the decision, many of these jurisdictions 
unleashed a raft of voter suppression measures, knowing that these laws 
now could only be challenged after the fact and only through a costly 
and time-consuming process that made such challenges unlikely and when 
people's votes had already been improperly invalidated.
  When the Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which 
jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, it explicitly invited 
Congress to devise a new formula to meet the current need to remedy 
voting discrimination.
  H.R. 4 answers that call.
  This legislation would create a new geographic coverage formula that 
is fine-tuned to capture only those places with longstanding and 
persistent discrimination. At the same time, it targets only recent 
discrimination and does not leave jurisdictions frozen in time.
  The bill also requires preclearance of certain practices that are 
historically associated with voting discrimination; it responds to the 
recent Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. DNC, which severely 
limited enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and it 
provides other important tools to strengthen enforcement of the VRA.
  H.R. 4 rests on a substantial record that documents the myriad ways 
that

[[Page H4392]]

the right to vote, the most fundamental right in a democracy, remains 
under threat for too many Americans.
  I want to thank Terri Sewell for introducing this bill,   Steve Cohen 
for the 13 hearings he held on voting rights in the Constitution 
Subcommittee, as well as our colleagues on the Subcommittee on 
Elections and the Committee on House Administration for their work.
  I urge all Members to join me in honoring the legacy of our beloved 
colleague, the late John Lewis, who shed his blood to secure passage of 
the Voting Rights Act, by supporting this vital legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the ranking member of the House 
Administration Committee.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, recently, another friend 
of ours and our colleague, Congressman Burgess Owens, who grew up in 
the Jim Crow South, testified before my committee, and I want to 
highlight two very important points he made: Not only is our country 
not facing a new era of Jim Crow voting laws, as many of my Democrat 
colleagues have falsely claimed, but it is incredibly offensive to lie 
to the American people to further a political agenda.
  Our country has come a long way since the Jim Crow era, and it is in 
part because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  More Americans voted in the last two elections than in any midterm or 
Presidential election in our Nation's history. This includes historic 
turnouts among African Americans and other minority voters.
  We should celebrate this progress, not ignore it.
  Using Georgia as an example, since my friends on the other side of 
the aisle were so quick to condemn new election integrity laws in this 
State; in Georgia, which was once covered under the VRA's preclearance 
formula, African-American turnout in the last election was 64 percent, 
compared to 27 percent in 1965. And an amazing 95 percent of the total 
eligible voting-age population in Georgia is registered to vote.
  That is incredible. It is easier to vote in Georgia than it is in 
Democrat-run States like New York and Delaware and even others.
  Democrats on the Committee on House Administration held hearing after 
hearing on election issues where they produced zero evidence of voter 
suppression, likely due to the fact that voter discrimination and 
suppression remain against the law in this country.
  Yet, the bill before us goes far beyond the original VRA and would 
subject every State to preclearance, an extraordinary measure 
established in 1965 to prevent Democratic-led Southern States, with a 
history of discrimination, from intimidating and preventing African 
Americans from voting.
  If you vote for this legislation, you are voting for a Federal 
takeover of elections; you are removing the people elected at the State 
and local level to run elections from making decisions about how 
elections are run, including voter ID laws, and putting an 
unaccountable, unelected election czar at the DOJ, the Attorney 
General, in charge of all election decisions in this country.
  Members of this body and the American people should be asking the 
simple question: If it is easier to vote today than at any time in our 
history and more Americans are voting than ever before, then why are 
Democrats going to such extreme measures to ensure a Federal takeover 
of elections?
  I hope my colleagues and the American people will see this bill for 
what it is, a partisan power grab which circumvents the people to 
ensure a one-party rule.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report I released as ranking 
member of the House Administration Committee earlier this month titled 
``The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority Over 
Elections.''

  [From Representative Rodney Davis (IL-13), Ranking Member, House of 
   Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Aug. 12, 2021]

Report--The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority 
                             Over Elections


                           Executive Summary

       Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to 
     vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be 
     counted according to state law. Through an examination of 
     history, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning 
     ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself, 
     this document explains the constitutional division of power 
     envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal 
     government with respect to election administration. Article 
     1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States 
     have the primary authority over election administration, the 
     ``times, places, and manner of holding elections''. 
     Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely 
     secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the 
     extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate 
     refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our 
     federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to 
     serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms, 
     the right to vote.
       The Constitution reserves to the States the primary 
     authority to set election legislation and administer 
     elections--the ``times, places, and manner of holding of 
     elections''--and Congress' power in this space is purely 
     secondary to the States' power. Congress' power is to be 
     employed only in the direst of circumstances. Despite 
     Democrats' insistence that Congress' power over elections is 
     unfettered and permits Congress to enact sweeping legislation 
     like H.R. 1, it is simply not true. History, precedent, the 
     Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme 
     Court, and the Constitution itself make this exceedingly 
     clear.
       The Framing Generation grappled with the failure of the 
     Articles of Confederation, which provided for only a weak 
     national government incapable of preserving the Union. Under 
     the Articles, the States had exclusive authority over federal 
     elections held within their territory; but, given the 
     difficulties the national government had experienced with 
     State cooperation (e.g., the failure of Rhode Island to send 
     delegates to the Confederation Congress), the Federalists, 
     including Alexander Hamilton, were concerned with the 
     possibility that the States, in an effort to destroy the 
     federal government, simply might not hold elections or that 
     an emergency, such as an invasion or insurrection, might 
     prevent the operation of a State's government, leaving the 
     Congress without Members and the federal government unable to 
     respond. Indeed, as counsel for the Democrat Members of our 
     Committee so keenly observed:

       For the Founders, particularly during the Federal 
     Constitutional Convention, the primary concern was informing 
     the discussions of federal elections in Article I was the 
     risk of uncooperative states. For example, Alexander Hamilton 
     noted that by providing states the authority to run 
     congressional elections, under Article I, Section 4, 
     ``risk[ed] `leaving the existence of the Union entirely at 
     their mercy.' '' Following the failings of the Articles of 
     Confederation, the Founders looked for processes that would 
     insulate Congress from recalcitrant states. Indeed, ``[t]he 
     dominant purpose of the Elections Clause, the historical 
     record bears out, was to empower Congress to override state 
     election rules, not to restrict the way States enact 
     legislation[,]'' and that ``the Clause `was the Framers' 
     insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse 
     to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal 
     Congress.' ''

       Quite plainly, Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist and 
     proponent of our Constitution, understood the Elections 
     Clause as serving only as a sort of emergency fail-safe, not 
     as a cudgel used to nationalize our elections process. 
     Writing as Publius to the people of New York, Hamilton 
     further expounds on the correct understanding of the 
     Elections Clause: ``T[he] natural order of the subject leads 
     us to consider, in this place, that provision of the 
     Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to 
     regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own 
     members.''
       When questioned at the States' constitutional ratifying 
     conventions with respect to this provision, the Federalists 
     confirmed this understanding of a constitutionally limited, 
     secondary congressional power under Article 1, Section 4:
       Maryland: ``[C]onvention delegate James McHenry added that 
     the risk to the federal government [without a fail-safe 
     provision] might not arise from state malice: An insurrection 
     or rebellion might prevent a state legislature from 
     administering an election.''
       N. Carolina: ``An occasion may arise when the exercise of 
     this ultimate power of Congress may be necessary . . . if a 
     state should be involved in war, and its legislature could 
     not assemble, (as was the case of South Carolina and 
     occasionally of some other states, during the [Revolutionary] 
     war).''
       Pennsylvania: ``Sir, let it be remembered that this power 
     can only operate in a case of necessity, after the factious 
     or listless disposition of a particular state has rendered an 
     interference essential to the salvation of the general 
     government.''
       John Jay made similar claims in New York. And, as 
     constitutional scholar Robert Natelson, notes in his 
     invaluable article, The Original Scope of the Congressional 
     Power to

[[Page H4393]]

     Regulate Elections, Alexander Contee Hanson, a member of 
     Congress whose pamphlet supporting the Constitution proved 
     popular, stated flatly that Congress would exercise its 
     times, places, and manner authority only in cases of 
     invasion, legislative neglect or obstinate refusal to pass 
     election laws [providing for the election of Members of 
     Congress], or if a state crafted its election laws with a 
     `sinister purpose' or to injure the general government.''
       Cementing his point, Hanson goes further to decree, ``The 
     exercise of this power must at all times be so very 
     invidious, that congress will not venture upon it without 
     some very cogent and substantial reason.'' In Floor debate 
     during the 117th Congress concerning H.R. 1, the Democrats' 
     intended nationalization of elections, Ranking Member Davis 
     argued, as he has many other times, that:

       According to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, 
     States have the primary role in establishing ``[t]he Times, 
     Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and 
     Representatives.'' Under the Constitution, Congress has a 
     purely secondary role in this space and must restrain itself 
     from acting improperly and unconstitutionally. Federal 
     election legislation should never be the first step and must 
     never impose burdensome, unfunded federal mandates on state 
     and local elections officials. When Congress does speak, it 
     must devote its efforts only to resolving highly significant 
     and substantial deficiencies. State legislatures are the 
     primary venues to correct most issues.

       In fact, had the Democrats' view of the Elections Clause 
     been accepted at the time of the Constitution's drafting--
     that is, that it offers Congress unfettered power over 
     federal elections--it is likely that the Constitution would 
     not have been ratified or that an amendment to this language 
     would have been required. Indeed, at least seven of the 
     original 13 states--over half and enough to prevent the 
     Constitution from being ratified--expressed specific concerns 
     with the language of the Elections Clause. However, 
     ``[l]eading Federalists . . .'' assured them, ``. . . that, 
     even without amendment, the [Elections] Clause should be 
     construed as limited to emergencies.''
       Three states, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, 
     specifically made their ratification contingent on this 
     understanding being made express:
       New York: ``Under these impressions and declaring that the 
     rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and the 
     Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said 
     Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which 
     have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive 
     early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the 
     Name and in [sic] the behalf of the People of the State of 
     New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said 
     Constitution. In full Confidence . . . that the Congress will 
     not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the 
     times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or 
     Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall 
     neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the 
     purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the 
     same, and that in those cases such power will only be 
     exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make 
     provision in the Premises[.]''
       N. Carolina: ``That Congress shall not alter, modify, or 
     interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding 
     elections for senators and representatives, or either of 
     them, except when the legislature of any state shall neglect, 
     refuse or be disabled by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe 
     the same.''
       Rhode Island: ``Under these impressions, and declaring, 
     that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and 
     that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said 
     constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter 
     mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, 
     and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, 
     speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the 
     name, and in [sic] the behalf of the People, of the State of 
     Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these 
     Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In 
     full confidence . . . That the Congress will not make or 
     alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times, 
     places and manner of holding elections for senators and 
     representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall 
     neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for the 
     purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the 
     same; and that [i]n those cases, such power will only be 
     exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make 
     provision in the Premises[.]
       This clearly demonstrates that the Framers designed and the 
     ratifying States understood the Elections Clause to serve 
     solely as a protective backstop to ensure the preservation of 
     the Federal Government, not as a font of limitless power for 
     Congress to wrest control of federal elections from the 
     States.
       This understanding was also reinforced by debate during the 
     first Congress that convened under the Constitution. ``During 
     the first session of the First Congress . . . Representative 
     Aedanus Burke unsuccessfully proposed a constitutional 
     amendment to limit the Times, Places and Manner Clause to 
     emergencies.'' But those on both sides of the Burke amendment 
     debate already understood the Elections Clause to limit 
     Federal elections power to emergencies.
       For example, the recorded description of opponent 
     Representative Goodhue's comments notes that he believed the 
     Elections Clause as written was intended to prevent ``. . . 
     the State Governments [from] oppos[ing] and thwart[ing] the 
     general one to such a degree as finally to overturn it. Now, 
     to guard against this evil, he wished the Federal Government 
     to possess every power necessary to its existence.'' With any 
     change to the original text therefore unnecessary to achieve 
     Burke's desired goal, Mr. Goodhue voted against the proposed 
     amendment.
       Similarly, proponent Representative Smith of South Carolina 
     also believed the original text of the Elections Clause 
     already limited the Federal Government's power over federal 
     elections to emergencies and so thought there would be no 
     harm in supporting an amendment to make that language 
     express. So, even the records of the First Congress reflect a 
     recognition of the emergency nature of congressional power 
     over federal elections.
       Similarly, the Supreme Court has supported this 
     understanding. In Smiley v. Holm, the Court held that Article 
     1, Section 4 of the Constitution reserved to the States the 
     primary
       ``. . . authority to provide a complete code for 
     congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but 
     in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, 
     protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt 
     practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and 
     canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; 
     in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure 
     and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order 
     to enforce the fundamental right involved. And these 
     requirements would be nugatory if they did not have 
     appropriate sanctions in the definition of offenses and 
     punishments. All this is comprised in the subject of ``times, 
     places and manner of holding elections,'' and involves 
     lawmaking in its essential features and most important 
     aspect.''
       This holding, of course, is consistent with the 
     understanding of the Elections Clause since the framing of 
     the Constitution. The Smiley Court also held that while 
     Congress maintains the authority to ``. . . supplement these 
     state regulations or [to] substitute its own[ ]'', such 
     authority remains merely ``a general supervisory power over 
     the whole subject.'' More recently, the Court noted in 
     Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. that ``[t]his 
     grant of congressional power [that is, the fail-safe 
     provision in the Elections Clause] was the Framers' insurance 
     against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide 
     for the election of representatives to the Federal 
     Congress.'' The Court explained that the Elections Clause ``. 
     . . imposes [upon the States] the duty . . . to prescribe the 
     time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and 
     Senators[.]'' And, while, as the Court noted, ``[t]he power 
     of Congress over the `Times, Places and Manner' of 
     congressional elections `is paramount, and may be exercised 
     at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and 
     so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations 
     effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent 
     therewith[ ]'', the Inter-Tribal Court explained, quoting 
     extensively from The Federalist no. 59, that it was clear 
     that the congressional fail-safe included in the Elections 
     Clause was intended for the sorts of governmental self-
     preservation discussed in this Report: ``[E]very government 
     ought to contain in itself the means of its own 
     preservation[.]''; ``[A]n exclusive power of regulating 
     elections for the national government, in the hands of the 
     State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union 
     entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate 
     it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to 
     administer its affairs.''


                               Conclusion

       It is clear in every respect that the congressional fail-
     safe described in the Elections Clause vests purely secondary 
     authority over federal elections in the federal legislative 
     branch and that the primary authority rests with the States. 
     Congressional authority is intended to be, and as a matter of 
     constitutional fact is, limited to addressing the worst 
     imaginable issues, such as invasion or other matters that 
     might lead to a State not electing representatives to 
     constitute the two Houses of Congress.'' Our authority has 
     never extended to the day-to-day authority over the ``Times, 
     Places and Manner of Election'' that the Constitution clearly 
     reserves to the States. Unfortunately for Democrats, this 
     clear restriction on congressional authority means that we do 
     not have the power to implement the overwhelming majority--if 
     not the entirety--of their biggest legislative priority, H.R. 
     1 and related legislation, which would purport to nationalize 
     our elections and centralize their administration in 
     Washington, D.C. Thankfully, the Framers had the foresight to 
     write our Constitution so as to prevent those bad policies 
     from going into effect and preserve the health of our 
     republic.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. SEWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 4, 
the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote.

[[Page H4394]]

Nothing is more precious to my district, Alabama's 7th Congressional 
District, the home of Birmingham, Montgomery, and my hometown of Selma, 
Alabama, than the fight to protect the right to vote for all Americans.
  It was in my district that ordinary Americans peacefully protested 
for the equal right to vote for all Americans.
  Nothing is more personal to me, nothing more represents America's 
civil rights district than to be able to stand here, as so many of us 
have, with John Lewis at the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, as I 
announced with glee that we have reintroduced H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  It was on that same bridge in Selma, Alabama, that a 26-year-old John 
Lewis was bludgeoned by State troopers with billy clubs in the name of 
justice.
  Their efforts led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
the seminal piece of legislation in Congress to protect the right of 
all Americans to vote.
  Those protections were gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court's decision 
in Shelby v. Holder, and Section 2 was also affected by the most recent 
decision in Brnovich.
  Today, 8 years after Shelby, Congress is finally answering the 
Supreme Court's call to action by passing H.R. 4.
  H.R. 4 will create a new coverage formula to determine which States 
have been the most egregious actors and subject them to preclearance 
that is based on current evidence of voter discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, old battles have indeed become new again. While 
literacy tests and poll taxes no longer exist, certain States and local 
jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern-day barriers to voting. 
As long as voter suppression exists, the need for the full protections 
of VRA will continue. We must fully restore the VRA.
  Why? Because as John Lewis would say: When you hear something or see 
something that is not right, that is not just, that is not fair, we 
have a moral obligation to do something about it.
  We, the Members of the House of Representatives, can today do 
something about it. Let's pass H.R. 4. Let's do so not just in the name 
of John Lewis; let's do so for the people, the American people. We must 
secure the right to vote.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record 14 letters of support and 
statements of support from all across this Nation, from civil rights 
groups, from labor groups, from amazing folks who are fighting every 
day on the front lines for the right to vote.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


   H.R. 4--John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021--Rep. 
                    Sewell, D-AL, and 218 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 
     (VRAA).
       The right to vote freely, the right to vote fairly, the 
     right to have your vote counted is fundamental. In the last 
     election, all told, more than 150 million Americans of every 
     age, of every race, of every background exercised their right 
     to vote.
       This historic level of participation in the face of a once-
     in-a-century pandemic should have been celebrated by 
     everyone. Instead, some have sought to delegitimize the 
     election and make it harder to vote, in many cases by 
     targeting the methods of voting that made it possible for 
     many voters to participate. These efforts violate the most 
     basic ideals of America.
       Yet another massive wave of discriminatory action may be 
     imminent as we enter a new legislative redistricting cycle. 
     Unfortunately, incumbents too often cling to power by drawing 
     district lines to favor their own prospects at the expense of 
     minority communities, choosing their voters instead of the 
     other way around.
       While anti-voter action undermines democracy for all 
     Americans, we know that communities of color often suffer the 
     worst effects of these measures--and all too often, that is 
     not by accident.
       The sacred right to vote is under attack across the 
     country.
       The VRAA will strengthen vital legal protections to ensure 
     that all Americans have a fair opportunity to participate in 
     our democracy. Among other things, it would create a new 
     framework for allowing DOJ to review voting changes in 
     jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to ensure that 
     they do not discriminate based on race. It would also clarify 
     the scope of legal tools designed to challenge discriminatory 
     voting laws in court, ensuring that the Voting Rights Act 
     offers protection against modern forms of voter suppression.
       In an essay published shortly after he died, Congressman 
     John Lewis wrote, ``Democracy is not a state. It is an 
     act[.]'' This bill not only bears his name, it heeds his 
     call. The Administration looks forward to working with 
     Congress as the VRAA proceeds through the legislative process 
     to ensure that the bill achieves lasting reform consistent 
     with Congress' broad constitutional authority to protect 
     voting rights and to strengthen our democracy.
                                  ____

                                                  August 18, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Southern Poverty Law 
     Center Action Fund, we write to urge you to support H.R. 4, 
     the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, when the 
     House considers this essential legislation next week. When 
     enacted into law, this legislation will restore Section 5 of 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and require states and 
     localities with recent histories of racial discrimination to 
     seek federal approval before implementing any voting changes; 
     would require any state or jurisdiction to seek federal 
     approval before implementing any voting practice known to 
     have racially discriminatory impact; and would strengthen 
     Section 2 of the VRA, which gives the Department of Justice 
     and voters the ability to challenge discriminatory voting 
     laws and practices.
       Through our collaborative, intersectional work with 
     community partners around the Deep South, the SPLC has 
     witnessed first-hand continued efforts to suppress the vote 
     and undermine the democratic process--particularly for 
     communities of color--since the Supreme Court's Shelby County 
     v. Holder decision in 2013. Earlier this week, during an 
     oversight hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives 
     Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and 
     Civil Liberties on the need for federal voting rights 
     protection legislation, SPLC submitted a series of detailed 
     reports revealing current, consistent, and well-documented 
     racial discrimination in voting in Alabama, Louisiana, and 
     Mississippi for the legislative record. The reports highlight 
     a range of recent and persistent efforts to make it more 
     difficult to vote, from reducing early voting to closing 
     polling places in majority-Black communities and banning 
     Sunday voting that has the effect--and often the intent--of 
     blocking Black voters and other voters of color from voting. 
     The United States claims to be the world's oldest democracy, 
     but from its founding to today it has never fully secured and 
     defended the right to vote for all Americans, particularly 
     Black Americans and other voters of color.
       For generations, legislators of both parties and Americans 
     across all ideologies have supported the VRA--because they 
     have understood that for our democracy to be healthy, every 
     voter in the country must have safe, easy, and equitable 
     access to their fundamental right to vote. The VRA has 
     extraordinary bipartisan roots. Passed in 1965, Congress has 
     reauthorized the VRA four times since then, with four 
     Republican Presidents signing the legislation into law: 
     President Nixon in 1970, President Ford in 1975, President 
     Reagan in 1982, and President George W. Bush in 2006. In 
     2006, after more than twenty hearings, with over 90 
     witnesses, and over 15,000 pages of evidence of ongoing voter 
     suppression and discrimination, Congress approved a 25-year 
     extension of the VRA by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-
     33 in the House. More than ninety current Members of Congress 
     voted for that legislation. Yet, notwithstanding well-
     documented findings and overwhelming congressional support, 
     just seven years later, in the Shelby County decision, a 5-4 
     majority of the Supreme Court held that Section 5's coverage 
     formula was not based on ``current conditions,'' and we lost 
     a critical tool in the fight for equal voting rights--the 
     Justice Department's opportunity to review and reject 
     discriminatory voting changes in jurisdictions with a history 
     of racial discrimination in voting.
       Enactment of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
     Act will enable the federal government to once again act as a 
     barrier to prevent racially discriminatory voting changes and 
     help protect a democracy that works for all of us--no matter 
     where we live. Congress should utilize every legislative tool 
     in its capacity to get this done; democracy is too important 
     to be subject to a minority veto.
       Last month, Justice Elena Kagan wrote eloquently about the 
     Voting Rights Act in her stirring dissent in another Supreme 
     Court refusal to recognize and enforce broad voting rights, 
     the deeply disappointing Brnovich v. Democratic National 
     Committee decision:
       ``If a single statute represents the best of America, it is 
     the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy 
     and racial equality . . . . If a single statute reminds us of 
     the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it 
     was--and remains--so necessary.''
       We could not agree more.
       In the wake of Supreme Court decisions that have 
     significantly weakened the VRA, and a proliferation of state 
     anti-voter laws--primarily in the South--Congress must act to 
     restore the Voting Rights Act to its full vigor and promise 
     and ensure that citizens in every state have broad 
     opportunities to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
           Respectfully,
     LaShawn Y. Warren,
       Chief Policy Officer.
     Nancy Abudu,
       Interim Director of Strategic Litigation

[[Page H4395]]

     & Deputy Legal Director for Voting Rights.
                                  ____

                                                  August 23, 2021.
       Friends: This week, the House is scheduled to take up the 
     FY22 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 14) and the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), as well as the rule 
     to consider these bills. The Human Rights Campaign urges 
     Members to vote in favor of the rule, the budget resolution, 
     and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We will 
     consider these key votes.
       The FY22 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 14) will pave the 
     way for reconciliation. The provisions of that package will 
     include paid leave, a long-needed benefit particularly for 
     the 40% LGBTQ+ adults working in restaurants and food 
     service, who often lack the ability to take leave care for a 
     family member. It will also provide a pathway to citizenship 
     for the approximately 75,000 LGBTQ+ Dreamers living in the 
     United States, as well as the millions of TPS holders, many 
     of whom are essential workers that have helped keep our 
     country running during the pandemic.
       The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) would 
     restore key voting rights protections that the Supreme Court 
     gutted in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision. Since 
     the Supreme Court's decision, states and localities have 
     brazenly pushed forward discriminatory changes to voting 
     practices, such as changing district boundaries to 
     disadvantage select voters, instituting more onerous voter 
     identification laws, and changing polling locations with 
     little notice. These laws especially disenfranchise people of 
     color, the elderly, low-income people, transgender people and 
     people with disabilities.
       Transgender people are particularly vulnerable to voting 
     discrimination and disenfranchisement due primarily to 
     challenges around valid identification documents. Many 
     transgender people do not have forms of ID that reflect their 
     true gender identity, either because they are in the process 
     of changing their documents or because they face financial or 
     legal barriers to doing so. In addition, many LGBTQ+ people 
     face compounded discrimination based on other 
     characteristics, including race, age, disability, and 
     economic status. These vulnerabilities weaken our entire 
     community's voting power.
       Again, we urge Members to vote in favor of the rule, S. 
     Con. Res. 14, and H.R. 4.
           Best,

                                                  David Stacy,

                                      Government Affairs Director,
     Human Rights Campaign.
                                  ____

       Hi Hillary: J Street, along with over 100 other 
     organizations, is proud to share our support for the newly 
     reintroduced John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 
     (H.R. 4). The bill would restore the preclearance protections 
     stripped from the Voting Rights Act and strengthen voting 
     rights across the country.
       With voting rights under threat, the passage of H.R. 4 
     would be a critical step toward protecting the future of our 
     democracy and functioning governance.
       J Street urges both co-sponsorship and a YES vote when the 
     bill comes to the floor next week.
       As always, please do not hesitate to let me know if you 
     have any questions.
           All the best,

                                                Hannah Morris,

                            Deputy Director of Government Affairs,
     J Street.
                                  ____

                                         Tuesday, August 17, 2021.
     LDF Media
     For Immediate Release


 LDF Issues Statement on Introduction of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting 
      Rights Advancement Act, by the U.S. House of Representatives

       Today, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 4, 
     the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a much needed 
     piece of legislation aimed at protecting the right to vote. 
     In response, Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel 
     of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) 
     issued the following statement:
       ``We commend the House of Representatives for taking this 
     critically important step in protecting the right to vote 
     with its introduction today of the John Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act, H.R. 4. This legislation provides the 
     building blocks for Congress to fully engage in its duty to 
     protect citizens from any efforts to restrict or abridge 
     their most fundamental right--the right to vote.
       ``H.R. 4 includes provisions that would require states and 
     localities with recent records of discrimination in voting to 
     have their proposed voting changes reviewed before they are 
     implemented to ensure they are not discriminatory. These 
     provisions are crucial to ensure that people are not 
     disenfranchised and able to freely participate in the 
     political process. If these provisions had been in effect 
     this year--as was the case prior to the Shelby County 
     decision--the restrictive voting bills that were recently 
     enacted in states, such as Georgia, Florida, and Arizona, 
     would not have been able to go into effect unless and until 
     the states proved that those laws would not discriminate 
     against racial, ethnic, or language minorities.
       ``Time is of the essence. Today's introduction of H.R. 4 is 
     the beginning of the process that ultimately must end in the 
     passage of this critically important piece of legislation. 
     With the fall election season nearly upon us and nation-wide 
     midterm elections a year away, Congress must ensure that 
     every voter--especially Black voters and other voters of 
     color--can exercise their right to participate in the 
     political process without barriers to having their votes cast 
     and counted.''
                                  ____

                                                  August 20, 2021.
       Dear Representative: As President and CEO of the National 
     Urban League, and on behalf of its 91 affiliates in 37 states 
     and the District of Columbia, I am writing to express our 
     strong support for H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act as it is considered on the House floor this 
     week. As a historic civil rights organization dedicated to 
     ensuring that all people are able to exercise their 
     fundamental right to vote, we stand with our fellow racial 
     justice organizations in supporting this bill.
       The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act reauthorizes 
     the Voting Rights Act, while putting in place ``fixes'' in 
     response to the Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich 
     v. Democratic National Committee (2021) decisions. After the 
     Shelby County decision, the number of discriminatory voting 
     laws and practices have drastically increased across the 
     country. The bill is in response to the current needs of this 
     nation in the fight for voting rights, which have been 
     presented in months-long congressional investigations and 
     hearings. The Voting Rights Act has a long history of 
     bipartisan support that must continue to prevent future 
     inequitable bills and manipulative redistricting efforts from 
     discriminating against voters of color.
       Specifically, this legislation updates the ``preclearance 
     formula'' that blocks discriminatory voting laws from being 
     implemented by establishing a new review criterion that 
     accounts for current conditions and requires federal review 
     of specific voting practices known to impact voters of color. 
     Additionally, the bill mandates greater nationwide 
     transparency of voting laws and policy changes, expands and 
     updates the frameworks that allow courts to ``bail in'' and 
     ``bail out'' judicial review of jurisdictional practices, and 
     restores voters' ability to legally challenge racially 
     discriminatory changes in voting laws and policies. Lastly, 
     the bill allows the Justice Department to compel documents to 
     investigate voting rights violations, expands the federal 
     observer program, and pauses discriminatory voting changes 
     during judicial review.
       This bill is a concrete way to advance the nation's fight 
     against discriminatory voting laws which specifically target 
     people of color. We will continue to support the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Advancement Act and other proposals that 
     advance the fight for the rights, safety, and empowerment of 
     all people in our nation.
       For more information, please contact Yvette Badu-Nimako, 
     Senior Director for Judiciary, Civil Rights and Social 
     Justice at [email protected].
           Sincerely,

                                               Marc H. Morial,

                            President and Chief Executive Officer,
     National Urban League.
                                  ____


          Pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act


The bill would restore crucial protections that have been removed from 
                     the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

       On Tuesday afternoon, Democratic lawmakers stood on 
     consecrated ground--the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 
     Selma, Alabama.
       The members of Congress weren't there simply to honor the 
     sacrifices of the late civil rights icon John Lewis and the 
     hundreds of other marchers who braved police tear gas and 
     clubs for the right to vote, as they've done in the past. 
     They were gathered to announce the introduction of the John 
     R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H. R. 4), 
     transformative legislation that would restore the protections 
     of the Voting Rights Act that Lewis fought so hard to enact 
     as a civil rights activist.
       In 2013, the Supreme Court's infamous Shelby County v. 
     Holder decision invalidated the 1965 law's Section 5 
     ``preclearance'' requirements. which prevented jurisdictions 
     with a history of racial discrimination from changing voting 
     rules without permission from the Justice Department or a 
     federal court. In the ruling gutting the landmark civil 
     rights law, Chief Justice John Roberts waved away concerns of 
     new voting restrictions, claiming that ``nearly 50 years 
     later, things have changed dramatically.''
       Unfortunately, things have changed dramatically--just not 
     how Roberts thought.
       The danger of new voting restrictions is no longer 
     theoretical. It's a grim reality. After record voter turnout 
     in 2020, Republican state legislators around the country have 
     responded by cracking down on the right to vote. Brennan 
     Center research shows that this year, 49 states have 
     introduced over 400 bills with provisions that make it harder 
     to vote, 30 of which have become law in 18 states. Just last 
     month, the Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. Democratic 
     National Committee weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights 
     Act, degrading citizens' ability to challenge policies that 
     lead to voting discrimination.

[[Page H4396]]

       This all paints a bleak picture as the nation's first 
     redistricting cycle since the Shelby County decision looms, 
     potentially redefining the balance of power in Congress and 
     state legislatures for the next decade.
       As my colleague Wendy Weiser told Congress yesterday, the 
     bill named for Lewis is an essential step in turning the tide 
     in this war on voting rights. Restoring preclearance and 
     strengthening Section 2 of the original Voting Rights Act 
     would undo much of the damage from the Brnovich and the 
     Shelby County rulings.
       President Biden has placed his full support behind it, and 
     his Justice Department has told Congress that the bill must 
     be passed so that the federal government can properly protect 
     Americans' voting rights nationwide as the midterms quickly 
     approach. The legislation would provide a desperately needed 
     bulwark against continuing state voter suppression efforts.
       Congress must pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act without delay.
                                  ____

     Re: NHLA Urges Support of the John Lewis Voting Rights 
         Advancement Act, H.R. 4

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the National 
     Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of the 
     nation's leading Latino nonpartisan civil rights and advocacy 
     organizations, to urge you to vote ``yes'' on the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (VRAA), H.R. 4. This 
     legislation restores necessary voting protections to ensure 
     that discriminatory voting-related changes are blocked before 
     they are implemented. There is no right more fundamental to 
     our democracy than the right to vote, and for more than 50 
     years the Voting Rights Act (VRA) provided voters with one of 
     the most effective mechanisms for protecting that right. H.R. 
     4 would provide Latino voters and other voters of color new 
     and forward-looking protections against voter discrimination. 
     NHLA will closely monitor all votes related to this 
     legislation for inclusion in future NHLA scorecards 
     evaluating Member support for the Latino community.
       The VRA is regarded as one of the most important and 
     effective pieces of civil rights legislation in our country's 
     history because it protected voters of color from 
     discriminatory voting practices before they occurred. In 
     2013, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Shelby County v. 
     Holder, struck down the formula that determined which states 
     and political subdivisions were required to seek federal pre-
     approval of their voting-related changes to ensure they did 
     not discriminate against minority voters. After Supreme 
     Court's decision, states or political subdivisions were no 
     longer required to seek preclearance unless ordered by a 
     federal court in the course of litigation. The Supreme Court 
     put the onus on Congress to enact a new formula better 
     tailored to current conditions.
       H.R. 4 includes both a new geographic coverage formula to 
     identify those jurisdictions that will have to ``preclear'' 
     their voting-related changes and a new provision requiring 
     practice-based preclearance, or ``known-practices coverage.'' 
     Known-practices coverage would focus administrative or 
     judicial review narrowly on suspect practices that are most 
     likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have 
     discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical 
     record. Any jurisdiction in the U.S. that is home to a 
     racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse population 
     and that seeks to adopt a covered practice will be required 
     to preclear the change before implementation. The known 
     practices covered under the bill include: (1) changes in 
     method of election to change a single-member district to an 
     at-large seat or to add an at-large seat to a governing body; 
     (2) certain redistricting plans where there is significant 
     minority population growth in the previous decade; (3) 
     annexations or deannexations that would significantly alter 
     the composition of the jurisdiction's electorate; (4) certain 
     identification and proof of citizenship requirements; (5) 
     certain polling place closures, realignments, or efforts to 
     deny sustenance to voters waiting in line; (6) the withdrawal 
     of multilingual materials and assistance not matched by the 
     reduction of those services in English; and (7) certain voter 
     registration list maintenance changes. Preclearance is an 
     efficient and effective form of alternative dispute 
     resolution that prevents the implementation of voting-related 
     changes that would deny voters of color a voice in our 
     elections. Preclearance saves taxpayers in covered 
     jurisdictions a considerable amount of money because the 
     jurisdiction can obtain quick decisions without having to pay 
     attorneys. expert witnesses, or prevailing plaintiffs fees 
     and costs that are incurred in complex and expensive 
     litigation.
       Across the U.S., racial, ethnic, and language-minority 
     communities are rapidly growing-the country's total 
     population is projected to become majority-minority by 2044. 
     Between 2007 and 2014, five of the ten U.S. counties with the 
     most rapid rates of Latino population growth were in North 
     Dakota or South Dakota, two states whose overall Latino 
     populations still account for less than ten percent of their 
     residents, and are dwarfed by Latino communities in states 
     like New Mexico, Texas, and California. It is precisely this 
     rapid growth of different racial or ethnic populations that 
     results in the perception that emerging communities of color 
     are a threat to those in political power. H.R. 4 identifies 
     different voting changes most likely to discriminatorily 
     affect access to the vote in increasingly diverse 
     jurisdictions whose minority populations are attaining 
     visibility and influence. The approach is tailored to the 
     current needs of voters today and is supported by a large 
     body of evidence that shows that certain practices are used 
     routinely to discriminate against voters of color.
       Congress must protect the access to the polls, and it must 
     include a known-practices coverage formula. H.R. 4 is a 
     critical piece of legislation, including to the Latino 
     community, that will restore voter protections that were lost 
     after the Shelby County decision. NHLA urges you to stand 
     with voters and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
       Please feel free to contact Andrea Senteno, of MALDEF, at 
     [email protected] or
       (202) 293-2828 with any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas A. Saenz,
       NHLA Civil Rights Committee, Co-Chair MALDEF, President & 
     General Counsel.
     Juan Cartagena,
       NHLA Civil Rights Committee, Co-Chair LatinoJustice PRLDEF, 
     President & General Counsel.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 2021.
       Re: MALDEF Support for the John Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act of 2021, H.R. 4
       Dear Congressmember: On behalf of MALDEF (Mexican American 
     Legal Defense and Educational Fund), I write to strongly urge 
     you to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act 
     of 2021, H.R. 4. Following the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder 
     decision, which effectively ended pre-clearance review under 
     Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), states and 
     localities moved to implement discriminatory voting practices 
     that would previously have been blocked by the VRA. What we 
     have seen post-Shelby County confirms what we have long-
     known--that voter discrimination lives on. Congress must act 
     to restore the pre-clearance coverage formula in the VRA, 
     legislation that has long-enjoyed bipartisan support.
       Founded in 1968, MALDEF is the nation's leading Latino 
     legal civil rights organization. Commonly known as the ``law 
     firm of the Latino community,'' MALDEF promotes social change 
     in the areas of voting rights, immigrants' rights, education, 
     employment, and access to justice. Since its founding, MALDEF 
     has worked diligently to secure equal voting rights for 
     Latinos and to promote increased civic engagement and 
     participation within the Latino community. MALDEF played a 
     leading role in securing the full protection of the VRA for 
     the Latino community through the 1975 congressional 
     reauthorization of the 1965 VRA. In court, MALDEF has, over 
     the years, litigated numerous cases under Section 2, Section 
     5, and Section 203 of the VRA, challenging at-large systems, 
     discriminatory redistricting, ballot access barriers, undue 
     voter registration requirements, voter assistance 
     restrictions, and failure to provide bilingual ballot 
     materials.
       Discrimination in voting, including against Latino voters, 
     continues to be a serious and persistent threat to our 
     democracy today. This is demonstrated in the comparative 
     rates of voter registration and voter participation among 
     racial groups, including Latinos. The 2020 presidential 
     general election showed unprecedented numbers of voters 
     participating and rates of eligible participation unseen in a 
     century, but instead of celebrating this work to reduce voter 
     suppression and continue a trend toward expanding the 
     franchise, the election has been used to justify increased 
     efforts to reduce minority voter participation in future 
     elections. This is a continuation of a recent pattern of 
     increasing voter suppression efforts, which stems from 
     ongoing demographic changes, including in particular the 
     unprecedented growth of the Latino voting community.
       In the aftermath of Shelby County, MALDEF originated the 
     idea of practice-based pre-clearance coverage as a limited 
     complement to a geographic, history-based formula for broader 
     pre-clearance coverage. Practice-based coverage would address 
     the increasing introduction and enactment of voter 
     suppression measures precisely in response to the growth of 
     the local Latino community to a level viewed as a threat to 
     the political establishment. Practice-based pre-clearance 
     would focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on 
     suspect practices that are most likely to be tainted by 
     discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as 
     demonstrated by a broad historical record. This coverage 
     would extend to any jurisdiction in the U.S. that is home to 
     a racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse population 
     and that seeks to adopt a covered practice, despite that 
     practice's known likelihood of being discriminatory when used 
     in a diverse population.
       While litigation, by private parties and by the Department 
     of Justice, under Section 2 of the VRA remains a powerful 
     means to stop voter suppression, such litigation is not 
     sufficient to address all the current and future potential 
     for elections changes tied to voter suppression. Pre-
     clearance review benefits jurisdictions by reducing their 
     costs in

[[Page H4397]]

     defending potential elections changes, and benefits voting 
     rights by yielding more timely resolution of voting rights 
     disputes.
       Congress must protect access to the polls and pass H.R. 4, 
     including provisions for practice-based preclearance. This 
     legislation is critical to restore voter protections that 
     were lost due to Shelby County. We cannot allow any more time 
     to pass without ensuring that every voter can register and 
     cast a meaningful ballot. MALDEF urges you to stand with all 
     voters and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.
       Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                               Andrea Senteno,

     Regional Counsel.
                                  ____

                                                  August 24, 2021.
       Dear Representative: Democracy 21 strongly urges you to 
     vote for passage of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act, when it comes to the floor for a vote.
       H.R. 4 is a vitally important--and urgently needed--step 
     forward in the work to protect the sacred right to vote for 
     all eligible citizens.
       Today, millions of Black, brown, other minorities, the 
     disabled, elderly, and young, are at risk of losing their 
     ability to vote due to voter suppression laws being passed in 
     numerous states.
       These efforts, if not overridden, will represent the 
     greatest voter suppression in the United States since the Jim 
     Crow era.
       H.R. 4 will restore the preclearance provision of the 
     Voting Rights Act of 1965 and would modernize the formula for 
     determining which states have a pattern of discrimination and 
     would fall under the preclearance provision.
       Voting is not a privilege, it is a right. It is incumbent 
     that Congress act now as the right to vote is being severely 
     threatened in states around the country.
       The passage of H.R. 4 and H.R. 1, the For the People Act, 
     which the House passed in March, are essential if we are to 
     protect the right to vote in federal elections for all 
     eligible citizens. The two bills protect the right to vote in 
     complementary ways and both must be enacted.
       ``The vote is precious. It is almost sacred,'' the late 
     Representative John Lewis, the civil rights champion, once 
     said. ``It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a 
     democracy.''
       Democracy 21 strongly urges you to vote for H.R. 4.
       Our democracy deserves nothing less.
           Sincerely,

                                              Fred Wertheimer,

     President.
                                  ____

                                                  August 17, 2021.

 End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund Statement on the 
      Introduction of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act


 End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund President Tiffany 
 Muller released the following statement on the U.S. House introducing 
             the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act:

       ``In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the landmark 
     Voting Rights Act of 1965 during a critical moment in our 
     nation when Jim Crow laws were being used to prevent Black 
     Americans from exercising their fundamental right to vote. 
     Since then, the Voting Rights Act has been gutted by a right-
     wing Supreme Court and partisan Republican-led legislatures 
     have moved once again to take away that right. We've seen 400 
     bills introduced nationwide that include restrictive voting 
     proposals with 30 of these bills becoming law in 18 states 
     just this year alone.
       ``The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is a 
     fundamental step in protecting our freedom to vote by fully 
     restoring the power of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and 
     ensuring that any changes to voting rules could not 
     discriminate against voters based on race and that we all 
     have an equal voice in our democracy.
       ``From his historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, 
     to his decades of fighting for voting rights and social 
     justice, Congressman John Lewis never gave up in the pursuit 
     of America adhering to its core values and principles--that 
     every American citizen should be heard and have a voice. 
     Congress must honor his legacy by passing the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act to 
     protect access to the ballot and ensure that our democracy is 
     truly representative of the American people.''
                                  ____

       Dear Hillary: As you prepare to consider H.R. 4, the John 
     Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, Foreign Policy for 
     America encourages you to uphold the principles of democracy 
     and efforts to protect the right to vote. Foreign Policy for 
     America urges members of the House of Representatives to 
     support H.R. 4 to restore democracy and safeguard the right 
     to vote. We will consider scoring final passage in our 117th 
     Congressional Scorecard.
       Foreign Policy for America (FP4A) is a non-partisan 501c4 
     organization founded to promote principled American 
     engagement in the world. Each Congress, we convene a group of 
     experts from across the foreign policy community to advise on 
     the development of our Policy Agenda and our biennial 
     Congressional Scorecard. The FP4A Scorecard offers our 
     members, concerned voters nationwide, and the media a way to 
     quickly and easily understand the degree to which Members of 
     Congress support strong, principled American foreign policy.
       America's commitment to pluralism, equality, and non-
     partisan election administration are the hallmarks of our 
     democracy and have inspired transitions to democracy in every 
     region of the world. The United States is able to rally 
     allies and mobilize action on the biggest global challenges 
     because of who we are as a pluralistic, democratic country 
     that for generations has inspired the world. H.R. 4 is needed 
     to safeguard our democracy--the beating heart of our 
     prosperity and strength.
       Our democracy is at risk today. The John Lewis Voting 
     Rights Advancement Act restores and expands key ballot access 
     provisions enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that 
     were dramatically weakened by 2013 Supreme Court decision in 
     Shelby County v. Holder. The right to vote is one of the most 
     critical pillars of American Democracy. We must protect it.
       We urge all Members of the House of Representatives to 
     support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (H.R. 4) to help 
     strengthen our democracy and protect the right to vote.
       Please don't hesitate to reach out if we can answer any 
     questions about our position.
           Sincerely,

                                            Cassandra Varanka,

                                                Advocacy Director,
     Foreign Policy for America.
                                  ____


 Civil Rights Groups Tell Congress To Pass John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
                          Advancement Act Now

       Washington, D.C.--Today at 1pm ET, standing on the Edmund 
     Pettus Bridge, Rep. Terri Sewell will introduce H.R. 4, the 
     John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill to 
     restore the pre-clearance protections stripped from the 
     Voting Rights Act, and strengthen voting rights across the 
     country. The bill is expected to be voted on in the House 
     next week.
       Stephany Spaulding, Just Democracy Spokesperson and Founder 
     of Truth and Conciliation, issued the following statement:
       ``H.R. 4 is essential legislation to ensure that the over 
     400 state-level voter suppression laws proposed around the 
     country will be countered by federal law. But this bill can 
     only stop the bleeding--it cannot repeal the dangerous 
     suppression laws already passed in Georgia, Florida, and 
     more. We need Congress to take comprehensive action to 
     protect our country's voting rights and pass the For the 
     People Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the 
     Washington, D.C. Admissions Act--and we have to eliminate the 
     Jim Crow filibuster to get it done.
       This fight for voting rights won't be easy, but it is an 
     existential turning point for the fate of our democracy--
     that's why we're marching in cities around the country in the 
     March On for Voting Rights on August 28, to raise our voices 
     and demand Congress take action. We're marching in the spirit 
     of Congressman John Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa 
     Parks, and countless civil rights leaders who never gave up 
     on the fight for voting rights--and neither will we.''
       About Just Democracy. Just Democracy is an intersectional 
     coalition with racial justice at its core--uplifting voices 
     from all walks of American life that are too often left out 
     of the conversation. The coalition is made up of over 40 
     Black and Brown-led organizations working across issue areas. 
     It mobilizes thousands who know that advancing social and 
     racial justice issues first requires bold structural 
     democracy reform.
                                  ____



                                        For Immediate Release,

                                                  August 17, 2021.

    March On for Voting Rights Responds to John Lewis Voting Rights 
               Advancement Act Introduction in the House


  Martin Luther King III, Arndrea Waters King, Rev. Al Sharpton, Andi 
 Pringle and other voting rights leaders organize mass mobilization to 
           pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

       Washington, D.C.--Today, standing on the Edmund Pettus 
     Bridge, Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL) introduced the John 
     Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which will restore 
     critical provisions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the 
     Supreme Court. Expected to receive a vote in the House of 
     Representatives next week, the bill will help stem the rush 
     of attacks on voting rights across the country by ensuring 
     that states with a recent history of voter discrimination are 
     once again subject to federal oversight.
       March On for Voting Rights will call on the Senate to pass 
     the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the 
     People Act on Saturday, August 28, when millions join the 
     March On for Voting Rights in D.C., Phoenix, Atlanta, 
     Houston, Miami and more than 40 other cities across the 
     country to make their voices heard. Marchers will also call 
     for the Senate to remove the filibuster as a roadblock to 
     critical voting rights legislation.
       Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder of National Action 
     Network, commented in response: ``If you want to understand 
     why the vote is so important, look at the last 4 years, the 
     last 10 years, and the last 100 years. Freedom fighter and 
     Congressman John Lewis knew it was essential that every vote 
     must count in order to assure every voice is represented, but 
     unfortunately

[[Page H4398]]

     through federal voter suppression and gerrymandering, that 
     hasn't been the case. Today, Members of Congress continue to 
     fight for the rights of the voiceless with the introduction 
     of H.R. 4, the first step to right the wrongs done to the 
     Voting Rights Act and reassert our Constitutional authority 
     over democracy. Whether in Congress, in the streets, or 
     during our March On for Voting Rights, this is the summer of 
     activism.''
       Martin Luther King III, Chairman of the Drum Major 
     Institute, commented in response: ``Both John Lewis and my 
     father agreed that there is no right more central to 
     democracy than our right to vote. It is the cornerstone of 
     democracy, the way we have our voices heard. Congress must 
     pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Restoration Act. Our nation 
     is being put to the test, and we must remember my father's 
     words about the fierce urgency of now.
       Arndrea Waters King, President of the Drum Major Institute, 
     commented in response: ``Coretta Scott King told us, `Freedom 
     is never really won, you earn it and win it in every 
     generation.' Now is the time to earn and win our sacred right 
     to vote. It is up to us to remind Congress they represent the 
     people, and the people demand the passage of the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Restoration Act.''
       Andi Pringle, Political and Strategic Campaigns Director at 
     March On, commented in response: ``Voting rights in America 
     hang by a thread, and we are grateful to our leaders in 
     Congress who understand the gravity of this moment. But some 
     of those in Congress act as though voting rights are 
     debatable. They are not--voting rights are a fundamental 
     requirement of democracy. Without legislation like the John 
     R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People 
     Act to protect both voters and elections, millions will be 
     disenfranchised and America will cease to be the democracy we 
     claim to be. This is why millions will take to the streets on 
     August 28 to demand passage of this legislation before it's 
     too late.''
       Stasha Rhodes, Campaign Manager of 51 for 51, commented in 
     response: ``We are resolved to march on August 28 to make 
     sure Congress does everything in its power to pass the John 
     Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the For the People Act 
     and the Washington D.C. Admissions Act. We can no longer 
     allow states with long histories of disenfranchising our 
     communities to strip away voting rights for Black and Brown 
     people. After it passes the House, the Senate must remove the 
     Jim Crow filibuster as a roadblock. Millions will march to 
     make that call crystal clear.''
       Sopia Woodrow, Community Manager of Future Coalition 
     commented in response: ``As a young advocate, it is 
     fundamental that our voting rights be protected. This act, 
     combined with the action imminent with March On For Voting 
     Rights, demonstrates a renewed commitment to protecting the 
     voices of every American. Congress must pass the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Act to ensure the voices of Americans and youth 
     for generations to come are heard. Disenfranchised 
     communities have waited far too long for the voting rights 
     necessary to justice.''
  Ms. SEWELL. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I want to thank the 
chairman of this committee, Chairman Nadler; the chairman of the 
subcommittee,   Steve Cohen; the chairwoman of the House Administration 
Committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren; as well as G.K. Butterfield, for 
the countless hours of testimony and the reams of documents that show 
that voter suppression is still alive and well.
  The price of freedom is not free. Let's pay for it by passing the 
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Thousands of Americans are stranded in Afghanistan, fearing for their 
lives, and Democrats are focused on passing legislation to make sure 
States can't require a photo ID to vote.
  Thousands of Americans are stranded in Afghanistan, while hundreds of 
thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border every single 
month. March was the largest month on record for illegal crossings 
until April; April was the largest month of illegal crossings until 
May; May was the largest month until June; and June was the largest 
month until July; and Democrats are focused on passing legislation 
which says: States who want to go back to the election law they had 
just a year ago before the virus, you can't do that unless you come get 
permission from the Department of Justice.
  As Mr. Davis said, in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, a 
good piece of legislation that did things that needed to be done, put 
things in place that needed to be put in place. But we are a long way 
from that and so much better.
  In 2013, in the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court decision, the 
Court said there is no need to continue preclearance requirements. 
Here's a quote from the Chief Justice: ``The conditions that originally 
justified'' these measures ``no longer characterize voting in the 
covered jurisdictions,'' Justice Roberts stated. African-American 
turnout today exceeds White voter turnout in five of the six originally 
covered States. During the past election, voter turnout was higher 
across all racial groups as compared to prior presidential elections.
  The United States of America is the greatest country in the history 
of the world. There is no question that our country has done more to 
advance the cause of liberty and democracy than any other Nation. But, 
unfortunately, it seems the Democrats do not want to acknowledge all of 
that amazing progress that has been made and where we are at today.
  H.R. 4 would subject States and localities to the whims of partisan 
bureaucrats within President Biden's Department of Justice. They get to 
decide--not States, as our Constitution says--no, no, no, you have to 
go get permission from the big Federal Government, do what they say, 
when it comes to your election laws, even if, as I said before, you 
just want to go back to where you were a year before COVID.
  Republican States that Democrats always want to target actually do 
better than Democrat States, like President Biden's home State of 
Delaware. But for some reason, you don't hear Democrats raising alarms 
about Delaware, and you don't see the Biden administration bringing 
lawsuits against Delaware.
  Democrats want to focus on this manufactured crisis, because they 
have no plans to deal with the real crises that are facing our country: 
inflation; crime; the border; and, of course, what is going on in 
Afghanistan as we speak.
  Don't be fooled. Today, it is easier to vote than ever in our 
country. We need to applaud the strides this Nation has taken. We need 
to embrace the greatness of our country. This bill is not about 
expanding voting rights; it is about Democrats consolidating their 
political power. That is why they are focused on this. At a time when 
there are so many critical issues and crises facing our Nation, they 
are focused on consolidating their power and, I think, taking it away 
from the States.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act.
  Congress first passed the Voting Rights Act while Martin Luther King, 
Jr. led for civil rights and John Lewis stood by his side. The law made 
a difference, defeating racial discrimination in voting.
  But the Court, in the Shelby and Brnovich cases, destroyed important 
parts of the law. This bill fixes that. With an updated coverage 
formula, practice-based preclearance, and rational standards to 
challenge racial discrimination, this bill is essential.
  Representatives Butterfield and Fudge both chaired the Subcommittee 
on Elections, whose hearings established the factual bases for this 
bill. All the members of the Subcommittee on Elections worked hard 
holding hearings around America. I thank them, and I thank my 
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their work.
  As we vote to restore the Voting Rights Act, to protect the rights of 
Americans from being denied the right to vote because of their race, we 
should remember, honor, and thank those who came before us, and 
especially our late colleague, John Lewis.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, our colleague Rahm Emanuel famously said: 
``You never let a serious crisis go to waste.'' Today, my Democratic 
colleagues are not letting a serious crisis go to waste.
  While America is focused on the tragedy halfway around the world in 
Afghanistan, a plan to fail that now has successfully failed, the 
reality is, here, instead of holding real hearings, looking at the 
causes, and maybe, in fact, being more helpful in preventing further 
suffering of the 37 million people

[[Page H4399]]

in Afghanistan, what are we doing? We are codifying a permanent 
majority of the Democratic Party everywhere they can. We are making 
changes to election law that pull into Washington and into the Attorney 
General's office control of elections that the Constitution clearly 
gave to legislatures.
  What we are doing, by the statements of my own colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, is we are clearly saying we don't like the 
Supreme Court's decisions, so we are going to find a way to do what we 
want to do even though, in fact, the time and the success of the Civil 
Rights Act has, in fact, mostly passed.
  Why can't you take success? Because it no longer benefits the goals 
of a permanent Democratic majority. I am sorry for my Democratic 
colleagues that, in fact, the people of America do not at times approve 
of things like the tragedy in Afghanistan or, in fact, are not willing 
to accept a permanent smear of we can never have elections without 
Federal intervention.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, the Republicans say we don't need this 
voting rights bill, that we should leave the power with the States. My 
subcommittee had 13 hearings over 2 years, and the professors and the 
attorneys told us that every time Black and Brown people gain in 
population and start to take power, there start to be changes in the 
laws to stop them from having power.
  Just this year, 18 States have enacted 30 laws restricting the 
ability to vote. There were at least 495 voter suppression bills 
pending in the States as of yesterday.
  For them to say we don't need a bill in the year that this Capitol 
faced an insurrection, when they tried to overturn the electoral 
college and overturn a free and fair election, and after that happened, 
two-thirds of the Republicans voted to overturn the election by 
throwing out the results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. And then we 
wanted to study that insurrection, and a very thin number of 
Republicans even voted to study it.
  Democracy is on the line. The right to vote is on the line. What we 
learned from our hearings is that we need to pass the Voting Rights Act 
and protect people's rights to vote because that is what America is 
about. I support this John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that 
Democrats have objected to the electors for every Republican President 
this century--every single one.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Steil).
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, this House just passed a spending framework 
for $3.5 trillion in new government spending. And immediately 
following, what is next? A plan for a Federal Government takeover of 
elections.
  H.R. 4 is focused on overturning the Supreme Court decision in Shelby 
County v. Holder and reinstituting Federal power over State election 
laws.
  Preclearance was established in 1965 because there were blatant 
attempts to disenfranchise African Americans. We are not debating that 
today. We have made great progress since 1965.
  What is the purpose of H.R. 4? H.R. 4 is a Federal power grab. This 
bill would gut voter ID laws across the country. The bill would allow 
the Biden Department of Justice to veto State voter ID laws.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, some said commonsense voter ID laws 
would lower turnout. They were wrong. In 2020, Wisconsin had the fourth 
highest voter turnout in the country.
  This bill would make it harder for States to maintain accurate voter 
rolls. Accurate voter rolls are essential for local election officials 
to accurately administer elections.
  This bill is a Federal overreach. Instead of Federal overreach, let's 
get to work and make it easier to vote and hard to cheat.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the 
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this vital legislation. This is one of the most 
important bills we will consider this Congress.
  Voting rights are the foundation of our democracy, ensuring that 
every American gets a fair say in who represents them and who makes the 
laws governing their lives.
  Voting rights have been under attack all across this country. This 
year alone, 30 new discriminatory voting restriction laws have targeted 
communities of color, young people, and working people across 18 
States. We cannot allow this in America.
  This critical legislation will restore voting rights protections and 
provide the tools necessary to ensure discriminatory voting laws cannot 
stand. There is nothing more American than protecting the right to 
vote.
  I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Sewell, for her 
leadership. I thank Chairman Nadler, Speaker Pelosi, and all the 
leadership for the important work they are doing to ensure that voting 
rights are protected for all Americans.
  I want to end by taking a moment to recognize and remember the late 
Congressman John Lewis, our colleague and friend, one of history's 
greatest fighters for equality and voting rights, after whom this 
legislation is so appropriately named.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we have to be clear about 
what is happening here.
  Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to overcome shameful 
State resistance and barriers that prevented minorities from exercising 
their right.
  But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that continuing to require 
States to preclear election law changes based upon conduct from a half 
century ago was an unconstitutional invasion of State sovereignty.
  The truth is, as Jim said a moment ago, it is easier today for 
Americans to vote than it has ever been before in our Nation's history. 
The VRA worked. Thank the Lord that it did. We overcame those problems.
  In fact, voter registration disparities between minority and 
nonminority voters in States like Texas, Florida, North Carolina, 
Mississippi, and my home State of Louisiana, all previously covered 
under the old VRA provisions, are now below the national average and, 
get this, they are lower than Democrat-run States like New York, 
California, and President Biden's home State of Delaware.
  H.R. 4 is a radical, unprecedented Federal power grab by 
unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington that every conscientious 
American ought to oppose. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, my mother was a maid and my father a 
janitor, but they were good, decent, honest people who saw voting as 
their duty and knew their vote mattered regardless of who they were and 
where they lived.
  When did some of us, as elected officials, start believing it is okay 
to no longer protect basic rights but to lie if you have to, cheat if 
you have to, suppress the vote if you have to, and then stand up and 
claim victory?
  John Lewis called the right to vote ``precious, almost sacred,'' and 
he was willing to risk his life to protect it.
  We reject the politically motivated lies that seek to undermine faith 
in our elections. We are the United States of America. Yes, we are the 
greatest Nation in the world.
  Let's live up to America's promise once again by protecting the 
precious, almost sacred right to vote.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, not long ago, our elections worked 
well. We maintained accurate voter registration rolls and routinely 
removed people who moved or died.
  After all the candidates had their say, on election day, we went to 
our local polling place. We brought our children to watch the process 
and taught them to respect it.
  Our neighbors on the precinct board handed us our ballot after we 
identified ourselves and signed the roll. We took

[[Page H4400]]

it into a curtained booth where no one could pressure us to vote a 
certain way. We then handed that ballot back to our neighbor, who 
placed it in a locked box.
  It was very hard to cheat because every ballot had a simple chain of 
custody.
  The woke left seeks to destroy that process. Where they control the 
law, registration is instant, and outdated registrations are rarely 
removed. Ballots are sent to every name, followed by partisan 
harvesters to collect them. In fact, over 300 mail-in recall ballots 
were just found in the possession of a felon passed out in his car in 
Torrance, California.
  Back in California, you can print ballots on your home printer and 
then send them in. Ballots are no longer secret. Family members, 
spouses, caregivers, or party hacks can cajole or pressure you as you 
cast your vote.
  Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate voter. That is the 
ultimate in voter suppression.
  This bill effectively makes it impossible for States to restore 
integrity measures like in-person election day voting or voter ID. It 
ensures that the chaos and turmoil of recent elections is magnified and 
institutionalized.
  In every election, somebody wins and somebody loses. Democracy 
depends on both sides having the confidence that an election was fair 
and accurately reflects the will of the majority. How can anyone have 
that confidence under such a system as the left would impose? The 
answer is we can't.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article 
with breaking news: The Texas Speaker of the House signs arrest 
warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber's weekslong 
stalemate to fight against suppression and oppression in S.B. 7.

                [From the Texas Tribune, Aug. 10, 2021]

   Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Signs Arrest Warrants for Absent 
         Democrats in Bid To End Chamber's Weekslong Stalemate

               (By Cassandra Pollock and Patrick Svitek)

       House Speaker Dade Phelan signed arrest warrants Tuesday 
     evening for Democrats who broke quorum to block a 
     controversial GOP elections bill. The warrants will be 
     delivered to the House Sergeant-at-Arms Wednesday. Credit: 
     Jordan Vonderhaar for The Texas Tribune. Sign up for The 
     Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on 
     the most essential Texas news.
       Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan on Tuesday evening signed 
     civil arrest warrants for 52 House Democrats still missing 
     from the state Capitol as he aimed to regain the quorum 
     needed for the chamber to begin moving legislation during the 
     second special session.
       The move was confirmed by Phelan spokesperson Enrique 
     Marquez, who said the warrants ``will be delivered to the 
     House Sergeant-at-Arms tomorrow morning for service.''
       The warrants were first reported by The Dallas Morning 
     News. Democrats who may be arrested would not face criminal 
     charges or fines and could only be brought to the House 
     chamber. Dozens of minority party members fled to Washington, 
     D.C., during the first special session to block a GOP voting 
     restrictions bill.
       The 52 warrants represent all but 15 Democrats in the lower 
     chamber. There were at least 11 present Tuesday. There were 
     no additional new Democrats on the floor Tuesday after four 
     returned a day earlier--and drew the wrath of some Democratic 
     colleagues still in Washington, and prompted a renewed push 
     inside the party to hold the line.
       Earlier Tuesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to 
     authorize law enforcement to track down lawmakers absent from 
     the chamber.
       That 80-12 vote came hours after the Texas Supreme Court 
     ordered that those missing Democrats could soon be detained 
     by state authorities. The order by the all-GOP court came at 
     the request of Gov. Greg Abbott and Phelan, both of whom had 
     asked the court Monday to overturn a ruling from a state 
     district judge that blocked those leaders from ordering the 
     arrest of the quorum-breaking Democrats.
       In a statement after the warrants were signed Tuesday 
     evening, state Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, who chairs 
     the House Democratic Caucus, said it is ``fully within our 
     rights as legislators to break quorum to protect our 
     constituents'' and reiterated Democrats' commitment ``to 
     fighting with everything we have against Republicans' attacks 
     on our freedom to vote.''
       Since the Legislature gaveled in Saturday for its second 
     special session ordered by Abbott, the House has been unable 
     to make a quorum as dozens of Democrats have remained absent 
     from the chamber.
       When the House was unable to meet its 100-member threshold 
     to conduct business Monday, members adopted a procedural move 
     known as a ``call of the House'' in an effort to secure a 
     quorum. That move locks doors to the chamber and prevents 
     members on the floor from leaving unless they have permission 
     in writing from the speaker.
       That vote earlier Tuesday marks the second time in recent 
     weeks that the chamber has voted to send law enforcement 
     after Democrats still missing from the House.
       During the first special session in July, and after more 
     than 50 House Democrats flew to D.C., members present 
     authorized state authorities to track down their colleagues--
     but the move carried little weight since Texas law 
     enforcement lacks jurisdiction outside the state.
       By the time that first 30-day stretch ended last week, 
     Phelan had signed only one civil arrest warrant, for Rep. 
     Philip Cortez, a San Antonio Democrat. But that move came too 
     late since Cortez, who had briefly returned to Austin, had 
     already gone back to the nation's capital.
       Intraparty pressure has been mounting on House Democrats 
     since the second special session started. After at least four 
     of them returned to the floor Monday, bringing the chamber 
     within five members of a quorum, some of their Democratic 
     colleagues who were still in Washington unleashed on them. 
     Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos of Richardson tweeted at the returning 
     Democrats that they ``all threw us under the bus today.''
       Pressure ramped up Tuesday morning, when a coalition of 
     Democratic-aligned groups released a statement urging House 
     Democrats to hold firm and continue breaking quorum. The 21 
     groups included Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, the state's 
     Sierra Club chapter, the Texas Organizing Project, Progress 
     Texas, the Communications Workers of America and several 
     groups that advocate for Latino Texans.
       ``To every pro-democracy Texas lawmaker: the only way to 
     preserve our right to vote and the best way to fight is to 
     stay off the House floor,'' the coalition's statement said.
       The group also released a four-page memo arguing that far 
     more was at stake in the second special session than just the 
     elections bill, citing a ``host of radical conservative 
     priorities'' throughout the agenda. The memo was particularly 
     emphatic about a new proposal for the second special 
     session--dropping the quorum threshold to a simple majority--
     calling it an ``ominous allusion to reducing or eliminating 
     minority rights in the Legislature, breaking centuries of 
     Texas bipartisanship.''
       Meanwhile, a number of House Democrats have returned to 
     Texas but have not come to the House floor to help provide 
     quorum.
       One of them is state Rep. Evelina ``Lina'' Ortega, who says 
     she is home in El Paso but not showing up on the House floor 
     until there is already a quorum or a majority of the 
     Democratic caucus decides to be there.
       ``I pretty much feel that it's a shame that the governor 
     and Republicans . . . are really using the dirtiest tactic 
     available to them,'' Ortega told the Tribune on Tuesday 
     evening after the House's vote to send law enforcement after 
     the absentee Democrats. ``To me it's all about a power grab. 
     I'm glad to stay away and continue to fight them.''
       As for whether she is concerned about arrest, Ortega said 
     she believes it would be a ``big mistake'' by Republicans.
       ``We'll see what happens,'' she said.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is John Lewis, and he says: ``We will stand up 
for what is right, for what is fair, and what is just,'' and we will 
ensure that we have courage, the kind of courage that is ``raw 
courage.''
  Today, I ask my Republican colleagues to reject the big lie, to 
reject the insurrection, and to reject the idea that there is not voter 
suppression.
  I stand with H.R. 4, a bill that is the continuation of the 
reauthorization that I have done over the years as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee. I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, Terri 
Sewell, all those who are part of this great effort, and our whip.
  But the real important point is that we give the vote back to the 
American people, to the disabled, to young people, to senior citizens, 
and we reject that unfortunate statement. The State of Texas attorney 
general, the secretary of state, never found any fraud in the election, 
in particular in 2020.
  I am very glad that this will particularly have the look-back. It 
will protect us against such dilution and diminution.
  This is a bill that has to pass, and the Senate has to pass it. Give 
the vote back to the American people. Have raw courage.
  Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an 
original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the John 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done in 
recent years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national 
government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from 
discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them 
from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.
  I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for 
introducing this

[[Page H4401]]

legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and the Democratic 
leadership, and to the many colleagues and countless number of ordinary 
Americans who never stopped agitating and working to protect the 
precious right to vote.
  Madam Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in 
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new 
coverage formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new 
coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights 
violations in the preceding 25 years.
  It is significant that this 25-year period is measured on a rolling 
basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states and 
political subdivisions that have a recent record of racial 
discrimination in voting are covered.
  States and political subdivisions that qualify for preclearance will 
be covered for a period of 10 years, but if they have a clean record 
during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage.
  H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which would 
focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect practices 
that are most likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have 
discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical record.
  Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is 
limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as:
  1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large 
elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically 
diverse.
  2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or 
linguistically diverse.
  3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are 
racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and
  4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register.
  Madam Speaker, while I am proud to strongly support this bill, I 
would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment at the decision 
to not include my amendments to this bill.
  Jackson Lee Amendments #6, #7, and #8 are easy to understand and 
vitally important--they simply protect state legislators who, in 
keeping with their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution of the United 
States, refuse to perform unconstitutional acts under the guise of 
legislative process.
  Specifically:
  Jackson Lee Amendment #6 allows for federal judicial review of any 
warrants issued for the arrest of a state legislator where said state 
legislator refuses to engage in the state legislative process due to a 
reasonably held belief that doing so would infringe on the right to 
vote.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #7 inserts a Sense of the Congress stating that 
a state's power to arrest a duly elected representative of a 
constituency for refusal to engage in a state's legislative process 
should be subject to federal judicial review where such elected 
representative's refusal is premised upon a reasonable belief that 
participation would result in the suppression of voting rights or other 
violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #8 privileges against arrest any member of a 
state legislature for any reason except treason or murder while the 
legislature of that state is debating or voting on legislation relating 
to redistricting or election practices or legislation relating to the 
right to vote in federal, state, or municipal elections.
  These amendments would have critically strengthened H.R. 4 because 
state legislatures across the country are utilizing every weapon in 
their arsenal to curtail voting rights; and no one should fear arrest 
due to fighting for the Constitutional rights of their constituents.
  This includes my home state of Texas, where earlier this month 
officers of the Texas House of Representatives delivered civil arrest 
warrants, signed by the Texas state Speaker of the House, for more than 
50 absent Democrats in an attempt force a vote on the naked attempt at 
voter suppression known as Texas S.B. 7.
  This is the latest Republican attack on these brave state 
legislators, which began on May 30, where after a night of impassioned 
debate and procedural objections, these Democratic lawmakers in Texas 
took action to block passage of this massive overhaul of the state's 
election laws.
  With little more than an hour before the voting deadline, these 
Democrats staged a walkout, depriving their Republican colleagues of 
the 100-member quorum needed to pass the measure.
  And when Governor Abbot called a special session in Texas for the 
purpose of passing horrific voter suppression legislation, those brave 
Texas Democrats rose to the challenge again and broke quorum.
  Under the threat of arrest, those heroes fighting for voting rights 
have escaped to Washington, D.C.
  Since the arrest warrants were issued, it is my understanding that 
mass intimidation of the Texas House Democrats has occurred.
  State officials came to their homes with the purpose of dragging them 
back to eviscerate the voting rights of thousands of Texas.
  These elected Texas Representatives have had to hide away from their 
friends, their families, and their loved ones, all to ensure that 
Texans retain their most sacred of rights.
  They are risking their freedom to ensure every Texan has full access 
to their constitutional right to vote.
  Although the Republicans have tried to spin this in many different 
ways, let's be clear--Texas Democrats are taking a righteous stand for 
our democracy.
  Breaking quorum isn't an easy choice--legislators must leave family, 
friends, constituents, and their important work for days or weeks.
  But by making this choice, these Texas Democrats are fighting for all 
of us, because voting is not a partisan issue.
  Access to the ballot is a sacred cornerstone of our democracy, and we 
must protect it at all costs.
  Last month marked one year since we lost a champion for voting 
rights, and the namesake of H.R. 4, Congressman John Lewis.
  In his final words, he reminded us that, ``the vote is the most 
powerful nonviolent change agent [we] have in a democratic society,'' 
and that ``Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the 
highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly 
believe.''
  We may no longer have John Lewis with us, but in his absence, the 
Texas Democrats are following his example, and stirring up good 
trouble, necessary trouble, for our right to vote.
  They have followed the truth in his words and have sacrificed much to 
follow the highest calling of their hearts.
  Texas Republicans seek to pass voting regulation laws focused on 
diverse, urban areas, by setting rules for the distribution of polling 
places in only the handful of counties with a population of at least 1 
million--most of which are either under Democratic control or won by 
Democrats in recent national and statewide elections.
  These bills would limit extended early voting hours, prohibits drive-
thru voting and makes it illegal for local election officials to 
proactively send applications to vote by mail to voters, even if they 
qualify.
  These bills are at the forefront of Texas Republicans' crusade to 
further restrict voting in Texas, which saw the highest turnout in 
decades in 2020, with Democrats continuing to drive up their vote 
counts in the state's urban centers and diversifying suburban 
communities.
  Standing between all of this and the voting rights of thousands of 
Texans are those brave state legislators who currently have a warrant 
out for their arrest.
  No elected representative in this great nation should fear that he or 
she will be locked away for simply standing up for justice and ensuring 
that America's citizens have the right to vote.
  For this reason, I believe that H.R. 4 would have been greatly 
strengthened by the inclusion of my amendments in the Rule.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all Members of Congress to 
support this bill, because it is the responsibility and sacred duty of 
all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and 
expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, 
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  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.
  On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights 
demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis 
of Georgia for whom this important legislation is named, 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.

[[Page H4402]]

  No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot 
soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will 
never forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory 
and experience.
  On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol 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.
  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.
  The preclearance requirement of Section 5 protects 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, 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.
  We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge 
or dilute the precious right to vote.
  Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the need to 
pass this legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that 
``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--
faces grave threats.
  The threats stem from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme 
Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which 
invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of 
the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.
  Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby 
County decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the 
Roberts Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in 
Brnovich v. DNC, 594 U.S. __, No. 19-1257 and 19-1258 (July 1, 2021), 
which engrafts on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act onerous burdens 
that Congress never intended and explicitly legislated against.
  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.
  According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down 
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was that ``times change.''
  Now, the Court was right; times have changed.
  But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive 
changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous 
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
  And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed and that is why 
we must pass H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by 
Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not 
eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in 
stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale 
disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did 
not eliminate them entirely.
  The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another 
epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still 
needed to prevent another polio epidemic.
  As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, 
``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to 
work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella 
in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
  Madam Speaker, in many ways my home state of Texas is ground-zero for 
testing and perfecting schemes to deprive communities of color and 
language minorities of the right to vote and to have their votes 
counted.
  Consider what has transpired in Texas in recent past, let alone the 
noxious voter suppression bill, SB7, it is currently trying to ramrod 
through the legislature.
  Only 68 percent of eligible voters are registered in Texas and state 
restrictions on third party registration, such as the Volunteer Deputy 
Registrar program, exacerbate the systemic disenfranchisement of 
minority communities.
  These types of programs are often aimed at minority and underserved 
communities that, for many, many other reasons (like demonization by 
the president, for example) or mistrust of law enforcement are afraid 
to live as openly as they should.
  In Harris County, we had a system where voters were getting purged 
from the rolls, effectively requiring people to keep active their 
registrations and hundreds of polling locations closed in Texas, 
significantly more in number and percentage than any other state.
  In addition, the Texas Election Code only requires a 72-hour notice 
of polling location changes.
  Next, take what happened here in Texas in 2019 when the Texas 
Secretary of State claimed that his office had identified 95,000 
possible noncitizens on the voter rolls and gave the list to the Texas 
State Attorney General for possible prosecution--leading to a claim 
from President Trump about widespread voter fraud and outrage from 
Democrats and activist groups.
  The only problem was that list was not accurate.
  At least 20,000 names turned out to be there by mistake, leading to 
chaos, confusion, and concern that people's eligibility vote was being 
questioned based on flawed data.
  The list was made through state records going back to 1996 that show 
which Texas residents were not citizens when they got a driver's 
license or other state ID.
  But many of the persons who may have had green cards or work visas at 
the time they got a Texas ID are on the secretary of state's office's 
list, and many have become citizens since then since nearly 50,000 
people become naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas annually.
  Latinos made up a big portion of the 95,000-person list.
  Texas Republicans adopted racial and partisan gerrymandered 
congressional, State legislative redistricting plans that federal 
courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act and were drawn with 
discriminatory intent.
  Even after changes were demanded by the courts, much of the damage 
was already done.
  Reversing the position by the Obama administration, the Trump 
Department of [in]Justice represented to a federal court that it no 
longer believed past discrimination by Texas officials should require 
the state to get outside approval for redistricting maps that will be 
drawn in 2021.
  In addition to affirmative ways to making it harder to vote, we also 
know face other odious impediments in Texas.
  Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical 
of voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll

[[Page H4403]]

taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability 
of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast 
their votes.
  This is the harm that can be done without preclearance, so on a 
federal level, there is an impetus to act.
  Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID:
  1. African Americans: 25 percent
  2. Asian Americans: 20 percent
  3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent
  4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent
  5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent
  And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, 
including:
  1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting.
  2. Ending same-day registration.
  3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on 
Election Day will not count.
  4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration.
  5. Shortening poll hours.
  6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing 
self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street 
Patriots to cause trouble at the polls.
  The malevolent practice of voter purging is not limited to Texas; we 
saw it in 2018 in Georgia, where then Secretary of State and now 
Governor Brian Kemp purged more than 53,000 persons from the voter, 
nearly the exact margin of his narrow win over his opponent, Stacy 
Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
  Voter purging is a sinister and malevolent practice visited on 
voters, who are disproportionately members of communities of color, by 
state and local election officials.
  This practice, which would have not passed muster under section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act, has proliferated in the years since the Supreme 
Court neutralized the preclearance provision, or as Justice Ginsburg 
observed in Shelby County v. Holder, ``threw out the umbrella'' of 
protection.
  Madam Speaker, citizens in my congressional district and elsewhere 
know and have experienced the pain and heartbreak of receiving a letter 
from state or local election officials that they have been removed from 
the election rolls, or worse, learn this fact on Election Day.
  That is why I am very pleased that H.R. 4 includes language that I 
worked hard to include in the Manager's Amendment to the Voting Rights 
Advancement Act of 2019 that strengthens the bill's ``practice-based 
preclearance'' provisions by adding specifically to the preclearance 
provision, voting practices that add a new basis or process for 
removing a name from the list of active registered voters and the 
practice of reducing the days or hours of in-person voting on Sundays 
during an early voting period.
  For millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil 
and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was 
possible to accomplish extraordinary things.
  Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all 
members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and 
expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, 
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, was it a big lie when the Democrats for 4 
years questioned the 2016 election, when in October of 2020 Secretary 
Clinton said the election was stolen from her in 2016? Was that the big 
lie that the previous speaker was talking about?
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Bentz).
  Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, this bill would operate to freeze in place, 
to substantially chill, changes to the election processes of some of 
the 90,126 State and local government units found in this United 
States.
  Madam Speaker, I assure you, the election processes of many of these 
State and local units are not perfect, but this bill would chill 
necessary corrections and updating of such election processes. Why? 
Because the bill creates a private enforcement cause of action, with 
attorney fees to the prevailing party, and establishes a clear risk to 
these 90,126 government units of incurring tens if not hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of attorney fees if the government unit gets it 
wrong and violates the subjective standards, such as the undefined term 
``diminishes'' found in section 4A(c)(2) in the bill.
  Madam Speaker, after what we have been through in the last election, 
we should be working to encourage certainty and clarity in our election 
processes. This bill does not do that. It does the opposite.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, how dare Republicans come to this floor 
and lecture America about masks and liberty over and over again while 
at the same time undermining the precious right to vote?
  Free and fair elections are central to our liberty, and we are not 
going to let anyone take that away from us.
  Those who worship at the altar of voter suppression will fail. Those 
who worship at the altar of Jim Crow-like oppression will fail. Those 
who worship at the altar of turning back the clock to make America hate 
again will fail.
  We are not going backward.
  The John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will become law, 
and when it is all said and done, democracy will prevail, and good 
trouble will win the day.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, as has been said earlier by Darrell Issa, 
it was Rahm Emanuel that pointed out, don't let a good crisis go to 
waste.
  So here we have a crisis on our southern border and Afghanistan, and 
what do we do? The majority comes in here and says, we don't want our 
Members to have to vote on a $3.5 trillion spending bill, so we will 
just pass a rule that says without anybody voting on it we pass a $3.5 
trillion spending bill. And then we will immediately jump over to a 
noble man with a great name that did such great work for America along 
with Dr. King, John Lewis, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act bill.
  Well, I was here when that was reauthorized, when that was redone, 
and I begged, after talking to some liberal constitutional professors 
of law, I begged Jim Sensenbrenner and John Conyers not to go forward 
with section 4(b) the way it was and section 5. Let's do this right so 
that it won't be struck down. Mr. Sensenbrenner was not open to that 
whatsoever; John Conyers, to his credit, was. I said, please talk to 
some professors, let them tell you, it is at risk of being struck down. 
And he said, well, they say there is a decent chance of that, but let's 
see what happens.
  What happens now? We come in here, and we are going to disenfranchise 
American voters by taking over the voting across America. The 
Constitution reserves those provisions to the State legislature. We 
shouldn't be doing this.
  Back after the 2000 election when there were some people in Florida 
that were not as smart as fifth graders because they couldn't figure 
out the butterfly ballots, this body jumped in, took over, and said 
everybody go to electronic ballots and electronic voting, and they have 
caused us misery ever since.
  Let's let States and local government do the job the Constitution 
gave them.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the John 
Lewis Voting Rights Act.
  Today across the Nation, States are eliminating same-day voter 
registration, reducing voting times, and limiting the availability of 
polling places. These changes essentially make it harder for our 
friends and neighbors to vote.
  This bill is a simple bill. It ensures that all legally cast ballots 
are counted. It ensures that the voices of Americans are louder than 
those of special interests.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the John Lewis Voting Rights 
Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4.
  This legislation is named after a good man and a fellow Georgian, 
John Lewis, whom I was honored to call friend while we served together 
in this body.
  And let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and 
the Speaker that I was the only Republican to join you in San Diego for 
the christening of the USNS John Lewis, and I

[[Page H4404]]

did it because he was my friend. I did it because he should be honored.
  While he was a good man, this legislation does nothing to advance the 
rights of our citizens to vote as my friends on the other side of the 
aisle would claim.
  H.R. 4 is a radical and unprecedented Federal power grab over State-
administered elections under the guise of updating the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965.
  At the time, the extraordinary measures employed by the Voting Rights 
Act were important, however, thankfully, as the U.S. Supreme Court 
recognized in a 2013 decision, things have changed dramatically in the 
U.S. since 1965.
  In fact, elections in 2018 and 2020 saw record turnout among 
Americans from minority communities.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 4 must be rejected to ensure that the Federal 
takeover of our elections stops right here.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the recognition, 
and I acknowledge his tremendous leadership over time, including right 
now on the issue of voting rights in our country. I thank him for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor and to do so under the 
name of Congresswoman Terri Sewell, the author of the bill, who has 
been working on this for a long time, since the assault on the 
legislation, on these laws by the Supreme Court.
  I also thank Mr. Clyburn, a champion from the civil rights era to 
now, always fighting for all of this; and Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the 
Committee on House Administration.
  We have so many people to acknowledge; Mr. Butterfield for his work 
in establishing the constitutional record, as well as Marcia Fudge, now 
Secretary Fudge, for her work. So many people worked to build a 
constitutional basis to make it ironclad so that the Supreme Court of 
the United States cannot once again do violence as it did in Shelby 
County v. Holder and the most recent assault on section 2.

  Madam Speaker, I think my colleagues will all agree that many 
wonderful honors are afforded us as Members of Congress. I can think of 
none that is more poignant than being here today to be able to speak on 
this important issue named for John Lewis. It is almost a religious 
experience because of the sanctity of the vote, which is greatly at 
risk.
  Our colleagues have mentioned some of the assaults on voting that 
have taken place to undermine what we are, a democracy. We talk about 
the preamble where 230 years ago our Founders gave us guidance in the 
words, ``we the people'' establishing a government in which the people, 
not a king, would shape their own destiny.
  Ever since, Americans have fought to make real that promise for all 
citizens while enshrining in the Constitution the 13th and 15th 
amendments and the 19th amendment, which we are celebrating this week 
to expand voting rights to women and to passing landmark civil and 
voting rights protections, including the Voting Rights Act.
  Right here in this very Chamber the Voting Rights Act was passed. 
President Lyndon Johnson spoke in a beautiful speech, the ``We Shall 
Overcome'' speech, in which he called the VRA's passage, ``The history 
of this country, in large measure, is the history of the expansion of 
that right to all of our people.''
  We all know that the story of America is a story of ever-expanding 
freedoms, yet today, that story and those rights are under threat from 
a targeted, brazen, and partisan campaign to deny Americans the ballot.
  This campaign is anti-democratic, it is dangerous, and it demands 
action.
  Today, the House will pass H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act to combat this anti-democratic tide. This bill restores 
the power of the Voting Rights Act, as President Johnson said, `` . . . 
one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American 
freedom.''
  Any diminishment of the Voting Rights Act is a diminishment of our 
democracy. In America, the right to vote must never be compromised.
  Again, I thank Representatives Sewell, Mr. Butterfield, Marcia Fudge, 
Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Mr. Clyburn, and so many who made this day 
possible.
  And let me pause to salute our beloved conscience of the Congress, 
the late John Lewis, whose words guide us. ``The vote is precious,'' he 
said. ``It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool 
we have in a democracy.''
  The previous speaker mentioned that he had been at the christening of 
the USNS John Lewis. We were all together in San Diego, and we were 
honored that the Congressman was there with us.
  As he was saying those words, I was remembering that day. We were all 
very excited. It was the largest contingent of Members of Congress to 
go to the christening of a ship--and I have been to several, so I 
know--and what it was reminding me of is when we had gone a couple 
years ago in 2019 to Ghana; John Lewis led us there. It was the 400th 
anniversary. You were there, Madam Speaker. Mr. Clyburn and so many 
others were there. We were there with John Lewis, and we went to the 
door of no return, which now is the door of return as they were 
welcoming people back.
  I have on this bracelet that I got from the President of Ghana when 
we were there as a remembrance of that trip, and I have it on now 
because what John Lewis said then, and apropos of the christening of a 
ship, We may have all come to this country on different ships, but now 
we're all in the same boat. That is what John Lewis said. He said it in 
Ghana. He said it many times.
  We are all in the same boat. We all should have the right to vote. 
And that should not be diminished by anyone. It is unpatriotic to 
undermine the ability of people who have a right to vote to have access 
to the polls.
  As John knew, this precious pillar of our democracy is under attack 
from what is the worst voter suppression campaign in America since Jim 
Crow. Unleashed by the dangerous Shelby v. Holder in 2013 and 2021, 
State lawmakers have introduced over 400 suppression bills.
  I am very honored today, Madam Speaker, that we have legislators from 
the State of Texas who are fighting the fight for voting rights for 
people in their State and in our country. They are patriotic Americans. 
And let us hear applause for those Texans who have done so much.
  Much has been said about preclearance and thousands of discriminatory 
voting changes. But let us just say that in the Shelby decision, the 
dissent was written by Justice Ginsburg, and she noted in her dissent 
the Court's reasoning in Shelby was nonsensical. ``Throwing out 
preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop 
discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a 
rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
  Sadly, the Court has since continued that assault on the ballot.
  So H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would be 
a remedy to this assault and to restore the preclearance provisions.
  I have said earlier today on the rule on this vote, in 2006 we all 
came together in a bipartisan way to pass the Voting Rights Act. Nearly 
400 votes in the House, unanimous in the Senate. We came together in 
the center of the Capitol, marched down the Capitol steps celebrating 
that.
  The bill was signed by President George Bush proudly. He joined us in 
Selma, hosted by Congresswoman Sewell. He and President Obama joined us 
in Selma, and he came and spoke as the President who had signed the 
Voting Rights Act. As I say, more importantly, Mrs. Laura Bush was 
there, so their hearts were in all of this. It was bipartisan. I wish 
it could be today.
  In our work to protect the ballot, let us recall John Lewis' final 
message published after his passing. ``Democracy is not a state. It is 
an act.'' With H.R. 4, his namesake, the Congress takes this action to 
build a future in which we all have equitable access to the ballot and 
to our democracy.
  In memory of our beloved John, for whom this legislation is named, 
and in the interest of passing it and H.R. 1, of which he wrote the 
first 300 pages, let us honor our patriotic duty and make justice and 
equality there for everyone to vote.

[[Page H4405]]

  


                              {time}  1700

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the Speaker of the United States House of 
Representatives just applauded Texas legislators for not showing up to 
work, for not doing their job. I mean, the things we see today, it is 
truly amazing to me.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, since the founding of our country, our 
quest for a more perfect union has featured measures to expand, not 
contract, the right to vote.
  In 1965, activists, including a young John Lewis, put their lives on 
the line to pass the original Voting Rights Act.
  For decades, that law enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but in recent 
years, State legislatures have passed hundreds of laws to restrict 
voter access.
  In 2020, our system held. It held because voters turned out in 
overwhelming numbers. It held because election officials did their jobs 
faithfully, regardless of party. It held because brave officers of the 
U.S. Capitol and Metro Police defended our Constitution.
  But let's be clear, the assault on voting rights continues, inspired 
by corrupt and cynical efforts to hold power at all costs. We must do 
our job to protect and reinforce our democratic system against these 
new threats because it won't hold indefinitely.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Americans to hold the line to protect and 
defend our democracy. I urge swift passage of the John R. Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act by the House and the Senate.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time once more.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4 
and its efforts to protect access to the ballot box and advance justice 
and democracy for all, including Latinos, which represent 77 percent of 
my district.
  We are all equal under the law and should be treated equally at the 
ballot box. Recent attempts by the GOP-led legislatures in States like 
my home State of Texas, demonstrate how urgent it is to protect our 
democracy. These attempts could disenfranchise nearly 8 in every 10 of 
my constituents.
  Our country has one of the strongest democracies in the world, and it 
is simply un-American to disenfranchise voters. I urge my colleagues to 
pass H.R. 4, which would maintain elections free, fair, and accessible 
to all eligible voters. Let's make our democracy stronger.
  Si se puede. Yes, we can.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
  Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 4. When our 
Founders created this self-governing constitutional republic, they 
vested the power to administer time, place, and manner of elections 
with our State legislatures. They knew the sacred right to vote would 
be better preserved by democratically elected, accountable State and 
local officials rather than unelected Federal bureaucrats. This 
principle has endured for two centuries. However, this principle is now 
under attack here in the people's House.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that democracy is 
somehow in peril. And their solution to this problem is to relinquish 
total control of our elections, again, to Federal, unelected 
bureaucrats--a complete opposite of democratic concepts; bureaucrats 
with the power to prosecute based on political views and party 
affiliations.
  These are the same officials who were absent when now-disgraced 
former Democrat Governor Cuomo unilaterally altered New York election 
laws last year in violation of New York's constitution, which 
chaotically overstressed the system and compromised the guarantee of a 
free, secure, and fair election.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  During the Civil Rights Movement, I was a child in the stroller at 
the March on Washington. And my father, who was the president of the 
Illinois branch of the NAACP for over 20 years, he raised me to always 
fight for what is right and what is just; to stand up for those who 
don't always have a voice.
  John Lewis embodied the spirit of justice, and he inspired so many to 
fight for voting rights. John did say, ``Freedom is not a state, it is 
an act.'' Freedom is the continuous action we all must take, and each 
generation must do its part to create an even more fair and more just 
society.
  Today, we do our part. We stand up for the right to vote; freedoms 
this Nation was founded upon and freedoms which must long endure.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in the act of 
fighting for freedom, fighting for democracy, and supporting the John 
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for the 
Advancement Act.

            [From the New Democrat Coalition, Aug. 23, 2021]

                 New Democrat Coalition Endorses H.R. 4

       The New Democrat Coalition (NDC) announced its endorsement 
     of H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. 
     The bill, introduced by NDC Member Terri Sewell (AL-07), 
     seeks to address the most egregious forms of recent voter 
     suppression by restoring the protections of the 1965 Voting 
     Rights Act and determining which states and localities with a 
     recent history of voting rights violations must pre-clear 
     election changes with the U.S. Department of Justice.
       ``Our responsibility as members of Congress is to ensure 
     that the American people have trust in our democratic process 
     and equitable access to the ballot box,'' said New Democrat 
     Coalition Chair Suzan DelBene. ``Congresswoman Sewell is 
     continuing Congressman John Lewis' legacy by reintroducing 
     this crucial legislation all to keep our elections fair and 
     open. The Coalition endorsed this bill because the right to 
     vote is the most sacred and fundamental right our nation 
     offers. We urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
     join us in passing this historic piece of legislation.''
       I'm so proud that the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act has earned the endorsement of the New 
     Democrat Coalition,'' said New Democrat Member Rep. Terri 
     Sewell. ``The right to vote is the most sacred and 
     fundamental right we enjoy as American citizens and one that 
     the Foot Soldiers fought, bled, and died for in my hometown 
     of Selma, Alabama. Today, old battles have become new again 
     as we face the most pernicious assault on the right to vote 
     in generations. By restoring federal oversight and preventing 
     states with a recent history of voter discrimination from 
     restricting the right to vote, this bill keeps the promise of 
     our democracy alive for all Americans and advances the legacy 
     of those brave Foot Soldiers like John Lewis who dedicated 
     their lives to preserving the sacred right to vote.
       The Coalition has long been an advocate for promoting 
     voting rights and protecting American elections and endorsed 
     H.R. 4 last Congress. Earlier this year, the Coalition also 
     endorsed H.R. 1. the For the People Act, earlier this year. 
     With the endorsement and expected House action on H.R. 4, the 
     Coalition remains committed to advancing voting and campaign 
     reform legislation through the Senate and to the President as 
     soon as possible.
                                  ____



                                                  Sierra Club,

                                                 August, 24, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Sierra Club's 4 
     million members and volunteers, we are writing to urge a YES 
     vote on the rule for the upcoming budget resolution and H.R. 
     4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and the 
     Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684.
       Vote yes on the Rule containing S. Con 14/H.R. 3684 and 
     H.R. 4.
       The vote on this rule will deem the budget resolution that 
     would initiate the reconciliation process to tackle the 
     ongoing climate crisis, one of our nation's greatest threats.
       Today's vote comes just days after the Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the changing 
     climate and extreme weather events we're already experiencing 
     will continue to rapidly worsen. For many states this 
     includes sea level rise, coastal flooding, more frequent 
     storms, and extreme weather conditions, all of which threaten 
     infrastructure and the abundant natural resources critical 
     for the local economy. The growing local impacts of climate 
     change are clear, but so too is the fact that

[[Page H4406]]

     climate inaction will have severe costs for the nation's 
     economy.
       The Sierra Club strongly urges you to consider the enormous 
     significance of this moment and, VOTE YES on the budget 
     resolution, so we can begin the necessary process through 
     budget Reconciliation to address the climate crisis.
       Vote yes on H.R. 4 The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
     Act.
       In addition to addressing our nation's climate crisis, it 
     is imperative that we also protect our nation's democracy. 
     The same communities most vulnerable to climate impacts are 
     those disproportionately impacted and have been harmed by the 
     dilution of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in 
     2013 and 2021.
       Since then we have seen a rise in discriminatory voter 
     laws, from cuts to early voting days to restrictive voter 
     identification requirements. The John Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act would restore preclearance coverage for 
     state, localities, and political subdivisions with a history 
     of voter discrimination, and would increase transparency and 
     public awareness for changes to voting and polling practices 
     that can be confusing and deter American voters.
       For these reasons we urge a yes vote on the rule for the 
     budget resolution, and for democracy and the John Lewis 
     Voting Rights Advancement Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                          Dan Chu,
                                       Acting Executive Director. 


                                                          AFT,

     August 23, 2021.
                                  ____

     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members 
     of the American Federation of Teachers, I strongly urge you 
     to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 
     4). The need to strengthen and re-establish the protections 
     of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crowning achievement of 
     the civil rights movement, is more pressing now than ever 
     before.
       The late Rep. John Lewis once said, ``The vote is precious. 
     It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool 
     we have in our democracy.'' The bedrock of American democracy 
     is participation at the ballot box for all, no matter their 
     religion, their race, their income, their gender, their age, 
     where they come from, what state they reside in or their ZIP 
     code. Everything relies on voting rights, from the ability of 
     local communities to run their schools and manage local 
     services to the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
       In the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions--Shelby 
     County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National 
     Committee that gutted the Voting Rights Act, states have 
     considered and enacted a rush of new laws making the right to 
     vote harder to exercise, especially for communities of color. 
     According to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than 400 
     voter suppression bills have been taken up by state 
     legislatures since January of this year, and 18 states have 
     already enacted 30 laws restricting the right to vote. Recent 
     voter suppression measures embrace a variety of tactics 
     including reducing early voting, eliminating polling places, 
     giving local judges the ability to overturn elections, and 
     making it a crime to deliver water or food to voters standing 
     in line. While companion legislation with comprehensive 
     national voting standards and reforms, such as the For the 
     People Act, is needed to address the state laws already 
     enacted, passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act 
     is essential to prevent new state voter suppression measures 
     from being enacted.
       The latest actions of state legislatures show that the 
     protections of the Voting Rights Act are still woefully 
     needed. They prove that the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth 
     Bader Ginsburg was right in her Shelby County dissent when 
     she wrote that to use the success of the Voting Rights Act as 
     proof that it is unneeded is as wise as not using an umbrella 
     in a storm because you don't feel the rain. Most of the 
     states that have recently enacted, or are currently debating, 
     laws restricting the right to vote have a history of having 
     their efforts blocked when the Voting Rights Act's 
     preclearance requirements were in full effect. H.R. 4 would 
     establish new preclearance formulas that would prevent states 
     with a history of voter discrimination from enacting new laws 
     that would suppress the vote. It would also ensure that last-
     minute voting changes do not adversely affect voters by 
     requiring officials to publicly announce all voting changes 
     at least 180 days before an election, and it would expand the 
     government's authority to send federal observers to any 
     jurisdiction where there may be a substantial risk of 
     discrimination at the polls on Election Day or during an 
     early voting period.
       John Lewis reminded us, ``Each of us has a moral obligation 
     to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something 
     that is not right, you must say something. You must do 
     something.'' This is your chance.
       We urge you to defend voting rights throughout the country 
     by supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act 
     and renewing the fight for the comprehensive voting rights 
     legislation that must accompany it.
       Thank you for considering our views on this critical 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randi Weingarten,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                         SEIU,

                                                  August 20, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of 
     the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I write in 
     support of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
     as well as the Federal Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Resolution, 
     and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Taken 
     together, these critical bills will help strengthen our 
     democracy and deliver on the full promise of President 
     Biden's Build Back Better agenda.
       After years of inaction, the IIJA advances important 
     programs in public transportation, clean water, broadband and 
     climate resilience. These public investments would give our 
     communities a much-needed boost and help support safer 
     roadways and schools, cleaner water, and more available and 
     affordable Internet. But much more has to be done to build 
     our country back better and ensure that workers have unions 
     and a voice in their own futures.
       By advancing the infrastructure bill along with the Build 
     Back Better reconciliation package, with its commitments to 
     living-wage care jobs with the opportunity to join together 
     in a union--a path to citizenship and climate justice, 
     Congress can take bold measures needed to meet essential 
     workers' demands for common-sense and transformative policy 
     solutions.
       The budget resolution is the key to creating the pathway we 
     need for both the IIJA and the reconciliation bill. We call 
     on you to act immediately to pass the FY 2022 budget 
     resolution to move forward on President Biden's Build Back 
     Better full vision. In addition, we strongly urge you to 
     support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This 
     crucial legislation will help protect our democracy against 
     the widespread attacks on our freedom to vote that are being 
     mounted across our country--so that we all have an equal say 
     in our future and our rights are protected.
       For these reasons, we urge you to support the IIJA, the 
     FY2022 budget resolution, and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act. We will add votes on each of these bills to 
     our legislative scorecard for the 117th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
     International President.
                                  ____



                                                       LIUNA!,

                                                  August 23, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 500,000 members of 
     the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), I 
     want to express our strong support for H.R. 4, the John R. 
     Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
       Since the 2013 Supreme Court Shelby County v. Holder 
     decision, which challenged portions of the Voting Rights Act 
     of 1965, many states have enacted laws that restrict access 
     to the polls by shortening early voting hours, enacting 
     strict voter ID requirements, and decreasing the number of 
     polling locations. These changes to the law disproportionally 
     effect minority and disenfranchised communities. Just last 
     month, in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the 
     Supreme Court decided that rules that impacted different 
     populations unequally were not unfair. This decision opened 
     the door even more broadly to different forms of voter 
     suppression.
       H.R. 4 is critically needed to help to reverse the negative 
     effects of these restrictive state laws by requiring states 
     and localities with a history of voting rights violations to 
     pre-clear any changes to election laws with the Department of 
     Justice. This important legislation will ensure that 
     elections across this country remain fair and will restore 
     the portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that recent 
     Supreme Court decisions have eliminated. In addition, this 
     legislation will ensure that multilingual voting materials 
     are more widely available and that polling places do not 
     disproportionally serve privileged communities over 
     communities of color.
       For decades LIUNA has stood side by side with civil rights 
     activists, including the late Congressman John Lewis, as they 
     marched and took to the streets to fight for the critical 
     issue of voting rights--one of the cornerstones of our 
     democracy. LIUNA will continue to speak out against 
     discriminatory laws and practices that attempt to 
     disenfranchise voters. Ensuring all Americans have equal 
     access to their constitutionally enshrined right to vote is a 
     top priority.
       LIUNA supports H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
     Advancement Act of 2021, which passed the U.S. House of 
     Representatives with a bipartisan vote in the last Congress 
     and urges you to vote for this much-needed legislation.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Terry O'Sullivan,
     General President.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                                  August 23, 2021.
     Hon. Terri A. Sewell,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Sewell: On behalf of the 3 million 
     members of the National Education Association who work in 
     14,000 communities across the nation, we urge you to vote YES 
     on the John Lewis Voting

[[Page H4407]]

     Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (H.R. 4) because it will 
     protect our most fundamental right as citizens and safeguard 
     the integrity of our democracy. Votes on this issue may be 
     included in NEA's Report Card for the 117th Congress.
       NEA members help prepare students for the privileges and 
     responsibilities of citizenship. They want students to 
     understand how our government works and their role in making 
     it work--especially through voting. Yet, accessing the vote 
     has become more difficult in recent years, particularly for 
     African Americans and other people of color, people with 
     disabilities, students, and senior citizens. In fact, from 
     January through mid-July of this year, nearly 400 bills were 
     introduced in 49 states that would make voting more 
     difficult, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. At 
     least 18 of those states have enacted 30 new laws that 
     restrict our freedom to vote.
       The U.S. Supreme Court in the 2013 Shelby v. Holder 
     decision invalidated a crucial provision in the Voting Rights 
     Act of 1965 (VRA) that prevented states with a history of 
     discriminating against voters from changing their voting laws 
     and practices without preclearance by federal officials. This 
     federal review was an important feature of the Voting Rights 
     Act; doing away with it has virtually annulled the federal 
     oversight that was--and remains--crucial to ensuring that 
     millions of people have equal access to the ballot box. Since 
     the Shelby decision, several states have changed their voting 
     practices in ways that have created barriers for people of 
     color, low-income people, transgender people, college 
     students, the elderly, and those with disabilities.
       Furthermore, just last month, the Supreme Court ruled in 
     Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee that two 
     discriminatory Arizona voting laws did not violate Section 2 
     of the Voting Rights Act. In its opinion in Brnovich, the 
     Court disregards the congressional purpose of Section 2, 
     which is to provide a powerful means to combat race 
     discrimination in voting and representation. The decision 
     relies on a limited interpretation of the Voting Rights Act 
     that will make it more difficult to challenge discriminatory 
     voting laws. This decision underscores the need for Congress 
     to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to 
     restore the legislative purpose of Section 2.
       The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act fills a 
     distinct and critical role in protecting the freedom to vote 
     and ensuring elections are safe and accessible by reversing 
     these dangerous, undemocratic trends by taking several steps 
     that include:
       Updating the criteria used for identifying states and 
     political subdivisions required to obtain federal review and 
     approval of voting changes to ensure those changes do not 
     infringe upon the freedom to vote for people of color;
       Requiring that every state and locality nationwide that is 
     sufficiently diverse obtain federal review before enacting 
     specific types of voting changes that are known to be 
     discriminatory in their use to silence the growing political 
     power of voters of color;
       Requiring all states and localities to publicly disclose, 
     180 days before an election, all voting changes, such as 
     reductions in language assistance and changes in requirements 
     to vote or register;
       Authorizing the Attorney General to send federal observers 
     to any jurisdiction where there is a substantial risk of 
     racial discrimination at the polls;
       Addressing the Brnovich decision by clarifying factors that 
     voters of color can use to prove a vote dilution or vote 
     denial claim under Section 2 of the VRA and restoring voters' 
     full ability to challenge racial discrimination in voting in 
     court;
       Allowing the Department of Justice and voters of color to 
     challenge changes in a voting rule that would make voters of 
     color worse off in terms of their voting rights than the 
     status quo;
       Expanding authority for courts to ``bail-in'' jurisdictions 
     to the preclearance process and updating the ability of 
     jurisdictions to ``bail-out'' of the preclearance process 
     once they demonstrate a record of not harming voters of 
     color; and
       Providing voters with additional protection by easing the 
     standard for when courts can temporarily block certain types 
     of voting changes while the change is under review in court. 
     This is important because once a voter is discriminated 
     against in an election, it cannot be undone.
       NEA members live, work, and vote in every precinct, county, 
     and congressional district in the United States. They take 
     their obligation to vote seriously, viewing it as essential 
     to protecting the opportunities that they believe all 
     students should have. Educators teach students that voting is 
     a responsibility of citizenship, a privilege people have died 
     to protect, and a right we must dedicate ourselves to 
     upholding. We urge you to vote YES on the John Lewis Voting 
     Rights Advancement Act so that all may participate in the 
     electoral process and have a voice in our democracy.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Marc Egan,

                                 Director of Government Relations,
     National Education Association.
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                                  August 24, 2021.
     Hon. Terri Sewell,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sewell: AARP, on behalf of our nearly 
     38 million members and all older Americans, is proud to 
     support H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
     Act of 2021. The right to vote is the most fundamental of all 
     political rights, and all Americans must be able to exercise 
     their vote freely, easily, and safely.
       The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has been our nation's 
     preeminent law protecting the voting rights of all Americans. 
     But recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened several 
     provisions of the law. H.R. 4 would help restore the law and 
     ensure the protections contained in the 14th and 15th 
     Amendments to the Constitution are enforced, by:
       Creating a new coverage formula for all states and 
     political subdivisions that takes into consideration repeated 
     voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years;
       Establishing a process for reviewing voting changes, 
     focusing on measures that have historically been used to 
     discriminate, including voter ID laws, the reduction of 
     multilingual voting materials, changes to voting districts, 
     and reductions in the number of polling locations;
       Increasing transparency through public notice when voting 
     changes are made; Expanding voting accessibility for Native 
     American and Alaska Native voters; Allowing the Attorney 
     General authority to request federal observers where there is 
     a threat of racial discrimination in voting;
       Allowing a federal court to order states or jurisdictions 
     to be covered for results-based violations,
       Clarifying that a voting change or practice is 
     discriminatory even if other forms of voting are available to 
     a protected class and;
       Directing the Judicial Branch to discount a state or 
     locality's claims of fraud as a reason to pass harmful voting 
     laws if no evidence is presented of such fraud.
       AARP looks forward to working with Congress and the 
     Administration to ensure every citizen's right to vote.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy A. LeaMond,
       Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement 
     Officer.
                                  ____

                                           American Public Health,


                                                  Association,

                                                  August 23, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Public 
     Health Association, a diverse community of public health 
     professionals that champions the health of all people and 
     communities, I write in strong support of H.R. 4, the John R. 
     Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
       Over the past decade, U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as 
     Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National 
     Committee have unfortunately eroded key protections provided 
     by the Voting Rights Act that protect against racial 
     discrimination in the voting process, giving many states the 
     ability to suppress and discriminate against voters. This 
     year alone, state lawmakers have introduced 400 bills and 
     enacted 30 laws restricting access to voting in 48 states. 
     The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 would 
     restore VRA protections by establishing a federal review 
     process of changes to state voting laws. Potentially 
     discriminatory changes would be paused until federal review 
     is completed, and changes found to be discriminatory would be 
     blocked entirely. Furthermore, strict oversight would be 
     applied to states with histories of voter discrimination and 
     policy changes known to be used to discriminate against 
     voters of color.
       Decades ago, the Institute of Medicine established in a 
     report that voting is a public health issue because it helps 
     shape ``the conditions in which people can be healthy.'' The 
     ballot box is where community members can come together to 
     decide on key issues that shape our response to today's 
     public health emergencies: police brutality, gun violence, 
     climate change and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We commend 
     Congresswoman Terri Sewell and the other sponsors for 
     introducing this landmark legislation and the House for 
     bringing it up for a vote. I write in strong support of H.R. 
     4 and urge you to vote yes on the bill. The provisions in 
     this bill would support the advancement of racial and health 
     equity, a key APHA priority and a crucial step toward 
     achieving the healthiest nation in one generation.
           Sincerely,
                                          Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
                                               Executive Director.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, how pleased our friend would be that Nikema 
Williams is presiding, his successor. He was one of her mentors.
  Madam Speaker, how proud you must be to preside at this critical time 
in our history.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Selma, Alabama, Terri 
Sewell. I have been with Terri and her church, worshipped with her, 
prayed

[[Page H4408]]

with John Lewis in her church, walked down the streets of her town and 
over a bridge called the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And unlike John Lewis, 
when we walked across it, there were Alabama troopers to protect us 
rather than prevent us from voting.
  Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today 
about how there is no problem in America; people have full access. Too 
many people that I talk to throughout the country have told me that is 
not the case.
  The Supreme Court passed a ruling and said, Oh, everything was fine. 
And as soon as they did, as soon as they took this preclearance off, 
State after State after State enacted legislation to make it more 
difficult to vote; like that.
  Justice Ginsburg made an analogy in Shelby that the Supreme Court was 
saying, Oh, well, there is no problem left. She said it was like the 
man with the umbrella who had the umbrella up; wasn't getting wet. It 
was raining, but he wasn't getting wet. So he gave the umbrella away 
and said, I'm okay. I am dry. And then immediately, of course, he got 
all wet.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my sister, Terri Sewell; John's 
sister. John called me brother, and he called all of us brothers and 
sisters, in this, the beloved community that he envisioned. That was 
King's vision, as John was his disciple.
  Today, we are honoring the legacy of a historic Member of this House. 
In my view, I have served with two historic Members of the Congress of 
the United States and the Senate and the House. There were a lot of 
famous, but two historic figures: One was John Lewis. And the other is 
Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker and, in my view, the most 
effective Speaker with whom I have served in the 40 years that I have 
been here.
  John Lewis was my dear friend, and he was your dear friend. I called 
him the most Christlike person I have ever seen, our dear Saint John, 
who preached to us the gospel of getting into ``good trouble'' and 
creating a beloved community; the gospel of John Robert Lewis.
  He would be proud of us today for bringing this bill to the floor. He 
worked hard on this bill. I can remember sitting--  Jim Clyburn and I, 
and John Lewis and others--sitting in my whip's conference room, 
working on voting rights' legislation.
  So let us honor his memory today with strong support for its voting 
rights' protection, for its reversal of the damage wrought by the 2013 
Shelby v. Holder ruling, and for its recognition that our democracy is 
imperfect if it is not open to all eligible to vote.
  In that ruling, Shelby v. Holder, the Supreme Court erred in its 
assessment of how necessary the Voting Rights Act's preclearance 
section was for protecting Americans' right to vote. You are not 
protecting Americans' right to vote if the relief that you can seek is 
after the fact, after the governor or the President or the Senator or 
the House of Delegates or representative, Member has been elected. It 
is too late. That is why preclearance was so critically important to 
reform and to protection of voters' rights.
  In her powerful dissent, as I said, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that 
throwing out preclearance when it has worked and has continued to work 
to stop discriminatory changes is like that gentleman giving away his 
umbrella.
  Indeed, since 2013, we have seen a veritable downpour of 
discriminatory and exclusionary voter suppression measures. I hear 
people arguing--I heard a Texan argue on this floor about how it is so 
easy to vote in Texas. Yet, we see them fighting for legislation, which 
half of their body--or not quite half, unfortunately--but a big number 
of their body who represents minority citizens says, No, you are wrong. 
You ought to walk in our shoes and find that they are making it more 
difficult for me to vote.
  Since 2013, we have seen a veritable downpour, as I said. The John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, sponsored by Terri Sewell, would 
confront this tempest head on. We have seen a campaign of voter 
suppression efforts in Republican-led jurisdictions that have changed 
their laws and voting rules to make it harder for eligible Americans to 
vote.
  Their leader, Donald Trump, says there was fraud, there was theft. 
The problem is the Republican judges to which they appealed said no. 
The problem is Attorney General Barr, who covered up almost everything 
that Donald Trump said, even he couldn't say that there was fraud.

                              {time}  1715

  And so they justify these laws by somehow there is fraud out there, 
they are stealing our elections. That is baloney. It is the same kind 
of lie that Donald Trump continues to parrot. And if you say, like Liz 
Cheney did, he is lying, you are kicked out of your party.
  We have seen a campaign of voter suppression over and over and over 
again, making it harder for eligible Americans to vote, 
disproportionately targeting African Americans. I am not an African 
American. It is hard for me to walk in those shoes.
  I try to empathize, but I know if I am not Black, I can't really be 
as knowledgeable as I would be if I were Black, and I was every day 
subjected to discrimination, or if I were another person of color.
  They have reduced early voting opportunities that help working people 
cast ballots. They want to eliminate--they haven't in every place--mail 
balloting, because they feel somehow if I don't see them when they fill 
out that form and attest that they are who they are under penalties of 
perjury that somehow----
  Now, I can understand, from a party that in the last seven elections, 
in the last quarter of a century, have elected a number of Presidents, 
only one got a majority; only one, but they won the electoral college 
vote. That is why some Republicans said: Are you crazy? You confirm the 
electoral college, because it is what is protecting us against the 
majority.
  They purged voter rolls so that people who believed themselves to be 
registered because they had registered and voted in the past, showed up 
to vote but were turned away.
  I sponsored the Help America Vote Act with a guy named Bob Ney, who 
was from Ohio and a Republican, and a dear friend of mine. 
Unfortunately, he got in trouble, but he is a good man, still a good 
man. And we provided for provisional ballots, which simply said, if you 
made a mistake and came to the wrong precinct, fill out the ballot, we 
are going to check it tomorrow or the next day and make sure you are 
eligible to vote, and if you are, we will count it. That made sense; 
efforts to eliminate those.
  These are real and pressing challenges facing our elections and our 
democracy; not imaginary fraud, but active and visible voter 
suppression. We have a duty, my colleagues, Democrat and Republican 
colleagues, we have a duty, a responsibility, a moral responsibility to 
make sure that people can vote and that we facilitate their vote, not 
impede it. Not make it more difficult. Facilitate it. Encourage them. 
Lift them up and let them vote.
  And we owe it to John Lewis and the other heroes of Selma, and all 
the other small towns and byways and big cities and big States, where 
people fought, demonstrated, were bruised, battered, beaten, and yes, 
some died, so that their brothers and sisters could have the vote.
  My colleagues, it falls to us now, today, to continue their march 
forward, and to carry on their work. There are no Alabama troopers 
waiting on the other side that are going to beat us or batter us or 
prevent us. We are not at risk. Whatever way we vote, we are going to 
walk out of there today and we are going to be fine.
  But we have a moral responsibility to those who fought here and 
around the world to protect the vote, to protect democracy.
  I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to join you, to join me, to join 
our fellow colleagues in voting for H.R. 4, and for the protection of 
voting rights in our country. H.R. 4 the people.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Williams of Georgia). The gentleman will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, my inquiry is, if it is appropriate to call 
the previous President a liar, is it appropriate that we can refer to 
the current President as a liar also?

[[Page H4409]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As recorded in section 370 of the House 
Rules and Manual, the prohibition against engaging in personalities 
does not apply to former Presidents.
  Mr. BUCK. Does not apply to past Presidents?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. BUCK. Understood. I thank the Speaker.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, is it appropriate on the floor of the House 
to tell the truth?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, it is interesting when President Trump 
was in office that the name-calling in this place about him occurred 
often during the President's time in office.
  In California, we currently have a special election about to be 
underway here. Just the other day, 300 mail-in ballots were found in 
the car of a guy passed out in a 7-Eleven parking lot, 300 ballots. And 
we don't think there is an issue sometimes with the way mail-in ballots 
are distributed.
  I get anecdotes all the time from folks like this current special 
election. Oh, I received three ballots for people that haven't lived at 
my apartment for a long time, or relatives that have long since passed 
away, because you just mail them out willy-nilly everywhere.
  H.R. 4 is not about voting rights, it is about election control and 
manipulation. It is about political appointees at the Department of 
Justice overturning State and legislative process, and controlling from 
D.C. local election decisions.
  We know that Americans of the right age and legal status have the 
right to vote, and no one here is trying to take that away from them. 
Voter suppression hype is just a big lie. It is absurd what is trying 
to be perpetrated in this legislation.

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, 8 years ago the Supreme Court demolished 
the Voting Rights Act, in the deluded, dangerous belief that we had 
somehow overcome white supremacy and no longer needed the greatest 
achievement of the Civil Rights Movement.
  The next day, States began making it harder for Black and Brown 
Americans to vote, initiating the biggest wave of racist voter 
suppression since Jim Crow. But today, we act to restore the Voting 
Rights Act. We also act to reverse the Supreme Court's recent assault 
on the right to vote by passing my bill with Representative Ruben 
Gallego, the Inclusive Elections Act, which is part of this package.
  Having said that, let us be clear-eyed about how we got here and the 
threat that remains. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act will not be 
safe so long as six far-right justices of the Supreme Court stand ready 
to destroy our democracy.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I want to just remind everybody, no 
matter what side of the bill you are on, there is a huge trust issue 
going on in America right now. People do not trust the system, and that 
is everyone's problem. If you think a centralized election bill to move 
the power to Washington, D.C., and put it in the hands of Congress and 
the courts is going to help, you are wrong. They don't trust us and 
they don't trust the courts.
  A decentralized system is what has worked in America. So make sure 
that after you support this legislation, you go back and you meet with 
the town clerk that runs the elections, the county clerks, the parish 
clerks, the municipal clerks, and yes, the State legislatures. I notice 
the State legislatures are taking a real beating here today.
  Pre-clearance expansion. Is that a can of worms that this body really 
wants to open up? Printed ballots. Photo ID. Now we are going to 
mandate polling places, election timelines, primary mechanics, who can 
be a poll worker. These are all things that are included in H.R. 4. I 
just want to make sure the public is aware of that.
  We are now taking the power away from the people and placing it right 
here in Washington, D.C., in Congress and in the courts exclusively.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, for years I have said that the 1965 
Voting Rights Act was written between Selma and Montgomery. The Voting 
Rights Act leveled the playing field and transformed southern electoral 
politics.
  Since the Shelby decision, the right to vote and access to the ballot 
box are being compromised. The Subcommittee on Elections, which I 
chair, held five hearings, we called over 35 witnesses, produced a 
report detailing clear evidence of ongoing voter discrimination all 
across the country.
  I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, and Ms. Sewell for a good 
bill. The Voting Rights Act is as important today as ever. Passage of 
H.R. 4 will protect the right to vote and fully enforce the 15th 
Amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, to come to the correct 
conclusion, a law professor used to say, ``You've got to know the 
facts.'' And that is what the American people need here: the facts, not 
emotion.
  This bill would comprehensively transfer the power to govern 
elections in this country from the sovereign States to the Federal 
Government permanently and everywhere.
  So what is the factual premise for so fundamentally concentrating the 
power here in Washington and diminishing the States? What has happened 
to justify making pervasive and permanent what Chief Justice Roberts 
explained was ``a drastic departure from basic principles of freedom'' 
when it was necessarily undertaken in the 1960s, temporarily and in 
limited parts of the country?
  Well, Democrats offer lurid claims, but the American people are 
catching on. Like earlier this year, Stacey Abrams claimed that a 
simple voter ID law would be Jim Crow 2.0, but once the absurdity of 
that caught up to her, she looked so ridiculous that she tried to deny 
ever having claimed it.
  Nothing epitomizes this better than the slur repeated in the Rules 
Committee yesterday by my law school classmate and colleague, 
Congresswoman Ross. She quoted three ultraliberal judges in the Fourth 
Circuit who said that when the North Carolina legislature enacted voter 
ID and other reforms in 2013, it ``targeted African Americans with 
almost surgical precision.''
  Activists and media have quoted that phrase over 7,500 times, 
according to Google. But few know that the three judges who stated that 
finding of fact were appellate judges who were supposed to be bound by 
the trial judge's finding of fact; or that the trial judge found in a 
painstaking 400-page analysis that the legislature's bill was not 
discriminatory. So the three appellate judges abused their power.
  Few know how the three liberal appellate judges became the final 
word, that a Democrat State Attorney General intentionally sabotaged 
the State's appeal to prevent an upcoming review by the Supreme Court. 
That AG abused his power.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, when the details are 
known, the absence of factual basis becomes plain. Nobody is getting 
wet. A University of Oregon economist showed, just in February, that 
the Shelby County decision to which this bill purports to respond, has 
not impaired Black voter turnout at all. There is no Jim Crow 2.0. This 
bill is about abuse of power.
  Democrats wish to entrench themselves in power and to use the Federal

[[Page H4410]]

Government to obliterate the States in order to achieve it. You have to 
know the facts.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. As Rhode Island's former secretary 
of state, I know the importance of access to the ballot box.
  That is why I was devastated when the Supreme Court gutted one of our 
most momentous civil rights bills, opening the door to a litany of 
voter suppression laws.
  Our dearly departed John Lewis was bloodied on the bridge at Selma 
while peacefully urging passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The 
scars he carried were not in vain, as decades of progress have shown 
us. But it is abundantly clear that we have not yet achieved equality 
of access. There are forces at work in this country trying to undo what 
we have so painstakingly earned.
  That is why it is so important that we pass this bill to restore the 
Voting Rights Act and ensure that every American, regardless of race, 
can have his or her voice heard in our democracy.
  Let's vote in favor of this bill and send a clear message that we 
want to protect every vote in America.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
  Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I am not sure what John Lewis my 
Republican colleagues are talking about when they say he was their 
friend and what he would have wanted. He helped write this bill.
  Let me just say that, on behalf of millions of Black voters who stood 
in lines across this country, including in my home State of Ohio, and 
leaders like our beloved John Lewis, who risked his life as he crossed 
the Edmund Pettus Bridge, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the John 
R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.
  On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we say we step into 
history today as we tread the same path when, 56 years ago, President 
Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law calling the day ``a 
triumph for freedom as huge as any victory won on any battlefield.''
  So to all of my colleagues, I say: Support this bill. Our power, our 
message, the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).
  Ms. BOURDEAUX. Madam Speaker, Georgia was one of the first States in 
the country to pass a voter suppression bill after the 2020 general 
election, but S.B. 202 is just our State's latest attempt to 
disenfranchise minority communities.
  Georgia has a long history of undermining the right to vote, from the 
Jim Crow era to recent tactics like voter roll purges and exact match 
policies.
  It is time for Congress to fix what the Supreme Court broke in their 
2013 ruling, which effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act.
  When I came to Congress, I vowed to support the John R. Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act, and I am proud to keep that commitment today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 and protect the 
sacred right to vote.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we have weak leadership now and a crisis in 
Afghanistan. We have a crisis at our border because of weak leadership. 
We have an inflation crisis because of weak leadership. And we have a 
crime issue in our cities as a result of weak leadership.
  Now, we debate preclearance requirements that are unnecessary and 
unconstitutional. We hear that they are necessary because of voter ID 
laws.
  It takes identification to buy liquor in this country, to buy 
marijuana in this country, and to drive a car in this country. To enter 
this building, it takes identification.
  Yet, it is such a burden that we need to have preclearance with the 
Department of Justice because of that heavy burden that is being placed 
on citizens, preclearance from an administration that has screwed up 
Afghanistan, screwed up the border, screwed up inflation. We are 
supposed to go to them and ask them for permission because voter ID is 
such a burden.
  If there weren't people streaming across this border who could 
potentially vote, we wouldn't be asking for voter ID laws across this 
country, but we are.
  Madam Speaker, you can't screw things up on the one hand and, on the 
other hand, try to require preclearance.
  It is wrong, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 4, critical legislation that confronts the crisis facing our 
democracy.
  In Florida, we witnessed a Republican legislature attempting to cling 
to power through voter suppression, taking special aim at Black and 
Brown voices. The blatantly antidemocratic legislation signed by 
Governor DeSantis this year makes voter registration harder, limits 
voting by mail, and curbs the use of secure ballot drop boxes. Similar 
suppression tactics took root across the Nation, with at least 18 
States making it harder to vote this year.
  To honor our dear friend and colleague, Congressman Lewis, we must 
stand up to this assault on our constitutional rights. This bill would 
stop those who want to shape the electorate to help them win elections 
because they can't win on their losing agenda.
  At this moment in history, bold action is necessary to protect the 
right to vote. After we pass this bill, we must ensure it moves through 
the Senate. Our very democracy depends on it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  It is because of the courage and sacrifices of civil rights leaders 
like Congressman John Lewis that we were able to pass the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965. But for over a decade, we have witnessed a new era of 
voter suppression and Jim Crow laws pursued by Republican State 
legislatures, including in my State of Arizona.
  These attacks on our right to vote are nothing new. For too long, 
Black, Latino, and Native American voters have overcome incredible 
barriers to cast their votes.
  That is not how American democracy should work. That is why 
Representative Mondaire Jones and I were proud to add a provision to 
this bill today that bans discriminatory voting laws that harm voters 
of color.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this bill and this provision 
with it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, 66 years ago this week, Emmett Till was 
brutally lynched by two white supremacists.
  When his body was returned to his mother, Mamie Till, in Chicago, she 
held an open casket funeral because, in her words: ``I wanted the world 
to see what they did to my baby.''
  This was a galvanizing moment for the civil rights movement, but it 
was not the end of Mamie Till-Mobley's activism. She spent the rest of 
her life touring the country, speaking out about the injustice of her 
son's murder and the vital importance of eliminating racial 
discrimination, disenfranchisement, and segregation.

[[Page H4411]]

  She also spent 23 years teaching in the Chicago public school system, 
continuing to speak to students in the Chicago area about civil rights 
as late as the year 2000.
  Today, we are witnessing the reemergence of the kinds of voting 
discrimination that she spoke out against. We must pass the John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Act for Mamie Till, for John Lewis, and for every 
hero who fought for civil rights.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a joint report 
from the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the 
Judiciary Republicans titled ``An Unprecedented and Unconstitutional 
Power Grab: How Democrats are Abusing the Constitution to Nationalize 
Elections.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, Congressman John Lewis earned his 
reputation as the conscience of this body because of his leadership 
during the long march for equal rights at the ballot box.
  John and so many people of conscience and courage were arrested, 
beaten, bruised, and even murdered. The memory of being denied the 
right to vote still dwells in the minds of countless Americans. Many of 
those minds, like John's, survived crushing blows to the skull to earn 
that right.
  John fought and bled for voting rights. He led the charge for voting 
rights. He should be honored by passing this bill drafted in his name.
  We have had the promise of one man, one vote since the birth of this 
country, and we can't backslide on this progress.
  The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will help us get to 
the promised land where every person has the right to vote.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the Census Bureau 
report detailing record turnout in 2020; the Election Integrity Network 
H.R. 4 fact sheet; the Honest Election Project analysis titled ``H.R. 4 
Legal and Constitutional Challenges''; the Independent Women's Forum 
analysis titled ``D.C. Bureaucrats and Judges Will Steal the Pen in 
Drawing Voting Districts''; and also the Foundation for Government 
Accountability analysis titled ``H.R. 4 Isn't Voting Progress. It is a 
Power Grab.''
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise to announce that 
I will not only vote for H.R. 4 but I will also vote for those who are 
making it possible and who have made it possible for me to vote for 
H.R. 4.
  I will vote for Medgar Evers, who was assassinated trying to secure 
the right to vote.
  I will vote for Schwerner and Goodman, two Jews who died in 
Mississippi trying to secure the right to vote.
  I will vote for all of those who suffered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 
on Bloody Sunday to secure the right to vote.
  I will do so because although it was signed in ink by a courageous 
President, it was written in blood.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the following 
reports: an analysis of H.R. 4 titled ``How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist 
Extremists Control the Entire Nation's Elections''; the Lawyers 
Democracy Fund H.R. 4 analysis; a RealClear Politics article titled 
``'Jim Crow 2.0' Is Imaginary''; a letter opposing H.R. 4 from the 
Independent Women's Forum and others; a Heritage analysis titled 
``Another Bill in Congress to Give Partisan Bureaucrats Control Over 
State Election Laws''; and lastly, the Honest Elections Project Action 
analysis titled ``H.R. 4: The Nancy Pelosi Power Grab.''

  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for 
yielding. I thank Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 
Whip Clyburn, and so many Members for their leadership in keeping our 
eyes on the prize.
  Now, the Supreme Court gutted critical protections of the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965. Today, we are restoring that constitutional right 
that so many States are taking away from Black and Brown people, rural 
people, people of color--everyone. Sooner or later, it will be all of 
us who will be subject to these voter restrictions acts.
  So make no mistake, these are efforts to turn the clock back to the 
days of Jim Crow. That is not something I am imagining. Madam Speaker, 
I vividly remember, as one who was born and raised in El Paso, Texas. 
So I, too, salute our Texas legislators for their boldness in 
protecting the right to vote.
  H.R. 4 can restore these crucial protections that our beloved John 
Lewis and so many others fought for. John said that the right to vote 
is ``precious, almost sacred.'' In honor of his legacy as a paragon of 
democracy, let us vote to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act.
  I thank Congresswoman Terri Sewell, G. K. Butterfield, our Speaker, 
everyone who has brought this bill to the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, like in many States, Republicans in 
Michigan's legislature have introduced legislation to suppress the 
right to vote. Make no mistake about it, the fundamental right to vote 
in this country is under assault. That is why my dear friend, John 
Lewis, once said: Voting is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have 
in our democracy.
  Today, we fight back. Today, we have an opportunity to restore the 
power of the vote. I urge my colleagues to support the John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest honors and 
privileges of my life has been to serve with John Lewis whom I had the 
privilege of calling a precious friend.
  In August, 58 years ago, the young John Lewis led a march to 
Washington with Martin Luther King and on August 16 of 1965, the 
momentous Voting Rights Act was signed into law, thanks to John Lewis.
  Today, on August 25, 2021, we are here to vote for the John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act. A bill that he almost gave his life to 
pass all of those years ago will now restore the power of the Voting 
Rights Act, the right to vote, in the new legislation named for our 
dear friend and the conscience of this Congress. Let's vote ``yes.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, COVID was the excuse to bail out blue States poorly 
managed and union pensions poorly managed. Our current recession has 
been the excuse to pay people more to be on unemployment than to be at 
work or to permanently expand the social welfare programs that were 
supposed to be temporary and targeted.
  The supposed climate crisis is the excuse for destroying our energy 
independence. And if you listen to my colleagues' comments today, you 
would think there was rampant voter suppression and a rise of racial 
discrimination in voting. That is not true. That is

[[Page H4412]]

simply not true. It is divisive, and I would suggest that it is 
dangerous for our country.
  The real crisis, Madam Speaker, is America's confidence in the 
integrity of our elections because elections are the backbone of our 
democracy, and so we need to make sure we do everything to ensure a 
free and fair process and an accurate outcome.
  That is the responsibility, according to the Constitution, of the 
States. We don't need Federal Government lawyers or the DOJ to be 
weaponized against States' efforts to make these reforms with respect 
to voter ID, mail-in ballot eligibility, and other integrity reform 
measures.
  Madam Speaker, let's stick to the Constitution. Let's uphold it. 
Let's protect the States' right to secure and improve election 
integrity for our citizens and our electoral process in this great 
country.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, over the past decades when 
officials in Florida tried to restrict access to the ballot box, the 
Voting Rights Act provided protections for all Floridians to cast their 
vote.
  Maybe they limited hours of voting, or didn't provide timely notice 
to changes in polling places, or didn't provide clear ballot language, 
but the Voting Rights Act was there. But, unfortunately, the U.S. 
Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act and after that State 
officials moved to enact other discriminatory practices to keep certain 
people and people of color from casting ballots.
  It is wrong. So it is vitally important that the Congress adopt the 
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to make sure voting is 
fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been 
historically prevalent.
  As John Lewis said: When you see something that is not right and not 
fair, you have to speak up. You have to say something. You have to do 
something. And that is what we are going to do today. I say to 
Representative Sewell, We are going to cast a reinvigorated Voting 
Rights Act. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, a foundational 
dependency of any democracy sustaining is its citizens having 
confidence in the outcome of its elections. Simply put, if people don't 
have faith in elections, democracy doesn't work.
  According to a recent Gallup poll, America's confidence in our 
elections has decreased by 20 percent since 2009. Ensuring that our 
elections are run in a way that makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat 
increases confidence. A common best practice to ensure election 
integrity are voter IDs, a way for people to prove they are who they 
say they are.
  For Democrats to equate this with the poll taxes of the early 20th 
century is a ludicrous, false equivalency. According to the Honest 
Elections Project, 77 percent of all Americans support voter ID 
requirements, including 75 percent of independents, 64 percent of 
African Americans, and 76 percent of low-income voters.
  Knowing that, what does the majority do? They include language in 
H.R. 4 that would restrict commonsense voter ID requirements and 
require the judicial branch to consider voter ID laws as evidence of 
voter suppression, and by extension, racism. That doesn't restore faith 
in elections.
  H.R. 4, as introduced, would require preapproval by an unaccountable 
election czar in the Biden DOJ before any State or locality under 
preclearance could enact popular, commonsense voter ID laws. H.R. 4 
goes even further, requiring almost a dozen States to have their 
existing voter ID laws examined by the Biden DOJ before they can 
continue to be enforced.

  These are the same election integrity laws that have been in place 
for years. This is a partisan power grab of maintaining control.
  Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct 
the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 4 to 
strike from the bill the provisions that penalize State and local 
governments who implement commonsense voter ID requirements.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in the spirit of 
my predecessor, Congressman John Lewis.
  Congressman Lewis taught us that when you see something that is not 
fair, not just, not right, you have a moral obligation to find a way to 
get in the way.
  The voter suppression laws that have been enacted across the country 
and what is happening in my home State of Georgia is the very 
definition of the good trouble that John Lewis taught us to get into, 
to push back against.
  We might not be counting jelly beans in a jar but make no mistake, 
they seek the same purpose: to stop people who look like me from 
accessing their right to vote.
  We all have an opportunity to get in the way today by voting ``yes'' 
on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
  If my colleagues ever wondered what they would have done during the 
civil rights movement, this is your opportunity to find out. Our 
democracy is on the line.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we have one final Speaker who will close 
for us, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The American people can see clearly what is happening here. Democrats 
in the Congress are more focused on taking Federal control over the 
election processes in Republican-led States than addressing the ongoing 
catastrophe that the Biden administration has created in Afghanistan, 
at our southern border, with inflation, and the ongoing pandemic. There 
are so many things that should be occupying our time and, yet, they are 
using it for this.
  The cry of voter suppression is not only untrue, but as Mr. Arrington 
said so well here just a few moments ago, it is also divisive and 
dangerous. We need to speak truth, as Mr. Hoyer said a little while 
ago, and we are.
  We had six hearings in the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties Subcommittee since January on this. I am the ranking 
Republican there. Not a scintilla of evidence was presented that said 
that voters are being suppressed, that the election integrity laws that 
are being passed by the States, pursuant to their constitutional 
authority, are in any way inappropriate. To the contrary, they are 
expanding access to the ballot. As we have said so many times, as I 
close, it has never been easier in America to vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority 
whip.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to take this time to thank my colleagues in 
this august body for the civility that we have demonstrated here as we 
approach this final vote.
  I want to thank the Democrats, every single one of whom cosponsored 
this legislation. I am hopeful that this can be a bipartisan result. I 
think all of us know that our country has a history of voter 
suppression and voter denial. I think all of us are quite aware of 
recent efforts being made in many States. Forty-nine have passed laws 
that are called restrictive by objective analyses that have been made. 
These laws are not needed. These laws are very creative instruments 
that will be used if not checked to suppress the vote.

[[Page H4413]]

  We all heard a recent candidate having lost an election call upon 
election officials to: Just find me the number of votes that I need to 
win this election. If that is not voter suppression, I would like to 
know how we would define it.
  So I want to thank all of us for what we have done here today, and I 
hope that this result can be a bipartisan one.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in 
support of H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I'd 
like to thank Congresswoman Sewell, a daughter of Selma, for 
introducing this bill and for being a fierce and relentless advocate of 
the right to vote.
  How wonderful is it, Madam Speaker, that this bill bears the name of 
our late colleague, one of the greatest Americans to ever walk these 
halls, Congressman John Lewis. His legacy--and the legacies of other 
civil rights leaders who dedicated their lives to ensuring free, fair, 
and equitable access to the polls--lives on through this legislation.
  For Texans, this fight for voting rights is personal. We have 
witnessed, over the past several months, a systematic and antiquated 
effort to strip the right to vote away from millions across the state. 
This effort is built upon the decades and decades of unfair voting 
practices in the history of 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 
obstructive.
  Texas is Just one of many states battling waves of restrictive voting 
legislation spurred by Republican majorities at the local level. These 
attempts at our rights are not new--and neither is the vigorous, 
concerted opposition to them. From Martin Luther King, Jr. and John 
Lewis's march on Bloody Sunday to the Texas Democrats risking arrest to 
filibuster the passage of these laws, there are always people who are 
willing to fight. And as long as there are generations of people who 
are willing to fight, our cause will never perish.
  But now, Madam Speaker, it's time for Congress to meet the moment. We 
must pass H.R. 4--not only because it would prohibit the implementation 
of strict voter requirements and reductions in polling locations and 
hours; not only because it would restore the originals provisions and 
intent of the Voting Rights Act; but because it is also fundamentally 
the right thing to do in our democracy.
  As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4, I would urge all of my colleagues, 
Democrat and Republican, to support this legislation and, in doing so, 
express your support of the right to vote for all Americans.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, we are living through a 21st century 
assault on the right to vote--the likes of which we haven't seen since 
Jim Crow.
  Without a doubt, it's the most significant test of our democracy 
since the Civil War--and future generations will never forgive us if we 
don't meet this moment.
  Meeting this moment requires us to act--and we need the John Lewis 
Voting Rights Act.
  The right to vote is sacred, the cornerstone of our Republic. But 
like Franklin Roosevelt warned--our Republic, if we can keep it.
  Today's vote is a referendum on how willing we are to stand by our 
oath--the oath we took to protect our democracy.
  We must keep it.
  Our democracy depends on how we vote today.
  Vote to protect the future of this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Williams of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 601, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 4 to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois 
is as follows:

       Page 7, strike lines 10 through 17.
       Page 26, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 
     18 on page 27.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 218, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                               YEAS--212

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross

[[Page H4414]]


     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Costa
       

                              {time}  1637

  Messrs. BROWN, HOYER, KIND, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. TRONE changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SESSIONS, GRAVES of Louisiana, BABIN, ARRINGTON, and REED 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     Barragan (Raskin)
     Blumenauer (Bonamici)
     Bowman (Omar)
     Brownley (Clark (MA))
     Buchanan (Dunn)
     Calvert (Garcia (CA))
     Cardenas (Correa)
     Cuellar (Green (TX))
     Curtis (Moore (UT))
     Davids (KS) (Kim (NJ))
     DeFazio (Brown)
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Diaz-Balart (Cammack)
     Duncan (Babin)
     Emmer (Cammack)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Fleischmann (Bilirakis)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Garbarino (Miller-Meeks)
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gibbs (Smucker)
     Gomez (Raskin)
     Granger (Cole)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Hagedorn (Meuser)
     Harshbarger (Kustoff)
     Herrera Beutler (Simpson)
     Horsford (Kilmer)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Katko (Malliotakis)
     Kelly (IL) (Clarke (NY))
     Khanna (Lee (CA))
     Kind (Connolly)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Leger Fernandez (Aguilar)
     Luetkemeyer (Long)
     Maloney, Carolyn B. (Clarke (NY))
     Maloney, Sean (Jeffries)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Budd)
     McNerney (Huffman)
     Meijer (Moore (UT))
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Moore (AL) (Brooks)
     Moulton (McGovern)
     Mullin (Lucas)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Nehls (Jackson)
     Newman (Casten)
     Nunes (Garcia (CA))
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Omar)
     Reed (Arrington)
     Reschenthaler (Meuser)
     Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
     Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Sanchez (Aguilar)
     Scott, David (Cartwright)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Stefanik (Meuser)
     Steube (Cammack)
     Stevens (Dingell)
     Stewart (Owens)
     Strickland (Larsen (WA))
     Thompson (PA) (Meuser)
     Timmons (Cammack)
     Titus (Connolly
     Tonko (Pallone)
     Torres (CA) (Correa)
     Trone (Connolly)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Velazquez (Clarke (NY))
     Wagner (Long)
     Walorski (Baird)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
     Young (Malliotakis)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). The question is on 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 212, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               YEAS--219

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--212

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Costa
       

                              {time}  1910

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     Barragan (Raskin)
     Blumenauer (Bonamici)
     Bowman (Omar)
     Brownley (Clark (MA))
     Buchanan (Dunn)
     Calvert (Garcia (CA))
     Cardenas (Correa)
     Cuellar (Green (TX))
     Curtis (Moore (UT))
     Davids (KS) (Kim (NJ))
     DeFazio (Brown)
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Diaz-Balart (Cammack)
     Duncan (Babin)
     Emmer (Cammack)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Fleischmann (Bilirakis)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Garbarino (Miller-Meeks)
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gibbs (Smucker)
     Gomez (Raskin)
     Granger (Cole)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Hagedorn (Meuser)

[[Page H4415]]


     Harshbarger (Kustoff)
     Herrera Beutler (Simpson)
     Horsford (Kilmer)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Katko (Malliotakis)
     Kelly (IL) (Clarke (NY))
     Khanna (Lee (CA))
     Kind (Connolly)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Leger Fernandez (Aguilar)
     Luetkemeyer (Long)
     Maloney, Carolyn B. (Clarke (NY))
     Maloney, Sean (Jeffries)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Budd)
     McNerney (Huffman)
     Meijer (Moore (UT))
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Moore (AL) (Brooks)
     Moulton (McGovern)
     Mullin (Lucas)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Nehls (Jackson)
     Newman (Casten)
     Nunes (Garcia (CA))
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Omar)
     Reed (Arrington)
     Reschenthaler (Meuser)
     Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
     Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Sanchez (Aguilar)
     Scott, David (Cartwright)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Stefanik (Meuser)
     Steube (Cammack)
     Stevens (Dingell)
     Stewart (Owens)
     Strickland (Larsen (WA))
     Thompson (PA) (Meuser)
     Timmons (Cammack)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Tonko (Pallone)
     Torres (CA) (Correa)
     Trone (Connolly)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Velazquez (Clarke (NY))
     Wagner (Long)
     Walorski (Baird)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
     Young (Malliotakis)

                          ____________________