[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14219-14229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 9, FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, 
AND CORETTA SCOTT KING VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 910 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 910

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, evenly 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it also provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to begin by quoting the 15th 
amendment to the United States Constitution: ``The rights of citizens 
of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the 
United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous 
condition of servitude.''
  As enshrined by the 15th amendment, there really is no more 
fundamental right in our democratic system than the right to vote. 
However, the history of the United States is marked with occasions 
where minorities were in multiple ways, and by multiple ways, blocked 
from having their voices heard at the ballot box.
  One of the great advancements in our American democracy was and is 
the Voting Rights Act. This historic legislation was the first 
comprehensive Federal statute to enforce minorities' constitutional 
right to vote. The provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act provided 
swift relief to those citizens who were victims of discriminatory 
voting tactics and provided them access in a concrete and effective way 
to the voting booth.
  Since it was enacted, the Voting Rights Act has enfranchised millions 
of racial, ethnic, and language minority citizens to have access to 
that sacred right that is voting by breaking down barriers and 
permitting increased minority participation in elections for candidates 
at all levels of government.
  After 41 years of breaking down walls, walls to participation in our 
democratic process, the Voting Rights Act would soon expire if not 
reauthorized. With this in mind, the Committee on the Judiciary began 
hearings to determine whether the legislation is still needed. The 
committee held 12 hearings on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights 
Act, listening to testimony from State and local elected officials, 
scholars, lawyers, representatives from the voting and civil rights 
communities. The testimony and evidence presented before the committee 
brought to light the fact that even though we have made great strides 
to stop the discriminatory practices of the past, there still is ample 
evidence that minorities today face discriminatory practices at the 
ballot box.
  Mr. Speaker, in my community for decades we saw the voting power of 
minorities diluted to the point that they were for many years unable to 
elect the representatives of their preference. The Voting Rights Act 
helped correct that wrong, helped enfranchise countless citizens into 
our democratic political system. The underlying legislation will 
reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 25 
years.
  I would like to point out one provision which I think is very 
important, especially to my community, as well as communities 
throughout the country. The bill extends section 203, the existing 
language assistance requirements that provide that election materials 
be provided in select languages in covered jurisdictions. These 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act require that non-English voting 
materials be made available in jurisdictions where 5 percent of the 
citizen voting age population consists of a single language, limited 
English proficient minority and in which there is a literacy rate below 
the national average, or more than 10,000 citizens who meet those 
criteria reside. These provisions, brought out in the hearings, cover 
approximately 12 percent of the counties in the United States. It 
certainly has benefited the counties that I am honored to represent.
  The bilingual language assistance provisions play a critical role in 
assisting both native-born and naturalized citizens to fully 
participate in our

[[Page 14220]]

democratic form of government. Older residents, Mr. Speaker, who have 
been legal residents of the United States for many years when they 
apply for citizenship, they are exempt when they take their citizenship 
exam to become United States citizens. They are exempt under our law 
from the English requirements. In other words, they take those elderly 
legal residents of the United States who have been here for many, many 
years, they are allowed to take, if they so wish, the naturalization 
exam to become a United States citizen in the language of their origin.
  In addition, many native-born citizens have limited English skills 
because they primarily speak other languages and they require 
assistance. These citizens should be given the opportunity to 
understand the ballot. Whether it is a simple, but critically 
important, choice between two or among candidates or a complicated 
ballot initiative, those citizens of the United States should have the 
opportunity to fully participate, fully understand what they are voting 
on and that way be active participants in our democratic system. That 
is what the legislation does.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9 was introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, Speaker 
Hastert, Minority Leader Pelosi, and reported out of the Committee on 
the Judiciary by an overwhelming vote of 33-1. It is good legislation, 
and I am very proud to be bringing it to the floor today.
  I hope and expect that we are going to see a very significant 
bipartisan show of support for this legislation today. I think it is 
fair and appropriate to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for his 
determination and his leadership and strength of character in moving 
forward this legislation. And also the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for 
his hard work, diligence, and leadership as well on this legislation. I 
know they put long hours into this process with determination, 
perseverance, and extraordinary good faith.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes, and I 
thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, before going into the substance of what we are doing 
today, I would like to make note that a few weeks ago in the Rules 
Committee when we were originally contemplating this bill, I offered an 
amendment to the rule that would have extended general debate to 4 
hours, ensuring that all Members, Republican and Democrat, were 
afforded the opportunity to have their voices heard on the House's 
actions today. My amendment, however, was defeated along a straight 
party line, and I did not offer it again yesterday.
  However, the majority provided 2 hours of general debate in the last 
rule on their other circumstances, and they also provided 2 hours of 
general debate on their politically driven flag-burning amendment.

                              {time}  1030

  If the flag is the symbol of democracy, then the Voting Rights Act is 
the very foundation on which that flag flies. It is both troubling and 
telling that the majority is unwilling to extend today's debate beyond 
90 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as debate on this historic bill commences, I am reminded 
of President Kennedy's words delivered to Congress in 1962 with the 
first draft of what would later become both the Civil Rights and Voting 
Rights Acts. President Kennedy wrote, and I quote, ``In this year of 
the emancipation centennial, justice requires us to ensure the blessing 
of liberty for all Americans and their posterity, not merely for 
reasons of economic efficiency, world diplomacy and domestic 
tranquility, but above all, because it is right.''
  For African Americans, there exists a no more seminal piece of law, 
other than the Civil Rights Act, than the Voting Rights Act. Today, 
more than 40 years after its initial passage, Congress is again faced 
with an historic decision to reauthorize this mandate.
  Americans have come together over the years to denounce systematic 
segregation and racism. Indeed, we have come a long way. But we cannot 
become complacent and take for granted the liberties and rights which 
this law provides and affords.
  Today's discussion cannot only be about preserving the right to vote 
for those of us who already enjoy it. It has to be about ensuring that 
Americans from all walks of life and countries of origin are provided 
with these very same rights.
  There are some in this body who may argue or imply that the Voting 
Rights Act is no longer needed. They may call for an end to the act's 
preclearance and bilingual ballot requirements. Others may go so far as 
to suggest that English proficiency be a precondition to voting.
  For them, this is not a debate about fairness. It is about ideology. 
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, ideology has no place in today's 
debate.
  The Voting Rights Act was enacted to break down the walls built by 
Jim Crow, not build them back up. There is no difference between a poll 
tax, a literacy test or an English proficiency requirement as a 
precondition to voting. All are draconian and targeted efforts to block 
a specific group of people from voting and, I might add, people who are 
registered voters and citizens of the United States.
  Each attempt by a Republican Member to precondition minimum language 
requirements with the right to vote, in my judgment, breathes new life 
into a form of Jim Crow. Each attempt by a Republican Member to dilute 
the influence of minority voters mocks longstanding legislative and 
judicial precedent and mandates. When this happens, we are reminded why 
this law still today is so critically needed.
  We will hopefully extend the Voting Rights Act by 25 years today. We 
should extend it beyond 100 years because some of the problems will 
probably continue to exist that long.
  The harsh reality remains that the suppression and disenfranchisement 
of minority voters is still tolerated today. We saw it in Florida in 
2000. We saw it in Ohio in 2004, and we will probably see it again in 
2006 in November and in 2008 in some other State where people require a 
victory regardless of the means to their end.
  We should fear those who dismiss concerns, deny such problems exist, 
and claim ignorance and naivete as reasons for the years of neglect. 
These are the answers given by those who have sat idly by throughout 
history when the rights and privileges of the weak and poor have been 
trampled on by the powerful. These were the very answers given by those 
who opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts more than 40 years 
ago. We will hear from their 21st century ideological soulmates later 
today when we debate mean-spirited and morally dubious amendments.
  I stand before you as a victim of decades of injustice rooted in 
racial segregation. Through these eyes, I bore witness to the absolute 
tyranny of those who stop at nothing to stop blacks from achieving 
statutory equality and the right to vote. Through these eyes, I have 
also seen hate and racism give way to tolerance and fairness.
  When history judges our actions today, it will question whether or 
not we met the expectations levied by those who have come before us. 
Did we break down barriers or did we build up walls?
  Did we start a chapter in American history aimed at addressing the 
challenging of multiculturalism, prejudicial discrimination, and 
blatant xenophobia, or permit the continued manifestation of these sad 
realities in our country?
  For years, Mr. Speaker, many of us have fought tirelessly to honor 
the memories of civil rights advocates who came before us. It is their 
shoulders on which I stand and my colleagues stand today, the shoulders 
of Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King and Sojourner 
Truth and Frederick Douglass and Nat Turner and so many courageous 
others, white and black. It is their successes which we seek to 
emulate; their words through which we attempt to tie the

[[Page 14221]]

past with the present and inspire for the future.
  Colleagues, do not use today as an opportunity to congratulate 
ourselves. Today is not a day of jubilation. New faces have been added 
to the struggle, and that struggle continues. Any attack on their right 
to vote is an attack on ours.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and reject 
any attempt to amend it. We should do this not for the partisan 
benefit, but because, as John Kennedy said, ``It is right.'' Voting 
rights is right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my colleague and good friend on the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey of 
Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished vice chairman of 
Rules for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, and I would ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  I am pleased that our committee allowed the opportunity to consider 
four very important amendments that will fine tune the underlying 
legislation, ensuring that it is equally applied to all States and 
addresses the world as it is in 2006, rather than 1964.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the amendment 
offered by my colleagues from Georgia, Representatives Norwood and 
Westmoreland. These amendments would ensure the constitutionality of 
the underlying bill. And I would also like to encourage everyone to 
support two very good amendments offered by Representative King of Iowa 
and Representative Gohmert of Texas.
  The underlying bill, as drafted now, aims to address voting patterns 
and the world in 1964. Mr. Speaker, a lot has changed in 40-plus years. 
Every State has seen changes in population and voter participation, and 
we should have a law that fits the world of 2006.
  In 1964, my home State of Georgia not only was behind other States in 
voter participation, but also employed discriminatory tactics to 
suppress minority voting rights. And therefore, Georgia was justifiably 
subject to Voting Rights Act, section 5. However, in 2006, the 
landscape of voter participation and the number of minority individuals 
holding elective office is dramatically different.
  In 1970, Mr. Speaker, there were 30 black elected officials in 
Georgia. In 2000, there were 582 black elected officials. With respect 
to types of elective office, African Americans have held and continue 
to hold some of the highest leadership positions in the Georgia 
legislature, county governments and municipal governments.
  Today, Georgia's attorney general and labor commissioner, both State-
wide elected offices, are currently held by African Americans. Georgia 
has four African Americans in our congressional delegation, tied with 
California, New York and, yes, Mr. Speaker, Illinois, for the highest 
number. Three of seven seats on the Georgia supreme court, including 
the position of chief justice, are held by African Americans.
  In fact, in Georgia the percentage of registered voters and voter 
turnout are higher, let me repeat, higher among blacks than whites. So, 
Mr. Speaker, I would put Georgia's record up against any, and I believe 
that Georgia, like every other State in this Union, must be treated 
equally with a Voting Rights Act that addresses the problems of 2006, 
not 1966. And the Voting Rights Act must apply the same standards to 
each and every State.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to support this 
fair and equitable rule. I also ask my colleagues to keep an open mind 
as we debate four fair, commonsense amendments after today's general 
debate. I believe we need to support these amendments and send to the 
Senate a Voting Rights Act for the 21st century.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\3/
4\ minutes to the distinguished minority whip from Maryland, my good 
friend, Steny Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition 
to the four amendments which I perceive to be weakening. In particular, 
I want to commend Congressman Watt, Congressman Sensenbrenner, the 
chairman of the committee and, of course, the ranking member, Mr. 
Conyers, for the extraordinary work that they have done to come 
together on a bipartisan piece of legislation, reauthorizing key 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
  Let me add, too, the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 
the Hispanic Caucus and the Pacific Caucus deserve our thanks for their 
instrumental work on this bill and on these issues.
  This legislation is a recognition that our democratic system is not 
perfect. While our Nation has made tremendous strides in its ongoing 
quest to guarantee the ideals of our Constitution, the specter of 
discrimination still haunts us and our people.
  And thus, we, the Members of this Congress, have a special 
responsibility today to be vigilant in perfecting and protecting the 
most fundamental expression of equality in any democracy, the right to 
vote.
  We must never forget our rights, though God-given, have been hard 
won. Brave American citizens have been subjected to intimidation, 
violence and, yes, even death, to secure the rights that are theirs 
under the Constitution.
  Our colleague, Congressman John Lewis, is a living testament to that 
bravery. Forty-one years ago, John and his fellow marchers were 
brutally attacked when they simply tried to cross the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on their way to Montgomery to register to do 
what every American believes is a birthright, to vote.
  The Declaration of Independence says that ``We hold these truths to 
be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' That is what it says. This 
legislation is about making it so.
  The people who walked across the Edmund Pettus bridge and in millions 
of places and had the courage to challenge rank injustice in their 
peaceful actions still inspire us today.
  Our Nation did the right thing 41 years ago. It is important for us 
to do the right thing today.
  I urge my colleagues, vote for the underlying bipartisan bill and 
against those amendments which were offered, which will weaken our 
commitment.
  We must keep faith with the promise and requirements of our 
Constitution. We must reauthorize these key provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 stands as one of the most important pieces of legislation ever 
passed by this Chamber in its distinguished history. Today, the House 
has a distinctive opportunity to reauthorize the expiring portions of 
this landmark legislation for another 25 years.
  The Voting Rights Act ensures that every American, regardless of race 
or ethnicity, has the franchise to take part in our democracy, and it 
is a direct response to new allegations of discrimination in our 
Nation.
  Over the course of this year the House Judiciary Committee conducted 
12 hearings on claims of discrimination in our democratic process.

                              {time}  1045

  The committee compiled over 8,000 pages of testimony and heard 
stories of disenfranchisement from across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, 
although our Nation continues to stand as the beacon of freedom and 
democracy in the world, we can never lose sight of the need to protect 
the rights of our citizens to take part in the democratic process that 
has guided our Nation throughout our history.
  The provisions of H.R. 9 will reaffirm our Nation's commitment to 
protecting the rights of all Americans to elect their candidates of 
choice so that every American is equally represented under the law. 
This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a bipartisan bill. And I call 
on all my colleagues to support

[[Page 14222]]

this rule and final passage of the legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my colleague on the Rules Committee and my good friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act is a historic piece of 
legislation, one that seeks to ensure that all our citizens can 
participate in this democracy. And I want to commend Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their work in crafting a 
bipartisan agreement to reauthorize this act.
  As Senator Kennedy often says, civil rights remains the unfinished 
business of America. Today, Mr. Speaker, should be a day for us to come 
together to celebrate the accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act, to 
affirm the fact that it works, and to remind ourselves that our work is 
not yet complete.
  Instead, what the Republican leadership has done is to guarantee that 
much of this debate will be divisive and ugly. They have decided that 
it is more important to placate a small faction of their base than to 
embrace a thoughtful, bipartisan agreement. And that is shameful. This 
House should be doing everything possible to prevent discrimination and 
to promote voting equality.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will pass this bill 
without any of the poison pill amendments allowed by this rule. These 
amendments will only weaken the Voting Rights Act in spirit and in 
practice.
  It has been just a few decades since many States and localities had 
discriminatory regulations on the books, things like poll taxes, 
literacy tests, and others. And, sadly, discrimination still exists in 
America. It is essential that today we not turn back the clock, that we 
not lose our focus, that we not declare ``mission accomplished.''
  Mr. Speaker, it says a lot about the Republican leadership in this 
House and their priorities that a carefully considered, thoughtful 
bipartisan agreement was not good enough. It did not have to be this 
way, and I urge my colleagues to reject any attempt to weaken the basic 
civil rights of the American people.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my good friend, a champion for human rights wherever it is threatened 
in the world and here in the United States as well, Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I 
appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the 
importance of passing this rule today to consider H.R. 9, the renewal 
of the Voting Rights Act.
  I have the honor of serving as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution; and since October of 2005, our subcommittee has held 
12 hearings, heard from 47 witnesses, and compiled over 12,000 pages on 
the Voting Rights Act. Obviously this is an important issue, and our 
committee has devoted more time to this legislation than on any other 
matter since I became the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee 6 
years ago.
  The right to vote is one of the most fundamental and essential rights 
we have as citizens. And the passage and renewal of the Voting Rights 
Act, in my opinion, is absolutely vital.
  H.R. 9 is a good bill, and I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and the 
other members of the full Judiciary Committee, and especially the 
members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, for their work on the 
drafting of this legislation. I am also confident that the bill will 
withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court always looks very 
closely at the record created by Congress when reviewing Voting Rights 
Act claims.
  Because of this analysis, we took the time to carefully review and 
draft the bill. In addition to reviewing the temporary provisions of 
the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years, it will also address two 
detrimental Supreme Court cases that are inconsistent with the 
congressional intent and purpose of the Voting Rights Act: the Bossier 
Parish and Georgia v. Ashcroft cases. The bill will prevent 
discriminatory voting laws from being passed and will ensure that 
minority voters continue to elect the preferred candidate of their 
choice. The bill will extend the Federal observer program but retire 
the outdated Federal examiner program.
  I also wanted to talk about the bipartisanship of H.R. 9. I have been 
a member of the Judiciary Committee for 12 years now, and I will be 
honest, there is not a lot that is agreed upon in that committee by 
Republicans and Democrats, by conservatives and liberals. That is just 
the nature of most of the issues we take up in that committee. But we 
do agree on the importance of voting rights, and because of that 
commitment, H.R. 9 passed the committee by a vote of 33-1. Thirty-three 
to one.
  I look forward to hearing from my fellow supporters of this 
legislation and would personally like to thank Mr. Nadler for his 
dedication and his commitment and sitting through the extensive 
hearings that we had to create this particular bill. And I want to also 
thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Conyers and urge my 
colleagues to vote for passage of this rule and ultimately passage of 
the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my friend.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the idea of one person, one vote, regardless of race, 
background, or gender, is a fundamental principle of this Nation. The 
practical application, however, is another matter. American history is 
a testament to this fact. Despite the 15th amendment to the 
Constitution, our history is filled with efforts to prevent people from 
voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, threats, and even violence, as my 
colleague and dear friend Congressman John Lewis can attest.
  The hundreds of thousands of men and women of the civil rights 
movement also bear witness to the fact that through effort and sheer 
determination, we can close the gap between the principle as enshrined 
in the Constitution and the reality: the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  As President Johnson once said: ``The vote is the most powerful 
instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and 
destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are 
different from other men.''
  Now we are here for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats 
and Republicans crafted a bipartisan bill. Supporters were prepared to 
pass it weeks ago. But the majority leadership was thwarted by 
opposition within their own party. Regrettably, the Voting Rights Act, 
despite its storied history, apparently remains controversial among a 
faction of the majority party.
  The members of my caucus support full consideration of issues and 
amendments. But it is disheartening that to permit a floor debate on 
the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, a number of my Republican 
colleagues demanded consideration of extremely inflammatory amendments, 
ones which would essentially eviscerate the Voting Rights Act.
  Most Members of this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
believe the Voting Rights Act long ago proved itself to be a force for 
good in this country. It is disappointing that some still need 
convincing.
  I am particularly troubled by the amendment on the need for bilingual 
ballots, especially on the heels of the divisive House and Senate 
debates over immigration. That is why it is important to focus on one 
salient fact: three quarters of those who use the language assistance 
provision are native-born Americans and the rest are legally 
naturalized citizens. So this amendment aims to restrict the rights of 
fully law-abiding citizens of the United States.
  Since being signed into law four decades ago, this landmark 
legislation has successfully been used to confront discrimination at 
the voting booth. But

[[Page 14223]]

we still need the tools and resources of the Voting Rights Act. It 
bridges the gap between the principle of one man, one vote and the 
reality and will relegate that gap to the history books.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The reauthorization of one of our country's seminal laws, the Fannie 
Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act, 
ensures that we continue to protect the voice of our Nation's 
minorities.
  The unprovoked attacked on March 7, 1965, by State troopers on 
peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, 
en route to the State capital in Montgomery, provided a vivid 
demonstration of the need for Federal legislation. Despite the 
existence of the 15th amendment, sadly, many Southern States simply 
ignored the amendment by passing egregious laws such as the poll tax, 
literacy tests, and blatantly discriminatory redistricting.
  The Voting Rights Act passed due to the leadership of President 
Lyndon Johnson and Republicans and Democrats in Congress who overcame 
these efforts to deny minorities the right to vote.
  My wife and I had the distinct privilege of marching last year in the 
40th anniversary march in Selma. It was an extraordinary experience for 
us and a reminder of how far our country has come in the last 40 years 
and how far we still have to go in our civil rights movement. The march 
even included many figures in the civil rights movement, including 
Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, who was beaten and almost left for 
dead when he attempted to cross the bridge leading the original Selma 
march.
  Today, the party of Abraham Lincoln has a unique opportunity to 
contribute to the progress that has been made in advancing civil rights 
and narrowing the gap in minority voting rights.
  Before relinquishing the floor, I want to address one controversial 
provision in this legislation, section 203, which provides voting 
assistance in other languages. While I am a strong supporter of making 
English our country's official language, we need to recognize that when 
it comes to voting, particularly for ballot initiatives, some citizens 
can speak English but not read it. These are American citizens who own 
the right to vote, but may need the assistance provided in section 203.
  I applaud the leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman 
Watt, and all the Members on both sides of the aisle who have brought 
this landmark bill to the floor and urge support of this rule.
  We need to defeat all amendments and pass this historic legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, while young Americans die abroad in the 
name of democracy, some in this Congress scheme to undermine democracy 
at home by not renewing key provisions in the Voting Rights Act. They 
even seek a voter literacy test.
  Blind to abuses here, one Congressman recently declared that ``I 
don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore.'' This shows not only 
insensitivity and indifference, it shows why we need to renew 
completely, without weakening amendments, the Voting Rights Act.
  President Lyndon B. Johnson had the will and the courage to secure 
passage of this fundamental guarantee even though he understood the 
price that he and the Democratic Party would pay. Now it is not only 
the law but the Administration's will to enforce that law that is at 
stake. Overruling professionals at the U.S. Department of Justice, 
political appointees disregarded obvious Voting Rights Act violations 
in both the DeLay gerrymandering of Texas and the Georgia voter 
identification law. The professional employees were vindicated by the 
courts, but a third of the lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil 
Rights Division have left.
  Renewing democracy abroad begins with renewing democracy at home.
  The Washington Post published a series of articles that document the 
politicization of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
Justice under the Bush Administration: November 27, 2005, December 2, 
2005, December 10, 2005, and January 23, 2006.

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2005]

             Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

                             (By Dan Eggen)

       Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark 
     Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. 
     Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a 
     previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. 
     But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.
       The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two 
     analysts in the department's voting section, said the 
     redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic 
     voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the 
     plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities 
     had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence 
     in elections.
       ``The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that 
     the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a 
     discriminatory effect,'' the memo concluded. The memo also 
     found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who 
     helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of 
     being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.
       But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway 
     because it would maximize the number of Republican federal 
     lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was 
     approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in 
     the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control 
     of Congress.
       J. Gerald ``Gerry'' Hebert, one of the lawyers representing 
     Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in 
     court, said of the Justice Department's action: ``We always 
     felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. 
     . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed 
     bag or anything like that. This should have been a very 
     clear-cut case.''
       But Justice Department spokesman Eric W. Holland said the 
     decision to approve the Texas plan was vindicated by a three-
     judge panel that rejected the Democratic challenge. The case 
     is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
       ``The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan 
     created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given 
     the demographics of the state and the requirements of the 
     law,'' Holland said. He added that Texas now has three 
     African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the 
     redistricting.
       Texas Republicans also have maintained that the plan did 
     not dilute minority votes and that the number of 
     congressional districts with a majority of racial minorities 
     remained unchanged at 11. The total number of congressional 
     districts, however, grew from 30 to 32.
       The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under 
     tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case 
     were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided 
     to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical 
     of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos, 
     while not binding, historically carry great weight within the 
     Justice Department.
       Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states 
     with a history of discriminatory elections are required to 
     submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for 
     approval by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
       The Texas case provides another example of conflict between 
     political appointees and many of the division's career 
     employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month 
     that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a 
     controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was 
     later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.
       Mark Posner, a longtime Justice Department lawyer who now 
     teaches law at American University, said it was ``highly 
     unusual'' for political appointees to overrule a unanimous 
     finding such as the one in the Texas case.
       ``In this kind of situation, where everybody agrees at 
     least on the staff level . . . that is a very, very strong 
     case,'' Posner said. ``The fact that everybody agreed that 
     there were reductions in minority voting strength, and that 
     they were significant, raises a lot of questions as to why it 
     was'' approved, he said.
       The Texas memo also provides new insight into the highly 
     politicized environment surrounding that state's 
     redistricting fight, which prompted Democratic state 
     lawmakers to flee the state in hopes of derailing the plan. 
     DeLay and his allies participated intensively as they pushed 
     to redraw Texas's congressional boundaries and strengthen GOP 
     control of the U.S. House.
       DeLay, the former House majority leader, is fighting state 
     felony counts of money

[[Page 14224]]

     laundering and conspiracy--crimes he is charged with 
     committing by unlawfully injecting corporate money into state 
     elections. His campaign efforts were made in preparation for 
     the new congressional map that was the focus of the Justice 
     Department memo.
       One of two DeLay aides also under indictment in the case, 
     James W. Ellis, is cited in the Justice Department memo as 
     pushing for the plan despite the risk that it would not 
     receive ``preclearance,'' or approval, from the department. 
     Ellis and other DeLay aides successfully forced the adoption 
     of their plan over two other versions passed by Texas 
     legislators that would not have raised as many concerns about 
     voting rights discrimination, the memo said.
       ``We need our map, which has been researched and vetted for 
     months,'' Ellis wrote in an October 2003 document, according 
     to the Justice Department memo. ``The pre-clearance and 
     political risks are the delegation's and we are willing to 
     assume those risks, but only with our map.''
       Hebert said the Justice Department's approval of the 
     redistricting plan, signed by Sheldon T. Bradshaw, principal 
     deputy assistant attorney general, was valuable to Texas 
     officials when they defended it in court. He called the 
     internal Justice Department memo, which did not come out 
     during the court case, ``yet another indictment of Tom DeLay, 
     because this memo shows conclusively that the map he produced 
     violated the law.''
       DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden called Hebert's 
     characterization ``nonsensical political babble'' and echoed 
     the Justice Department in pointing to court rulings that have 
     found no discriminatory impact on minority voters.
       ``Fair and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of the 
     map's merits that also refute any notion that the plan is 
     unfair or doesn't meet legal standards,'' Madden said. 
     ``Ultimately the court will decide whether the criticisms 
     have any weight or validity.''
       Testimony in the civil lawsuit demonstrated that DeLay and 
     Ellis insisted on last-minute changes during the Texas 
     legislature's final deliberations. Ellis said DeLay traveled 
     to Texas to attend many of the meetings that produced the 
     final map, and Ellis himself worked through the state's 
     lieutenant governor and a state senator to shape the outcome.
       In their analysis, the Justice Department lawyers 
     emphasized that the last-minute changes--made in a 
     legislative conference committee, out of public view--
     fundamentally altered legally acceptable redistricting 
     proposals approved separately by the Texas House and Senate. 
     ``It was not necessary'' for these plans to be altered, 
     except to advance partisan political goals, the department 
     lawyers concluded.
       Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General 
     Greg Abbott, said he did not have any immediate comment.
       The Justice Department memo recommending rejection of the 
     Texas plan was written by two analysts and five lawyers. In 
     addition, the head of the voting section at the time, Joseph 
     Rich, wrote a concurring opinion. Rich has since left the 
     department and declined to comment on the memo yesterday.
        The complexity of the arguments surrounding the Voting 
     Rights Act is evident in the Justice Department memo, which 
     focused particular attention on seats held in 2003 by a white 
     Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry 
     Bonilla.
       Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from 
     minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little 
     support from Hispanics. The question to be considered by 
     Justice Department lawyers was whether the new map was 
     ``retrogressive,'' because it diluted the power of minority 
     voters to elect their candidate of choice. Under the adopted 
     Texas plan, Frost's congressional district was dismantled, 
     while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district 
     dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic 
     voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.
       ``This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in 
     minority voting strength,'' Rich wrote in his concurring 
     opinion. ``The state's argument that it has increased 
     minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under 
     careful analysis.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2006]

                    Politics Alleged in Voting Cases

                             (By Dan Eggen)

       The Justice Department's voting section, a small and 
     usually obscure unit that enforces the Voting Rights Act and 
     other federal election laws, has been thrust into the center 
     of a growing debate over recent departures and controversial 
     decisions in the Civil Rights Division as a whole.
       Many current and former lawyers in the section charge that 
     senior officials have exerted undue political influence in 
     many of the sensitive voting-rights cases the unit handles. 
     Most of the department's major voting-related actions over 
     the past five years have been beneficial to the GOP, they 
     say, including two in Georgia, one in Mississippi and a Texas 
     redistricting plan orchestrated by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) in 
     2003.
       The section also has lost about a third of its three dozen 
     lawyers over the past nine months. Those who remain have been 
     barred from offering recommendations in major voting-rights 
     cases and have little input in the section's decisions on 
     hiring and policy.
       ``If the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights 
     Division is viewed as political, there is no doubt that 
     credibility is lost,'' former voting-section chief Joe Rich 
     said at a recent panel discussion in Washington. He added: 
     ``The voting section is always subject to political pressure 
     and tension. But I never thought it would come to this.''
       Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides dispute 
     such criticism and defend the department's actions in voting 
     cases. ``We're not going to politicize decisions within the 
     department,'' he told reporters last month after The 
     Washington Post had disclosed staff memoranda recommending 
     objections to a Georgia voter-identification plan and to the 
     Texas redistricting.
       The 2005 Georgia case has been particularly controversial 
     within the section. Staff members complain that higher-
     ranking Justice officials ignored serious problems with data 
     supplied by the state in approving the plan, which would have 
     required voters to carry photo identification.
       Georgia provided Justice with information on Aug. 26 
     suggesting that tens of thousands of voters may not have 
     driver's licenses or other identification required to vote, 
     according to officials and records. That added to the 
     concerns of a team of voting-section employees who had 
     concluded that the Georgia plan would hurt black voters.
       But higher-ranking officials disagreed, and approved the 
     plan later that day. They said that as many as 200,000 of 
     those without ID cards were felons and illegal immigrants and 
     that they would not be eligible to vote anyway.
       One of the officials involved in the decision was Hans von 
     Spakovsky, a former head of the Fulton County GOP in Atlanta, 
     who had long advocated a voter-identification law for the 
     state and oversaw many voting issues at Justice. Justice 
     spokesman Eric W. Holland said von Spakovsky's previous 
     activities did not require a recusal and had no impact on his 
     actions in the Georgia case.
       Holland denied a request to interview van Spakovsky, saying 
     that department policy ``does not authorize the media to 
     conduct interviews with staff attorneys.'' Von Spakovsky has 
     since been named to the Federal Election Commission in a 
     recess appointment by President Bush.
       In written answers to questions from The Post, Holland 
     called allegations of partisanship in the voting section 
     ``categorically untrue.'' He said the Bush administration has 
     approved the vast majority of the approximately 3,000 
     redistricting plans it has reviewed, including many drawn up 
     by Democrats.
       Holland and other Justice officials also emphasize the Bush 
     administration's aggressive enforcement of laws requiring 
     foreign-language ballot information in districts where 
     minorities make up a significant portion of the population. 
     Since 2001, the division has filed 14 lawsuits to provide 
     comprehensive language programs for minorities, including the 
     first aimed at Filipino and Vietnamese voters, he said.
       ``We have undertaken the most vigorous enforcement of the 
     language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act in its 
     history,'' Holland said.
       Some lawyers who have recently left the Civil Rights 
     Division, such as Rich at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
     Rights Under Law and William Yeomans at the American 
     Constitution Society, have taken the unusual step of publicly 
     criticizing the way voting matters have been handled. Other 
     former and current employees have discussed the controversy 
     on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
       These critics say that the total number of redistricting 
     cases approved under Bush means little because the section 
     has always cleared the vast majority of the hundreds of plans 
     it reviews every year.
       The Bush administration has also initiated relatively few 
     cases under Section 2, the main anti-discrimination provision 
     of the Voting Rights Act, filing seven lawsuits over the past 
     five years--including the department's first reverse-
     discrimination complaint on behalf of white voters. The only 
     case involving black voters was begun under the previous 
     administration and formally filed by transitional leadership 
     in early 2001.
       By comparison, department records show, 14 Section 2 
     lawsuits were filed during the last two years of Bill 
     Clinton's presidency alone.
       Conflicts in the voting-rights arena at Justice are not 
     new, particularly during Republican administrations, when 
     liberal-leaning career lawyers often clash with more 
     conservative political appointees, experts say. The conflicts 
     have been further exacerbated by recent court rulings that 
     have made it more difficult for Justice to challenge 
     redistricting plans.
       William Bradford Reynolds, the civil rights chief during 
     the Reagan administration, opposed affirmative-action 
     remedies and court-ordered busing--and regularly battled with 
     career lawyers in the division as a result. During the 
     administration of George H.W. Bush, the division aggressively 
     pushed for the creation of districts that were more than 60 
     percent black in a strategy designed to produce more solidly 
     white and Republican districts in the South.

[[Page 14225]]

       These districts were widely credited with boosting the GOP 
     in the region during the 1994 elections.
       Rich, who worked in the Civil Rights Division for 37 years, 
     said the conflicts in the current administration are more 
     severe than in earlier years. ``I was there in the Reagan 
     years, and this is worse,'' he said.
       But Michael A. Carvin, a civil rights deputy under Reagan, 
     said such allegations amount to ``revisionist history.'' He 
     contended that the voting section has long tilted to the left 
     politically.
       Carvin and other conservatives also say the opinions of 
     career lawyers in the section frequently have been at odds 
     with the courts, including a special panel in Texas that 
     rejected challenges to the Republican-sponsored redistricting 
     plan there. The Supreme Court has since agreed to hear the 
     case.
       ``The notion that they are somehow neutral or somehow 
     ideologically impartial is simply not supported by the 
     evidence,'' Carvin said. ``It hasn't been the politicos that 
     were departing from the law or normal practice, but the 
     voting-rights section.''
       In Mississippi in 2002, Justice political appointees 
     rejected a recommendation from career lawyers to approve a 
     redistricting plan favorable to Democrats. While Justice 
     delayed issuing a final decision, a panel of three GOP 
     federal judges approved a plan favorable to a Republican 
     congressman.
       The division has also issued unusually detailed legal 
     opinions favoring Republicans in at least two states, 
     contrary to what former staff members describe as a dictum to 
     avoid unnecessary involvement in partisan disputes. The 
     practice ended up embarrassing the department in Arizona in 
     2005, when Justice officials had to rescind a letter that 
     wrongly endorsed the legality of a GOP bill limiting 
     provisional ballots.
       In Georgia, a federal judge eventually ruled against the 
     voter identification plan on constitutional grounds, likening 
     it to a poll tax from the Jim Crow era. The measure would 
     have required voters to pay $20 for a special card if they 
     did not have photo identification; Georgia Republicans are 
     pushing ahead this year with a bill that does not charge a 
     fee for the card.
       Holland called the data in the case ``very 
     straightforward,'' and said it showed statistically that 100 
     percent of Georgians had identification and that no racial 
     disparities were evident.
       But an Aug. 25 staff memo that recommended opposing the 
     plan disparaged the quality of the state's information and 
     said that only limited conclusions could be drawn from it.
       ``They took all that data and willfully misread it,'' one 
     source familiar with the case said. ``They were only looking 
     for statistics that would back their view.''

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend and distinguished leader from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
  Before the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, thousands of 
citizens were denied their constitutional right to vote on the basis of 
race. While the system has vastly improved, the need for the Voting 
Rights Act remains.
  A sacred right possessed by Americans is the right to choose their 
government. That is why it is so important to pass the bill today, to 
preserve the rights for all citizens. We have a moral obligation to 
ensure that no citizen is ever denied their right to vote based on 
race, creed, or color.
  I am grateful for the strong leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner, 
who has never wavered in his commitment to the Voting Rights Act over 
his entire career.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/
4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who will be 
leaving us, but will leave us with wonderful words, my friend.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act is just one great step 
forward toward the movement of our Nation toward a more perfect Union. 
This is a creation of Lyndon Johnson, a politician, a President of 
unparalleled practical genius, who fashioned this to bring to the table 
those people who had serious grievances.
  We gave the world constitutional democracy. It is a great leap 
forward for civilization. We can continue to lead civilization by 
improving on this model.
  Half the democracies of the world, by the way, right now, do have 
provisions in their constitutions for representation of minorities. We 
have spent $9 billion, at least $9 billion, some of you can correct me 
if it is more, $9 billion in Kosovo, and Kosovo is still struggling 
under a mandate to provide a constitution which guarantees 
representation to the minority Serbs. Albanians are the majority there 
now, and the Serbs need to be represented.
  In Iran, they have a provision which allows for the representation of 
Armenians and Jews. In Burundi, the Tutsi minority is guaranteed 40 
percent of the seats in parliament. Across the world, these provisions 
are made because they are practical provisions. They bring people to 
the table and involve them in the process.
  The only way we are going to solve the problem in Iraq is to make 
certain we have something similar to a Voting Rights Act to guarantee 
representation for all the minorities in Iraq.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from south Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), someone whom 
I love like a brother.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be 
here supporting the reimplementation of the Voting Rights Act.
  Let me give a little bit of recent history. You have heard a lot 
about past history. In the State where I am from, in Florida, 
redistricting was always a way that was used to discriminate against 
minorities and to stop minorities from the opportunity to elect 
candidates of their choice.
  We all know that there is a substantial African American population 
in Florida and a substantial Hispanic American population in Florida, 
and yet, and I do not want to sound partisan, but the reality is that 
one party controlled the State legislature for 122 years. During that 
entire time, not once did they deem it necessary or important to create 
one African American congressional district, one district for African 
Americans so they could elect a candidate of their choice.
  Finally, in redistricting before the 1992 elections, after a lot of 
haggling, and I was involved in that redistricting and other Members 
who were then in the State legislature who are now in Congress were 
also involved, finally the then-majority party, the Democratic Party, 
finally saw the wisdom to create one district where African Americans 
could elect a candidate of their choice for Congress and one district 
only where Hispanic Americans could elect a candidate of their choice.
  We had to sue the State of Florida. We had to go to Federal court to 
get more districts where Hispanics and African Americans could elect 
candidates of their choice, and because of the Voting Rights Act and 
because some of us sued the majority party in those days, which was the 
Democrats, the courts agreed and created districts where three African 
American Members of Congress were elected, serving in this wonderful 
body. One of them is leading the effort on that side of the aisle for 
the implementation of this Voting Rights Act again, and two districts 
where Hispanic Americans could elect candidates of their choice.
  We are not talking ancient history. We are talking the need is still 
there today. It is there. The need is still there today in Florida, as 
a matter of fact.
  We saw recently a group, mostly from outside of Florida, spending 
millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars in Florida trying 
to get something on the ballot. A group that supports multimember 
districts for the State of Florida, which have been proven to be 
discriminatory. The threat is still there. The need is still there.
  That is why I am so grateful to Chairman Sensenbrenner for his 
leadership on this issue not only now, but also in the past. I thank 
Mr. Sensenbrenner.
  It is a privilege to be here. I think it is an historic day because 
we have the opportunity to extend this important act for many, many 
years. It is right for the country, not only for minorities, but for 
democracy and for the entire country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my 
colleague took cognizance of the fact

[[Page 14226]]

that Florida still needs help; and I would remind him that it is a 
Republican majority there now.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 12\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield), a former voting rights attorney.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the leadership on 
both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan work on this great, 
historic legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation was enacted weeks after I finished high 
school in eastern North Carolina. At that time, there were no black 
elected officials and no prospect of electing minorities to office.
  There was the literacy test and at-large elections and staggered 
terms and numbered seats. These were all devices that were used to 
disenfranchise the African American community. The Voting Rights Act 
has made a difference.
  Section 2 has enabled minority communities to require significant 
changes in election procedure through legal action.
  Section 5 has been the safety valve that has prevented jurisdictions 
from changing their procedures to further dilute the minority vote.
  In my congressional district, in 1965, there were no black elected 
officials. Today, Mr. Speaker, I count 302. It was the Voting Rights 
Act that made it happen.
  I support the rule, Mr. Speaker, and I support the underlying 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendments and pass 
this legislation into law.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank Chairman Dreier for making my 
amendment in order under this rule. I rise today in support of this 
rule, in support of the VRA, and against H.R. 9 as it presently is 
written.
  We should all understand that in 1965, 40 years ago, when the VRA was 
written, part of it was intended to be permanent law and part of that 
bill was meant to be temporary.
  The Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965, and it was a good bill. It 
enabled all citizens to be able to vote unencumbered. I strongly 
believe in that.
  Now, 40 years later, we are not trying to remove the temporary part 
of this bill, meaning 4, 5 and on, but later this morning we are going 
to try to amend section 4 of the Voting Rights Act so that it may be 
updated, modernized and actually brought into the 21st century.
  Only section 4 of the temporary part of the Voting Rights Act are we 
trying to amend. Section 4 of the VRA is the formula or the trigger 
mechanism that determines which jurisdiction, whether it be city, 
county or State, that has broken the rules and, therefore, is to be put 
in the penalty box of section 5. This is the section that puts 
jurisdictions under the heavy hand of the Justice Department, the 
preclearance section of the bill.
  The trigger section occurs when less than 50 percent of citizens of 
voting age do not vote in Presidential elections. To determine if you 
will be under section 5 of the VRA, the elections used are 1964, 1968 
and 1972, elections 40 years ago, presidential elections between 
Goldwater and Johnson. Only those who violated section 4 during those 8 
years are under preclearance today. H.R. 9 wants to extend that 25 more 
years, using 40-year-old data, applied to the same jurisdictions, no 
matter how good their voting record is today.
  H.R. 9, it does not seem to matter that many other jurisdictions 
around the country have also violated section 4 of the Voting Rights 
Act, even in this century. Those violations are not looked at generally 
by anyone.
  My amendment, that we will have later today, changes that and updates 
section 4 to use the election years of 1996, 2000 and 2004. It will be 
incumbent upon the Attorney General, and he is so instructed, or she, 
to look at all jurisdictions in all States, and this information is to 
be reviewed after each Presidential election, using the latest three 
Presidential elections.
  If you violate section 4, you are and you should go to the penalty 
box, which is the preclearance section. If you are in the penalty box 
and have not violated section 4 in the last three Presidential 
elections, you get to come out of the penalty box. It is that fair, it 
is that just, and it is just that simple.
  Listen carefully now. The authors of H.R. 9 are going to give you 
many reasons why my lovely State of Georgia should stay in the penalty 
box, even though we have one of the absolute best voting records in the 
country of electing black Georgians and black voting and black 
registration, but I bet we do not hear them talk about that.
  The truth is that under my amendment all Georgia jurisdictions stay 
under preclearance. Under my amendment all Georgia jurisdictions, 
meaning counties, stay under preclearance, except 10 counties out of 
159, even though all of Georgia will be treated as if we are still 
under section 5.
  They are not going to mention that 837 jurisdictions today in 16 
States are under preclearance, but if my amendment were to pass, over 
1,000 jurisdictions in this country will be under preclearance in at 
least 39 States.
  I think that black Georgians who have protections under the law 
should give those same protections to black Tennesseeans.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about this all day. I appreciate the 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), 
my good friend.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, from my great State of 
Michigan, for your leadership, sir, thank you very much, and to thank 
the Speaker and Nancy Pelosi for bringing this legislation to the 
floor.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 41 years ago, has made America a 
stronger nation. Today, I rise in support of the rule that brings it to 
the floor and allows us to have this debate.
  The preclearance portion of the amendments that we will be debating 
today allows the courts to go into jurisdictions that have a history of 
discrimination of voter irregularity, of violations. We must preserve 
that preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act.
  It is important today, it was important 41 years ago, and it allows 
our voting systems and all Americans to have access to clean, fair 
voting procedures so that the process and America's greatness can 
continue.
  So I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act itself. It must be 
renewed, the provisions that we will be talking about today; and I ask 
that all America call your congressman or congresswoman and tell them 
today to vote ``yes'' in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, 
the Voting Rights Act, as passed by the Judiciary Committee, and in 
strong opposition to any amendments which would attack Americans' right 
to vote.
  The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. The Voting 
Rights Act has advanced the rights of all Americans. Latinos and other 
minority voters have greater voice today because of the Voting Rights 
Act.
  In 2004, a record number of 7.5 million Latinos cast a ballot for 
President, compared to 2 million in 1976.
  We must continue protecting the rights, including section 203, which

[[Page 14227]]

provides tax-paying U.S. citizens with limited English proficiency with 
needed language assistance. Section 203 ensures that all citizens have 
a right to cast an informed ballot and integrates non-English-
proficient citizens into a system of democracy. It protects voters from 
discrimination and ensures a fair and equal voting process for all 
voters.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the 
Voting Rights Act, as passed by the Judiciary Committee, and I oppose 
any amendments.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as 
to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 3 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the passing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is 
a crowning achievement of Congress and the civil rights movement. Some 
say that we no longer need a Voting Rights Act, that 41 years is 
enough.
  Others want to water down key expiring provisions in order to weaken 
the act. Yes, we have made considerable progress in the last 41 years. 
However, much work needs to be done. The sad fact is that in every 
national election since Reconstruction, in every election since the 
Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, American voters have faced calculated 
and determined efforts by persons and groups whose goal is to deny them 
the most fundamental right, and that is the right to vote.
  Gone are the days of poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, however, 
intimidation, threats, innuendo and deception are still used to 
discourage voter turnout. The list of strategies used to deny Americans 
their right to vote is long and varied. Please vote for this bill, 
attack and reject the amendments.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 9, the 
Voting Rights Act. August 7, 2006, will mark the 41st anniversary of 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act has been one of 
the most effective civil rights laws in granting access to the ballot 
boxes for all Americans.
  Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in response to persistent and 
purposeful discrimination through literacy tests, poll taxes, 
intimidation, threats and violence.
  The Voting Rights Act has enfranchised millions of racial, ethnic, 
and language minority citizens by eliminating discriminatory practices 
and removing other barriers to their political participation.
  I want to make one point. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan on many 
occasions in my capacity on the intelligence committee. U.S. soldiers 
of all races, religions are fighting every day in harsh climates to 
risk their own lives to bring basic freedoms to other people, and they 
are being told that they are doing what is right: fighting for freedom, 
justice, and liberty.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my 
classmate and good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we should be proud, because in this country 
we look back at our history so that we may move forward wisely into the 
future. The Voting Rights Act is proof positive that America learns 
from its history.
  Today, more Americans from every corner of our Nation, whatever their 
race, creed, or color may exercise their right to vote. But, Mr. 
Speaker, I said more, not all, Americans can exercise that right. Just 
2 weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that fact when 
it rejected Texas's redistricting map because it disenfranchised 
thousands of Latino voters.
  Mr. Speaker, we know why we have the Voting Rights Act. We know what 
history has taught us. We believe that we must look to the future, and 
we must not only reaffirm our belief in the Voting Rights Act, but 
reaffirm it completely and absolutely. We must reject the amendments 
which would undermine what has been a tremendous accomplishment in 
America's history of moving all people in America forward to exercise 
their right to vote.
  Support this bill. Defeat the amendments. Let's move forward with the 
Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former judge.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the death of my oldest sister a week 
ago Sunday took me back to Clanton, Alabama, the roots of my family. 
Clanton is about 40 miles from Selma, Alabama, and it made me remember 
all of the things that my family had been through not having the 
opportunity to vote.
  I stand here today saying to you that the Voting Rights Act must be 
reauthorized. And I will say to those of you who want to use 2000 and 
2004 as cites for why we should do reclearance on voting, should not 
use those years, because we all know what happened in 2000 and 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of my colleague from Georgia 
that only recently a Federal court and a State court found that the 
identification requirements set forth by the State of Georgia are just 
like having a poll tax, and that we cannot let Georgia out of 
preclearance.
  Vote in support of the Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we 
understand, and I want to direct my remarks to the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia, Congressman Norwood, who is a 
very good friend.
  But, unfortunately, Congressman Norwood is dead wrong in his 
amendment and his approach. When he talks about Georgia's record, he is 
dead wrong with that record.
  While, yes, we have made some progress in Georgia, I am a living 
testimony to that, the fundamental question of the Voting Rights Act is 
not if there has been progress made. The question is will that progress 
be in risk of being undone if we do not have the Voting Rights Act?
  And no State gives clearer evidence that progress will be undone than 
my own State of Georgia. Georgia leads this Nation in the violations of 
the Voting Rights Act in the last 25 years. No more glaring example 
than what is currently now whistling through the newspapers and 
whistling through this Nation, and that is the voter ID bill that has 
been passed in Georgia. Twice it has come up and twice it has been 
ruled as discriminatory.
  Yes, we have made progress. But my dear friend from Georgia, we have 
a much longer progress to go, and we desperately need to keep section 5 
covered.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who has been a leader in this 
fight for a substantial number of years.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Members, today this country will witness a 
debate on the floor of Congress that will remind America of the 
continuing struggle of African Americans and minorities to seek justice 
in our country.
  I have a hard time explaining to my constituents and African 
Americans all over this country why we must reauthorize the Voting 
Rights Act. They say to me, well, we thought we had done away with poll 
taxes; we thought we had done away with intimidation. Well, let me just 
say, we have all kinds of obstacles being placed in our way. It is the 
same game with a different name.
  So we stand here today to protect the fight and the struggle of our 
ancestors

[[Page 14228]]

who insisted that we take part in this democracy and we have the right 
to vote. And despite the new tricks and the new laws and the new 
procedures, we must say to those who continue to try, you must go 
before the Justice Department and get preclearance before you can 
initiate laws and practices that would place obstacles in our way.
  This is a good debate for America today. I stand in the struggle to 
protect our right to vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who is also my classmate 
and one of the three African Americans that was elected as a result of 
the Voting Rights Act, the first in 129 years in our State of Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of a clean voting rights bill. Let me say that those people that 
question whether we need a voting rights bill or not, I have to remind 
you of Florida 2000, where in my district 27,000 votes in my precinct 
were thrown out. 27,000. And you know they say the President won by 
535.
  But we have a long list of voting rights violations, and it goes on 
and on. But there is one that stands out in my mind. Florida Governor 
Jeb Bush spent $4 million of taxpayer money to purge a list of 40,000 
suspect felons from the rolls across the State, with zero consideration 
of accuracy. Later we found out that these people were eligible to 
vote; but when they went to vote, they were turned away.
  Another reason, as my colleague said, I was one of the first African 
Americans elected to Congress in 129 years. Let us pass the Voting 
Rights Act and not have another Supreme Court coup d'etat in America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, this is not a period for 
jubilation. We do not have to come here and congratulate ourselves for 
the reason that suggests that history is our best judge.
  I also said that through these eyes I have seen the tyranny of 
racism. And through these eyes I have seen this great Nation change and 
become more tolerant. But to suggest that we have arrived at a point 
where we no longer would need the Voting Rights Act and measures that 
protect minorities would be foolhardy.
  The harsh reality remains that the suppression and disenfranchisement 
of minority voters is still tolerated. We saw it, as Ms. Brown just 
said, in 2000. We saw it, as Ms. Tubbs Jones just said, in 2004 in 
Ohio. And the likelihood is that we will see it in 2006 and 2008 in 
some other State where it seems that those in the majority require a 
victory regardless of the means to their end.
  We should fear those who dismiss concerns, deny such problems exist, 
and claim ignorance and naivete as to the reasons for years of neglect. 
These are the answers given by those who sat idly by throughout history 
when the rights and privileges of the weak and poor have been trampled 
on by the power.
  When history judges our actions today, it will question whether or 
not we met the expectations levied by those who have come before us: 
Did we break down barriers or build up walls? Did we adhere to the 
Biblical admonition that we are our brother's keeper?


                             General Leave

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 910 and insert extraneous 
material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have brought forth this legislation 
today. It is historic legislation. The Voting Rights Act was one of the 
great advancements of American democracy, something that we all should, 
and I think we do, feel very proud about. And we are bringing it forth 
today, we are extending it for 25 more years, because more work needs 
to be done, even though there has been extraordinary progress in the 
last 40 years in this country.
  I want to thank again Chairman Sensenbrenner. I admire him. I think 
he has done an extraordinary job facing great pressures. Of course he 
is such a man of character, the pressure does not even get to him.

                              {time}  1130

  I admire him for that and many other qualities. Again, I thank 
Ranking Member Conyers and all those who have worked hard to bring this 
legislation forward. I think we are all cognizant of the historic 
nature of what we as the House of Representatives are doing today.
  And so I would urge support for this rule, which is fair. It makes in 
order some amendments that I oppose, but I think it is appropriate that 
the House be able to debate even items that many of us in the Rules 
Committee don't agree with. But we are going to have a fair debate 
today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last week, we celebrated the 230th 
anniversary of the revolutionary declaration that gave birth to our 
country. All of us here, and Americans from coast to coast, fan recite 
the first ``self-evident truth'' proclaimed in that historic document. 
That ``all men are created equal.''
  Mr. Speaker, given this truth, it is one of our Nation's great 
tragedies that a struggle for equality had to take place at all. And 
more tragic still that it led to so much suffering and bloodshed.
  The United States fought a civil war to abolish the heinous system of 
slavery. The United States ratified the 15th Amendment in 1870 to 
prohibit denying the right to vote on the basis of race or color. Yet, 
inequality persisted. Jim Crow laws perpetuated the most unequal 
treatment of blacks, and disenfranchisement of blacks at the voting 
booth was commonplace. Without mercy, subjugation by race continued in 
many parts of the country.
  Out of tremendous hardship and unjustness rose a powerful and 
peaceful force for civil rights in the 1960s. These American heroes 
included Martin Luther King Jr. and our colleague from Georgia, John 
Lewis. Their cause--forcing our Nation to live up to its founding 
ideals--moved millions and gained strength despite racism, threats and 
murder.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1965, Mr. Lewis led 600 people in a peaceful 
protest in Selma, Alabama. Their plan was to march to Montgomery. As 
many of us can recall with disgust and shame, they didn't make it. And 
in their blood and courage was borne the national call for the 1965 
Voting Rights Act--to once and for all correct 95 years of failure to 
uphold the 15th Amendment.
  Today, we will honor the civil rights movement, we will honor our 
God-given right to be treated equally and we will protect the most 
basic exercise of our democracy by extending the Voting Rights Act.
  This is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that received 
nearly unanimous support at the Committee level. I want to thank the 
leadership, both Republican and Democrat, and Chairman Sensenbrenner 
for their work to ring this to the floor.
  While there would be every reason to hope and expect that this 
extension would not be required 41 years after the original, the 
Judiciary Committee, in their hours of hearings, found that the bill 
was needed--and needed to be updated.
  To protect minority voters, H.R. 9 upholds and strengthens the ``pre-
clearance'' provisions for districts to change their voting rules. And 
it allows jurisdictions that have demonstrated lawful and fair voting 
practices to become ``uncovered'' by the VRA.
  Today we will also have the opportunity to vote on an amendment that 
would support our common language by printing ballots in English. This 
is a worthwhile debate to have. It is in no way contradictory to the 
intent of the bill.
  Basic comprehension of English is a requirement of citizenship for 
immigrants and essential to reach for and achieve the American dream--
whether someone was born here or not.
  I am proud to represent Americans of many, many national origins in 
my home state of California. But we are all united by our freedoms, our 
government and our language. It only serves to reinforce our unity and 
our

[[Page 14229]]

common bonds to have our ballots printed in our national language.
  I want to make very clear that for anyone who might need help in the 
voting booth, it is lawful and encouraged to have someone assist you.
  Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that today's proceedings on the floor will 
not devolve into members casting aspersions on the motives of one party 
or the other.
  The progress we have made on civil rights over the last four decades 
has been significant. If we are to confront inequalities that lie 
before us--and if we are to confront the inequalities that lie ahead of 
us--we must remain united and we must remain bipartisan.
  I can assure members who might harbor any doubts, there is nothing 
less than a total commitment on behalf of the leadership on this side 
of the House to pass H.R. 9--to ensure voting rights for every single 
American, from Maine to California. To suggest otherwise is offensive 
and divisive.
  While we labor to share the right of voting with millions around the 
globe so they can know a life of liberty and equality, it is our duty 
to protect the voting rights of our own citizens.
  President Lyndon Johnson, in his moving and powerful address to 
Congress just 8-days after the brutality at Selma, said: ``Every 
American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason 
which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which 
weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right.''
  Mr. Speaker, we will uphold that duty today. I urge support of the 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 910, the 
rule for the Voting Rights Reauthorization.
  I rise in opposition to this rule because it allows the Voting Rights 
Act to be weakened by amendments that would strip important provisions 
from the bill.
  Democrats and Republicans passed a Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 
that strengthens and extends the Act's legacy for our future 
generations out of the Judiciary committee.
  Democrats and Republicans recognize that this Act is relevant to the 
situations of millions of Americans.
  In my district, the Inland Empire, a third of the residents don't 
speak English as their primary language.
  In my personal experience, my father, who was born, raised, worked 
and raised a family in America, did not speak English well--yet he 
deserved, as all Americans do, the right to vote.
  We must renew the Voting Rights Act--we must not allow these 
provisions to expire and thus disenfranchise hard-working Americans who 
want to do their civic duty.
  If America is to remain the democracy that has made it strong, all 
voters must have the opportunity to cast a ballot they can understand.
  But the King amendment allowed under this rule strikes the sections 
re-authorizing the Section 203 bilingual ballot requirements.
  Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has made our Nation's democratic 
ideals a reality by ensuring that eligible voters, regardless of 
language ability, may participate on a fair and equal basis in 
elections.
  Three-quarters of those who are covered by the language assistance 
provision are native-born United States citizens. The rest are 
naturalized U.S. citizens.
  It is well documented that language assistance is needed and used by 
voters.
  For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice has reported that in one 
year, registration rates among Spanish- and Filipino-speaking American 
citizens grew by 21 percent and registration among Vietnamese-speaking 
American citizens increased over 37 percent after San Diego County 
started providing language assistance.
  In Apache County, Arizona, the Department's enforcement activities 
have resulted in a 26-percent increase in Native American turnout in 4 
years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to 
participate in elections for the first time.
  This amendment would effectively disenfranchise language minority 
voters through the appropriation process.
  Section 203 has always received bipartisan support from both 
Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House.
  Section 203 of the VRA requires that U.S. minority citizens who have 
been subjected to a history of discrimination be provided language 
assistance to ensure that they can make informed choices at the polls.
  It does not offer voting assistance to illegal or non-naturalized 
immigrants.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and pass the strong and 
relevant Voting Rights Act that America needs.
  Mr. Speaker, cognizant of the historic nature of what we are doing 
and strongly supportive of the legislation that we are bringing to the 
floor today, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________