[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 183-192]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
           CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS HOUR: VOTING RIGHTS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schweikert). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee 
of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
on the subject matter of this special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives on the eve of the State of the Union by 
President Barack Obama, the first African American President of the 
United States and some 46 years after the passage of the Voting Rights 
Act which made his election and ours possible. And I'm pleased to be 
joined by members of the Congressional Black Caucus this evening for 
this Special Order.
  I'd like to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from 
New York, who I believe is the most senior member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a 
founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Charlie Rangel.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for 
having the foresight to try to protect our Constitution and the voting 
rights that all Americans are entitled to. Before I get into the 
subject matter, I would like to really first thank the Speaker for 
pointing out the guidelines that we would have as relates to the 
decorum of Members in the House of Representatives. I think it's well 
heeded and we can walk away with some pride. I just assume that 
included in that was not to make derogatory remarks about the President 
of the United States. But recognizing that the whole body and the whole 
world has already spoken about this issue, then I don't think there is 
any need for me to elaborate.
  Because of the reputation of the United States of America, no matter 
what we find in our fiscal system or whatever problems we have day-to-
day and year-to-year, we still remain the source of hope and 
inspiration for people all over the world. People teach their kids that 
if they can only get to America this is the place where you can come 
from the depth of poverty, and with hard work and education there's no 
limit to how far you can go.
  And while we have fought over the years in order to get equality for 
those that came as immigrants to this country or slaves, we do 
recognize that in this country, this country offers all of us the best 
opportunity in the world to be able to provide a better life for 
ourselves, our kids and for society generally.

[[Page 184]]

  Madam Chairlady, when the early sixties was there, and I marched from 
Selma to Birmingham, Alabama, it was 54 miles. But, quite honestly, I 
don't know whether I've admitted this publicly or not, I had no idea 
that I was going to march 54 miles. I thought I could go down, have my 
picture taken and come back and say I was with Andy Young, John Lewis, 
Ralph Bunche, and Dr. King. But, somehow, I got caught up in it, and I 
was cussing every step of the way wondering how did I get caught up 
walking through all of these dark streets and being insulted.
  But much later, when I heard Lyndon Johnson say those words, that 
theme that had directed us emotionally and patriotically that ``we 
shall overcome,'' I felt so proud, notwithstanding my lack of knowledge 
of the importance of the issue, that I did march. Then I found out that 
the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act weren't just something 
that made minorities feel good, it made Americans feel good. And the 
ripple effect of this throughout the world was that we were able to 
say, see, we told you that in the United States, it's not what we want, 
but in the United States of America we are working toward full 
equality.
  Now, even today when we give assistance to a country that aspires to 
have a democracy, more often than not they come here to see how we were 
able to do it, and we send people to watch what they are doing. And 
they listen to Americans teaching them what equality is and how to 
avoid fraud and how everybody should have an opportunity to 
participate. And notwithstanding what happens in America, we used to 
have a sense of pride that even though we have our problems we're still 
respected throughout the world. And what is happening today in certain 
States that have had a long history of discrimination, it seems as 
though now they want to take this backward step to cause it to be 
difficult for people to vote.
  Why in the world would this great country want people not to vote? 
What could it be to have more andmore people express themselves? You go 
to countries that have 80 and 90 percent of the population 
participating in this great democracy, and when you vote you care more 
about the direction in which your country is going. God knows that in 
America today with the performance of the Congress, if the people were 
more involved we'd do a better job and do it in a hurry. But having 
said that, these States are now changing their laws to make it 
difficult for people to vote.
  Even though I have my own suspicions as to why, if you lay out the 
facts and see what is happening, which States are they and what 
prohibitions are they putting? They're asking for ID. Well, do we have 
cases of people misusing ID? The Attorney General doesn't know of any. 
And then they're going after those who allow participation on Sundays, 
then they're going after communities with a high number of poor people, 
then they go into minority communities, and then they ask older people 
who have no reason for ID that they have to do it. And people who 
fought so hard for these rights that were given to them now find 
themselves, in this late stage, being denied the right to vote.
  It is so embarrassing. Not only is it not the right thing to do as 
Americans, but how can we continue to send people to foreign and 
developing countries as being the major spokespeople for democracy, 
when right in this country we are prohibiting--not prohibiting--but 
discouraging people from participating in the right to vote?
  I don't know whether the color of the President or the fact that this 
President has received record-breaking participation by the very same 
people that they're making it difficult to vote, but I tell you for you 
taking the opportunity to bring the attention of this to the Congress, 
and therefore to the Nation, for you to be able, with the Congressional 
Black Caucus, to say that we're not protecting our rights, we're 
protecting our Constitution, we're protecting our country, and there is 
no question in my mind that we felt better as a people when we were 
able to overcome the obstacles that were placed.

                              {time}  1940

  So let me thank you and my fellow colleagues in the Congressional 
Black Caucus for saying we can vote. They can't hurt us. But it's a 
better country with everybody, regardless of their color, their age, 
where they live or how much money they have in the bank, to be able to 
say, in our country, at this time, we have to move forward, and we 
cannot find ourselves where we were 60 and 70 years ago.
  So thank you so much for this opportunity, and for all of the Members 
who have taken time this evening to say that we shall indeed overcome 
for the length of the Constitution of this great Nation.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. And thank you again, as a 
founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, for reminding the 
American people why we're called the conscience of the Congress. Thank 
you for those words.
  I'd like now to yield such time as she might consume to the 
gentlelady from Ohio, who for the last Congress chaired these Special 
Orders and who is a leader on so many, many issues and whose district I 
believe the CBC will again be traveling to to help protect the rights 
of voters in Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.
  Ms. FUDGE. Let me thank my colleague who comes down to this floor 
every week. I know what it's like. I thank you for being the anchor for 
the CBC hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the covert voter suppression 
effort under way in the United States of America. This effort might 
have begun as a stealth operation, but my colleagues, organizations 
across the Nation, and I will ensure that Americans are informed and 
protected, such that voters are well prepared for the gimmicks under 
way to keep them from casting their ballots in 2012.
  During 2011, 34 States introduced legislation that would require 
voters to show a photo ID to cast a ballot. Approximately 13 States 
introduced bills to end Election Day and same-day voter registration. 
As many as nine States introduced bills to reduce early voting, and 
four States proposed draconian reductions in absentee voting 
opportunities. Two States took steps backward by reversing prior 
executive actions that make it easier for citizens with past felony 
convictions to restore their voting rights.
  For many years, America has been described as a beacon of light for 
the world; the model of democracy and the home of fair elections. As a 
Nation, we have always rejected voter intimidation at polling places in 
foreign nations. We frown upon nations that limit the right of its 
citizens to vote. Yet we now face the same issues that fall 
disproportionately on the same class of voters that these very laws 
were designed to protect--the elderly, the disabled, students, and 
minorities.
  I will not stand by, Mr. Speaker, and watch silently as State 
legislatures attempt to compromise the right of citizens to vote. And 
as a caucus, we will not be silent. We will not stand by idly as 
decades of struggle for equal voting rights are trampled upon. We will 
not turn our backs on voters who now face the erosion of the very 
premise upon which our Nation is built, and that is the right to vote 
and to representation.
  I am proud to report, however, that 2012 is looking much better than 
2011. Connecticut's Secretary of State and Governor introduced a 
package to streamline voter registration and increase access to 
absentee voting. In Florida, a bill was proposed to repeal legislation 
that shortened early voting periods and restricted voter registration 
drives. A bill introduced in Nebraska that would require a photo ID to 
vote was removed from the legislature's agenda. In Washington, a 
bipartisan bill was introduced that would allow 16-year-olds to 
preregister to vote. The Department of Justice rejected South 
Carolina's photo ID law, and just last week a circuit court in 
Wisconsin heard a case against Wisconsin's voter ID law. It looks like 
2012 will be a very good year for the protection of voting rights.
  These attempts to restrict voting are especially hard on young folks. 
More

[[Page 185]]

than 1 million students attend colleges, universities, and technical 
schools in the State of Texas alone, but because of the State's new 
voter ID law, none will be allowed to use their student ID cards to 
cast a ballot. Texans, however, can show a gun permit and be allowed to 
vote, but a college student attempting to use their school-issued ID 
will be denied.
  Earlier this month, Bill O'Reilly vehemently defended laws like the 
one in Texas. He said if students don't know they can vote absentee, 
they're too stupid to vote. You're in college, but you're too stupid to 
vote? What an insult.
  During the Jim Crow era, people said African Americans were too 
stupid to vote. If you were black and you couldn't count the number of 
jelly beans in a jar or tell the person at the ballot box how many 
bubbles were in a bar of soap, you were too stupid to vote.
  We refuse to return to those days. Stand with us. Protect the 
franchise. Protect the right to vote.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Fudge, for those very 
strong words, and thank you for the ray of hope by pointing out some of 
the States that are reversing some of those laws that are making it 
easier for their voters to vote.
  I would now like to yield to the former chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, a leader not only in California but in the country, a 
person who has always been the conscience of the CBC as we are the 
conscience of the Congress, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much. I thank the gentlelady 
for her kind remarks, and I also thank Congresswoman Christensen for 
her leadership. She serves as the first vice chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus and has led on so many issues in this House on behalf of 
our country and on behalf of her constituents. Thank you very much.
  Let me also take a moment to thank Congresswoman Fudge and 
Congresswoman Jackson Lee, Congressman Bobby Scott and Chairman Rangel 
for their leadership in defending the most basic element of our 
democracy--the right to vote. I'd also like to thank our Congressional 
Black Caucus chair, Emanuel Cleaver, for his focus onthis very critical 
issue. His leadership is making such a difference on so many important 
issues in our country.
  The right to vote is our most fundamental right that guarantees and 
preserves all other legal rights. When Americans lose their right to 
vote, that endangers their ability to defend further attacks on their 
rights.
  The assault on voter rights continues in 2012. In this election year, 
a coordinated campaign designed to block access to the polls to tens of 
millions of Americans threatens to undermine our democracy and change 
election outcomes. And sadly, Mr. Speaker, it's no secret which 
communities these laws are designed to disenfranchise--communities of 
color, students, elderly Americans, impoverished families, and the 
disabled.
  Let me say that the Republican legislators and Governors who are 
pushing these antivoter laws know exactly what they are doing. They saw 
the election results of 2008, with the surge of voter participation 
from Americans who had never voted before. They see the rising tide of 
Americans who seek to change their country by doing their basic civic 
duty on Election Day. Instead of embracing change, they are desperately 
trying to avoid change by undermining our voting process.
  These Republican legislators are proposing partisan laws that require 
voters to show a government-approved photo ID before voting. Those who 
are truly concerned about voter fraud have plenty of actual, documented 
problems to take on. Why aren't they going after those who spread false 
information meant to trick voters or public officials who improperly 
purge eligible voters or political operatives who tamper with election 
equipment and forms? Instead, they all are pushing laws designed to 
change election outcomes by reducing voting, repressing turnout, and 
turning the clock back.
  Now, I have an aunt who is 100 years old, who was born at a time when 
records were not kept like they are today. How in the world would my 
aunt know where to start to find her birth certificate to be eligible 
to qualify for a government ID? How can I ask her to pay to do the 
research so she can figure out where her birth certificate may be and 
then pay to get a government ID to vote? Outrageous.
  One hundred years ago, my aunt did not have the right to vote. Thanks 
to the hard work of those who came before us, my aunt witnessed the 
expansion of voting rights to women with the 19th Amendment and the 
protection of African American and other minority voters with the 
Voting Rights Act. These regressive laws seek to turn my aunt back to 
where she was a century ago when she could not vote and her fundamental 
right to fully participate in our democratic society was cut off, mind 
you, just cut off by unjust laws.
  These partisan laws are shameful and a disgrace to our country. These 
antidemocratic efforts have no place in a modern democracy, and we must 
unmask these shameful attempts to disenfranchise voters.

                              {time}  1950

  We encourage democracy and voting rights all around the world. I was 
an observer in the first election in South Africa where President 
Nelson Mandela was elected. I was an observer in the nineties in 
Nigeria. I witnessed long lines of people waiting patiently to vote. 
People believed and said to me that in America voting was encouraged 
rather than discouraged, so we need to stop these partisan efforts that 
strike at the core of our democracy. It really is, Congresswoman 
Christensen, fundamentally anti-American.
  We have to win this war against voters. We should be about 
dismantling and reducing barriers so we can reignite their hope for the 
American Dream.
  I want to, again, thank you for your leadership, and Congresswomen 
Fudge and Jackson Lee, and Bobby Scott and Mr. Rangel and the entire 
Congressional Black Caucus for their calls and their hard work to 
protect the right to vote for all citizens across this Nation.
  We must protect voters from these attempts to deny access to the 
heart of our democratic process. We need to move forward and encourage 
more voter participation. People need to know that they have a stake in 
this system and in this democracy. These laws were designed to stop 
that.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. And just to 
underscore what you have shared with us this evening, I don't usually 
quote from Politico, but let me read the last sentence of one of their 
articles. It says, the framers bequeathed us a Constitution intended to 
create a more perfect union. Every time an eligible voter is denied the 
right to vote we are left that much further from achieving that goal.
  Thank you again for joining us this evening.
  And now I want to yield such time as he might consume to one of our 
outstanding constitutional experts and attorneys in the CBC, 
Congressman Bobby Scott from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from the 
Virgin Islands for the opportunity to speak. And today I rise in 
opposition to an unfortunate trend that seems to be creeping up all 
over the country, laws that add unnecessary complications to the 
process of voter registration and the process of voting.
  Now, some of these initiatives include photo ID laws, reduction in 
time to vote or to register to vote, laws complicating the rules for 
running voter registration drives.
  Now, none of these little schemes prevent individuals from voting, 
but the unnecessary complications guarantee that many will not get 
their paperwork in on time and, as a consequence, many will not be able 
to vote. In some States, those few votes can make the difference in a 
presidential election.
  Now, we need to protect the right to vote, not add unnecessary 
complications that will result in fewer people

[[Page 186]]

voting. But we see all over the country efforts to reduce the Election 
Day registration. In those States that have allowed it for decades, 
those who could have registered on Election Day will find that they 
cannot vote.
  In States that allow early voting, we're seeing efforts to reduce the 
number of days of early voting, meaning that some people may not be 
able to get their votes in as they could have with the longer period.
  In some States the rules for voter registration drives are becoming 
more onerous, so much so that groups that have traditionally conducted 
voter registration drives, such as the League of Women Voters, are 
having second thoughts about conducting those drives under the new 
rules, and that will mean fewer people will be registered to vote.
  And many States are imposing for the first time a requirement that 
voters display a specific voter ID. This scheme that is so slanted 
that, as has been previously stated, some government-issued IDs are 
acceptable and some are not. Texas proposed to accept the concealed 
weapons permit as acceptable government-issued ID, but not student IDs 
from a State college.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, these voter ID requirements are a solution in 
search of a problem. There is no credible evidence that in-person voter 
fraud, which is the only kind of fraud that the photo ID would prevent, 
is any problem around the country. In fact, multiple studies have found 
that virtually no cases of in-person voter fraud can be found.
  And the requirement of voter ID in subjecting people to that time and 
expense will guarantee that many will not get their paperwork in on 
time. There are complications that can occur when you're trying to get 
that paperwork done. Some of the elderly have never gotten a photo ID 
and wouldn't know where to start. Many who are adopted may not know 
where to find a birth certificate. Many counties--for the elderly 
people, some counties have lost their records and the records aren't 
available.
  And it produces bizarre results, such as the nuns who were prohibited 
from voting because they didn't have photo ID, even though the election 
officials knew them personally.
  In Virginia, we have an exception to the photo ID. You have to 
present a photo ID, but if you don't have one, you can sign an 
affidavit under pains of a felony and go ahead and vote right now. But 
unfortunately, even in Virginia they're trying to eliminate that 
exception and require people to go through the time and expense of 
getting photo ID if they don't have one.
  Now, if we're going to look for problems in the voting process maybe 
we ought to look at Iowa that just certified, had announced that one 
person had won the Republican Caucuses one day and a couple of days 
later certified results that another one had won. And there are public 
reports that suggest that really nobody knows who won. I mean, if you 
want to look for some voter irregularities, maybe we ought to look at 
that.
  Or maybe we ought to look at the candidate who tried to become a 
candidate on the Virginia Republican Presidential Primary this year. He 
has publicly stated that petition signatures submitted on behalf of 
hiscampaign, of those signatures, hundreds were, in fact, bogus. And if 
they had not been caught, he would have qualified for the ballot. But 
fortunately, it has been ascertained that so many were bogus signatures 
that he, in fact, did not qualify for the Virginia ballot.
  But as we see all over the country, efforts to reduce Election Day 
registration and other forms of ease in voting are making it possible 
for many people to lose those rights. While the situations like Iowa 
and in Virginia, where it's clear that those situations need scrutiny, 
there is no evidence that in-person voter fraud is a problem anywhere 
in the United States.
  Voting is not an arbitrary, inconsequential act. The cumulative 
effect of individuals voting elects our government officials who 
directly create our laws and policies. It is important that we ensure 
that every eligible voter is given the opportunity to vote, free from 
unnecessary barriers and schemes. Those schemes that erect barriers to 
the right to vote are unfair in our democracy.
  And I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for giving us the 
opportunity to make these statements.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank you for joining us and for pointing out 
some of that data and helping to explain to the American public the 
injustice that's being done by these voter restrictions on voting and 
restrictions on registration.
  We're also joined by another fighter for justice and equality, a 
strong voice in the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlelady from 
Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I'd like to thank Dr. Christensen, which I 
enjoy calling her that because she has been of such value and service 
to this Congress and to this body, the Congressional Black Caucus, and 
thank her for her leadership in convening this very important 
discussion on voter protection.
  I'm very delighted to be joined, and I thank him very much, by 
Congressman Bobby Scott, who has served and we are serving on the 
Judiciary Committee. And I know that he remembers that in about 2006, 
2007, after years of rumors of the Voting Rights Act ending, we 
clarified it by coming together in a bipartisan manner and over months 
of hearings, convinced a then, I believe, Republican and moving into a 
Democratic Congress, but a bipartisan Congress, that the Voting Rights 
Act was needed, and it needed to be reauthorized in certain sections.
  And so our stand today is to reinforce that issue. And so I would 
like to thank, again, Congressman Rangel, who so movingly told of his 
long journey and walk to support the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman 
Fudge, who has been a champion in her State in Ohio, Congresswoman Lee, 
and then Congressman Scott, who all bring to the table a personal story 
about voter protection.

                              {time}  2000

  But I must make mention of our friend Congressman John Lewis, who is 
the epitome of the civil rights movement around the idea of voter 
protection and enhancement. Many of us are not aware of Mr. Filner, who 
was one of the Freedom Riders and celebrated the Freedom Riders in the 
last year, their 50 years. My colleague Congressman Al Green, who led 
the NAACP in Houston during times when we were under siege as it 
relates to voting opportunities.
  And I remember working for the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference in the South in the aftermath in the 1970s of the Voting 
Rights Act actually going to many States, from North Carolina to South 
Carolina to Georgia and Alabama, where African Americans were still not 
registered, had still not had the full impact. I remember walking miles 
with Prairie View University students to allow the students to vote.
  So this is a cause for which we have been on a long journey, and it 
saddens me that we are here again today fighting for voter protection 
in the year 2012 as we look to our Presidential elections.
  I might offer to my colleagues the words of Barbara Jordan, who could 
not have come to Congress if it had not been for the passage of the 
1965 Voting Rights Act. Sitting in the Judiciary Committee she offered 
these words: ``I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not 
overstate the solemnness I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution 
is whole, it is complete, it is total.''
  She said that of course during the impeachment hearings of Richard 
Nixon, but really the point was that she felt that the Constitution 
breathed life, if you will, into the rights of Americans, and the 
Constitution spoke to the voting rights of African Americans and others 
through the 14th and 15th Amendments.
  But over the years, we had not been protected. And so the Congress, 
through the leadership and sacrifice of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose 
monument is magnificent, they passed the

[[Page 187]]

Voting Rights Act. The constitutionality was challenged in 1966. It 
barely got passed. And the Supreme Court said this: Congress has found 
that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and 
persistent discrimination in voting.
  This is what they found over the years in the Deep South; that it was 
constant, it was ongoing because of the inordinate amount of time and 
energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably 
encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of 
systemic or systematic resistance to the 15th Amendment, Congress might 
well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the 
perpetrators of evil to its victims. That was a landmark case in 1966, 
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Attorney General of the United 
States, to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act of 1966.
  Here we are now almost 50 years plus where we are fighting this case 
again, and I might add, in not too friendly a climate. First of all, 
fraud is offered, and I notice that my colleague mentioned the 
unfortunate facts or the circumstances in Iowa where one Republican 
presidential candidate was declared a winner and then now another. And 
I did not hear voices being raised about whether there was fraud. Maybe 
it was a miscount, a mistake. But you didn't hear the outrage that we 
have heard over the seeming increase, or the effort to increase, the 
votes of poor people and minorities, and in particular Latinos and 
African Americans.
  Might I just say with a sense of pride, the Honorable Barbara Jordan 
added Texas to the Voting Rights Act coverage by adding language 
minorities in I believe about 1978.
  But the thought that fraud is bad and should be prosecuted, but a 
photo ID does not prevent voter impersonation, that it doesn't work--
requiring a photo ID amounts to discrimination. Eleven percent of the 
entire voting-eligible population, 2.1 million, do not have a 
government-issued photo ID. You're discriminating against them. Twenty-
five percent of eligible African American voters do not have a 
qualified voter ID. A 2006 nationwide study of voting-age citizens by 
the Brennan Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law 
found that African Americans are more than three times as likely as 
Caucasians to lack a government-issued ID.
  You talk to many of our seniors and they were born with midwives. My 
mother, God rest her soul, we could not, as long as we looked for her 
birth certificate, could not find it, but she did have a voter 
registration card. Nationwide, 18 percent of eligible voters over 65 
lack an ID. Voter ID laws are costly and add to the deficit. Missouri 
estimates that the ID law would cost the State over $20 million to 
implement, and it goes on to say North Carolina, $14 million.
  This is a shame on us. This is a pox on our House. And it is a pox on 
our House because fraud cannot be documented. As my colleague indicated 
how ironic it is that a student ID, students at State colleges, private 
colleges, historically black colleges, Hispanic-leaning colleges can't 
use a credible ID that colleges take great pride or great efforts to 
secure. Photo ID. Young people who we want to see cherish the democracy 
of this country can not in fact use their ID. But yet a gun ID can be 
used.
  Just a few weeks ago in the Judiciary Committee--somewhat related--we 
were trying to pass legislation that says if you have a gun ID in 
Georgia, you can use your gun permit in another State. We're willing to 
give all of these rights to those carrying a gun ID, which may in fact 
jeopardize our law enforcement officers in all of the different States 
by not knowing who's in there carrying a gun permit.
  But yet the sacred and simple act of being able to vote for a person 
of your choosing causes the ire of so many State legislatures who, 
after the 2010 election and the misrepresentation that there was fraud 
in the 2008 election, maybe because we elected the first African 
American President, or some crisis generated this response, we have 
this kind of map that shows practically 40 States, it looks like, all 
but 11, that require photo ID, that photo ID is requested, that photo 
ID legislationis proposed.
  Congresswoman, I ask on what basis have we now taken the 
Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the constitutionality of the 
Voting Rights Act to do it?
  Let me just share these points as I come to a close and ask that we 
continue the efforts.
  I look forward to a voter protection meeting by the Congressional 
Black Caucus in Houston. The State of Texas has the voter ID law that 
is now being pre-cleared. I understand that all of my colleagues are in 
the middle of redistricting, but let me just say this is not in any way 
promoting Texas, but I believe that we may be the singular case that is 
going to ascertain the integrity of the Voting Rights Act and voter 
protection.
  Right now Texas is in three courts: the Supreme Court, the District 
Court of Appeals here in the District of Columbia, and the San Antonio 
Federal Court. We are fighting on three different levels.
  I might say this without any punitive comments intended. We had an 
interim plan, and this is under the Voting Rights Act, that one person, 
one vote. And Congresswoman, I think it is important to note that the 
Voting Rights Act protects all Americans. Its premise is one vote, one 
person. Its premise is not fraud but opportunity.
  So when we have the redistricting and some sections of the Voting 
Rights Act protect the idea of one person, one vote, we take these 
cases not for personal promotion, meaning Members of Congress and State 
legislators, but to ensure the integrity of the vote.
  So when the court ruled in San Antonio just briefly that the plan did 
not work, that the State of Texas wrote and gave us a new plan, the 
State of Texas went to the Supreme Court--not the individuals trying to 
protect the right of voters--went to the Supreme Court to stay that 
plan.
  Well, the Supreme Court did render a decision. We're still in the 
midst of our confusion. But I just have to put this on the record. The 
Supreme Court assessed us, the ones who did not appeal, $18,000 to pay 
for printing. For those of us who are lawyers, we are simply 
questioning in wonderment how you can charge individuals who did not 
take the case up to the Supreme Court, who were being guided by the 
Federal Court, who had a plan and assessed us $18,000.
  I simply say here is another way that you can not protect voting, 
because inevitably, those who are on the side of the Voting Rights Act 
are not rich. We inevitably in many instances are not the State.

                              {time}  2010

  It's the State coming against those who are trying to say, ``One 
vote, one person.'' I bring this up just as I close.
  Let me just say that, in the course of the hearings that we had in 
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we discovered that there were 
problems with voting across the country. In 2004, nearly 4,500 people 
reported problems with ballots that were coming to them; 1,000 people 
reported voting intimidation; 7,000 reported registration problems.
  Also, as you well know, the status of voting laws now, meaning the 
voting ID or voter identification, limits the kind of voter ID you can 
use. It excludes the most common forms of identification--student IDs, 
Social Security cards--and they offer no alternatives. There are 
changes requiring proof of citizenship as a condition for voter 
registration, limitations or the outright elimination of early voting 
opportunities, and barriers to first-time voters by suggesting that 
there is no same-day registration.
  So I would simply argue that this is an important Special Order that 
you have tonight. What I feel in my heart is that we have to educate 
the public. They have to raise their level of, not anxiety, but of 
cause, in that they have a cause. They've got to get their marching 
shoes on again. They've got to get their shoes of being the carriers of 
justice as those civil rights legends and heroes did. They've got to 
get like the movie ``The Help'' when those domestics, those people who 
work for others, walked in the Montgomery Bus

[[Page 188]]

Boycott because they were trying to do for others. So I want to thank 
you for allowing me to share with you this evening.
  I also want to indicate that this very fine letter that was sent by 
Members of Congress to the Attorney General on July 25, 2011, should be 
upheld; that of these voter ID laws that may suppress the vote, we want 
to have voter protection by having a vigorous review of all of these 
laws, and one of them happens to be the voter ID requirement in the 
State of Texas.
  Thank you for allowing me to participate in an opportunity to share 
and in an opportunity to tell a message to our colleagues that the 
justice of voting is justice for everyone and that the protection of 
voting is the protection of voting for everyone.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the gentlelady for those strong words.
  Again, I'm going to go back to the article in Politico because 
everyone has made reference to the charges of fraud. In this article, 
it reads, ``official and academic studies have consistently shown that 
the chances of being hit by lightning are greater than the likely 
incidence of such fraud.''
  So today, as we prepare for the elections in November of this year, 
we have seen an unprecedented--at least unprecedented since August of 
1965--attack on the rights of Americans to vote. As you've heard, these 
attacks have taken many forms: expanding bans that prevent felons from 
voting; cutting election administration budgets in States; curtailing 
early voting, something that was used very effectively in previous 
elections; eliminating same-day registration; intimidating voter 
registration by some groups, which extends in some places to 
intimidation on Election Day; imposing strict ID requirements; creating 
barriers to getting the required ID; and creating barriers to voting by 
students in schools outside of their States.
  Again, the voter fraud claims are bogus, and as our chairman, Emanuel 
Cleaver, said in testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
late last year, ``The laws are solutions in search of problems, 
especially when it comes to voter ID, because there is basically no 
evidence of fraud.'' Many studies, as I've said, have supported that 
statement.
  With an estimated 11 percent of Americans not having IDs that would 
meet the requirement, it is projected that these new attacks on the 
rights of American citizens to vote will prevent many millions of 
people--mostly Democrats, mostly minorities and the elderly--from 
voting and could affect as many as 171 electoral votes. It is clear to 
me, whether racially based or not, that this is a direct attempt not 
only to undermine the election process but is a specific attempt to 
derail what surely would be and ought to be the reelection of Barack 
Obama.
  The CBC is speaking out as is the NAACP, but I'm still waiting for 
the cries of many of the good people of this country. This is an 
egregious injustice and a threat to democracy and to the stability of 
our Nation, and it must not be allowed to continue. The Congressional 
Black Caucus has met with officials of the Justice Department; and as 
Congresswoman Jackson Lee has stated, the CBC has sent a letter to 
Attorney General Eric Holder, which has over 100 signatures from other 
Members, registering our grave concern over these laws and proposed 
laws, urging that the Department of Justice examine them and ensure 
that the rights of voters are protected.
  In March, we will take up the torch of those who marched across the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge to continue to fight for equal rights and, 
together with the NAACP and other partners, to begin a voter protection 
tour to key cities in order to call attention to the injustice; to 
mobilize efforts to help individuals get the required ID or vote where 
there still remains some early voting; and to continue to press the 
Justice Department to do all that is in its authority to protect this 
right that so many fought, sacrificed, and died for.
  As Congresswoman Jackson Lee showed, this is the map. It's called the 
``Map of Shame.'' Only 11 States are without voter ID laws or are 
requesting one or have legislation proposed. How will we ever be able 
to lead and speak for the rights of the disenfranchised in other parts 
of the world? That was something raised by Congressman Rangel as we 
began the Special Order. Where will we get the moral authority if this 
travesty is allowed to exist and if we undermine this very fundamental 
right, the right to vote?
  Already the undue influence of big money from undisclosed donors is 
influencing elections. Already theugly specter of racism has been 
raised to divide our country and to misinform and inflame some segments 
of our country. This is not the country that we want to be. The Voting 
Rights Act was passed in August of 1965, and at that time, it ended 
over a century of denial of the right to vote to African Americans in 
the South and to Latinos in the Southwest as well. In voting rights, as 
with health care reform, as someone said earlier, we are not going 
back.
  I would like to just take a few minutes of the time we have left to 
call attention to a crisis in my district, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
Last Wednesday, January 18, we suffered an economic earthquake with the 
announcement that the HOVENSA oil refinery--it's either the second or 
the third largest oil refinery in the Western Hemisphere--is going to 
close in the middle of February. Now, we're a small community--110,000 
throughout the entire Virgin Islands--and we're maybe about 55,000 on 
the Island of St. Croix, so a hit of over 2,000 jobs is a big hit to 
our economy. Those are the direct jobs. Of the people who work either 
for HOVENSA or their subcontractors on the site, there will continue to 
be about 100 employees for oil storage facilities, but the impact will 
reverberate throughout that entire community. Businesses that rely on 
HOVENSA from some of their suppliers--hotels and restaurants and even 
some of our private schools--are wondering how they are going to 
survive and keep their doors open when HOVENSA closes.
  We are looking at a number of issues, and we still have a lot of 
questions that we need to ask, but I wanted to bring this to the 
attention of my colleagues because this is a severe crisis. As all of 
our States have been, we were already having layoffs and having to cut 
salaries and impose austerity measures on our population. The closing 
of this refinery is a major hit, and it has left my community reeling. 
So I ask for your prayers, and at the appropriate time I will probably 
come and ask for your assistance on behalf of the people of the Virgin 
Islands.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues Congressman 
Rangel, Congresswoman Fudge, Congressman Scott, Congresswoman Lee, and 
Congresswoman Jackson Lee for joining me in this Special Order to speak 
to the issue of voter protection for the people of this country--the 
protection of a fundamental right that must not be abridged.
  I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Texas if she would 
like to have some more time.

                              {time}  2020

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First, I want to speak to the gentlelady's 
last comment and say that you have been a champion for the Virgin 
Islands. I have had the privilege of having several meetings there. 
They are generous people, they are our neighbors, and so I personally 
want to say, experiencing and understanding the impact of the loss of a 
major entity is something many of us have gone through.
  In this instance I wanted to say, yes, we will stand with you and be 
of help. I'm introducing legislation that deals with trying to look at 
the energy industry in a way to help it grow in a fair way, to be 
environmentally safe, and I know that you are certainly someone who is 
a champion of the environment but have found that that business is 
served economically, and I want to make sure that we have these kinds 
of industries, and they are not mutually exclusive. I don't have the 
facts of what has generated this action, but we need to be helpful.
  My legislation talks about using the energy industry to also support 
improving the environment, and I think

[[Page 189]]

that creates jobs as well. So I just want to say that I look forward to 
working with you and thank you for bringing that issue to our 
attention, because voter protection gives people the opportunity for 
expressing their views. We know that the opportunity for work and for 
jobs is crucial as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect 
democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure 
the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the 
Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege.
  I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to 
reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place 
in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino 
Americans, as well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight 
for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting 
rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our 
Constitution.
  I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and 
intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective 
way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to 
stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect 
of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting 
ensures active participation in democracy.
  As a Member of this body, I firmly believe that we must protect the 
rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past few decades, 
minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to 
intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called ``Voter ID'' 
requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century, 
these efforts continue.
  Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one 
vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George 
Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to 
repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote 
based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles 
that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions 
of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future.
  The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 
1970, 1975, 1982, and 2007. This legislation is considered the most 
successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United 
States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due 
to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due 
for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress-there is 
no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the 
future.
  The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent 
guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the 
right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when 
African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern 
states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to 
citizens of all U.S. states.
  By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to 
thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of voting-
rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national 
attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism.
  Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on 
peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, 
en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President 
and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective 
voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong 
voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that 
would become the Voting Rights Act.
  Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of 
instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to 
exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting 
itself again in this Nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to 
respond in a way that the VRA did.
  The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in 
a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-
28:

       Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was 
     inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination 
     in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and 
     energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics 
     invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring 
     nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth 
     Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage 
     of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its 
     victims.

  It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the 
aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time 
and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority 
victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators, 
government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy 
and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country.
  Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights 
legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African 
Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt 
that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights 
legislation because they could lose more of the African American and 
liberal votes.
  No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected 
by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 
26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political 
participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and 
freedoms. Three State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, 
however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls 
and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are 
counted.


                          VOTER IDENTIFICATION

  There have been several restrictive voting bills considered and 
approved by states in the past several years. The most commonly 
advanced initiatives are laws that require voters to present photo 
identification when voting in person. Additionally, states have 
proposed or passed laws to require proof of citizenship when 
registering to vote; to eliminate the right to register to vote and to 
submit a change of address within the same state on Election Day; to 
shorten the time allowed for early voting; to make it more difficult 
for third-party organizations to conduct voter registration; and even 
to eliminate a mandate on poll workers to direct voters who go to the 
wrong precinct.
  These recent changes are on top of the disfranchisement laws in 48 
states that deprive an estimated 5.3 million people with criminal 
convictions--disproportionately African Americans and Latinos--of their 
political voice.
  Voter ID laws are becoming increasingly common across the country. 
Today, 31 states have laws requiring voters to present some form of 
identification to vote in federal, state and local elections, although 
some laws or initiatives passed in 2011 have not yet gone into effect. 
Some must also be pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act prior to 
implementation. In 16 of those 31 States, voters must (or will soon be 
required to) present a photo ID--that in many states must be 
government-issued--in order to cast a ballot.
  Voter ID laws deny the right to vote to thousands of registered 
voters who do not have, and, in many instances, cannot obtain the 
limited identification states accept for voting. Many of these 
Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to 
secure a government issued photo ID. As such, these laws impede access 
to the polls and are at odds with the fundamental right to vote.
  In total, more than 21 million Americans of voting age lack 
documentation that would satisfy photo ID laws, and a disproportionate 
number of these Americans are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, 
and elderly. As many as 25% of African Americans of voting age lack 
government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of their white 
counterparts. Eighteen percent of Americans over the age of 65 do not 
have government-issued photo ID.
  Laws requiring photo identification to vote are a ``solution'' in 
search of a problem. There is no credible evidence that in-person 
impersonation voter fraud--the only type of fraud that photo IDs could 
prevent--is even a minor problem. Multiple studies have found that 
almost all cases of alleged in-person impersonation voter ``fraud'' are 
actually the result of a voter making an inadvertent mistake about 
their eligibility to vote, and that even these mistakes are extremely 
infrequent.
  It is important, instead, to focus on both expanding the franchise 
and ending practices which actually threaten the integrity of the 
elections, such as improper purges of voters, voter harassment, and 
distribution of false information about when and where to vote. None of 
these issues, however, are addressed or can be resolved with a photo ID 
requirement.
  Furthermore, requiring voters to pay for an ID, as well as the 
background documents necessary to obtain an ID in order to vote, is 
tantamount to a poll tax. Although some states issue IDs for free, the 
birth certificates, passports, or other documents required to secure a 
government-issued ID cost money, and many Americans simply cannot 
afford to pay for them. In addition, obtaining a government-issued 
photo ID is not an easy task for all

[[Page 190]]

members of the electorate. Low-income individuals who lack the funds to 
pay for documentation, people with disabilities with limited access to 
transportation, and elderly Americans who never had a birth certificate 
and cannot obtain alternate proof of their birth in the U.S., are among 
those who face significant or insurmountable obstacles to getting the 
photo ID needed to exercise their right to vote. For example, because 
of Texas' recently passed voter ID law, an estimated 36,000 people in 
West Texas's District 19 are 137 miles from the nearest full service 
Department of Public Safety office, where those without IDs must travel 
to preserve their right to vote under the state's new law.
  In addition, women who have changed their names due to marriage or 
divorce often experience difficulties with identity documentation, as 
did Andrea, who recently moved from Massachusetts to South Carolina and 
who, in the span of a month, spent more than 17 hours online and in 
person trying without success to get a South Carolina driver's license.
  Voter ID laws send not-so-subtle messages about who is and is not 
encouraged to vote. As states approve laws requiring photo ID to vote, 
each formulates its own list of acceptable forms of documentation. 
Another common thread emerging from disparate state approaches is a 
bias against robust student electoral participation.
  Henceforth, students at Wisconsin colleges and universities will not 
be able to vote using their student ID cards, unless those cards have 
issuance dates, expiration dates, and signatures.
  Currently, only a handful of Wisconsin colleges and universities are 
issuing compliant IDs. Nor will South Carolina, Texas, or Tennessee 
accept student identification at the polls.
  Policies that limit students' electoral participation are 
particularly suspect, appearing on the heels of unprecedented youth 
turnout in the 2008 election.
  Four states with new voter identification mandates, including my home 
state of Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, are required 
under the Voting Rights Act to have these voting changes pre-cleared by 
either the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a panel of federal judges. 
Before they may be implemented, DOJ must certify that these laws do not 
have the purpose or effect of restricting voting by racial or language 
minority groups.
  Thus far, South Carolina and Texas both have submitted applications 
to DOJ that have been formally opposed in written submissions. DOJ has 
requested further information from both states, and the applications 
are on hold. Alabama's ID requirements do not take effect until 2014, 
so the state has not yet applied to DOJ for preclearance. Mississippi's 
voter ID requirement was approved by voters on November 8, 2011, so a 
preclearance request has not yet been submitted.
  In countries scattered across this earth, citizens are denied the 
right to speak their hearts and minds. In this country, only a few 
decades ago, the right to vote was limited by race, sex, or the 
financial ability to own land. When a vote is not cast, it is a 
referendum on all those who fought so hard and tirelessly for our 
rights. When a vote is cast, it is cast not only for you and the future 
but also for all those who never had the chance to pull a lever.
  We are still working to make Martin Luther King's dream a reality, a 
reality in which our government's decisions are made out in the open 
not behind cigar filled closed doors.
  The time to take back the country is at hand, and we are the ones 
with the power to do just that. To do so we must allow all citizens who 
are eligible to vote, with the right to excise this decision without 
tricks or tactics to dilute their right to vote.
  Instances of voter intimidation are not long ago and far away. Just 
last year I sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to draw 
his attention to several disturbing instances of voter intimidation 
that had taken place in Houston. In a single week there were at least 
15 report of abuse of voter rights throughout the city of Houston.
  As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I called for an 
immediate investigation of these instances. Many of these incidents of 
voter intimidation were occurring in predominately minority 
neighborhoods and have been directed at African-Americans and Latinos. 
It is unconscionable to think that anyone would deliberately employ the 
use of such forceful and intimidating tactics to undermine the 
fundamental, Constitutional right to vote. However, such conduct has 
regrettably occurred in Houston, and I urge you to take appropriate 
action to ensure that it does not recur.
  I am here today in the name of freedom, patriotism, and democracy. I 
am here to demand that the long hard fought right to vote continues to 
be protected.
  A long, bitter, and bloody struggle was fought for the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 so that all Americans could enjoy the right to vote, 
regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Americans died in 
that fight so that others could achieve what they had been forcefully 
deprived of for centuries--the ability to walk freely and without fear 
into the polling place and cast a voting ballot.
  Efforts to keep minorities from fully exercising that franchise, 
however, continue. Indeed, in the past thirty years, we have witnessed 
a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters including 
efforts that were deemed ``Ballot Security'' programs that include the 
mailing of threatening notices to African-American voters, the carrying 
of video cameras to monitor polls, the systematic challenging of 
minority voters at the polls on unlawful grounds, and the hiring of 
guards and off-duty police officers to intimidate and frighten voters 
at the polls.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a particularly poor 
track record when it comes to documented acts of voter intimidation. In 
1982, a Federal Court in New Jersey provided a consent order that 
forbids the Republican National Committee from undertaking any ballot 
security activities in a polling place or election district where race 
or ethnic composition is a factor in the decision to conduct such 
activities and where a purpose or significant effect is to deter 
qualified voters from voting. These reprehensible practices continue to 
plague our Nation's minority voters.


                       VOTING RIGHTS ACT HISTORY

  August 6, 2011, marked the 46th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.
  Most Americans take the right to vote for granted. We assume that we 
can register and vote if we are over 18 and are citizens. Most of us 
learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national 
origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil 
War.
  Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, however, the right to vote did not 
exist in practice for most African Americans. And, until 1975, most 
American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant 
obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot.
  Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the 
right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, 
which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political 
participation for decades.
  Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic 
exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of 
reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and 
passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades 
later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans. It was with 
this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to 
make the right to vote a reality for all Americans.
  And the Voting Rights Act has made giant strides toward that goal. 
Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil 
rights laws passed by Congress.
  In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in 
public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black 
elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Today there are 
more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of 
Congress, the largest number ever. The Act has opened the political 
process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials 
that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the 
state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. And Native 
Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh 
barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.
  We must not forget the importance of protecting this hard earned 
right.


                                VOTER ID

  An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible 
voter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our 
elections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible 
Americans.
  I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from 
voting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill 
is that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal 
immigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are 
unlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to 
register incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less 
likely to risk deportation just to influence an election.
  If for no other reason than after a major disaster be it earthquakes, 
fires, floods or hurricanes, we must all understand how vulnerable our 
system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes and fires suffered loss of 
property that included lost documents. Compounding this was the 
devastation of the region, which virtually shut down civil services in 
the area. For example, New Orleans residents after Hurricane

[[Page 191]]

Katrina were scattered across 44 states. These uprooted citizens had 
difficulty registering and voting both with absentee ballots and at 
satellite voting stations. As a result, those elections took place 
fully 8 months after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-
profits, such as the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they 
are constitutionally guaranteed.
  We need to address the election fraud that we know occurring, such as 
voting machine integrity and poll volunteer training and competence. 
After every election that occurs in this country, we have solid 
documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and errors. In 2004, in 
New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly 
register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. 1 million 
ballots nationwide were flawed by faulty voting equipment--roughly one 
for every 100 cast.
  Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor, 
minorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose 
addresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty 
providing documentation.
  In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to 
completing a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to 
receive the marriage certificate in the mail, another two weeks (and a 
full day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and 
finally three-four weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a 
significant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds 
from voting if they are married within three months of Election Day.
  The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected 
civil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge 
justice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective 
solutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot 
let the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon 
which we have established liberty and freedom.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 25, 2011.
     Hon. Eric Holder,
     U.S. Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 
         Robert F. Kennedy Building, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Holder: We are concerned about the 
     restrictive voter photo identification legislation pending or 
     already signed into law in a number of states. Many of these 
     bills only have one true purpose, the disenfranchisement of 
     eligible voters--especially the elderly, young voters, 
     students, minorities, and low-income voters. Approximately 11 
     percent of voting-age citizens in the country--or more than 
     20 million individuals--lack government-issued photo 
     identification. We urge you to protect the voting rights of 
     Americans by using the full power of the Department of 
     Justice to review these voter identification bills and 
     scrutinize their implementation.
       The Voting Rights Act vests significant authority in the 
     Department to ensure laws are not implemented in a 
     discriminatory manner. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 
     requires preclearance by the Department when there is an 
     attempt to change any voting qualification or prerequisite to 
     voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to 
     voting in covered jurisdictions. In Section 5 jurisdictions, 
     whenever photo identification legislation is considered, the 
     Department should closely monitor the legislative process to 
     track any unlawful intent evinced by the proceedings. In 
     jurisdictions not covered by Section 5, the Department should 
     exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are 
     implemented in a way that discriminates against protected 
     classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
       Restrictive voter photo identification legislation has the 
     potential to block millions of eligible American voters, and 
     thus suppress the right to vote. We urge you to exercise your 
     authority to examine these laws so that voting rights are not 
     jeopardized. We also request that you brief us on the efforts 
     the Department is undertaking to ensure these new laws are 
     implemented in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.
           Sincerely,
         Marcia L. Fudge; Nancy Pelosi; Steny H. Hoyer; James E. 
           Clyburn; John B. Larson; George Miller; Tim Ryan; 
           Janice D. Schakowsky; Keith Ellison; Grace F. 
           Napolitano; Emanuel Cleaver; Andre Carson; Raul M. 
           Grijalva; Maxine Waters; Laura Richardson; Lucille 
           Roybal-Allard; Silvestre Reyes; Sheila Jackson Lee; 
           Yvette D. Clarke; Bob Filner.
         Barbara Lee; Donna M. Christensen; Jose E. Serrano; Judy 
           Chu; Alcee L. Hastings; Charles B. Rangel; Karen Bass; 
           Frederica S. Wilson; Melvin L. Watt; Eleanor Holmes 
           Norton; Bennie G. Thompson; G. K. Butterfield; William 
           Lacy Clay; Danny K. Davis; John Lewis; Gwen Moore; 
           Tammy Baldwin; Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.; Robert C. 
           ``Bobby'' Scott; Donald M. Payne.
         Michael M. Honda; Betty McCollum; Henry C. ``Hank'' 
           Johnson, Jr.; Robert A. Brady; Dennis J. Kucinich; 
           Edolphus Towns; Anna G. Eshoo; Steve Cohen; Corrine 
           Brown; Luis V. Gutierrez; Elijah E. Cummings; Ruben 
           Hinojosa; Joe Baca; Chellie Pingree; Betty Sutton; 
           Terri A. Sewell; Charles A. Gonzalez; Fortney Pete 
           Stark; Peter Welch; Brad Miller.
         Ben Ray Lujan; Loretta Sanchez; Carolyn B. Maloney; Donna 
           F. Edwards; Dale E. Kildee; Henry A. Waxman; Doris O. 
           Matsui; James P. McGovern; Eni F.H. Faleomavaega; Eliot 
           L. Engel; Earl Blumenauer; Hansen Clarke; Gary L. 
           Ackerman; John Garamendi; Russ Carnahan; Jerry 
           McNerney; Rush D. Holt; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Robert E. 
           Andrews; Peter A. DeFazio.
         Zoe Lofgren; Paul Tonko; Howard L. Berman; Lynn C. 
           Woolsey; Michael H. Michaud; Lois Capps; Xavier 
           Becerra; Rosa L. DeLauro; Steve Israel; Louise McIntosh 
           Slaughter; Chris Van Hollen; Al Green; Cedric L. 
           Richmond; Albio Sires; Sam Farr; Jim McDermott; Jim 
           Cooper; Gregory W. Meeks; Nydia Velazquez; Marcy 
           Kaptur.
         Eddie Bernice-Johnson; Theodore E. Deutch; Lloyd Doggett; 
           Linda T. Sanchez; John P. Sarbanes; John W. Olver; 
           Jerrold Nadler; John C. Carney; John D. Dingell; John 
           F. Tierney; James A. Himes; Chaka Fattah; David E. 
           Price; Ed Pastor; Chris Murphy.

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank you for your support, and I know that I 
have the support of the Congressional Black Caucus. It just raises the 
issue that we have been coming to the floor for the entire year to 
speak on before this evening, and that's jobs and job creation.
  Mine, like other communities across the country, will definitely need 
to enact legislation, like the American Jobs Act and some of the 
countless pieces of legislation that the Congressional Black Caucus has 
introduced in this Congress to create jobs for the people, for people 
in this country.
  I just wanted to add that in addition to the impact on the U.S. 
Virgin Islands and St. Croix in particular, this closing will have a 
major impact, especially on the east coast, as Hovensa has been a major 
supplier of gasoline to the east coast. So, again, I ask for your 
prayers and your support.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
speak in strong opposition to voter suppression efforts in Texas and in 
several other states throughout the country.
  In the United States, we use voting as a means for the people to 
select their elected representatives at all levels of government. This 
is a basic tenet of American democracy that some have sought to 
manipulate and curtail.
  Through a series of regressive voting laws, a number of state 
legislatures have already taken extraordinary measures to exclude the 
elderly, our youth, minorities, and the poor from access to the polls 
and casting their ballots.
  Whether in the form of voter ID mandates, obstructions to voter 
registration, or even outright intimidation, these measures to keep 
eligible voters from exercising their right to vote are contrary to our 
founding principles as a Nation.
  In Texas, strict voter ID laws were passed in the State Legislature 
last year. This law requires each voter to present a valid government-
issued ID, regardless of whether they possess a voter registration card 
and are listed among the voting rolls. These efforts are specifically 
tailored to exclude specific voting groups.
  The only mechanism keeping these discriminatory policies from 
becoming effective in Texas is preclearance, required under the Voting 
Rights Act in states that have a history of racial discrimination.
  We need only to look to history to know that these kinds of devious 
tactics have been used before. In essence, these laws mimic the 
literacy tests and poll taxes that defined the days of Jim Crow. Except 
today, these laws target not only minorities but also seniors, 
students, the disabled, and the poor.
  Yet here we find ourselves again battling the same problem with a 
different disguise. I refuse to accept that these laws seek to address 
existing weaknesses in our electoral system. In fact, these laws do 
nothing to address the kinds of fraud that were exposed during previous 
elections, such as the purging of entire voter rolls or intentionally 
long wait times during early voting.

[[Page 192]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we work toward 
strengthening the integrity of our elections and avoid tactics meant to 
sway their outcome in favor of a select few. It is undemocratic and I 
will continue to oppose any efforts to suppress our electorate.

                          ____________________