[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4848-4852]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  DEMOCRACY SPRING: MONEY IN POLITICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mooney of West Virginia). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) is recognized for 60 minutes as the 
designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, in a 10-day march that started on 
April 11, thousands of Americans

[[Page 4849]]

came to Washington, D.C., from all over the country to fight for one 
thing: our democracy.
  In peaceful protests right outside this building, Capitol Police 
arrested more than 1,300 of them as they called on this body to make 
basic changes to reinforce the institution that makes the United States 
so special.
  The reason they marched is simple, Mr. Speaker. In a Nation founded 
on the will of the people, States have systematically disenfranchised 
those same people and it is the will of well-funded special interests 
that now run our elections.
  We have found ourselves in this predicament primarily through 
inaction, the same kind of inaction poised to give the Supreme Court 
the longest vacancy in nearly 100 years.
  These folks came to the Capitol to ask our leaders to do something, 
and their requests are pretty simple.
  For starters, they want to see the restoration of the Voting Rights 
Act to prevent voter discrimination in the 21st century because voting 
discrimination does still exist, something Chief Justice Roberts 
acknowledged even as he struck down parts of the original Voting Rights 
Act.
  It is targeted against voters of color, those with language barriers, 
and those with disabilities. And Congress should be doing something 
about it.
  That is not the only call that came out of last week's rallies, 
though. They also want updates to our election day procedures, updates 
that are sorely needed.
  In a world as technologically advanced as ours where you can pay for 
your lunch with your phone and use a fingerprint to unlock your 
computer, we have hours-long wait times at some voting polls. We have 
provisional ballots and ineffective, if not outright confusing, 
notification systems for how, when, and where to register to vote. It 
is another issue Congress should be doing something about.
  But perhaps the most important issue that these rallies brought to 
the table is the need to make sure that the voices of real people, not 
those of corporations or special interests, are what are heard in our 
elections. For that, we need to create a path back from Citizens United 
that allows us to regulate how money is raised and spent in elections.
  Because of that ruling, we need a constitutional amendment that makes 
clear what common sense already dictates: corporations are not people 
and shouldn't get a say in who governs our Nation.
  What is really interesting here is that the work has already been 
done. The call of these protesters wasn't for Congress to investigate 
or draft or identify solutions to these problems.
  The solutions already exist. They asked that we pass a few pieces of 
legislation that will put our democracy back where it belongs: with the 
people.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I stand in solidarity with the individuals who came 
to Washington last week for Democracy Spring. I stand in strong support 
of reforms to how we run elections and how we ensure the right to vote.
  I urge my colleagues to follow suit in saving our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, a U.S. Representative.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank my colleague so much for taking the 
leadership this evening on such an important and central issue. It is 
really about our democracy.
  Our country has long been known and respected around the world as a 
beacon of democracy. We aspire to let every person participate in our 
system of government and give each person's views and votes equal 
weight. But today our democracy itself is in jeopardy.
  Instead of promoting voter participation, States are erecting 
barriers to keep Americans from voting. Instead of giving people an 
equal voice in our elections, corporations and the wealthy are claiming 
outsized influence. The Supreme Court, tasked with protecting our 
rights, is being crippled by congressional inaction.
  Over the past days, thousands of Americans have come to Washington to 
demand that we restore American democracy. I join them in their call 
for action: Pass the Voting Rights Amendment Act, stop the outsized 
role that money plays in politics, and fill the vacancy on our Supreme 
Court.
  Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. The 
Voting Rights Act broadened access to democracy and fulfilled the 
promise of the 15th Amendment. It ensured that every American had the 
opportunity to take part in the democratic process.
  But in recent years, courts and State legislatures have torn away at 
these rights. In 2013, the Supreme Court rolled back voter protections 
with its misguided Shelby County decision, striking down key provisions 
of the Voting Rights Act.
  Before the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act required 
States with a history of voter discrimination to clear any changes that 
they wanted to make to their voting laws in advance.
  What happened when this provision got struck down? No surprise. 
Certain States rushed to pass new voting restrictions.
  On the very day of the ruling, Texas officials announced they would 
implement a photo ID law that had previously been blocked.
  North Carolina went even further, imposing a strict photo ID law as 
well as cutting back early voting and reducing the time period for 
voter registration. This law disproportionately affects communities of 
color.
  This November is the first Presidential election since the weakening 
of the Voting Rights Act. Sixteen States now have new voting 
restrictions in place.
  The Voting Rights Amendment Act, introduced by my Republican 
colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner, would restore key protections of the 
Voting Rights Act.
  Despite bipartisan support for this bill, House leadership has simply 
failed to take action. The inaction is unforgivable.
  But voting rights are not the only part of our democratic process 
that is under attack. Citizens United, another misguided Supreme Court 
decision, has unleashed a flood of money from rich donors and powerful 
corporations that is now drowning out the voice of the American people.
  In the 2014 elections, the top 100 donors to super-PACs gave nearly 
as much as 4.75 million small donors combined. This election cycle, the 
Koch brothers alone have pledged to spend almost $900 million.

                              {time}  1730

  Just in the early phase of the 2016 Presidential race, 158 families 
were responsible for more than half of all the money raised in 
Presidential campaigns.
  The American people want action. They are demanding that we get money 
out of politics--the big money. Congress continues to ignore the will 
of the American people. Republican leadership has failed to take 
legislative action to address the egregious spending allowed by the 
Citizens United Supreme Court decision. For example, they haven't 
brought up H.R. 20, the Government By the People Act, which would 
provide matching funds for candidates who agree to rely on small donors 
to fund their campaigns. This would empower individuals to support 
candidates and balance the influence of big money.
  This is the sort of legislation the House ought to be considering. We 
don't just need legislative fixes, though. Repairing our democracy also 
requires confirming justices who understand that corporations are not 
people and money is not speech. But here, too, Republicans are refusing 
to do their job.
  On March 16, President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty--you 
can read it in the Constitution--by nominating D.C. Circuit Court Judge 
Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. But even 
before Garland's nomination was announced--in fact, just about an hour 
after Judge Antonin Scalia passed away--Senator Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell promised nothing but obstruction. He

[[Page 4850]]

said he would not hold a hearing, he would not have a vote, and that 
this was going to wait until the next election.
  Republican Senators have refused to hold hearings, they have refused 
to have an up-or-down vote, and many of them have refused to even meet 
with the nominee at all. Even those Senate Republicans who haven't 
publicly endorsed this obstruction are doing the bare minimum. They may 
have courtesy meetings, they may even say they would support hearings, 
or maybe even a vote, but words are not enough. We need action, not 
photo ops.
  The Constitution makes clear that the President--the sitting 
President, this President, Barack Obama--nominates judges to the 
Supreme Court. Then the Senate's job is to advise and consent on the 
President's nominee. It doesn't say: and you only do it in the first 7 
years of a President's term, and you don't do anything in the last year 
of a President's term. There is simply no excuse for the Senate to 
resist taking any action.
  I find it really disrespectful to the American people and I find it 
disrespectful to this President that they are saying that he cannot 
have the right; as every other President in history, even in the last 
year of his term, has had to nominate and have considered, and, in 
fact, all of those nominated in the last year were actually approved. 
So there is no excuse for the Senate to resist taking any action.
  Senate Republicans are putting politics ahead of the Constitution. 
That is not democracy. Big donors are not democracy. Taking away voting 
rights is not democracy.
  It is time for this House of Representatives to really represent the 
American people, listen to their calls for change, and take action to 
strengthen our democracy.
  Again, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Illinois for her very eloquent and very important remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey, who has led these Special Orders for communicating to the 
American people, and the gentlewoman from Chicago, Illinois, who has a 
history and record of reform. I thank the Congresswoman for her very 
well-stated challenge in a message and effort.
  Let me also thank those hundreds who have seen the inside of a 
Washington, D.C., jail. They have done so in the name of those who 
cannot speak for themselves--the millions of Americans who sit 
languishing because decisions are made against them and not for them. 
Unfortunately, big money, inertia, and the Congress not doing its job 
has taken the dominant place in American history.
  Hundreds of Democracy Spring protestors were arrested on Capitol 
Hill. We heard them repeatedly over the last week. Having had the 
experience of standing before the Sudanese embassy, standing in a fight 
for immigration reform myself, as well participating by way of fight 
and registering people to vote in the deep South in the aftermath of 
the 1965 Voting Rights Act, I think that protest and petition is a 
right of the American people--peaceful protest and petition--and I want 
to applaud those who sacrificed or stood their ground protesting the 
inertia of this Congress and the help that is needed by millions of 
Americans.
  Democracy Spring should be an agenda that all of us can support. It 
is, in fact, one that speaks to the question of how we are going to 
treat the least of those and how we are going to do what is right for 
the American people.
  There is no doubt, I think, if you were to ask one of our leading 
fighters in one of the States with the most draconian voter right laws, 
Reverend William Barber, who will be on the Hill tomorrow, he will know 
firsthand what voter suppression is all about. Clearly, it is an 
indictment of the undermining of the Bill of Rights, due process under 
the Fifth Amendment, and equal protection under the law.
  There are examples of voter ID laws where thousands are barred from 
voting. Maybe mistakenly the States did not realize that they did not 
have the offices, like Texas in over 80 counties, where individuals 
were supposed to get their voter ID; or in Alabama, where the Governor 
closed offices where people were to get their voter ID; or in other 
States, of course, where other reasons have been put forth--the 
stopping of early vote or the lessening of early vote by North 
Carolina, and, of course, the voter ID law.
  After section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was eviscerated, destroyed, 
in the Shelby case by the United States Supreme Court, despite having 
the right to have a disagreement with me--they are the Supreme Court--
they were absolutely wrong. As Justice Ginsburg said: For you would not 
stop using polio vaccine because you have not seen polio in the United 
States in any large way for a very long time.
  That is what we stand here on the floor today to talk about. That 
there is a need for a reckoning in this country that those who are part 
of Democracy Spring are standing up for. That is to ensure the 
restoration of the Voting Rights Act that is fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the Voting Rights Act protects all of our 
rights to vote, irrespective of color. It does not respect color. It 
only indicates that if you have been barred from voting unfairly, then 
we have the right--the Federal Government, the Department of Justice--
to review that.
  Lo and behold, section 5 saved money, millions of dollars, in fact. 
My own State has used millions of dollars, millions of tax dollars, to 
pursue and fight the Voting Rights Act, when in actuality the Voting 
Rights Act saves money.
  If a jurisdiction like, for example, Pasadena, Texas, which redid 
their city council structure that eliminated Hispanics from being able 
to even win in that city--if they had been able to have their 
particular process reviewed and found that it is in violation of the 
Voting Rights Act and unconstitutional to one vote, one person, then 
they may not have foolishly constructed that scheme and done one that 
maybe all parties could work together on. I believe in that.
  I have done some wonderful things with bipartisan friends, 
Republicans and Democrats, working on important issues. Criminal 
justice happens to be one of them. But that did not happen. So now 
section 2 becomes the arm of the way of trying to solve these problems, 
and, of course, in doing so, we have lost our way.
  Let me say that I was here when President Bush signed into law the 
1965 reauthorization, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, worked on it 
extensively and submitted amendments. Happily, it was voted for with a 
large margin by a bipartisan Congress 98-0 in the United States Senate, 
and a big celebration in the White House celebrating the signing of the 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act with section 5 after 15,000 
pages of testimony.
  Why can't we do that?
  The American people deserve that kind of response. Democracy Spring, 
you are right, let us reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  That draws me as well to the issue of the Supreme Court Justice and 
to recognize that constitutionally we are in a no man's land. No man's 
land is that we have taken the Constitution and, unfortunately, we 
burned it. The Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent, and 
it has a responsibility to address the question of the missing Supreme 
Court Justice.
  Justice Scalia was grounded in conservatism. All of us respected 
that. We disagreed on many occasions, but Justice Scalia wrote opinions 
that everybody agreed with. When it was a majority court, when there 
were others who had previously disagreed on other matters, they agreed.
  That is the way the Supreme Court works, but if you block from even a 
consideration or a meeting or a hearing, then you are literally tearing 
up the Constitution, ripping it up, and burning it up. Democracy Spring 
were willing to go to jail because they believe that is wrong, and I 
join them and stand with them in their protests and their petition.
  Now, let me step away for just a moment--my colleague and I will get

[[Page 4851]]

back--but I must say that I am, again, mourning the loss of those in my 
district who lost their lives through this terrible storm over these 
last couple of days. We expect rain to continue. I wanted to just make 
sure that, as I indicated yesterday when I was in my district, we are 
praying for their families.
  As Members of the United States Congress, I am hoping that we will 
find a way to work with places like New Orleans and Houston, Texas, who 
are 50 feet below sea level, that we are not just getting a hurricane. 
People understand hurricanes, they understand tornados, and they 
understand earthquakes. They don't understand just plain rain that 
comes up to 20 inches or more and you are literally under water, as we 
were in the spring of 2015 and now we are again. Homes destroyed of the 
most vulnerable of my constituents, those who are most impoverished.
  I cite this because I am in the midst of discussing that we should be 
doing our job. One of those issues is to look at the cost and the 
relationship to lives lost, to doing an infrastructure system, a 
retention system, and other systems that have been represented as being 
helpful, trying to work with various constituencies so they don't have 
to go through that again.
  Dying in one's car in an underpass, dying in one's car, can't get 
out, we had at least four people. We are up to eight. As I said, no one 
would understand it. It is not a flaring hurricane: Oh, you had a 
terrible hurricane, we understand it. Tornado. Oh, you had an 
earthquake, like the tragedy in Ecuador and Japan. We offer our 
sympathy to them.
  They don't understand just rain that causes loss of life--truck 
drivers, a young mother, a mechanical engineer. What are the horrors of 
dying in your car, drowning, and you are thinking someone is coming? 
You are using your cell phone, you think you see lights, and no one is 
showing up.
  I am burdened by this. I wanted to acknowledge them and offer my 
sympathy, and hope that tomorrow I will again come to the floor for a 
moment of silence.
  Let me step back to this because it ties in that we have to do our 
job here in Congress. All of us in our districts have had instances 
where the Congress' failure or the Federal Government's failure 
probably has impacted in some way some terrible loss of life.
  As I continue, we need a Supreme Court Justice, we need the 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and, as I just indicated, we 
need an infrastructure bill. We passed one, but we need one that gets 
into the weeds of these questions dealing with flooding and the loss of 
life and the loss of property that we have.

                              {time}  1745

  Finally, let me say this since I was here during this, and I use the 
Constitution in a way that, I think, is very, very important.
  I had a bill that I introduced that said a corporation is not a 
person. Citizens United is premised on that fact. The decision came 
down from the United States Supreme Court 5 years ago. That decision 
was the opening of the door of the dominance of big money over 
politics, and politics and policy has grown, seemingly without 
restraint and with dire consequences for representative self-
government.
  ``A functioning democracy requires a government responsive to the 
people''--we call ourselves the `people's House'--``considered as 
political equals, where we each have a say in the public policy 
decisions that affect our lives. It is profoundly antidemocratic for 
anyone to be able to purchase political power and when a small elite 
makes up a donor class that is able to shape our government and our 
public policy.''
  I offer that as an article written by Liz Kennedy on January 15, 
2015: ``Top Five Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy and Top Five Ways 
We're Fighting to Take Democracy Back.''
  She goes on to talk about how big money allows the wealthy elite few 
to overpower other voices. That sounds very familiar in the fight 
against gun violence and in the inability to get any gun legislation 
passed whether it has to do with gun storage bills that I have, whether 
it has to do with protecting our children, whether it has to do with 
background checks or with immunity that has been given to gun 
manufacturers and keeping away people like the Sandy Hook families or, 
maybe, families out of Chicago, where my colleague has been working so 
hard, Congresswoman Kelly.
  ``Secret political spending exploded after Citizens United because 
the disclosure requirements relied on by the Court do not yet exist.''
  No. 3: ``The purported `independence' of outside spending is often a 
farce, allowing for evasion of contribution limits and disclosure 
requirements.''
  She goes on to cite that big money in politics distorts 
representation and makes one group bigger than the other group.
  Then No. 5: ``The Supreme Court's decisions have distorted the 
Constitution by preventing commonsense rules to protect representative 
self-government.'' Might I say that that deals with the gun legislation 
as well.
  I think I will close with the simple words that we must do our jobs. 
We need to do our jobs. One of the reasons that we are in Court on the 
DACA and DAPA is that Congress did not do its job, and the President 
has the constitutional authority that says to take care, which means 
that that President, whoever he is, does have prosecutorial authority 
and discretion on how laws should be enforced, i.e., the immigration 
laws.
  The President is absolutely right. I do not know how the Supreme 
Court is going to rule. I would ask that they be very attentive to 
doing this in a constitutional manner, which means they have the 
ability to look at the Take Care Clause. That may not work, but they 
have the ability to look at standing; and I would make the argument 
that none of the States have been injured, because, as for all of the 
things that they are arguing about--driver's licenses and otherwise--
they don't have to do anything.
  The President is saying that these individuals will not be deported 
because they are not dangerous. He is not saying that States need to 
provide them with benefits, and they should not, by interpretation, 
suggest that he is dictating to them unfunded mandates of items that he 
has not asked. That is not in his executive order. It does not say what 
benefits they are supposed to get. In essence, in the President's doing 
his work, unfortunately, he is now being penalized for helping and 
following the Constitution.
  We have a Presidential campaign going on, and the one thing that I 
can be proud of is that the candidates who are now running in the 
Democratic primary have made it very clear of their opposition to big 
money in politics, of their opposition to Citizens United, and of their 
willingness to fight against it.
  In particular, I want to quote from the Boston Globe on then-
Secretary Clinton: ``She took a mostly hands-off approach to Wall 
Street regulation.'' She stayed away from it. She is not immersed in 
big money, which is a plus for all of us. She understands the people's 
voice must be heard and realizes that we must do something with 
Citizens United.
  I have joined in cosponsoring a constitutional amendment to change 
it, but in whatever way that we can move forward to change it, the 
voices of the people must speak. Public finance is a reputable and 
reasonable way to run Presidential campaigns and to run all of our 
campaigns, but until it is done, it is important for us to listen to 
the voices of the people and to make sure that, however big money comes 
in, it does not carry this House--this body and the other body--on its 
back, marching towards legislation that will not help the American 
people.
  Democracy Spring was a movement of quality and dignity, and I am here 
today to thank them for their willingness to peacefully petition and 
protest. Over the years and decades, America has seen those protests 
peacefully leading to, as Dr. King might say, a promised land in which 
all of us can enjoy the benefits of what America truly stands for.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I am always grateful for the gentlewoman from 
Texas who comes and shares her wisdom and her passion and her concern.

[[Page 4852]]

  Mr. Speaker, as we close out this Special Order hour, I just want to 
share a few more comments.
  We should be doing whatever we can to ensure that every American is 
able to participate in the democratic process and ensure that elected 
officials truly represent the voices of their constituents. The right 
to vote and the elections in which we cast our ballots are the 
foundations of our democracy, and policymakers should be strengthening 
those systems and expanding that right whenever and wherever possible. 
Instead, for the past few years, we have been restricting it.
  In a Nation whose founding documents begin with ``we the people of 
the United States,'' the local, State, and Federal Government should 
champion the cause of ensuring that every single American can make his 
voice heard with as little difficulty as possible. I support every 
effort to do so, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


  

                          ____________________