Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

H.R. 9 amends and reauthorizes the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years, several provisions of which will expire on August 6, 2007, unless Congress acts to renew them.

I was proud to lead Republican efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and I am pleased to have authored this important legislation to do the same thing a quarter century later.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to address our country's ignoble history of racial discrimination and to ensure that the rights enunciated in our Constitution become a practical reality for all.

Since its 1965 enactment, the VRA has been reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992, each time with strong bipartisan support. The right to vote is fundamental in our system of government, and the importance of voting rights is reflected by the fact that they are protected by five separate amendments to the Constitution, including the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendment.

However, history reveals that certain States and localities have not always been faithful to the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and some have tried to disenfranchise African American and other minority voters through means ranging from violence and intimidation to subtle changes in voting rules. As a result, many minorities were unable to fully participate in the political process for nearly a century after the end of the Civil War.

The VRA has dramatically reduced these discriminatory practices and transformed our Nation's electoral process and makeup of our Federal, State, and local governments. Since its enactment, the VRA has been instrumental in remedying past injustices by ensuring that States and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination address and correct those abuses, and, in some instances, stopping them from happening in the first place.

Section 5 prohibits States with documented histories of racial discrimination in voting from changing election practices and processes without first submitting the changes to the Department of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 5 has helped ensure minority citizens in these covered jurisdictions to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

As a result of section 5 and other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, minority participation and elections as well as the number of minorities serving in elected positions has increased significantly, and many of our colleagues who are here today are personal embodiments of those changes.

Last summer, I along with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Watt pledged to have the VRA's temporary provisions reauthorized for an additional 25 years. Over the last 7 months, the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution examined the VRA in great detail, focusing on those provisions set to expire in 2007.

In addition to gathering evidence of ongoing discriminatory conduct, the subcommittee examined the impact that two Supreme Court decisions, the Bossier II and Georgia v. Ashcroft decisions, have had on section 5's ability to protect minorities from discriminatory voting changes particularly in State and congressional redistricting initiatives.

Based upon the committee's record, and let me put the books of the hearings of this committee's record on the table, it is one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legislation that the United States Congress has dealt with in the 27\1/2\ years that I have been honored to serve as a Member of this body. All of this is a part of the record that the Committee on the Constitution headed by Mr. Chabot of Ohio has assembled to show the need for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

H.R. 9 includes language that makes it clear that a voting change motivated by any discriminatory purpose cannot be precleared, and clarifies that the purpose of the preclearance requirements is to protect the ability of minority citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice. These changes restore section 5 to its original purpose, enabling it to better protect minority voters.

In addition, H.R. 9 reauthorizes section 203 for an additional 25 years, ensuring that legal, taxpaying, language-impaired citizens are assisted in exercising their right to vote. And, in my opinion, this is particularly important in elections where ballot questions are submitted to the voters. The committee record that formed the basis for this legislation demonstrates that, while the VRA has been successful in

protecting minority voters who are historically disenfranchised in certain parts of the country, our work is not yet complete. Racial discrimination in the electoral process continues to exist and threatens to undermine the progress that has been made over the last 40 years.

In fact, the extensive record of continued abuse compiled by the committee over the last year, which I have put on the table here today, echoes that which preceded congressional reauthorization of the VRA in 1982, and which led me to make the following observations during the committee's consideration of the VRA reauthorization legislation then:

``Testimony is quite clear that this act has been the most successful civil rights act that has ever been passed by the Congress of the United States. The overwhelming preponderance of the testimony was that the Voting Rights Act has worked. It has provided the franchise to numerous people who were denied the right to vote for one reason or another. It has provided a dramatic increase in the number of minority- elected officials in covered jurisdictions. I think that very clearly demonstrates the need for an extension. The hearings also very clearly showed that the creativity of the human mind is unlimited when it comes to proposing election law changes that are designed to prevent people from voting.''

By extending the VRA for an additional 25 years, H.R. 9 ensures that the gains made by minorities are not jeopardized. Like the preceding reauthorization efforts, this bill has strong support from Republicans and Democrats alike, including that of Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi. H.R. 9 is also supported by many prominent religious and civil rights organizations.

Mr. Chairman, among the keepsakes of my public service that I most cherish is one of the signing pens President Ronald Reagan used when enacting the 1982 Voting Rights Amendments into law. When considering their vote on the legislation now before the House, I would urge my colleagues to reflect upon President Reagan's eloquent remarks on this occasion:

``Yes, there are differences over how to attain the equality we seek for all our people. And sometimes amidst all the overblown rhetoric, the differences seem to be bigger than they are. But actions speak louder than words. This legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights. It also proves that differences can be settled in a spirit of good will and good faith.

As I've said before, the right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. The legislation that I'm signing demonstrates America's commitment to preserving this essential right. I'm proud of the Congress for passing this legislation, and I'm proud to be able to sign it.'' Ronald Reagan, in August of 1982.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand here with my colleagues, as I did then, to ensure that voting rights remain protected for an additional 25 years. Let Congress again make America proud by passing this historical and vital legislation without amendment.

Remarks on Signing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982

June 29, 1982.--Well, I am pleased today to sign the

legislation extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Citizens must have complete confidence in the sanctity of

their right to vote, and that's what this legislation is all

about. It provides confidence that constitutional guarantees

are being upheld and that no vote counts more than another.

To so many of our people--our Americans of Mexican descent,

our black Americans--this measure is as important

symbolically as it is practically. It says to every

individual, ``Your vote is equal; your vote is meaningful;

your vote is your constitutional right.''

I've pledged that as long as I'm in a position to uphold

the Constitution, no barrier will come between our citizens

and the voting booth. And this bill is a vital part of

fulfilling that pledge.

This act ensures equal access to the political process for

all our citizens. It securely protects the right to vote

while strengthening the safeguards against representation by

forced quota. The legislation also extends those special

provisions applicable to certain States and localities, while

at the same time providing an opportunity for the

jurisdictions to bail out from the special provisions when

appropriate. In addition, the bill extends for 10 years the

protections for language minorities.

President Eisenhower said, ``The future of the Republic is

in the hands of the American voter.'' Well, with this law, we

make sure the vote stays in the hands of every American.

Let me say how grateful I am to these gentlemen up here,

the Members of the House and Senate from both sides of the

aisle, and particularly those on the Senate Judiciary

Committee, for getting this bipartisan legislation to my

desk.

Yes, there are differences over how to attain the equality

we seek for all our people. And sometimes amidst all the

overblown rhetoric, the differences tend to seem bigger than

they are. But actions speak louder than words. This

legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights.

It also proves that differences can be settled in a spirit of

good will and good faith.

In this connection, let me also thank all the other

organizations and individuals--many who are here today--who

worked for this bill. As I've said before, the right to vote

is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see

its luster diminished.

The legislation that I'm signing is the longest extension

of the act since its enactment and demonstrates America's

commitment to preserving this essential right. I'm proud of

the Congress for passing this legislation. I'm proud to be

able to sign it.

And without saying anything further, I'm going to do that

right now.

[At this point, the President signed the bill.]

It's done.

Note: The President spoke at 12:15 p.m. at the signing

ceremony in the East Room at the White House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who held all of these hearings to show why this legislation is necessary, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Price) for purposes of a colloquy.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act coverage formula and the provisions that it triggers have been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions and not just in 1966. The Supreme Court in 1980 in Rome v. United States, and later in 1999 in Lopez v. Monterey County, upheld the constitutionality of section 5.

In particular, in the city of Rome, the court looked at the House Judiciary Committee's finding that ``the recent objections entered by the Attorney General to section 5 submissions clearly bespeak the continuing need to this particular preclearance mechanism.''

Now, there have been objections that have been interposed to submissions that have been made in Georgia since 2000, and that is why we have to have the formula that is in section 5 and the preclearance provisions in section 5 which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Section 5 of H.R. 9 contains a sentence that states: ``The purpose of subsection B of this section is to protect the ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.''

Is it your understanding that this language in the text of the committee report that accompanies this legislation is consistent with the understanding that the purpose of this section of H.R. 9 is to ensure that no voting procedure changes will be made that will lead to a retrogression of the position of racial or language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, and that this determination shall be made without consideration of political party control or influence in any elective body?

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, following the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) is always a very tough act, but I would like to reiterate what he so eloquently said. We need the Voting Rights Act, and we need the Voting Rights Act because in the last 25 years the covered jurisdictions have not come clean.

Let's look at Georgia. Since 1982, there have been 91 objections, 91 objections submitted by the Department of Justice. And since 2002, there have been seven voting rule changes that were withdrawn by the State because of DOJ objections.

Texas, 105 objections imposed by DOJ since 1982, and 14 voting rule proposals were withdrawn by the State because

of voting rights concerns in the last 4 years.

Mississippi, 112 objections since 1982, and Federal observers have been sent to this State 14 times to monitor elections since 2002, most recently last year.

Louisiana, 96 objection since 1982, eight Department of Justice objections to voting rules have been lodged since 2002, most recently in 2005, and 10 voting rule proposals withdrawn by the State in the last 4 years.

South Carolina, 73 objections since 1982.

North Carolina in the covered jurisdictions, 45 objections since 1982.

And Alabama, 46 objections, and Federal observers have been assigned to the State 65 times since 2000 to monitor elections.

Arizona, 17 objections since 2002, and Federal observers have been assigned to that State 380 times since 2000 to monitor elections, including 107 since 2004.

Now, I think these figures ought to make it very clear that we need this bill, and we need this bill without any of the four amendments that are about ready to be offered.

And, finally, before we get into the debate on the amendments, I would like to offer my thanks to the staff people who have helped put together this record, Paul Taylor, the chief counsel of the Subcommittee on the Constitution; Kim Betz, the subcommittee counsel; Stephanie Moore, the Democratic counsel to the Committee on Judiciary and counsel to Mr. Watt; and, most particularly, Philip Kiko, who is chief of staff and general counsel of the committee, who is part of the institutional memory, because he helped me get the Voting Rights Act extension passed and signed in 1982.

We put in the work on this, we have done the hearings, the record is replete. We need this law extended, and we need it extended for 25 years. Vote ``yes'' on the bill, ``no'' on the amendments, and let's go down in history as the House that did the right thing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts the Voting Rights Act, and let's make no bones about it. It does so by altering its coverage formula to cover only those jurisdictions in which voter registration and turnout fell below 50 percent in the 2004, 2000, and 1996 Presidential elections.

Based on the Census Bureau Current Population Survey, there is not a single State, except Hawaii, with voter registration and turnout below the 50 percent level required by this amendment. That means that only the State of Hawaii in its entirety would be covered, along with random scattershot jurisdictions across the country that do not have the century-long history of discrimination that the covered States do, and which the Supreme Court requires for the application of the preclearance and Federal observer conditions contained in the VRA.

The amendment not only guts the bill, but turns the Voting Rights Act into a farce.

To give you a sense of the absurdity of this amendment, let's take the example of Montana. In Montana, the amendment would only cover Glacier County, where there has been absolutely no evidence of voting discrimination, but where voter registration and turnout fell below the thresholds established by this amendment. That is the little blue spot on the Canadian border on Mr. Norwood's map.

The amendment, however, would not cover Blaine County, where just a few years ago a Federal District Court and a U.S. Court of Appeals found widespread evidence of discrimination against American Indians, who comprised one-third of all of the voters.

This amendment would also not cover Big Horn County, where a Federal court documented the virtually complete disenfranchisement of American Indian voters, nor would it apply to several other counties in Montana where voting discrimination has occurred, such as Rosebud County.

Under this amendment, similarly absurd results apply in 38 other States. So you might want to check on how this amendment affects your State before deciding whether to vote ``yes'' on it.

In addition, the amendment would render the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. This amendment is designed to make all of the expiring provisions unconstitutional, and it simply guarantees that the Supreme Court of the United States will wipe this act off the books.

As recently as 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the current coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act. In 1999, 7 years ago. In Lopez v. Monterey County, the Supreme Court upheld the Voting Rights Act's voting rule preclearance requirement finding that it ``burdens State law only to the extent that the law affects voting in jurisdictions properly designated for coverage.''

By radically altering the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act in a way that severs its connection to jurisdictions with proven discriminatory histories, this amendment will render H.R. 9 unconstitutional and leave minority voters without the essential protections of the preclearance and the Federal observer requirements central to the VRA. The elimination of these provisions would threaten to destroy the advances of voting rights the VRA has made possible to date and must continue to protect and advance in the future.

There is broad agreement on this point. Justice Scalia, in his opinion in the recent Texas redistricting case, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, makes its clear that the Voting Rights Act with its current coverage formula will be upheld as constitutional, and that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies only to jurisdictions with a history of official discrimination.

The existing formula triggering coverage under the Voting Rights Act is not at all outdated in any meaningful sense of the term, and States covered are not unfairly punished under the coverage formula. Sixteen States are covered in whole or in part under the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The formula does not limit coverage to a particular region, but encompasses those States and jurisdictions where less than 50 percent of the citizens of voting age population registered or turned out to vote in 1964, 1968 or 1972.

But coverage is not, and I repeat ``not'' predicated on these statistics alone. States are not covered unless they applied discriminatory voting tests. And it was this aspect of the formula that brought these jurisdictions with the most serious histories of discrimination under Federal scrutiny.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has held that ``Obviously, the preclearance requirements of the original act and its reauthorization had a much larger purpose than to increase voter registration.'' On the occasion of each reauthorization, Congress reviewed voting progress, including increases in registration and turnout, and the necessity of continuing coverage under the act.

The review was no different in 2006. The Judiciary Committee had 12 hearings, called 46 witnesses, and compiled more than 12,000 pages of evidence of continued discrimination in covered jurisdictions. In Georgia alone, 91 objections were interposed by the Justice Department since 1982, including four since 2002. In Texas, 105 objections were interposed. All of these incidents involved voting rule changes that the Department of Justice determined to be discriminatory.

Indeed, the reauthorization of this formula in H.R. 9 is based on recent and proven instances of discrimination in voting rights compiled in the Judiciary Committee's 12,000-page record. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act as it exists already includes provisions that allow for the expansion and reduction of covered jurisdictions as necessary, which ensures that the list of covered jurisdictions is appropriately revised and updated.

Insofar as voting conditions have improved over the years in the covered jurisdictions, that improvement is due precisely to the Voting Rights Act itself and the requirements preventing discriminatory voting rule changes from going into effect. This amendment would abolish exactly those provisions that are directly responsible for the enhanced voting protections that the VRA has secured for millions of Americans. As a result, the amendment undermines the VRA's goal of ensuring that progress made by minority voters continues and that America never backslides in its protection of minority voting rights.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) with a different view on what is going on there.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) to explain why Hawaii does not have a history of discrimination and should not be covered under the Norwood amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just set the record straight. When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) conducted the hearings before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, he allowed nonmembers of the Judiciary Committee to come and participate in the hearings and to ask questions of the witnesses that came before the hearing. And I know that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, did participate very actively. We were very happy that he came, and appreciate the contributions that he made.

So we have not been exclusionary at all. And a lot of other committees simply do not allow nonmembers of the committee to participate. Mr. Chabot did.

But I would like to point out that much of the impetus behind this amendment comes from Georgia. And I think the fallacy of the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is that he wants to base coverage exclusively on voter participation and not on any other factors, and that is what the constitutional flaw is.

The reason that section 5 does have the preclearance requirement is based on a number of factors, including the past history of discrimination and discriminatory voting practices.

In Georgia there have been 91 objections since the last reauthorization by the Department of Justice, and seven of them have been objections that have resulted in withdrawal of voting changes since 2002. So the arguments that Georgia isn't doing all this bad stuff anymore are not borne out by the statistics of what has been submitted to the Justice Department and where preclearance has been rejected.

During the general debate today, I introduced two rather extensive reports into the record from outside groups that gave the history of section 5 objections and voting rights problems in the State of Georgia since the 1982 reauthorization.

Now, the amendment that Mr. Norwood has proposed is a Trojan horse. It is designed to make the section 5 protections unconstitutional. And I guess the argument that I am hearing, the result of which is that if you can't win here, jiggle the law so that it ends up being declared unconstitutional in court.

This has been an important part of the Voting Rights Act. We should not run the risk of changing the formula that has met the test of time with repeated constitutional challenges. That is why the Norwood amendment should be rejected.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.

Gohmert) is not really a 10-year reauthorization. It is a 9-year reauthorization since the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions do not expire until August 6, 2007. So this really is kind of a little bit less than what has been advertised.

The last time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized, it was reauthorized for 25 years; and there is no reason why it should not be reauthorized for another 25 years. Minority citizens register, turn out, and cast meaningful ballots as a result of the protections extended by the Voting Rights Act. And while we have made great strides in achieving Martin Luther King's goal of having people judged by the depth of their character rather than the color of their skin, without the Voting Rights Act's being there, their vote will not be treated equally with the votes of every other citizen in that jurisdiction or of the United States of America.

History has also shown that when Federal oversight is eliminated, minority voters suffer the most. And the purpose of this legislation is to protect the progress made by minority voters over the last several decades and to continue that progress for the next 25 years.

The 12 hearings conducted by the Judiciary Committee and the enormous evidentiary record shows that all Voting Rights Acts violations that have occurred in covered jurisdictions support the conclusion that renewal of the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years is warranted.

Anyone who votes for this amendment will have to tell their constituents why the following information and testimony did not justify the full 25-year renewal of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The committee report makes clear ``more section 5 objections were lodged between 1982 and 2004 than were interposed between 1965 and 1982.'' So we are talking about the fact that the number of actions that have required objections in precleared States have not gone away or significantly diminished. And since 1982, the Department of Justice has objected to more than 700 voting changes that have been determined to be discriminatory. And I have talked earlier in this debate about the number of objections, both since 1982 and since 2004, that have been objected to as being discriminatory.

Let me say that with the 9 years proposed in the Gohmert amendment rather than the 25 years, when this act comes up for renewal in 2016, as the gentleman from Texas wants, there will be significantly less record because it is a significantly shorter period of time. And believe me, the people who have been opposed to the Voting Rights Act, and we have heard a lot from them today and will continue to hear a lot from them, will say, look, things are getting much better. The last time it came up they had 24 years of records and it was yea big, and now let us look at this. It has not been quite as much. And believe me, a court is going to take judicial notice of that as well.

Now, in the face of the current evidentiary record of abuse, it would be shortsighted and irresponsible not to reauthorize the VRA for at least as long as the last reauthorization President Reagan signed into law in 1982. Moreover, renewing the preclearance and Federal observer provisions of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years is necessary to allow a meaningful change to be measured and to make eradication of discrimination in the voting process an achievable goal. Most activity under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act occurs during redistricting, which only happens every 10 years following each census.

If the Voting Rights Act is not renewed for an additional 25 years, it will capture only one redistricting cycle, and that will not provide enough evidence of the past use and practice to allow Congress to make the same reasoned determination regarding renewal 10 years from now that this Congress is allowed to make on the previous record of 25 years.

For this reason adopting this amendment will effectively preclude the Congress from ever reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act again because it will deny Congress the sufficiently large set of data the Supreme Court has held necessary for the Voting Rights Act to be reauthorized.

Further, this amendment, if adopted, would completely nullify the current incentive the VRA provides to encourage covered jurisdictions to maintain clean voting rights records for 10 years in order to be eligible to utilize the bailout process. This amendment sends the message to covered jurisdictions that the VRA will not apply to them in the future regardless of their conduct over the next 10 years.

In sum, to protect minority voting rights for decades to come, to prevent tying Congress' hands in 10 years by denying it the sufficient record on which to decide future renewals as required by the Supreme Court, and to prevent nullifying the current Voting Rights Act's incentive to maintain clean voting records for 10 years, this amendment should be soundly defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons why this amendment should be rejected. First of all, it flies in the face of the fact that there have been more section 5 objections lodged by the Justice Department since the last reauthorization than during the first 17 years of operation of the Voting Rights Act.

Since 1982, over 700 objections have been lodged. That means we still need

this law, and we need the law on the books for a long time.

Second, adopting this amendment will effectively prohibit Congress from ever reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act again, because it will deny us, the Congress of the United States, a sufficiently large set of data the Supreme Court has held necessary for the VRA to be authorized.

What the gentleman from Texas's amendment does is, it gives Congress 16 years less data in the future by shortening the reauthorization period from 25 years to 9 years.

Finally, the amendment, if adopted, would completely nullify the current incentive the Voting Rights Act provides to encourage covered jurisdictions to have clean voting records for 10 years in order to get out through the bail-out provisions. This is only a 9-year extension. The way I was taught math, 9 is less than 10.

So there is no incentive whatsoever for a covered jurisdiction to clean up its act to be able to bail out, because the act will expire before they can have the 10 years to do it. Vote against the amendment. It is a bad one

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear, I believe every citizen of this country should be able to vote unencumbered. I believe, actually, that the Voting Rights Act has been and is a good thing and it should be reauthorized. I nor anybody I know is trying to do away with section 5, though I continue to hear it over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, today we battle a phantom that has haunted this Chamber since the day, probably, it was first built. It has stalked us since before we were a Nation. It poured the curse of slavery on our infant Republic. It fed the flames of regional conflict until we suffered the most devastating war in our history. It gave birth to segregation, poll taxes, and literacy tests.

This specter embodies what is perhaps our Nation's original sin: discrimination. It has dunned us with a moral debt that maybe can never be fully paid. I pray that is not the case. But then again, maybe it is only waiting for a generation with the courage to exorcise that demon out of our hearts and out of this land.

Our forebears, in spite of their many blessings that they left us, failed this challenge. They had the chance with Dred Scott and instead decided that slaves were not human beings. They had a second chance with Jim Crow, but instead built a segregated society.

Today, we have a rare chance, and I mean rare, to revisit the fundamental issue, discrimination, that our predecessors avoided dealing with.

Discrimination is the creation of laws or systems that deny a person the same rights enjoyed by their fellow human beings, not because of what they do but because of who they are. In 1965 that meant white people in many areas of this country, and especially in my beloved South, set up legal hurdles that kept people of color from voting. Not because of what they did, but simply because of who they were.

The Voting Rights Act, passed by this House in 1965, stopped that practice. It did so by temporarily denying the voters of my State and others their constitutional right to determine election practices without Federal interference.

This harsh measure, known as section 5 oversight, was not discrimination. It was not laid on these jurisdictions because of who they were, but because of what they did. Now, this is a profound point. Forty years later there is not a single member of my State legislature who served in 1964, particularly the Democrats, under those discriminatory laws. Seventy percent of today's Georgians did not live in Georgia in 1964. They are either dead or have moved away under these discriminatory laws. They were either unborn or have since moved perhaps somewhere else.

Yet H.R. 9 would leave all these people, who have committed no wrong, with diminished election rights. Not because of what they do, but because of who they are. This is blatant discrimination based on nothing more than where we live.

All who dwell on a particular type of soil, section 5 soil, now have their constitutional rights curtailed. Is the Earth beneath our feet guilty of the crimes of man? Does it then condemn all who trod on our soil? That is the contention of H.R. 9, as it ravages the rights of the innocent, those whose only offense is in where they live.

Unlike H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act did not condemn the righteous with the wicked. It reserved its penalties only for those jurisdictions where offenses

had occurred and only until those injustices were corrected. It was not a life sentence and certainly not a sentence on those yet unborn.

Georgia now outperforms the Nation, outperforms the Nation, in every area of black voting: turnout, registration, the success rate of black candidates in our State. Yet H.R. 9 turns a blind eye to these facts and seeks to let the innocent continue their punishment for another quarter of a century.

Mr. Chairman, either we restore their voting rights to equality, or the Supreme Court will be forced to do it for us. And the Court will do so in ways far more damaging to section 5 than any reasonable amendment that I am going to bring later today that we could devise.

The days of allowing the ghost of the past to discriminate against the living are and should be coming to an end. Our choice today is whether it will end through carefully crafted amendments or will it be through the judicial act. All we are trying to do is change section 5 so that every citizen in this country, whether you are from Tennessee, whether you are from Wisconsin, have the same equal rights that minorities in Georgia have.

And when you get time, look at these maps. On the right it shows you everybody that is in white is not under section 5. If you are in a color, you are under section 5. Everybody on the map on the left covers 39 States that actually have been guilty of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. I do not understand how you can go home and you can say you are all for equal rights, fair rights, protections for voters in Georgia, but it is not all right to have those same protections in Tennessee or in Arkansas or in Wisconsin or Ohio. What is wrong with looking at the whole Nation? Everybody is not going to go under it. Everybody is not going to break section 5 formula. But others are besides just us. And on that map Georgia stays under section 5, and I hate it. I wish we were not. Ten counties might get out, but they can only get out for 4 years. The Attorney General is going to be requested to look at it every 4 years and all across the country, including Ohio and including Florida. What is wrong with that? I fail to understand why anybody would find fault.

You say that we have had so many objections, meaning Georgia. I promise you an objection does not automatically mean discrimination. We have had five objections since 2000. One of them came from a majority black city council, and it was thrown out. That puts us in the penalty box for another 10 years.

Let me quote what my good friend John Lewis said in an affidavit:

The State (Georgia) is not the same State it was. It's not

the same State that it was in 1965 or in 1975 or even in 1980

or 1990. We have changed. We have come a great distance. I

think that it's not just in Georgia but in the American

South. I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of

race.

Clearly John is proud of Georgia's progress, as am I.

Congressman Lewis is not alone in recognizing progress.

Here's how my State's African American Attorney General Thurbert Baker testified before a Federal three judge panel in 2001.

The State's (Georgia) racial and political experience in

recent years is radically different than it was 10 or 20

years ago, and that is exemplified on every level of politics

from statewide elections on down. The election history for

legislative offices in the Georgia House, Senate, and the

United States Congress reflect a high level of success of

African American candidates.

But this is more critical. The Judiciary Committee record seems to show that the problems that do continue to exist occur across the Nation, not just the States in the covered jurisdictions.

So why isn't the Judiciary Committee going after these current potential violations instead of dwelling on those from four decades ago?

Since 1965, there have been 83 Department of Justice objections raised to voting changes in Georgia.

And here's a critical point for the record--a DOJ objection does not equal guilt.

DOJ itself withdrew 14 of those 83 objections.

When my State tried to satisfy one of those objections in drawing congressional districts, the district lines demanded by DOJ objection were then thrown out by the Supreme Court. So objection does not equal violation.

Fifty-five of the 83 objections were in the first 10 years as the act was being implemented, leaving 28 objections between 1975 and now.

Only seven objections have been stated since 2000, well within national averages. And again, an objection is not a violation.

It's now been 40 years since the Voting Rights Act took effect. Georgia has a higher percentage of black elected officials than the overwhelming majority of States not included in Section 5 Federal oversight.

Yet the Federal oversight continues.

Nationwide, there are 9,101 black elected officials. Blacks make up 11.4 percent of voters, and 1.8 percent of elected officials.

In contrast, Georgia has 611 black elected officials. Blacks make up 26.6 percent of our population, and 9.3 percent of elected officials.

That's more than double the level of black representation of the Nation as a whole.

Black elected officials make up 20 percent of our State House and Senate members, and 30 percent of our members to the U.S. House.

Georgia has a black Attorney General, elected by voters statewide. Georgia has a black Supreme Court Justice.

Georgia and the South now lead the Nation in civil rights achievements, putting to shame the record of those States who continue to point their hypocritical fingers at the grave of Bull Connor.

Yet Georgia remains on the Federal oversight list, while States with a fraction of our percentage of black elected officials per capita remain oversight free.

If Georgia remains on that list without modification, then the majority of the people of a State, who have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose legislators have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose State has one of the highest levels of minority elected officials in the Nation, will have their State's constitutional right to determine political boundaries and election rules usurped without justification.

That's a clear-cut violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it's voter discrimination against every Georgian.

Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming were included in 1970, but successfully filed ``bailout'' lawsuits that allowed them to get off the list, because no one had a political reason to object.

To successfully file a bailout, the State must prove that during the past 10 years no scheme such as poll taxes or literacy tests have been used; all changes affecting voting have been reviewed prior to their implementation; no change has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the District of Columbia district court; there have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination; there are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and Federal examiners have not been assigned.

As can easily be seen, a simple accusation will keep a State off the bailout list for 10 years at a time.

DOJ can file an objection, then withdraw it, and that's all that's necessary to keep Georgia under Section 5 another 10 years.

There must be a more lawful means for the citizens of Georgia to regain voting rights equality with the rest of America.

Later today I will bring an amendment to ensure that all Americans will have equal protection under the Voting Rights Act.

Under this amendment, minority voters nationwide will have access to the same Section 5 protections, if there has been a violation of their rights.

At the same time, all voters across America will be treated the same if there has been no violation in the last 12 years.

With this amendment, the Voting Rights Act will be restored to its original intent--to end unjust discrimination in Voting Rights, for all Americans.

This amendment provides lawful means to win release from Section 5, while expanding minority voting rights protections nationally.

It is the only commonsense solution to avoiding a constitutional challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to submit for the Record an article from Dr. Ronald Gaddie of the University of Oklahoma and an article from the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Chairman, when the original Voting Rights Act passed this House, it was to correct voting discrimination evident in the 1964 Presidential election. The legal protections and enforcement scheme in the new law were all designed around that challenge.

The specific challenges of 1964 have long ago been rectified, yet the specific enforcement scheme contained in sections 4 and 5 remain based on 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Here are the current rules on the VRA:

To fall under section 5 Federal oversight, a voting jurisdiction has to have committed both of the following offenses:

One, they must have maintained discriminatory tests or devices to discourage voting in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.

Two, they had to have fallen below 50 percent voter registration or turnout in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.

Note that an area must have committed both offenses back then to fall under section 5.

We have a rare opportunity today to update the Voting Rights Act and bring it back into compliance with the original intent of the bill to safeguard voting rights all across the country, not just in the current 16 States.

Instead of continuing to face legal protections on 1964 conditions, this amendment will update them to modern results and toughen the standard, and, indeed, add more jurisdictions under the Voting Rights Act.

First, instead of requiring a jurisdiction to violate both of the standards to fall under section 5 oversight, a jurisdiction is placed in the penalty box for violating either one of the two triggers.

Second, the Presidential election years used to determine violations are updated to the most recent three elections, 1996, 2000, 2004. They would be automatically updated in the future to ensure that the act stays current.

Third, the penalty period for new violations is increased from the current 10-year bailout rule to 12 years, by requiring an area demonstrate three

clean Presidential elections in a row in order to get out of the penalty box.

Under this amendment, the Justice Department is ordered to automatically review nationwide results and add noncomplying areas to the section 4 list or section 5 oversight after each 4-year cycle. Any jurisdiction that does not violate either trigger for three Presidential election years in a row will be automatically removed from section 5.

That is a real incentive for State and local governments to move aggressively into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. It guarantees the terms for getting off the list, without bankrupting local governments with legal bills as do the current arbitrary 10-year bailout requirements, which in many cases are impossible to meet. And it is certain that a partisan Justice Department wants to make sure you stay under there for 10 years, and with enough time we will explain how they do that.

The Justice Department will therefore determine whether specific jurisdictions need to be added or deleted from Federal oversight list based on their performance in 1996, 2000, and 2004 rather than 1964, with automatic rolling updates to future election cycles.

The end result of this amendment would be expanded Federal oversight in areas with current violations, and section 5 oversight relief for areas with long-standing historic Voting Rights Act compliance.

My State of Georgia, under my amendment, will unfortunately, remain on the list since we fell below the 50 percent trigger in 1996.

There are currently 837 jurisdictions under section 5 oversight. That would be on the chart to the right. Under this amendment, there would be a minimum, with my new amendment there would be a minimum of 1,010 covered jurisdictions all across the country in 39 States. That is indicated by the chart on my left. The white areas are people not under 5; under my amendment the colored areas are people who would be under 5 because they broke the same rule under section 4 as we did in Georgia.

In fact, there would be substantially more than that. Our researchers could only find areas out of compliance in 2000 and 2004, without spending a great deal of money in 1996, but we will know 1996. So all these areas that failed to comply in 1996 would also be added to section 5 oversight as well. We just can't tell you for sure right now how many more that might be.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will significantly improve voting rights protections by eliminating default amnesty for modern violations. It will provide understandable and clearly defined goals for areas not in compliance with either original trigger, and thereby encourage vigorous remedial action by those governments, and actually strengthening and updating the Voting Rights Act to go after current violations.

I do not understand why it is not important about violators in 2004, but we seem to not take that up in H.R. 9.

Our amendment provides long-overdue equity to the areas of our country that unjustly remain under penalty for 40-year-old violations that have long been remedied. And do not kid yourself, just because a partisan Justice Department objects to a submittal does not necessarily mean they are right. The Supreme Court has said on occasion that they are wrong. Nor does it mean that there has been any discrimination.

I urge Members to support updating the Voting Rights Act for the 21st century with this amendment

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to simply point out that most of what the chairman said I certainly don't agree with, and I fully expect the Supreme Court not to agree with it either.

I didn't write section 4, but I can read even though I am not a lawyer. It is very clear what the mechanism in section 4 says and means to put you under section 5, and there is no reason, I think, on earth, that every jurisdiction in this country shouldn't have to live under the same rule.

The scattered counties we are talking about over there that would go under section 5 end up being 200 or 300 more that aren't under there now. And, Mr. Chairman, if you think they have problems in Montana in discriminating, you ought to do something about it. All I can do is have them follow section 4 of the original VRA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention to my colleague that 43 of the people you had testify were 43 people who came in to justify what you had done in H.R. 9. Everybody has been here long enough to know how you set up hearings. There were three people in that whole group that disagreed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Chairman, of course our amendment does not do that. It simply applies to every jurisdiction in the country equally, equal protection under the law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), and then I will do my close, and the chairman says he will then close.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to Mr. Conyers, I am not on the Justice Committee, the fair Justice Committee. I don't have any right to testify before the committee, nor am I asked to testify before the committee, nor would I, I doubt, be allowed to testify before the committee simply because I don't agree with H.R. 9 as it presently is written.

What we are asking here basically is that everybody be treated equal under the law. Section 4, I didn't write. Section 4 clearly says what the formula is. In fact, section 4's formula is why my State is under section 5.

Why in the world shouldn't we look at everybody in the country today, in the 21st century?

In 1964, my son was 2 years old. He was part of the 30 percent of Georgians that are still in Georgia today. I don't think he had anything to do with 1965.

I was 23 years old. I didn't have a clue what was going on in 1965. Half of the 30 percent of the people in Georgia who were in Georgia in 1965 had nothing to do with this. You are finding my grandchild guilty for something my grandchild didn't do, is not doing and doesn't want to see happen. Yet you will not take this and apply it to other States who deserve to have the same equal protections under the law that we do in Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I came to the House floor today with every desire--every hope in my heart--to vote for extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Unfortunately, later this afternoon when the vote is actually called, even after several amendments that in my view would improve it have been voted on and, in all likelihood, voted down--it will be with a heavy heart--but a clear conscious--that I must vote against the underlying bill.

Please allow me to explain.

Mr. Chairman, there are 160 members of this House who are attorneys by training. Some were judges and have ruled on the merits of the law; others were distinguished members of the bar in their hometowns and communities before they were elected to Congress.

All, I am certain, are more qualified than I am--as I am not an attorney--to look at the Voting Rights Act of 1965--and its subsequent extensions over the years--and argue with more authority and legal knowledge the pros and cons of Section 2 or Section 4 or Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, or whether or not Ashcroft v. Georgia should or should not remain a factor as new congressional district lines are drawn in the coming decades.

Likewise, every one of us here in this body comes to Congress with some degree of political acumen and understanding.

Many of our colleagues were former legislators back home; we have former governors and secretaries of state, former political science professors who once taught the subject in the classroom, even a former wrestling coach who serves today with great distinction as our Speaker.

Every person in this room is as qualified as I am--many are probably more so to peer into the proverbial ``crystal ball'' we all wish we had and try to guess whether by passing this extension, we'll be making our country a ``little more red'' or a ``little more blue.''

Let's be honest, Mr. Chairman, for many in this hallowed chamber, that is what this vote today is all about.

But while I am neither an attorney who has mastered Constitutional law nor a political expert who has extraordinary vision, I believe it is safe to say that I am the only member of this body who was born in Selma, AL, arguably one of the most significant sites in our Nation's struggle to advance the civil rights of all Americans.

As a child of the South born in the late 1950s, it is fair to say that I watched the Civil Rights Movement unfold before my very eyes.

No, I would never pretend to fully understand as a boy what men like my colleague and friend, Congressman John Lewis, went through to advance the cause of racial justice.

There is not another member of this body for whom I have greater respect or hold in higher regard than John Lewis, who, himself, is an Alabama native.

While I was a child watching the Civil Rights Movement progress, he was a young man helping to make it all happen.

And seemingly without malice in his heart, he turned the other cheek time and time again, even as Bull Conner, Jim Clark and others beat him, jailed him, spit on him, cursed him and did everything in their might to break his spirit and determination.

That, Mr. Chairman, is one reason why I have such a heavy burden with this vote.

Let me be clear about one thing: although many of our forefathers did not believe so at the time, the original Civil Rights Act of 1965 was necessary medicine to remedy an age-old ill and we Republicans can be proud--extremely proud--of the lead role our party played in its passage and enactment.

In 1965, racial discrimination was real--especially at the ballot box. In my birthplace of Selma, just over 2 percent of the registered voters were listed as African-American--even though the town of 30,000 people was over 57 percent black.

I remember hearing my parents talk about the numerous injustices that were taking place all over the South . . . of having a separate section for young blacks to watch a movie in the Alco Theater in Camden where I grew up, of having ``Colored'' water fountains at the Wilcox County Courthouse and other symbols--some large, some small--but all of which were intended to divide our country based almost solely on the color of a person's skin.

Mr. Chairman, today we can say with certainty that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was needed and it worked. It did what it was intended to do. And in more ways than we can innumerate, we can thank God that it has changed our country for the better.

The Alabama I grew up in--in the 1960s--is a far cry from the Alabama I am privileged to represent here in this great body today.

Isn't it fitting that the first African-American female to serve our country as secretary of state is none other than a daughter of Birmingham, a lady who, as a little girl, knew the four other children who were tragically killed when a bomb exploded on Sunday, September 15, 1963, exposing the face of evil that reared its ugly head at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.

Not a day passes when I am not so extremely proud to know that whether on the world stage, where there is so much strife and division, or coming back to help victims of Hurricane Katrina in her home State, Dr. Condeleeza Rice is a person of the highest moral standing, of the greatest integrity and is a shining example to us all.

Mr. Chairman, 50 years after she had been arrested simply for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery to a white man, wasn't it appropriate for our Nation's capitol--this majestic building recognized around the world as a symbol of hope and freedom--to bestow its highest honor by allowing the body of Mrs. Rosa Parks, a former seamstress who went on to become the ``mother of the Civil Rights Movement,'' to lie in state for the Nation--and the world--to mourn her passing?

But, you see, Mr. Chairman, by extending the very provisions that were so necessary and needed in the 1960s--and by imposing for another 25 years the sanctions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on a region of the country that has changed--and has changed for the better--what we are doing today is merely celebrating the success of the Selma to Montgomery march without acknowledging that the march for justice should continue.

It should continue to Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia Counties in Florida, where many of our colleagues and even more Americans believe with all their hearts that the presidential election of 2000 was stolen by the Supreme Court and a few hundred hanging chads.

If the prescription for suppressing the voting rights of African- Americans and other minorities who were disenfranchised in the South in the 1960s worked--and it did--then why are we not continuing the march for equality and justice for the citizens in Milwaukee and Chicago and Cleveland and the other great cities of our country who, in recent elections, have protested that their right to vote was compromised and their voice in this great democracy was intimidated?

The Alabama of today can boast the fact that there are more African- American elected officials in Alabama than any other state in the nation. That's quite a statement, Mr. Speaker,

a statement of real progress over the past 40 years. I count many of these men and women as my close friends and partners as, together, we are working to build a better State and region for our children and grandchildren, regardless of the color of their skin.

One person, in particular, whom I count as just such a partner is my friend and colleague, Congressman Artur Davis. On several occasions, Artur and I have held joint town meetings in Clarke County, a county that we both represent, as well as shared the stage in other Alabama cities talking about the progress our home State has made in recent years.

Without a doubt, Artur represents the very best Alabama has to offer; he is not only a rising star on the Democrat side of the aisle, but he is truly a leader whose vision and voice this Nation can benefit from.

Regretfully, on this issue, Artur and I respectfully disagree with each other.

He believes that it would be unconstitutional to make Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act apply to the entire Nation. I, on the other hand, believe if it is unconstitutional for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to apply to the rest of the Nation, then it might well be unconstitutional for it to continue to apply only to those States that were placed under it more than 40 years ago.

Last year, my hometown, Mobile, added a chapter to the rich history of progress that has come our way on this long and often-painful journey in that we elected our first African-American mayor, even though the majority of our citizens and the majority of the registered voters in Mobile are Caucasian.

As Mayor Sam Jones said on election night, ``we are too busy to be divided,'' but Mayor Jones' victory should tell us all that Dr. King's vision of an America where his ``four children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,'' that America is more real today, Mr. Speaker, than ever before.

Are we where we need to be?

Have we completed our journey?

Of course not.

But make no mistake, discrimination does not stop at a State line and, sadly, it knows no boundaries. And that is precisely why, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this particular extension of the Voting Rights Act because, at least in my humble opinion, it continues to pretend that the only vestiges of racism and discrimination exist in the nine states and the few other selected counties throughout the country that were originally covered.

And assuming that the four amendments that have been ruled in order-- those by Mr. Norwood of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert of Texas, Mr. King of Iowa and Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia--assuming these four amendments all fail, and they most likely will--then what we have left is nothing but a hollow gesture.

It is true that some of our colleagues will most likely march to the microphone later today to declare this as a significant victory but, in all reality, it is nothing more than a very regretful missed opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I wish with all of my heart that we had spent as much time over the past few months working to expand to the entire Nation the precious right of freedom and the privilege of voting without fear or retribution.

I regret that we were not able to be bold enough to say to the southern States which have shown so much progress that, after 40 years of advancement, we are now ready to move forward and give those areas where the sins of our fathers are no longer committed an opportunity to come out from under the burden of crawling to the U.S. Justice Department, on bended knee, and asking for its blessing to continue on the march for equality.

I truly lament the fact that, as our great Nation is in the midst of an important national debate, one that is focused on how we secure our borders and deal with the all-important matter of having between 11 and 20 million people who are in this country illegally, I can only wish that we had been courageous enough to say, ``if you want to become a citizen of this country and enjoy the many benefits that come with that citizenship, then you need to learn English--which is our national language--and you need to become a full-fledged participant in what has made--and continues to make--us different from almost every other country in the world and that is our right to participate in free elections and self-governance.''

Mr. Chairman, you see for me to cast a vote for this extension is asking me to condemn my beloved Alabama to another 25 years of being punished for mistakes that are no longer being made.

I know in my heart that the drumbeat for justice must continue and the battle for equality is long from over. I know more progress can be made--and will be made--in the coming months and years.

But I also believe, with every ounce of my being, that this bill will have to pass without my support. For the real opportunity to empower people--and bring credibility to the process that we hold so dear--that opportunity is one that could have been but will not be.

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has a proud and important legacy in my home State of Georgia and across the United States. With minor changes that would modernize the Voting Rights Act and better reflect the reality of what is happening in the 21st century, I would be joining many of my colleagues in voting ``yes'' today.

But the bill we have before us is fatally flawed. This rewrite is outdated, unfair, and unconstitutional. I cannot support it in its current form.

This rewrite treats Georgia as if nothing changed in the past 41 years. In other words, this rewrite seems based on the assumption that the Voting Rights Act hasn't worked.

As a Georgian who is proud of our tremendous progress and proud of our current record of equality, I am here to report to my colleagues in the House that the Voting Rights Act has worked in my State, and now it is time to modernize the law to deal with the problems of today, not yesteryear.

Mr. Chairman, it is true when the Voting Rights Act was first passed in 1965 Georgia needed Federal intervention to correct decades of discrimination.

Now, 41 years later, Georgia's record on voter equality can stand up against any other State in the Union. Today, black Georgians are registered to vote at higher percentages than white Georgians, and black Georgians go to the polls in higher percentages than white Georgians. One-third of our state-wide elected officials are African Americans, including our attorney general and the chief justice of our Supreme Court. Plus, African American representation in the State legislature closely mirrors their representation in Georgia's population.

But don't just take my word for it on Georgia's progress. Listen to this ringing endorsement from my colleague from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement. Under oath in Federal court 5 years ago, Congressman Lewis testified: ``There has been a transformation. It's a different State, it's a different political climate, it's a different political environment. It's altogether a different world we live in. We've come a great distance. It's not just in Georgia, but in the American South, I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of race.''

If he said that under oath, sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, why is he telling the House something different today? The reason he was under oath was because he was testifying in front of the Department of Justice that it was okay for the majority-minority districts in Georgia to be diluted, in direct violation of the Voter Rights Act.

My other friend from Georgia, Congressman Scott, voted for that. Though it defies common sense, this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act gives no consideration to any changes that may have occurred since the first law was passed in 1965.

The House is voting today to keep my State in the penalty box for 25 years based on the actions of the people who are now dead. By the end of this renewal, Georgia will have been treated by Federal law as a bad actor for 66 years, Mr. Chairman. To put that in perspective, 66 years ago, FDR was in his second term, and the Japanese were more than a year away from bombing Pearl Harbor.

By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, Congress is declaring from on high that States with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven, that Georgians must eternally wear the scarlet letter because of the actions of their grandparents and great- grandparents. We have repented, and we have reformed, and now, as Fannie Lou Hamer famously said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.''

Lastly, this renewal is unconstitutional. In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the section that singles out certain States for Federal oversight, was constitutional only because it was narrowly tailored to fix a specific problem and temporary. You don't have to have a law school degree to know that this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act fails both of those tests. At 41 years, we are already way past temporary. And the application of section 5 is now arbitrary because this House cannot present evidence of extraordinary continuing State-sponsored discrimination in the covered States that is different from the rest of the Nation.

As such, section 5 has served its purpose and is no longer an appropriate remedy in light of today's new voting problems.

The Voting Rights Act represents a grand trophy of great accomplishment for Congress, but after 41 years, the trophy needs dusting. We could have given the trophy a new shine for a new century, but sadly, that didn't happen.

And still this bill states explicitly that my constituents cannot be trusted to act in good faith without Federal supervision. That assertion is as ignorant as it is insulting. I cannot and will not support a bill that is outdated, unfair and unconstitutional.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend from Georgia yielding the time to me, and I appreciate his work on behalf of the Voting Rights Act during the process of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is named after Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King, and Rosa Parks. These brave women dedicated their lives to ensuring that everyone had access to the polls and the right to vote. It is up to us standing here today to honor their legacy by ensuring that the bill we pass to rewrite the Voting Rights Act will stand the test of time forever.

There is no question that the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965. Georgia had a terrible record and merited the drastic remedy imposed on it by preclearance and section 5. The thrilling thing is, it worked; Georgia is not the same place it was. Today, we have more than 600 elected black officials; nine of the 34 statewide officeholders are minorities, and black voter turnout in the 2000 election exceeded white voter turnout. Georgia is a changed State, changed for the better because of the Voting Rights Act.

A cornerstone of the civil rights movement, my friend from Georgia's Fifth District, Mr. Lewis, said, under oath during a lawsuit in 2002: ``We have changed. We've come a great distance. I think it's not just in Georgia, but in the American South, I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of race. There has been a transformation. It is altogether a different world.''

My concern is that failing to acknowledge the change will result in the VRA being found unconstitutional. There is no basis for continuing to single out certain States, especially when more than half of the findings of liability on section 2 claims have come from States outside the covered jurisdictions. The remedy of section 5 is no longer congruent and proportional to the discrimination that exists.

We must have a record on which to show continued drastic remedies are needed, and that record is not here from this reauthorization. The lack of evidence of State-sponsored discrimination is of major concern for the future of the VRA when viewed by a court. There is a lot of paper, but not many facts or statistics to show why Georgia is different from Tennessee or why Texas is different from Oklahoma or why racially polarized voting in Wisconsin shouldn't be addressed with a remedy such as the VRA. Updating the formula is the answer.

Mr. Norwood's amendment does not gut the VRA. It ensures its continuity for future generations. By rolling the formula, every jurisdiction is reviewed every 4 years. Low turnout generally means problems with voting, and this amendment uses the same formula already in law to identify these problems.

Any Member who votes against this amendment whose district is covered based on this amendment is being disingenuous about their views on civil rights. You argue for equal rights and the beauty of the VRA, but don't want it applied to your State or in your district.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, such as Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Tubbs Jones and Chairman Sensenbrenner, who have talked about how good this bill is, to vote for this amendment. If it is good for the South, it should be good for your State and good for your district.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the efforts made by Mr. Norwood.

Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to argue for strengthening the Voting Rights Act. When I first heard about the rewrite, I was shocked to learn that we were going to put the same States that had problems in 1964, 1968 and 1972 under coverage for an additional 25 years without solid evidence that they continue to have State-sponsored discrimination different than any other State.

Chairman Sensenbrenner has talked about that; we do not have enough history if we just do it for 10 years.

We have had 41 years of history, and we cannot make a judgment on that, of the States that are not under section 5. We do not know how many violations they have. Some here today have cited the number of objections in Georgia. One of the recent objections in Georgia came from Dougherty County in Albany, Georgia, where a black majority city council had their objections that were sufficient for the Justice Department to rule.

Let me just read about some of the other objections in Georgia we keep hearing about. Six of these were creation of additional judicial slots in superior and State courts, objections for which the Federal courts found no merit since they approved these additional judgeships.

Another four objections went to redistricting plans. The first three forced Georgia to draw districts that courts later found to be unconstitutional under Miller v. Johnson. The fourth involved the post- Miller plans to correct for racially drawn State legislative districts.

An eleventh objection involved Monroe municipal elections that a court deemed to have already been precleared.

An October 1992 objection in Union City was withdrawn, and there is no indication that the city made any changes to secure removal of the objection. That might be a twelfth inappropriate DOJ objection.

The key number is, since 2001 there have been only five objections. This is

when every jurisdiction in the State of Georgia, 159 counties, 300 cities, 180 school boards, 180 house districts, 56 senate districts, were redrawn in redistricting plans. That is hundreds and hundreds of plans that only had five problems, and only four were objections to redistricting plans, and one of those was, the objection was a plan drawn by a black majority city council in Albany, Georgia.

When we talk about these objections, let's talk about facts. Let's just don't say objections. Let's talk about that most of these objections had no facts.

We do not know how many objections will be brought up across this country because of racial discrimination, because in 2002 a lawsuit brought in Wisconsin said that there was more polarized voting at a higher percentage in Wisconsin than in the South.

Let's look at this whole country, let's look at it for 10 years, and then let's come back and see what the results are.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a historic debate that the world is watching.

If I might just take a moment to stroll down memory lane, it was on January 7, 1965, that I was administered the oath of office to the House of Representatives. It was on February 9, 1965 that we debated the Voter Rights Act of 1965. And I pulled up some of the hearings and my modest participation in that.

Strewn throughout the Congressional Record of February 9, 1965, are the names of Lyndon Johnson, President; Speaker John McCormack of the House of Representatives; Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I am the only Member of the House who has the proud distinction of having been on the Committee on the Judiciary at the time we considered this very historic piece of legislation.

So I take this time to thank three people. One is the chairman of this committee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, for whom I am very grateful for the cooperation that brought us together in a way we would have never come together before in the original bill and in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. We worked out an agreement with the House leadership, both sides of the aisle, in a very important way.

And then I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who is a member of that committee, but more so as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for the great job that he did. Chairman of the subcommittee Chabot from Ohio did a wonderful job in holding 12 hearings, with 47 witnesses; and Mr. Nadler, the ranking member there; and many other Members who took time to come to the committee to participate, to listen to the hearings, and frequently participate in the interrogation of these witnesses.

In addition, the chairman of this committee and myself have gone before the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring to them the large amount of work that we have produced here. And so I come into the well with these memoirs and experiences making me feel very proud about what we are about to do today.

And though there is much to celebrate, efforts to suppress or dilute minority votes, let's face it, are still all too common. I am proud of the progress we have made, but the record shows that we haven't reached a point where the particular provisions in the act should be allowed to lapse, as some few may have you believe, and that is what we are going to be debating about today.

With respect to section 5 and the covered jurisdictions, and that trigger in section 4 that the gentleman from Georgia is adamant about expanding, we found continuing patterns of discrimination in voting as evidenced by adverse section 2 findings, section 5 objections, and withdrawals of section 5 submissions after requests for more information from the Department of Justice. And I just hope we can get the Department of Justice to more forcefully intervene into some of the cases that have been piling up.

Now, with respect to section 203, we received substantial testimony from the advocacy community and the Department of Justice, supported by the litigation record, that language minorities remain victims of discrimination in voting. That is not hard to figure out why. It is hard enough for us English speakers to figure out what is on these ballots, much less to ask people who are very new and still assimilating to the language. Sure, they speak English, but they need help. And if they do, we find it is not costly for them to get the assistance that we have provided under the law.

We found in 1982 a straight reauthorization of the act would not be sufficient to protect the rights of minority voters. Several Supreme Court cases have had the effect of clouding the scope of section 5 coverage, and so we have amended the act to restore its vitality. We correct Reno v. Bossier by once again allowing the Justice Department to block voting changes that had an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. Thanks to the Committee on the Judiciary for having the testimony that made it clear that this had to be done.

We have clarified Georgia v. Ashcroft, making it clear that influence districts are not a substitute for the section 5 districts where the minorities have an ability to elect candidates of their choice.

These amendments are critical to the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and so we urge your support for the bill reported by the Congress. And we want you to know that we have carefully considered in the committee the four amendments that have been added over and above the collective work and agreement of Members of both sides of the aisle. Do not accept any of these amendments.

I beg you, in the tradition and spirit of those in the Congress that have gone before us to fight for civil rights, who fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the tens of thousands of people in civil rights organizations, many who have suffered, and there will never be a record in the Congress about it, but a lot of pain and suffering has been the price of us coming this far. We cannot afford to go back at this point.

So I urge my colleagues to make this a day of distinguished continuation of American history for the rights of every citizen to cast his ballot as a voter so that the Voting Rights Act remains the crown jewel of constitutional democracy of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for 7 minutes, but I must point out that not only as the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus during the more than 1 year we have been working on the legislation, he was also an able member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee. And for those two reasons, we are deeply grateful to the contributions that he has made that has brought us to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has worked in an indefatigable manner to bring us to this point on the legislation with no amendments, and I am very proud of the service he has given the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to the delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), an eminent member of the Judiciary Committee, who has done great work on the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who was permitted to sit in on the proceedings in the Judiciary Committee in the House on the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), an important member on the development of the Voting Rights Act that is before the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and recall that he was originally a member of the House Judiciary Committee and served with great distinction on it.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to observe that the leader of the present civil rights movement and a friend that worked in the organization of Dr. Martin Luther King is in the balcony today, the Reverend Jesse Jackson; and I am so pleased that he is watching over this activity.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) who has worked as an activist and as a legislator in California, as well as the leader of the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, could we be advised how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a distinguished Member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Chairman, could you confirm that we on this side have 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who has worked with the committee in a very generous way.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute my neighbor and colleague from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of Homeland Security from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rahm Emanuel.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to invite John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress, the gentleman from Georgia, the remaining time on our side.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I think it is very, very important that we realize that the coverage formula in this bill does not need to be changed, as is being proposed by the gentleman from Georgia, in order for it to be up to date. Jurisdictions free of discrimination for 10 years can come out from under coverage. There is a bailout provision. Let's continue to use that, because I think it is so important.

Now, during the course of all the hearings and testimony and witnesses, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) never testified before the committee.

This issue has been explored very carefully. When we crafted this bill, we wanted to make sure that it would stand the test of time, and this trigger in 4 that governs section 5 is so important.

The Supreme Court has spoken. There must be congruence and proportionality before the injury to be prevented or remedied, and the means adopted to that end.

Mr. Chairman, we have to remember one historical fact. For 400 years, we have been dealing with the problem of discrimination and racism in America. I think it would be simplistic in this Congress that we would think, after 40 years, we do not need to worry about it that much anymore and shorten the period of time.

It is going to take a while for us to evaluate the progress that is being made, and I am proud to say progress is being made, but the bailout provision is there and it works quite well.

Now, in addition, we have to be very careful about the fact that some jurisdictions will play the wait-out game. They will wait out for the 10 years to expire, and then we will be back in a big problem again.

Keep this a 25-year measure.