Providing for Consideration of H.R. Voting Rights Advancement Act of and Providing for Consideration of H. Res. Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives Regarding United States Efforts to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Through A Negotiated Two- State Solution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 741

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 326) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution. The amendments to the resolution and the preamble recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed in the resolution, modified by the amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 741, providing for consideration of two measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, under a closed rule. The rule self- executes a manager's amendment offered by Chairman Nadler and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 326, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution, under a closed rule.

The rule self-executes two manager's amendments offered by Chairman Engel. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the great legislative achievements of American history. It is perhaps the greatest single statute of the 20th century, in a century of great statutes, including the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

But the Voting Rights Act was born out of the blood, sweat, and tears of the American civil rights movement; in the wake of Freedom Summer; in the murders of Schwerner, Chaney, Goodman, and other civil rights heroes; and in the after the famous March on Washington, where Dr. King made his ``I Have a Dream'' speech.

The Voting Rights Act transformed American politics by bringing into our elections millions of voters who had been disenfranchised for a century after the Civil War ended. It changed the nature of politics in the Deep South and across the United States, and it changed the politics of the United States Congress as well.

Theoretically, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments had solved the problem of disenfranchisement after the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment established equal protection; and the 15th Amendment banned discrimination in voting. But after the dismantling of reconstruction, African Americans were subjected to a regime of disenfranchisement that included violence, terror, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes, and an ever-expanding panoply of devices, tricks, and tactics to keep Black people from being able to register to vote and to participate in elections.

The civil rights movement and President Lyndon Johnson fought for the Voting Rights Act, which passed in 1965 and which included a package of strong remedies targeting discriminatory voting practices and devices in the areas where discrimination was most egregious and virulent.

A key component of the Voting Rights Act was section 5, the preclearance requirement, which compelled covered States--that is, the States to which it applied--to stop discriminating and to subject all changes in their voting practices to the Department of Justice or to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

States were covered if they had used illegal voting discrimination devices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and character exams, and if fewer than 50 percent of the people were registered to vote or allowed to participate.

The Voting Rights Act was challenged immediately in litigation called South Carolina v. Katzenbach, but in 1966, the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.

The Supreme Court said Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition on race discrimination in voting. It upheld the preclearance requirement against attack.

Specifically, it was said by South Carolina that it violated the so- called equal footing doctrine, but the Supreme Court said that the equal footing doctrine applied to the admission of States and not to the Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment or section 2 of the 15th Amendment.

All of this worked for the Voting Rights Act to usher in a new era of real democracy in America. The preclearance requirement meant that the States, counties, and jurisdictions that had been discriminating had to submit to the Department of Justice or to Federal court their plans for changes. That worked to enfranchise millions of voters across America. It worked for the election of thousands of African American elected officials at the local, State, and Federal levels.

The genius of section 5 was that jurisdictions had to submit potentially discriminatory changes before the harm took place. Anybody can go ahead and sue under section 2 after an election is over, but then it is too late because the harm has already been done, the election has taken place. So even if you win in court, the court is not going to order a rerun of the election. It is not going to require all the voting to take place again, so it is too late at that point.

Section 5 puts the burden on the potentially discriminating parties to prove that they are not discriminating when they make changes in voting laws.

It works all the way up until 2013, when the Supreme Court rendered its 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Shelby County case struck down the section 4(b) formula for which States were covered, declaring that this formula was now out-of-date because it went back many, many decades to the 1960s and 1970s and that the Congress would need to update the formula to address current needs in the field and to show that the formula relates to the current problems that we are targeting.

The Court said specifically that coverage was based on decades-old data and eradicated practices, like literacy tests, which don't exist anymore. So when it got struck down, dozens of States and counties that were previously required to preclear changes related to voting didn't have to do it anymore, and they began very quickly, almost instantly, to roll back various kinds of voter protections and to pass strict voter identification laws, to pass massive voter purges, to implement cuts to early voting, to close polling places, and so on.

I am going to read from one of the witnesses who testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, who said:

``We have vetted complaints from tens of thousands of voters in Shelby, many revealing systemic voting discrimination. In short, this is how Shelby has impacted our democracy.

``First, we have seen the resurgence of discriminatory voting practices, some motivated by intentional discrimination, and this discrimination has been most intense in the very jurisdictions that were once covered by section 5. They range from the consolidation of polling sites to make it less convenient for minority voters to vote to the curtailing of early voting hours, the purging of minority voters from the rolls under the pretext of list maintenance, strict photo ID requirements, abuse of signature match verification requirements . . . , the threat of criminal prosecution, and more.

``Second, we have seen increased levels of recalcitrants in hostility among elected officials who institute and reinstitute discriminatory voting changes with impunity. . . .''

``Third, the loss of public notice regarding changes in voting practices that could have a discriminatory effect is significant. . . .''

``Fourth, the public no longer has the ability to participate in the process of reviewing practices before they take effect. . . .''

``Fifth, the preclearance process had an identifiable deterrent effect that is now lost.

``Sixth, the status quo is not sustainable. Civil rights organizations are stepping up to fill the void created by the Shelby decision at insurmountable expense.

``And finally, this will be the first redistricting cycle in decades'' in which redistricting takes place without the Voting Rights Act.

That is one example of testimony that we got from all over America about what the Shelby County v. Holder decision meant by dismantling section 5 by knocking out section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.

H.R. 4 is doing precisely what the Supreme Court invited us to do in the Shelby County decision: to pass a new coverage formula for the Civil Rights Act preclearance requirement based on new data in a new formula designed to address current contemporary problems.

The Judiciary Committee and the House Administration Committee had a combined total of 17 hearings: 9 on the Judiciary side with its Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and 8 in the House Administration Committee's Subcommittee on Elections. They heard about restrictive and discriminatory practices taking place in numerous States across the country, including Texas and Georgia, where, after the end of preclearance, Georgia voters faced a myriad of new voting barriers, including the closure of more than 200 precinct polling places, spoiled voter registration materials, purging of more than 1 million voters in a racially discriminatory way, restrictive voter ID laws, systematic rejection of absentee ballots, and more.

We also looked in North Carolina, which passed a so-called monster voter suppression law, which resulted in race discrimination in accessing the polls, including the closure of dozens of polling sites and long voting lines. The law eliminated same-day voter registration, reduced early voting by a week, curtailed satellite polling sites for elderly and disabled voters, and so on.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is the product of massive legislative inspection of voting conditions across the United States of America today, and it threads the needle that was offered to us by the Supreme Court in the Shelby County decision by amending the Voting Rights Act to revise the section 4(b) criteria and providing other voter protections at the same time.

Specifically, the bill creates a new coverage formula that applies to all States and hinges on a finding of repeated voting violations in the preceding 25 years.

It establishes a process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide, focused on a limited set of measures such as voter ID laws and the reduction of multilingual voting materials; it requires reasonable public notice for voting changes; it allows the Attorney General authority to request Federal observers; and it increases accessibility and protection for Native American and Alaska Native voters.

Just turning, now, to H.R. 326, for more than 20 years, American Presidents from both political parties and Israeli Prime Ministers have supported reaching a two-state solution that establishes a democratic Palestinian state to coexist peacefully and constructively side by side with a democratic Israel.

Middle East peace talks have favored the two-state solution and opposed settlement expansions, moves towards unilateral annexation of territories, and efforts to arrive at Palestinian statehood outside the framework of negotiations with Israel.

In 2002, President Bush stated: ``My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security.''

In 2013, President Obama reiterated this exact same commitment, stating that: ``Negotiations will be necessary, but there is little secret about where they must lead--two states for two peoples.''

This resolution emphasizes the sentiment of the past 20 years of peace talks by expressing the sense of this House of Representatives that only a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel's survival as a secure democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations for a secure and democratic Palestinian state. It further expresses the sense that any U.S. proposal that fails to endorse a two-state solution will put a peaceful end to the conflict only further out of reach.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend from Arizona chides me for having described section 5, the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, as genius, which is amazing to me because this has been a bipartisan national commitment and a bipartisan commitment in Congress since 1965 when it passed on a bipartisan basis, since 1982 when it was reauthorized on a bipartisan basis, and since 2006 when President Bush signed it, as well, and celebrated it.

So we have had Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama, a continuous array of Presidents, supporting it, and Congresses supporting it.

If you don't have it, here is what happens: The NAACP Legal Defense Fund testified to us about successful litigation they had in Texas against a restrictive voter ID law that had discriminatory racial impact. They won on the lawsuit under section 2, but it was too late.

In the meantime, who was elected in Texas?

A U.S. Senator, all 36 Members of the House of Representatives, a Governor, a lieutenant governor, and so on.

The reason why section 5 is genius and why we need to restore the precoverage formula is because it requires States to submit in advance laws that could be potentially discriminatory.

I was amazed to hear again the language of federalizing control and a Federal takeover of elections when this has been a bipartisan commitment for decades grounded in the Constitution of the United States which tells us in Article I, Section 4 we can regulate elections; Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment saying we can regulate elections to prevent race discrimination; Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the republican Guarantee Clause, which tells us we must guarantee to people of the States a republican form of government, which means representative government based on democracy.

Finally, I will allow my friend to portray what is going on in her State her way, and she paints a lovely picture. I would just refer her to page 25 of the Judiciary Committee report which says that in Arizona polling places were closed throughout the State, many with significant populations of Latino voters, in advance of the 2016 election. Maricopa County, 31 percent Latino, closed 171 polling places, Mohave County closed 34, and so on. So there is another story to be told there which is embodied in the work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey 10 additional seconds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Sewell), who has been such a magnificent leader on this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, all I will observe is that the gentleman from New York oddly begins by attacking a resolution for being a recycled version of language we have already adopted on a massive bipartisan basis in the House. Then he closes by attacking us for this resolution being partisan and divisive in some way. Obviously, those two things don't match up.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank my friend from Arizona, who rightfully invites us to focus on legislation that will bring us together.

The gentlewoman from Indiana, who I have not had the good fortune of meeting yet, accuses me of wasting not just time, but something called ``clock time,'' which sounds like a really low blow.

In any event, I think our legislation actually will bring us together and should bring us together. The rule is for two pieces of legislation that I thought ought to have and would have complete bipartisan support.

The first is simply to update the preclearance coverage formula, section 4(b) in the Voting Rights Act, as we were instructed to do by the Supreme Court in the Shelby County v. Holder decision.

The Voting Rights Act is the product of a massive political and social struggle in the country to make America move forward, but it had been supported by huge bipartisan majorities in 1965, in 1982, and in 2006. Yet, today, our friends across the aisle now attack it as a Federal takeover of State elections, which is absolutely flabbergasting that the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, is now attacking the Voting Rights Act and the preclearance requirement for being some kind of assault on Federalism when it vindicates the right of all Americans to vote, as we are not only authorized to do under the 14th and 15th Amendments, but we are obligated to do under the republican Guarantee Clause to make sure that all Americans are in a representative relationship with their government.

So I invite them to come on back over to this side of the Voting Rights Act.

Obviously, we are all for a two-state solution, as American Presidents of both parties have been for, for the last several decades, so I invite them to come back over for that, too.

This resolution cannot be both a tired rehash of everything we have done in the past, as was claimed, but also some kind of partisan departure. The partisan departure is on their side.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 741

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2207.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source